Published using Google Docs
Shelter to Housing Continuum program - Notes & Ideas to Improve
Updated automatically every 5 minutes

PDXShelterForum.org > Shelter to Housing Continuum > Community notes (go to edit/GDocs view)

Shelter to Housing Continuum project

Last updated:  12 April 2021
Doc created: 01 Nov 2020
Doc owner:  
pdxshelterforum@gmail.com.
Doc editor(s): Tim McCormick
tmccormick@gmail.com,
Short link to this doc:
http://s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org.
Access: open to all with link, for viewing, commenting, or suggesting. Full edit access available by request.

Twitter hashtag search (for #S2HC)

CONTENTS

Overview

April 7th Council meeting

March 31th Council meeting

Advocacy letter / talking points draft:

Testimony letter from Tim McCormick

The Oregonian, op-ed, March 24, 2021:

March 24 Council meeting

Testimony email from Tim McCormick

S2HC Amendments

Planning & Sustainability Commission

City Bureaus - PBOT, BES

Portland: Neighbors Welcome

PDX Shelter Forum

PDX Main Streets

March 17 City Council meeting - Thurs 2pm - prep

OPB story:

Tim's spoken testimony

Meeting notes

Testimony letter / talking points draft:

Geographical equity / East Portland issue

Other testimony noted

Jan 12 - Planning and Sustainability Commission Work Session

BPS responses to commission amendment & info requests

Testimony letter 12/21/20

1. Retain the City's Housing State of Emergency Declaration Capability, and Recommend Extending the Current State of Emergency

2. Outdoor Shelter Recommendations

3. Group Living Recommendations

3. Other Recommendations

Signatories

To Do / Questions / draft points for Dec 8/15th testimony

General Notes/questions

On "Outdoor Shelters" (OS)

A) Structures

B) Siting

C) Other:

On vehicle dwelling

Other

Notes on the Introduction (Vol. 1)

Notes and Proposals for Zoning Code (Vol. 2)

Notes

Proposed Changes

Notes and Proposals for Other City Code (Vol. 3)

Notes

Proposed Changes

October 13 Info Session

Presentation doc

Meeting video

October 22  Info Session

Presentation doc

Meeting Video

Chat channel transcript

Oct 25 Advocacy Working Session

Notes

Chat transcript

Oct 27 Info Session

Attendees

Chat transcript

Advocacy Letter 10/30/20

1. Outdoor Shelter Recommendations

2. Group Living Recommendations

3. Other Recommendations

Signatories

Administrative matters

How to use this document

To create a new section:

How to Add Comments to a Google Document

Collaborators (self-identified)

Important Links

Administrative Tasks (To-Do)

Important Dates

Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Information Sessions

Proposed Collaboration Process

Dec 7 Advocacy Working Session

Notes

1. Extend the Housing Emergency and Take More Time to Improve this Code Change

Overview

Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) is a project from City of Portland, led by the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability and begun in late 2018, to "retool City codes to better address the homelessness crisis." More specifically, to:

  1. "Help make more low-barrier, entry-level, temporary shelter available to more persons experiencing, or about to experience, a loss of housing;
  2. Provide for more longer-term transitional shelters with onsite supportive services;
  3. Allow construction of a wider variety of more affordable types of permanent housing, particularly forms of group / shared housing.
  4. Allow accommodations sited as temporary emergency uses to be reviewed and considered for approval through permanent code provisions."

-- (S2HC Discussion Draft, Vol. 1 - Introduction, Oct 2020).

This is a collaborative document for notes and suggestions on S2HC, from interested community organizations and advocates including PDX Shelter Forum, Portland: Neighbors Welcome, Interfaith Alliance on Poverty, the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, and others. It is intended to supplement the Bureau  Planning and Sustainability's presentation of the project, providing analysis, space for community and alternate views/proposals, and guidance for advocacy effort.

You can edit or comment (see how) on this document -- if you do, you're encouraged to add yourself to the contributors section at bottom, and mark your additions/questions with initials. Or alternatively, you can email suggestions / additions to pdxshelterforum@gmail.com and we'll add them for you (attributed, unless you say otherwise).

April 7th Council meeting

Tim McCormick gave Public Communication (open) testimony to Portland City Council, AM session, about S2HC and extending it to permanent village housing for homeless.

Video clip: https://youtu.be/1hSSFvCSYFU (3.5mins testimony + 2mins dialogue with Mayor Wheeler).

Commenting:

  1. in support of the near-approved Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) project, reforming city codes to enable new and wider shelter / low-cost housing, particularly new "Outdoor Shelter" type;  
  2. that S2HC is a start, but underaddresses the need for continuum and clear transition paths from shelter to 'permanent' housing;
  3. but S2HC does do so in one key way, which they are urged to retain and not encumber with sewage hookup requirements: legalization of vehicle dwelling, including in Tiny Houses of Wheels, one per residential lot citywide;  
  4. also further, promising paths to widespread, low-cost, adaptable housing are possibly by extending and joining the S2HC work to a new Planning Bureau project now beginning, Residential Infill Program, Part 2 (RIP2). This is project required for compliance with state law HB 2001 by fall 2023, offers an opportunity to extend the Shelter to Housing work into creating new "permanent villages", i.e. village forms that offer permanent housing, by using and extending "cottage cluster" housing type legalization required by state law.

March 31th Council meeting

Current week agenda / materials; https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/26997.  
(resets each Friday to the have materials for following Wednesday(s)' meetings.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrPI9DEmjk

 *202  TIME CERTAIN: 3:00 PM – Extend state of housing emergency, operationalize efficiencies and identify Council powers, specify a twelve-month duration, and waive portions of the Portland Zoning Code  (Ordinance introduced by Mayor Wheeler)  2 hours requested for items 202-204.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/article/782452.

*203  Amend Title 33 Planning and Zoning to facilitate the provision of shelter and housing options for Portlanders in need  (Previous Agenda 183; Ordinance introduced by Mayor Wheeler and Commissioners Rubio and Ryan; amend Code Title 33)
Public Testimony     Pending Technical Amendments     Staff Presentations

*204  Amend City Code Health and Sanitation, Emergency Code, Public Improvements, Water, Property Maintenance Regulations and Affordable Housing to facilitate the provision of shelter and housing options for Portlanders in need  (Previous Agenda 184; Ordinance introduced by Mayor Wheeler and Commissioners Rubio and Ryan; amend Code Titles 8, 15, 17, 21, 29, and 30)
Public Testimony     Pending Technical Amendments     Staff Presentations

Public Testimony (on item 202) was given by:

----------

Prepared speaking notes of Tim McCormick:

----------

thank you Mayor, Councilmembers

my name is Tim McCormick, I'm the co-founder of PDX Shelter Forum, & lead organizer at Village Collaborative.

I am here to support the extension of the Housing State of Emergency declaration, and say why, and what I think we should do given this state of urgency.

Also, I want to honor the powerful testimony for Transgender Day of Visibility, and as Seraphie said, the feeling that others have that our slow government processes are not rising to the reality of day-to-day fearing for one's life.

One such person was Kim Lambright. She was found dead on Sunday, She was 53, living houseless, one mile right down Barbur Blvd from where I live, a location I've gone past 100s of times.

it is HEARTBREAKING to me that in all these years, in a declared state of emergency, we as a city have yet to offer safe place to be, on the scale and range of ways needed, for those living like Kim was.

What is to be done? If the Emergency is extended, one consequence is we no longer have the imminent expiration deadline that was driving the Shelter to Housing Continuum program.

I propose that given this, how brief the deliberation so far, and how recently most of the public even heard about this proposal, that a final vote be deferred, in order to fairly discuss a number of important issues and community-proposed amendments on the shelter to housing issues which were essentially not brought to Council for public consideration.

I encourage you and and anyone to look at these amendments, as presented in the PDX Shelter Forum testimony letters, and our co-authored Oregonian op-ed, which are available at the top of the online testimony tool, Map App.

I propose, listen to the yet unheard ideas, consider them now, and issue a directive with S2HC to explore and address proposals in further work, for example the closely related Residential Infill Program Part 2 which is now beginning at Planning.

Finally, this bill should direct Planning & other  agencies to ASAP, produce a public, city-wide, lot-level mapping of shelter eligible sites, and spreadsheet of let's say top 100 suggested, public, and institutional-use sites.

We need 50-100 well-qualified sites identified, to build community action at the full scale of need and leading to action. The other 150,000 sites in the city don't matter so much.

Every day we don't get these key steps done, means 1000s of people living in fear of death on the streets, which we cannot accept as a humane city.

-----------

Advocacy letter / talking points draft:

PDX Shelter Forum  


March 31, 2021

Dear Mayor Wheeler and Portland City Council,

We support the extension of the Housing State of Emergency and delaying the vote on the Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) to give our community more time to develop and discuss amendments.

Signed,


Testimony letter from Tim McCormick

PDX Shelter Forum  


March 30, 2021

Dear Mayor Wheeler and Portland City Council,

I support the extension of the Housing State of Emergency.

Also, I urgently request postponement of a final vote on Shelter to Housing Continuum resolution (S2HC) until there has been adequate public presentation and discussion of amendments proposed by the Planning & Sustainability Commission and by community groups including PDX Shelter Forum.

I watched the March 24th City Council hearing, and was extremely surprised to see that the overview of community feedback and amendments, as presented by BPS/ Eric Engstrom omitted any mention of:

  1. the Planning and Sustainability Commission's recommendations from transmittal letter, and
  2. all community-proposed amendments other than some from Portland: Neighbors Welcome.

The amendments developed by PDX Shelter Forum were developed over a year of intensive effort, including four public forums we hosted, multiple open community workshops, close engagement with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability team -- including attending, public notetaking, and testifying at every public event held by BPS or PSC and extensive discussion on an open public forum which now has over 330 members. At every point in this process, the viewpoints of current or formerly houseless residents were prioritized.

We believe it is not appropriate for citizen input developed with deep care and expertise, including that of the appointed Planning and Sustainability Commission, to be simply removed from consideration, without comment, by the Bureau of Planning in presenting its proposal to City Council. There needs to be independent oversight ensuring that well-qualified citizen input and amendment proposals are actually included in Council public deliberations,, beyond just being in the “Map App” testimony tool which was completely overwhelmed -- we might say, attacked, in computer-security terms -- by largely non-specific and repetitive comments.

The amendments proposed by PSC, and other community groups PDX Shelter Forum and PDX Main Streets, can be found at:  s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org > Amendments.

Thank you for your commitment to robust public discussion of this important legislation, including the roles of citizen input such as those delegated to the Planning & Sustainability Commission.  Please see also the group letter from other PDX Shelter Forum members, also requesting deferral of vote.

regards,
Tim

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator
 PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at
Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon
tjm.org/about / @tmccormick

PDX Shelter Forum  


March 30, 2021

Dear Mayor Wheeler and Portland City Council,

We support the extension of the Housing State of Emergency and delaying the vote on the Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) to give our community more time to develop and discuss amendments.

Signed,


PDX Shelter Forum  

The Oregonian, op-ed, March 24, 2021:

March 24 Council meeting

"Preliminary list of amendments discussed by City Council in March 24, 2021 deliberations."
file posted by Bureau of Planning & Sustainability, 3/24/2021 at 5:44 PM.
https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/record/14413632. 

Testimony email from Tim McCormick

submitted by Tim McCormick during meeting -- was sent to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov which is supposed to be a way to submit official testimony, but I didn’t see it appear in the online testimony tool -tm.

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Tim McCormick <tmccormick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:56 PM
Subject: City Council S2HC hearing -- we need amendments from PSC & community to be introduced

To: <mayorwheeler@portlandoregon.gov>, <MappsOffice@portlandoregon.gov>, <Comm.Rubio@portlandoregon.gov>, <joann@portlandoregon.gov>, <CommissionerRyanOffice@portlandoregon.gov>

Cc: <Eric.Engstrom@portlandoregon.gov>, Eli Spevak <elispevak@gmail.com>, Steph Routh <steph.routh@gmail.com>, <cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov>, Helen Jung <hjung@oregonian.com>, <betsyhammond@oregonian.com>, <NHayden@oregonian.com>, <skavanaugh@oregonian.com>, <agriffin@opb.org>, <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>

Dear Councilmembers,

I am watching the City Council hearing now, and was extremely surprised to see that the overview of community feedback and amendments, as presented by BPS/ Eric Engstrom omitted any mention of:

  1. the Planning and Sustainability Commission's recommendations from transmittal letter, and
  2. all community-proposed amendments other than those of Portland: Neighbors Welcome.

I urge you to bring these crucial materials, representing a tremendous amount of Portland citizen input and deliberation over the last year, into the discussion and listed as potential amendments for public discussion.

The amendments proposed by PSC, and other community groups PDX Shelter Forum and PDX Main Streets, can be found at:

s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org > Amendments.

Thank you for your commitment to robust public discussion of this important legislation, including the roles of citizen input such as those delegated to the Planning & Sustainability Commission.  

Tim

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator
 PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at
Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon
tjm.org/about / @tmccormick

cc/ Eli Spevak, PSC
Steph Routh, PSC
Sean Green, co-director, Portland Shelter Forum
Council Clerk
Helen Jung, Op-ed Editor, The Oregonian
Political Team / Betsy Hammond, The Oregonian
Nicole Hayden, Homelessness reporter, The Oregonian
Shane Kavanaugh, Reporter, The Oregonian
Rebecca Ellis, Reporter, City Hall, OPB.
Anna Griffin, News Editor, OPB.
PDX Shelter Forum group.

S2HC Amendments

Planning & Sustainability Commission

Planning and Sustainability Commission’s “transmittal letter” to City Council, in which they endorse the current Recommended Draft (Feb 17, 2021) and  provide additional recommendations.
This is important as a primary recommendation to City Council, from this board of citizen, appointed oversight commissioners, which can and here does diverge from the Draft authored by Bureau of Planning & Sustainability (permanent city staff). The
differences between this letter and the Draft indicate areas more likely to be in possible play during City Council consideration, and therefore perhaps especially worth advocacy focus.

 

City Bureaus - PBOT, BES

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/article/782250.

Portland: Neighbors Welcome

https://portlandneighborswelcome.org/sheltertohousing.

"Actions and amendments proposed by Portland: Neighbors Welcome:

  1. Extend the Housing Emergency at least until the end of the declared public health emergency, plus six months to help ensure a safe transition back to some version of normal. Although the Shelter to Housing Continuum will make huge strides in codifying the best tools of the Housing Emergency, it is designed for long-term thinking, not an emergency and removes some important tools while the real-world emergency continues.
  1. Limiting properties to 1 RV or tiny home on wheels per site may make sense for the long term but some sites are currently hosting more than one, and it would be tragic to upend these stable situations during a public health crisis.
  2. [Note: The Housing State of Emergency is not currently being considered by Portland City Council as part of S2HC but is due to expire in April, and will require action by City Council to renew soon.]
  1. Allow sanctioned Outdoor Shelters in appropriate, approved sites in Open Space zones and in the right-of-way (ROW). Nobody expects outdoor shelters to be sited in parks or sensitive natural areas, but Open Space zones extend beyond that. We ask the City to remove the blanket ban on sanctioned shelters in Open Space Zones and the ROW and allow small sanctioned shelters in specific sites, if approved by a vote of City Council. Open Space Zones covers enough viable territory that, if the community identifies an appropriate place, City Council should be able to approve it without going through an onerous rezoning process. Otherwise, the City will be taking good sites off the table and limiting our ability to respond to the crisis.
  1. For example, Right 2 Dream Too is technically in the ROW, which could be forbidden by the current language in Volume 3. We should not evict R2DToo.
  2. There are currently Portlanders living in an Open Space zone right next to the Hygiene4All Hygiene Hub under the Morrison Bridge on MLK that is not a sensitive natural area nor a park. This is one example of public land zoned OS that we may want to consider for an Outdoor Shelter. Other examples included publicly owned parking lots or ROW.
  3. These are just two of many examples of potential adverse effects of removing Open Space zones or ROW from siting options.
  1. Reduce time and cost for setting up Outdoor Shelters. Currently, conditional-use permit fees can cost over $20,000 in land-use fees per application, and often far more in professional services fees. These fees require six months or more to have a decision rendered. Conditional use permit requirements can act as a functional ban on siting shelters and they are rightly waived in many zones under Shelter to Housing. We believe they should also be waived in narrow, appropriate circumstances in residential and Open Space zones. To solve our housing crisis, we need the ability to use every tool, and the right tools, and not take viable sites off the table through arduous conditional use processes.
  1. In low-density zones, we recommend allowing churches, faith-based organizations, and other community-based organizations to host sanctioned shelters without conditional use review if they are below 20 accommodations on site. This is aligned with Expanding Opportunities for Affordable Housing, which Council passed last year to partner with community-based organizations to address the housing crisis. Exempting churches and nonprofit organizations from costly and long conditional-use reviews on their sites will speed providing shelter to our most vulnerable populations.
  2. Any site in an Open Space zone that is approved by a City Council vote for a sanction shelter with 20 or fewer accommodations should not require conditional-use review.
  1. Don’t undermine existing vehicle dwellings. Do not require vehicle dwelling to have sewer connections, which would make many existing dwellings illegal or prohibitively expensive ($10-20k per connection). Adopt alternative best-practice sanitation solutions, such as establishing dumping sites, a mobile street team, or a pumping service such as those used for portable toilets, as Eugene does.

PDX Shelter Forum

see March 17 testimony letter in section below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EP0i3gf3aJljkjrKCC-FrnYmq2MAqHAnYVH_zHP8Cuk/edit#heading=h.48zbbolu27sp.

PDX Main Streets

Mainly, proposing the Innovative Housing Demonstration Projects project.

March 17 City Council meeting - Thurs 2pm - prep

Current meeting link:  https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/26997.

WEDNESDAY, 2:00 PM, MARCH 17, 2021

Agenda Item 165  - TIME CERTAIN: 2:00 PM – Amend Title 33 Planning and Zoning to facilitate the provision of shelter and housing options for Portlanders in need  (Ordinance introduced by Mayor Wheeler and Commissioners Rubio and Ryan; amend Code Title 33)  3 hours requested for items 165-166

Agenda Item 166 - Amend City Code Health and Sanitation, Emergency Code, Public Improvements, Water, Property Maintenance Regulations and Affordable Housing to facilitate the provision of shelter and housing options for Portlanders in need  (Ordinance introduced by Mayor Wheeler and Commissioners Rubio and Ryan; amend Code Titles 8, 15, 17, 21, 29, and 30)

OPB story:

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/17/portland-oregon-housing-shelter-zoning/

sources:

Eli Spevak, chair of the Planning and Sustainability Commission, told the council Wednesday that all new shelters would be required to have services onsite.
“Any shelter created under this code indoor or outdoor must have onsite management,

Kaia Sand

Steph Routh, vice chair of the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler

Eric Engstrom, the principal planner for the project

Engstrom said there’s also been a misunderstanding among the public over how many shelters could appear in East Portland.

Eli Spevak, chair of the Planning and Sustainability Commission

Paul Agrimis, chair of the Portland Parks Board

former commissioner Amanda Fritz

Ann McMullen, a board member of the Hazelwood Neighborhood Association

Marc Jolin, director of the city-county Joint Office of Homeless Services
“What the code changes do not do is change how we make decisions about where to site shelter.

Trisha Patterson, board member of Portland: Neighbors Welcome.

Tim's spoken testimony

https://youtu.be/yc2H4gooUpo?t=4297 (1:11:37 - 1:14:18)

Prepared speaking notes:

Good afternoon Mayor Wheeler, councilmembers, and city staff.

My name is Tim McCormick, and I am speaking on behalf of PDX Shelter Forum, which I moderate and co-founded about a year ago to focus on FAST, BROAD responses to enable ALL Portlander to have a safe and decent dwelling. As a practical necessity, and as a human rights issue.

So, we strongly support S2HC, with recommendations, aligned with those of the PSC, and of Portland Neighbors Welcome, but with some additions.

These were developed through nine months of public forum events, and active discussion on web/email forum, in every part of which we prioritized participants with current or former experience of homelessness.

I should say for me, much of what we are advocating here are dwelling options like I've been living in for much of the last ten years, and the options that MAY allow me, and friends of mine, to stay in Portland this year.

I'd like to just highlight a few, and invite you to review our full letter.

#1: allow Housing State of Emergencies to be continued. As the mayor said, the housing crisis is not over. It may likely get worse, now is not the time to tie our hands.

#2: Outdoor Shelters need a longer initial allowed time to start. Six months wouldn't reasonably give them time to apply for a permit to continue.

#3: Don't require fixed sewer and water connections. This would often be cost-prohibitive, unnecessary, and undermine needed flexibility, as Eli Spevak described.

#4: allow Outdoor Shelters to use housing structures, not just pods or sheds, etc. The Council's remit to Planning described temporary housing, not, non-housing, and the concept of Outdoor Shelter in current draft is unnecessarily restrictive, and at odds with the Oregon emergency shelter bill HB2006 just introduced in the legislature by Tina Kotek.

Most importantly, allowing varied dwelling types in Outdoor Shelters facilitates an amazing opportunity to potentially evolve sites, or dwellings, to permanent housing, for example by resiting dwellings as low-case accessory dwellings.

#5 Finally, we need your help in ASAP getting public, citywide, lot-level mapping of eligible sites, and a spreadsheet of top 100 plausible sites, including public land and underutilized right of way, fairly and appropriately including the whole city.

As Churchill said in 1941, deeds, not works, shall speak us. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.

thank you.

notes by Tim McCormick - 2021-03-15.
[this is based on replaying the Planning & Sustainability hearings and work sessions on this in Dec-Jan,, as noted below, and reviewing amendments requested by PSC and responses by BPS; also looking at the current version (Feb) of the S2HC Recommended Draft; also PSC's transmittal letter, and discussing with PSC members].

Planning and Sustainability Commission’s “transmittal letter” to City Council, in which they endorse the current Recommended Draft (Feb 17, 2021) and  provide additional recommendations.
This is important as a primary recommendation to City Council, from this board of citizen, appointed oversight commissioners, which can and here does diverge from the Draft authored by Bureau of Planning & Sustainability (permanent city staff). The
differences between this letter and the Draft indicate areas more likely to be in possible play during City Council consideration, and therefore perhaps especially worth advocacy focus.

Meeting notes


Tim's testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc2H4gooUpo

https://youtu.be/yc2H4gooUpo?t=4297 (1:11:37 - 1:14:18)

Michelle Harper - former Parks employee

Mary Ann Cassin - studied shelters in parks in various cities

Mary Ruble - Parks Foundation

Paul Agrimis - Chair, Portland Parks Board

Michael Tillett - parks advocate (English accent)

Linda Robinson - parks advocate

James ('Jim') Sjulin - longtime Parks employee

+ Eric Lindsay

Tamara DeRidder

support Heather Flint Chatto's proposal for IHDP

Ben Goekjian - "tentification" to "gentrification"

Testimony letter / talking points draft:

PDX Shelter Forum  


March 17, 2021

Dear Mayor Wheeler and Portland City Council,

PDX Shelter Forum began in May 2020 to help develop ways to rapidly ensure safe, decent dwelling for all Portlanders. We have since hosted four public online forums, and multiple community work sessions to develop testimony; created open online guides to discuss and advocate on related legislation; grown our active web/email forum to over 330 members, and presented written and spoken testimony at numerous events.

The Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) has been a major focus of our group's work since we began, and our June forum included the first public presentation about S2HC by Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) staff. We are pleased to strongly endorse the proposal, with a set of recommendations detailed below.

We are aligned with the revisions/recommendations made by

  1. Planning and Sustainability Commission, in its transmittal letter to Council; and
  2. Social Justice Coalition as represented by letter from Portland: Neighbors Welcome

though we also have made additional recommendations.


Our recommendations:

1) We support BPS’ recommendation to not remove the city’s ability to declare or extend a Housing State of Emergency. We are in an emergency now, and it could very well worsen with eviction moratoriums ending and high unemployment continuing.


2)  If the new Outdoor Shelters are an ongoing need, they should not require a complex, costly, and high-risk Conditional Use process in order to stay past 180 days. It's not a viable way to start and continue an Outdoor Shelter, to begin with a clock ticking that you’ll be forced out in 180 days, unless you succeed with a CU application that takes at least 120 days. We recommend City Council create an initial Allowed Use period of 1 year, to give a new shelter site a reasonable pathway to set up and develop community relationships to support the pursuit of longer-term siting.

Also, please waive permitting and Conditional Use fees for new shelters – this is an emergency. Like Anatole France said, sort of, “The law, in its majestic equality, charges equal fees to skyscrapers and shelters, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges..."


3) Don't prohibit use of all right-of-way land for Outdoor Shelter use. This is a huge amount of the public land that is not Open Space, park, or occupied; it’s where many of the city’s houseless live now, and it includes all kinds of potentially usable spaces such as the current site of Right 2 Dream Too village. As one relatively simple, scalable mode of use, we suggest that certain areas of existing, underutilized parking spaces on public right of way might allow permitted vehicle dwelling in certain locations, for example on the model used in some areas of Eugene. We believe that, in a crisis, this large stock of public land should be considered for helping to house people, not just to store and convey vehicles.


4) Open Space (OS): possible use of OS for Outdoor Shelters emerged as a contentious issue on this proposal, with concerns raised especially by code sections 33.296.030.G (existing) and 33.296.030.H (proposed)

33.296.030.H: This new provision accommodates the temporary operation of a mass shelter or an outdoor shelter on a site in all zones of the city for up to 180 days within a calendar year. ...without the need for an emergency that is generally declared by City Council in Title 15. and is usually the mechanism to invoke G. above.

This seems to unconditionally allow Outdoor Shelters, of same 6-month tenure as discussed in proposal generally, anywhere in the city; but we don't think that is really the intent of BPS, or shouldn't be, nor is necessary.

Public hearings and testimony show there is significant complexity, and often misunderstanding, about what Open Space comprises. It includes city parks and sensitive natural areas including on waterways and in flood plains, which generally have protections from other use, and which few people seem to support the use of for shelter. However, Open Space may also include areas such as leftover space around state or Federal highways, or surplus from other transportation and development projects, which might at times be plausible shelter sites.

Observing the unclear definition and understanding of Open Space, we suggest that the best path is neither allow all, nor prohibit all potential use of OS for shelters. Rather, exclude from shelter consideration the subsets of OS that people are truly concerned about, and allow specific other sites to be considered by City Council action.  


5) S2HC so far has concerned rules for hypothetical locating of shelters, but we urge you to direct BPS and other departments’ resources to helping locate actual plausible shelter sites. We believe an open community effort is needed to propose, assess and launch implementation projects to ASAP create shelter or village sites on the scale of need, which might plausibly require 50+ sites. To ensure equitable placement of shelters, and achieve city-wide community acceptance, establish a process (e.g. by use of public land, funding, etc.) to balance concentration of shelters across city areas. Every neighborhood should be asked to propose preferred village/shelter sites.  

City, County, & Metro departments have unparallelled resources to support this – such as GIS and mapping tools, Metro Supportive Housing Services measure funding, the alternative shelter RFPQ program, and existing inventories of public lands. We ask that the City seek to facilitate and accelerate efforts on this, for example by publishing city-wide, lot-level mapping of sites’ eligibility for shelters under the S2HC guidelines once approved, and a publicly usable spreadsheet listing of potential sites. This list should also include public land and facilities the City and County have that could be used for shelters.



6) Allow temporary housing in Outdoor Shelters. BPS was directed by Council resolution in 2019 to enable “temporary housing,” and interpreted that to a new concept  of “Outdoor Shelter,” using State-defined "transitional accommodation" structure types, excluding legal housing. There is no reason or norm that temporary housing not be, housing; this is generally less preferable to residents; and it works strongly against sites or dwellings transitioning to permanent housing, one of the simplest ways to achieve the permanent housing which everyone says is the real goal.

This major restriction was not in the City Council ordinance authorizing S2HC project and we repeatedly advocated to remove it. It doesn’t align with common village models, and is at odds with the 2021 Oregon housing emergency legislation HB 2006, which defines emergency-usable housing to include all types of structures. This is also consistent with California emergency shelter law, and general practice. These restrictions should be removed.


7) Don't require water/sewer connections for shelters, or mobile dwellings. Contrary to overwhelming public and expert testimony, and the recommendation of the PSC, the draft requires a sewer-water connection for vehicles with plumbing, and state titling. The sewer connection in particular is prohibitive for a huge portion of possible cases of vehicle residence on private property. It’s also backward looking, hooking users into a costly and disaster-fragile mass sewage system, rather than ecological, adaptable, and autonomous composting, greywater, and solar energy systems. We urge that accommodations and mobile dwellings permitted by S2HC be allowed to innovate and use non-grid water, waste, and electric systems; and as PSC recommends, not be required to meet state titling.


8) For Outdoor Shelters, don't require 25' setback from adjoining residential property. This is unreasonable, prohibitive for small lots, and inconsistent with other residential setback rules.


9)  Don't require shelters to be 'compatible' with adjacent residential. 
33.815.107 requires that Outdoor Shelters “ will be compatible with adjacent residential developments based on characteristics such as the site size, building scale and style.”  This is  nonsensical: if outdoor shelters are not and can not include housing structures, they can’t reasonably be required to be compatible in building scale and style with area residences.

We respectfully request incorporation of these recommendations into the S2HC ordinance and implementation, and look forward to working together to support our unhoused neighbors.


Sincerely,

Tim McCormick - co-founder & moderator, PDX Shelter Forum.
tmccormick@gmail.com, tjm.org, 503.334.1894

Sean Green - co-founder, PDX Shelter Forum; co-founder, Shelter Now; chair, Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods.
green@aforma.co, 971.998.7376


Co-signers:   

Paxton Rothwell - Sunrise Movement - PDX

Howard Silverman        

Les Wardenaar - Chair, Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

Tommy Kiser        - Arbor Lodge Neighborhood Association

Donna L Cohen

Sarah Carolus - Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

Adrianna Mckinley        

Keith Wilson        - President, TITAN Freight Systems

Taffy Everts - Kenton Neighborhood Association (Neighborhood Rose Garden co-manager)

Tom Hickey - Bridgeton Neighborhood Association

Patt Opdyke - Neighbors Helping Neighbors PDX

Janice Painter Yaden - Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

Dave Albertine - Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

James Krauel - Operation Nightwatch

Kirsten Reindel        

Leon Porter        

Alexis Stephens - Tiny Home Industry Association, Tiny House Expedition

kristen leigh sartor        

Northwest Pilot Project

Sarah Berry - Portland State University

Carol Turner        - Shelter Now and Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

Nina Berliant        

Brian Hoop - Housing Oregon

Some alternate testimony letter material:

7) While S2HC reform is presented as building a ‘continuum’ of low-cost options, multiple expert testifiers explained that neither current nor proposed code would not allow them to pursue the village, tiny-house, cluster, low-cost housing projects they seek to do. Or even, allow the villages that currently exist and have for many years, Portland's landmark and well-known pioneers Dignity Village and Right 2 Dream Too. The S2HC proposal before us leaves gaps in the continuum, which will require further legislating, possibly by the Residential Infill Project part 2 project which just began, as required by state law; or possibly by a S2HC Part 2 that addresses issues where this proposal has fallen short

11) Observation on the process:
We found there were extremely high barriers to understanding, following, and engaging the proposal of S2HC.  It was first publicly disclosed just in a comment in a February 2020 Council meeting, after it had been underway since late 2018, and there was little information about it released until an entire proposal, detailed down to complete code language was released in September 2020.  At this point, it was a set of three documents, totalling several hundred pages, with many key points expressed in highly technical, legal code language. Engaging this requires extensive familiarity with zoning technicalities, the body of Portland city code, and a great deal of time. It did not seem reasonable that there could be meaningful, wide public engagement with this in the short window of time from this being first offered to it moving forward to further revision.

With the total proposal moving through a number of versions, we found that the format and the full control of the document set by BPS and the high complexity made it extremely difficult to follow changes from one version to the next, to detect changes or verify that described changes had happened. The result, we think, is a low degree of possible accountability over the process and the proposal’s evolution.

Question: how were amendments discussed/requested by Planning & Sustainability Commission incorporated into the new (February) Recommended Draft?

PSC meeting January 26
29:26​ Shelter to Housing Continuum Project
https://www.portland.gov/bps/psc/events/2021/1/26/planning-and-sustainability-commission-meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMG0vdKpdX0.


Chris Smith
agrees with vehicles not counting as ADUs, and not requiring state title as RVs or sewer hookups.


PSC meeting January 12 (work session)
https://www.portland.gov/bps/psc/events/2021/1/12/planning-and-sustainability-commission-meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4t0lOybuPs.
1:19:00​ Shelter to Housing Continuum Project hearing

PSC meeting December 15 (hearing)
https://www.portland.gov/bps/psc/events/2020/12/15/planning-and-sustainability-commission-meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZRUAIaaBfQ

PSC meeting December 8 (hearing)
https://www.portland.gov/bps/psc/events/2020/12/8/planning-and-sustainability-commission-meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdf9ZkscWIQ.
0:13:32​ Shelter to Housing Continuum Project (hearing)

1:01:53​ Historic Resources Code Project (work session)

Geographical equity / East Portland issue

WILLIAM LINDEKUGEL

Comment ID #267088
https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/testimony/item.cfm#proposal=s2hc&itemID=267088.

Mar 3

Testimony to Portland City Council on the Shelter to Housing Continuum Project, Recommended Draft.

Current Proposal Status: Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Recommended Draft at Portland City Council. Public record is open.

I cannot support the code change proposal: Shelter to Housing Continuum UNLESS the code creates equity. All neighborhoods, no matter their income levels and racial/ethnic make up, must share in the responsibility to solve Portland's homeless and housing crisis. A solution would be to place an "Equity Matrix", similar to PBOT's, into the proposal to guide policy makers in their decision. Such a tool would distribute responsibility evenly amongst neighborhoods. This would avoid dumping the solutions onto neighborhoods that already carry the brunt of low income/service/housing solutions. It would redistribute the problem of solving of Portland's homeless and housing crisis to all neighborhoods in the City. Please accept and act on this suggestion. We in East County can no longer tolerate the City's neglect of our neighborhoods as a result of policies that create increased economic disparity while more politically powerful neighborhoods remain untouched. Note: I will be sharing my viewpoint with my Argay Terrace Neighborhood Association so that more people can testify. Thank you, Bill

Other testimony noted

MARLA RUMPF

Comment ID #267444

Mar 15, 2021

Testimony to Portland City Council on the Shelter to Housing Continuum Project, Recommended Draft.

Current Proposal Status: Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Recommended Draft at Portland City Council. Public record is open.

I am a member of the master circle in Portland and I am appalled that this could even be a consideration. I am a native Portlander for 64 years and have never been as embarrassed as I am now with the rapidly decline of our city, our parks, and the increase in our crime rate.

Jan 12 - Planning and Sustainability Commission Work Session

Event page: https://www.portland.gov/bps/psc/events/2021/1/12/planning-and-sustainability-commission-meeting.

Video stream/archive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4t0lOybuPs.

Meeting documents: https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/record/14244551.

        

BPS responses to commission amendment & info requests                                           

January 8, 2021

MEMORANDUM                                

To: Members of the Planning and Sustainability Commission
From: Al Burns, AICP, Senior City Planner
Subject: First Work Session on the Shelter to Housing Continuum Project                                

Introduction                        

This memorandum begins with a topical summary of Commissioner amendments to the Shelter to Housing Continuum package, along with analysis and recommendations. It also describes the actions requested, provides updates on information requested by the commission and answers some questions.                        

Commission Actions Requested

For the zoning code amendments, the Bureau asks the Commission to identify which of the proposals it wishes to consider for possible recommendation to City Council during its January 26, 2021. This identification will aid the Bureau in drafting necessary code amendment language for the Commission’s consideration.        

For the amendments to other city codes, the Bureau asks the Commission to identify its issues and concerns. This identification will guide the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability’s engagement with other City Bureaus in the development of a coordinated, multi-bureau proposal for consideration by the City Council. If requested, this identification will also aid the Bureau in rough drafting the Commission’s transmittal letter to City Council for the entire project.        

The Bureau also requests the Commission to identify any further information or analyses it needs for its January 26, 2021 work sessions

                                        

Commission Proposed Amendments to Title 33 of the Portland City Code
                                

Development Standards Applicable to Outdoor Shelters

1. Minimum sanitary service standards.                                

Analysis

The 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, which is administered by the Bureau of Development Services as the City’s Building Code, contains requirements for sanitary facilities. Connections to city sewer are required by Title 17 of the City Code and administrative rules adopted by the Bureau of Environmental Services. In general, any development accessing City water has to connect to sanitary sewer, although it may be possible for the Bureau of Environmental Services to authorize alternative portable sanitary service for temporary outdoor shelters for up to 180 days.

The City’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code authorizes different intensities of allowed land use based, in part, on the availability of services. Requirements for development to avail themselves of available services are not needed in the zoning code and adding them there might conflict with the City’s actual service codes                                

Recommendation                        

2. Designated supervisor

Analysis
The proposed code at 33.285.050.C.4 already requires a designate supervisor.
                                                        
Recommendation
No changes are needed.
                                                        

3. Name and contact information designated supervisor readily available.

Analysis
Since supervisor designations can change, providing contact information for the operating agency or nonprofit is more practicable.
                                                        
Recommendation
Consider the presentation of the expert panels. If notification is needed provided information should be for the operator rather than the supervisor.
                                                        

4. Designated supervisor to be onsite 24 hours a day.

Analysis
The zoning code does contain an on-site supervisor requirement for mass shelters, but 24- hour supervision is not a usual operating procedure for existing outdoor shelters. Few operating standards are included in the proposed code, because the equivalent of such is usually provided in contracts between funding agencies and nonprofit operators. Standards at this level of operational detail are difficult to enforce through the standard mechanisms of zoning enforcement. In general, zoning code standards are more practical if they focus on things that can be measured on plans, or if they address broad land use categories – such as a distinction between residential and commercial activities. That said, there is a need for a responsible party to know about and be able to effectively respond to problematic situations whenever they might occur                                

Recommendation

Consider the presentation of the expert panels. If a continuous supervision standard is needed it could be added to 33.285.050.C.4.
                                

5. Require meeting between the shelter operator and the neighborhood,

even when shelter siting does not require a land use review                                

Analysis

The City’s Zoning Code is a place for land use regulations. It is unclear what regulatory purpose would be served for a meeting if the outcome of which could not affect the siting of a use allowed by right. The Bureau of Development Services does not support this amendment or any further expansion of pre-permitting signage and meeting requirements. The existing neighborhood contact regulations should be probably examined for effectiveness before they are expanded. That said, it is a widely observed best practice for providers to meet with neighbors during the shelter siting process, but not every best practice should be made into a land use regulation.

Recommendation

This amendment is not recommended.

                                        

6. Allow 60 accommodations in outdoor shelters without a conditional use in the RM1 through RMP, RX, IR, C, EX, CI, and IR zones,

without regard to whether there is an existing institutional use        

Analysis

The number of accommodations allowed under clear and objective standards in the proposed code was set in consultation with City Bureaus and the Joint Office of Homelessness Services. Compatibility with the scale of adjoining uses was taken into account, as was the fact that most operators in residential zones would be religious institutions that would prefer a smaller sized and thus more manageable shelter. The consequences of allowed by right shelters on all properties in multi-dwelling residential zones has not been examined, nor have consequences of a new allowed use in the RMP zones been examined.

There are only a few properties in the RMP zone which functions as a sanctuary for manufactured homes by restricting other allowed uses and thus limiting conversion pressure. Allowing other uses could cause displacement of existing manufactured home park residents.                                

If increased allowances are provided for outdoor shelters in residential zones without a conditional use, conditional use thresholds for other similarly scaled institutional uses should be reconsidered as well so as to carry out a uniform approach on what constitutes a compatible list of uses in residential zones.
                                

Recommendation

Do not increase by right allowances in the RMP zone. Consider the opinions of the expert panelist on the optimum size of an outdoor shelter and consider increasing by- right allowances in the other zones should an optimum-sized outdoor shelter require a conditional use.

                        

Conditional Use Approval Criteria for Outdoor Shelters                        

7. Require certification from the Joint Office of Homelessness that the public agency or nonprofit corporate applicant is sufficiently experienced and capable of operating a shelter for the benefit persons who have experienced a loss of housing.

Analysis

Although funded by both the City and County, the Joint Office of Homelessness Services is a county agency staffed solely by Multnomah County employees. The City should not delegate a determination as to whether or not a City approval criterion has been met to another local government. There is a legitimate concern that all shelter operators be capable and willing to provide community services with a commitment to help transition their clients to stable, permanent housing. This is one reason the zoning code limits operators to public agencies and nonprofits. Another check on competency is that many shelters are dependent on public funding and the funding agencies, like the Joint Office, can refuse to fund unproven operators. We believe that the funding process is a more practical way to control this.                                

Earlier in project development City staff discussed the potential problems that might arise from a well-meaning but incompetent operator or from a newly incorporated nonprofit formed with a purpose to simply perpetuate outdoor camping opportunities with no accompanying intent to provide on-site supportive services and transition to housing. The consensus emerged that if City desired greater controls on operators these would need to be the type of controls that could be exercised quickly, with a minimum of notice, hearing and appeal opportunities. So, the City Zoning Code was not the place for such controls. The idea of a City training or licensing requirement for operators was discussed, but no bureau was in a position to host such a program currently. As a practical matter, the most realistic problem the City may face is from a sincere but overwhelmed operator, and that would be a problem might be better handled by technical assistance than regulation.
                

Recommendation

Do not adopt the proposed amendment. If incompetent or bad acting operators remain a concern, request staff to further investigate the operator licensing proposal.                        

                                        

Shelters in Open Space

8. Allow Permanent Shelters in Open Space.

Analysis

Neither housing nor shelters are allowed uses in open space zones. Allowing them by right or conditionally would require amending the purpose statement for the open space zone, which in turn would require amending or repealing provisions of Portland’s 2035 Comprehensive that provide the policy basis for this purpose statement. Comprehensive plan policies are informed by background documents that are adopted by City Council and acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. These studies comprise the factual basis of the plan. The proposed amendment would require an extensive reexamination and possible adjustment of facts and reason that inform the Comprehensive Plan. The supporting documents underlying the 2035 Comprehensive Plan found that there was more than an adequate supply of land for housing and related uses.

The 2035 Plan allowed for an increased level of development with the understanding that a City-wide system of publicly owned and protected parks, natural areas and greenways would exist. Supporting facts included a projected need for more City parkland and open space as the City grows, not less.

Such a change may also require an examination of the covenants for the bonds sold to purchase park land and construct community centers. Recorded deed restrictions in instruments dedicating land to the City for park, recreation, and conservation purposes would need to be checked. If the terms of the dedication were violated the heirs of the donors could reclaim the dedicated land.

The above said, shelters are allowed in parks and community centers as temporary activities (either via 33.296.030.G or H). The reasoning for this allowance is that the effects of a temporary uses are reversable and place no long-term constraints on the availability of land identified as needed for their zoned purposes.

                                        

Recommendation

Do not amend the open space zone to allow permanently sited shelters. Nothing in this recommendation precludes individual proposals to re-zone a particular parcel of open space for shelter purposes if the controlling agency agrees.

                                        

Shelters in Certain Areas

9. Permanent Shelters in Open Space Zones within Certain Areas.                                

Analysis

The Bureau does not recommend the permanent siting of shelters in open space zones, but if allowed, an alternate proposal would allow the use generally but exclude it in certain areas. Exclusion areas might include any land within an environmental protection or conservation designation, floodplains, other hazard areas, parks designated and managed as natural areas, and land adjoining recreational trails. This exclusion seems prudent, but some of the areas described are not depicted on a readily available map adopted by City Council for a regulatory purpose.
        

Recommendation

Do not amend the open space zone to allow permanently sited shelters, but if allowed exclude shelter siting in Environmental overlay zones, the River Natural overlay zone, the River Environmental overlay zone, and the Pleasant Valley Natural Resource overlay zone
                                

10. Temporary Shelters in Any Base Zone within Certain Areas.                                

Analysis

The expressed language of the proposed code would allow the temporary siting of a shelter in a protected natural area or a known hazard area any place in the City. While this allowance might well be precluded by another provision of Title 33 or another Title of the City Code, the proposal should not have established a seeming conflict.
                                

Recommendation

Amend temporary use allowances to exclude shelters from land within Environmental overlay zones, the River Natural overlay zone, the River Environmental overlay zone, and the Pleasant Valley Natural Resource overlay zone.

                                        

Shelters as Temporary uses

11. Clarify Emergency and Shortage Declarations for Temporary Shelter Uses.                        

Analysis

Existing Section 33.296.030 G would allow shelters as temporary uses for any Council declared emergency, and these uses would be allowed to continue until the emergency expired. Shelters being allowed in open space community centers under the present COVID-19 emergency is an example of the use of this section.

Proposed Section 33.296.030 H would allow shelters for 180 days without any council declaration. Adoption of this amendment would, for example, relive Council from having to make declarations for each occurrence of inclement weather requiring shelter. A companion amendment to Title 15 would allow the 180-limit to be extended if Council declared a shelter shortage. Unlike emergency declarations that have set expiration dates requiring extensions, a shortage declaration would stay in place until repealed by Council, and a temporary shelter could remain in place during the full extent of the shelter declaration.                                

A shelter could be temporarily sited under either section and no shelter would need to meet the requirements of both sections. Temporary shelters would be allowed in any zone by either section unless excluded by development standards.

In zones that allow shelters as a conditional use, a temporary shelter could be made permanent through a conditional use approval. In zones that allow shelters by right, shelters would not need to resort to temporary use allowances.
                        

Recommendation

The proposed code does not require clarifying amendments, but the accompanying code commentary should be clarified with the information provided above.

                                        

Group Living Allowances

12. Categorize Dwellings with More than Eight Bedrooms as Group Living                                

Analysis

Both the existing code as currently administered, and the proposed code would categorize a dwelling unit with more than six bedrooms as group living. While they need not be, for decades the zoning code and building code have been in sync in that crossing the threshold from household to group living under the zoning code also crossed the threshold from residential to commercial construction under the building code. Application of the commercial code requires fire and sound barriers in the walls between bedrooms and possibly the installation of a sprinkler system.

The proposed amendment would shift the proposed zoning threshold so that only dwelling units with more than nine bedrooms would be categorized as group living. This zoning code change would not affect how the Bureau of Development Services administers the 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Nor would the zoning code amendment provide an effective nudge in persuading the Bureau of Development Services to change its reading of the state code. The City no longer has its own building code; it now administers the state code as a delegated program, and the city cannot change the state code. The six-bedroom threshold is a well-reasoned and plausible reading of the 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. While the 2019 code may admit to other plausible readings, those alternate readings will be precluded by an amendment to the sate code set to take effect in March of 2021, leaving the Bureau of Development Service’s existing reading as the only plausible one.        

The advantages of keeping the zoning and building codes in sync seem to outweigh any advantages of categorizing eight-bedroom dwelling units as household living, even though the compatibility between the two codes is a convenience rather than a necessity.                                

In addition, please note that the proposed code would allow Group Living by right up to 3,500 square feet. Changing the threshold to a higher number of bedrooms would not change where such a structure is allowed, because both Household and Group Living are allowed without a Conditional Use at a similar scale.

Recommendation

Do not amend the proposed code.

                                        

13. Define Bedroom                                

Analysis

Chapter 33.910 provides that terms not defined by Title 33 carry their ordinary dictionary meaning. Title 33 has employed the term “bedroom” for decades without a 33.910 definition, and this has not proven to be a problem. There is no obvious need to define bedroom for the purpose of distinguishing household from group living. City housing and property management codes define “bedroom” or “sleeping room” for the purposes of other code titles. While there is no requirement or need for the same term to carry the same meaning in various titles of the City Code, adding an arguably unnecessary term to the zoning code could cause confusion.

                                        

Recommendation

Do not add a definition of “bedroom” because the dictionary definition is adequate.

                        

Residency in Tiny Houses on Wheels and Recreational Vehicles

14. Allow Residency Without Sewer Hook-ups                                

Analysis

Title 17 of the City Code requires sewer hook-ups for any development that generates, or is expected to generate, sewage. This means any development that avails itself of a water supply must also connect to sewer whenever the site is proximate to a sanitary or combined sewer line, which is most of the City.

The proposed code would allow residential occupancy of tiny houses on wheels and recreational vehicles, but only with a campground-style utility service, including a sewer hook-up. The sewer hook-up is usually the most expensive element to provide.                                

The Bureau of Environmental Services and the Bureau of Development Services staff have reached a tentative recommendation on how to reconcile the conflict by the following provisions:                

Recommendation
Endorse the general direction described above. Note that this is a Title 17 and 29 issue, so we are not seeking Commission recommendations on specific code language.

                                                

Visitability Standards

15.. Recommend Visitability Standards

.. the Commission Previously Recommended as Part of the Residential Infill Projects.        

Analysis

This amendment addresses a topic not currently within the scope of the Shelter to Housing Continuum Project; it is nevertheless being considered in response to the Bureau of Development Services comments.                

During the Residential Infill Project some of the new units allowed by the code were to have to meet accessibility standards, similar to Americans With Disabilities Act requirements. A consensus rose that a lesser standard described as “visitability” rather than “accessibility” should apply to at least one unit under certain circumstances. Requirements that a person with a mobility impairment be allowed to enter and move about a part of a dwelling were recommended as amendments to Title 33.        

Rather than accepting the Commission’s visitability recommendation, City Council adopted an alternative solution that relied on references to an external code. Applying this external code by building officials has proven to be problematic because the external code has not been adopted as part of the 2019 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. The Bureau of Development Services is now asking that the City return to the visitability approach recommended by the Commission.

Recommendation

The Commission should recommend again the Title 33 visitability standards it originally recommended as part of the Residential Infill Project.

                                        

Response to Information Requested by the Commission                                

Two panels one composed of shelter providers and the other composed of and persons with lived shelter experience have been assembled and will be ready to present at the January 12, 2021 work session. The panelist are:                                

Panel One

Brandi Tuck, Executive Director at Portland Homeless Family Solutions (PHFS)
Chris Aiosa, Executive Director at Do Good Multnomah
Tony Bernal, Senior Director of Public Policy & Funding at Transition Projects                        

Panel Two

Angi Eagan, PHFS Jonathan Hill, C(3)PO
Lisa Larson, Dignity Village                                

A matrix of which shelter types that are allowed

by the present code, have been allowed by code waiver, and could be allowed under the proposed code is prepared and will be transmitted with this memorandum.
                                

The Bureau has assembled data of...

how many sites would be available for shelters in each neighborhood

...if siting in open space were not an option is prepared and transmitted with this memorandum. The data is contained within pivot tables in a large spreadsheet. This information can be briefly described during the January 12 work session, but it would be better to wait until January 26, 2021 work session to allow presentation of a report in a more digestible format.

                                        

Response to Questions

Q1. There is only one proposed conditional use approval criteria specifically addressing shelters, why aren’t others proposed as well?        

A1. Others were initially considered, but the Joint Office noted that all of these seemed to deal with livability and offsite impacts, which were already addressed by existing criteria. Also, there was no public purpose in singling out shelters for what might appear to be especially harsh treatment. Existing broad criteria, such as livability, already allow the City to craft any reasonably necessary condition of approval.

Q2. The report’s introduction states the project is about more than shelters, and the project purpose includes facilitating permanent affordable housing. Where are these affordable housing provisions?

A2. A fair question. The report should have done a better job explaining that the new group living allowances are the housing affordability provisions, and it is these provisions that will facilitate both market rate affordable housing and supportive housing needing a lower public subsidy. The Bureau used part of a grant provided by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to have Jonson Economics perform a prospectus market-based feasibility analysis for various prototypes. Some of the prototypes nicknamed the “adult dormitory,” the “group duplex” and the “group cluster” penciled out as marked feasible in some parts of the City, and where they did not only a small public subsidy was required to bring them up to feasibility. These background documents are posted on the project website and informed the group living code proposals.                

In summary, the proposal to allow Group Living by right in more places facilitates a wider variety of housing configurations; including giving the Housing Bureau more flexibility to mix SRO-style housing in with traditional units in regulated affordable housing projects; and giving market-rate developers the option to develop lower-cost group living buildings. Group Living can reduce housing cost because the cost of kitchens and bathrooms is spread out over a larger number of people.
                        

Q3. What are the bicycle parking requirements for outdoor shelters, for both clients and employees.

A3. Required long-term bike parking would be accessible to both staff and clients. Existing code provides “Long‐ term bicycle parking is in secure, weather protected facilities and is intended for building and site occupants, and others who need bicycle parking for several hours or longer.” Permanent outdoor shelters would include buildings containing storage, office, hygiene and office facilities, and the permits for these buildings would trigger a requirement for two long term bicycle parking spaces. These spaces could be accommodated in a common building, or if that were not feasible, in a two-unit bike locker or by placing two stable racks in a fenced and gated enclosure covered by an eight-foot by ten-foot roof. Temporary shelters would not require bicycle parking.        
                        

Q4. Why not retain the existing Title 15 Housing Emergency provisions..

 in addition to proposed Title 15 affordable housing and shelter shortage amendments

A4. Staff is considering testimony and is amenable to retaining most, if not all, the existing Title 15 Housing Emergency authorities.

The initial project charge was to have enough new permanent code in place, so that City Council would not have to extend the housing emergency again in April 2021 in order to authorize the continuing use of code waivers to site needed shelters. The project delivers this requested new code, but a question remains as to whether Council should retain its existing Title 15 waiver authority and adopt code designed to make use of waiver authority unnecessary, or adopt the new code and repeal its existing waiver authority, which is only one of several authorities listed in the Title 15 Housing Emergency code. This question merits further discussion but should be sufficiently resolved to make a more complete report during the Commission’s January 26, 2021 work session.                        

It should also be noted that even if the present housing emergency expires in April, code waivers could still be issued for as long as the COVID-19 emergency persisted.
                                

Q.5. Why not allow two or more tiny houses on wheels or recreational vehicles on residential lots?

A.5. Oregon Revised Statutes 197.492 (3) defines two or more recreational vehicles occupying the same lot as a “recreational vehicle park” requiring a state license and regulation by the Oregon Health Authority. The 2019 Legislature reclassified tiny houses on wheels from buildings to vehicles, and under state law taking the wheels off a tiny house makes it subject to the state building code. Under Title 33 a tiny house on wheels and a recreational vehicle are the same thing, and recreational vehicle park is a commercial retail sales and service use not allowed in residential zones. While the City could amend some or all residential zones to allow commercial uses, this change would not relieve recreational vehicle parks from state regulation. In short, expanding the number of vehicles introduces a number of complicating regulatory considerations that cannot be resolved quickly. In the interest of adopting this code quickly, we have recommended a limitation of one.
                        

Q.6. Should the City grant an amnesty for existing tiny houses on wheels not constructed to a building code or ASCII standard?                                

A.6. There are fire and life safety consequences to allowing residential occupancy of a tiny house on wheels not benefiting from the employ of a licensed plumber or electrician or documented as meeting the ASCII standard. HUD regulations require manufactures of tiny houses on wheels meeting the ASCII standard to provide written notices to their customers that they are built for recreational purposes and not intended for long term residential occupancy, but HUD leaves decisions on whether to enforce its restrictions on residential occupancy to state and local governments. So, the City would have to weigh and balance the liability it might accrue by allowing occupancy of an uninspected or uncertified home against the hardship resulting from prohibiting occupancy. We are evaluating options, but these are not Title 33 requirements. The Commission may express an opinion in your transmittal letter.

                                

                        

                

Testimony letter 12/21/20


To:        Portland Bureau of Planning and
        
Sustainability

CC:        City Council

From:        Shelter PDX
        (see signatories at bottom)

Date:         December 21, 2020

Subj:          Recommendations on Shelter to
        Housing Continuum Discussion Draft

Dear Planning and Sustainability Commission:


The Shelter To Housing Continuum (S2HC) Project promises to increase flexibility in our codes to better our community including options to support our unhoused neighbors.

The urgency of the affordability and homelessness needs was underscored by a statement by

Mayor Wheeler in a press conference on October 26th (https://youtu.be/mvt_TaenIGA). He said we need a "moonshot" to build 5,000 low-income homes in the next three years, on top of existing plans. We are facing concurrent crises, from looming evictions to increasing homelessness. Now more than ever, we need to get this code change right.

We propose that S2HC proposals be evaluated against the sheer scale and urgency of need. Homelessness is the #1 reported public concern in Portland, and we must determine if the regulatory reforms do all that can be done. In that spirit, we offer these recommendations in response to the S2HC Proposed Draft:

1. Retain the City's Housing State of Emergency Declaration Capability, and Recommend Extending the Current State of Emergency

Portland declared a housing emergency on October 7, 2015 to help address the needs of our houseless neighbors and lack of affordable housing is set to expire on April 4, 2021. The 2019 ordinance (189387) that extended the housing emergency given the continued community need stated that “BPS in coordination with the Joint Office of Homelessness Services (JOHS) is directed to develop a legislative proposal to amend City Code to allow for temporary housing, shelters, and alternative shelter siting.” The impact statement for Ordinance 189387 states that the amendments to Title 33 are intended to “offer sustainable solutions to…(2) expeditiously allow for temporary housing and issuance of permits related to shelter and alternative shelter siting and, (3) create an expeditious process for design review of affordable housing projects.”

Many of the findings cited by City Council to justify the extension of the housing emergency have not improved–or have not improved enough–to justify letting the housing emergency expire. Some of the conditions are getting worse or widely predicted to. These include: percentage of households cost-burdened by housing costs, the number of people experiencing houselessness, and the number of people living outside. The current economic crisis and the spike in evictions expected once the moratorium is lifted means our community will, by all predictions, soon see an increase in the number of unhoused neighbors.

The original housing emergency ordinance (187371) which has been extended multiple times gives Portland the “tools and methods not currently available to provide adequate, safe and habitable shelters for persons experiencing homelessness, many of whom are our community's most vulnerable people” (187371 impact statement). City Council is empowered, through the housing emergency declaration, to “[w]aive Portland City Code regulations or administrative rules to the extent necessary to respond to the housing emergency” (15.08.025(B)(7)).

Proposed Draft places too many restrictions–and adds to much cost and time–to strategies to help our unhoused neighbors.

It is not the right time for the city to give up the ability to declare a Housing State of Emergency, or to let it expire, therefore limiting the available tools and new adaptation to meet the needs of our community.

2. Outdoor Shelter Recommendations

2.1. Siting

2.1.1. As in previous testimony, we ask that the use of an Overlay Zone be evaluated, to allow more flexibility when it comes to determining which sites can have outdoor shelters. This would allow, in future when needs are better understood, new outdoor shelter sites to be allowed for example by City Council resolution, rather than a costly and complex Conditional Use permit or requiring revision to the code. We should explore the benefits and drawbacks of each approach with regard to allowing new shelters, especially outdoor shelters.

2.1.2. Residential Zones. We are concerned about the Draft's exclusion of outdoor shelters from all residential zones except for existing Institutional Use sites in multi-dwelling zones. This essentially puts all shelter sites in Commercial or Industrial zones, which generally segregate non-compatible uses away from residential uses, due to issues such as noise, pollution, and traffic. Unhoused Portlanders are residents as well, with the same needs and susceptibilities regarding noise and pollution, and we question why they would not be allowed in residential zones like any other resident.

Also, only allowing one Tiny House on Wheels (THOW) or RV on a property prevents people from creative market-rate naturally affordable housing solutions on residential properties. Therefore, we propose that:

a) multi-dwelling zoned lots should allow multiple THOW/RVs, at least equal to the number of units allowed via other buildings types;

b) single-dwelling zoned lots should allow THOW/RVs, at least equal to the number of units allowed via other building types.

If a property wishes to have more than they are entitled to have by right, we propose a Type II adjustment process by which they can apply for that upwards adjustment.

2.13 Multi-use Zones

We propose amending Proposal to allow THOW/RVs on multi-use sites in the same way as described above for Residential zones. I.e. allow THOW/RVs in the same quantities as residential units are allowed by other building types.  As one way to facilitate this, we propose reduction in parking-space requirements (if any) on that site, such that THOW/RVs might occupy spaces formerly required for parking, logically since they are types of vehicles.

2.1.4 Open Space zones.

We ask that the blanket exclusion of Outdoor Shelters from city Open Space areas be reexamined. It seems that public, open spaces may offer some of the most appropriate sites for outdoor shelters.

Currently, Community Centers are coded Open Spaces, OS, and Mass Shelter prohibited. Portland is using these resources as Mass Shelters (e.g. Charles Jordan, Mt Scott). Please remove the restrictions on the OS  zone to allow for shelters.

Community Centers are positioned throughout our city to support our communities and neighborhoods. Everything they stand for is positive. We should repurpose these huge, valuable assets, that all have bathrooms and showers, at night as shelters. This may help address legal concerns under Anderson and Martin rulings, by adding additional, flexible  means to support safe sleep for 100% of our citizens.

As a pilot/model, TriMet leadership and Keith Smith recently partnered on a demonstration (https://www.facebook.com/100045753248172/videos/194167805451660) on how this concept would work.  They repurposed the Gateway Park & Ride as a Pop-Up Shelter. To learn more, please watch this short video.

2.1.5.  FAR 

To provide the most flexibility, accommodations in Outdoor Shelters should not count against the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) or building coverage.

2.1.6 Siting time

We request that Outdoor Shelters be allowed for a period of 1 year, rather than 6 months.  We see that the Draft proposes a process whereby an Outdoor Shelter could be allowed for a time, then apply for a Conditional Use (CU) permit to continue for longer. However, considering the practicalities of this, a CU takes typically 120 days or more just to process, and so it would seem unfeasible for an Outdoor Shelter site sponsor to, within the currently proposed 180 days siting, be able to produce, pay permit fees (about $20k) for, and pursue a CU application, let alone any appeal.

2.2 Process

2.2.1  Map representation of code proposals.

We ask that the City produce and publish maps, detailed to the parcel level (i.e. not just static image of a large overall view), giving its best estimate of where outdoor shelters will be allowed given the code it is proposing. This would help the community understand how potential sites are distributed throughout the City. HUCIRP created a list of potential outdoor shelter sites. Ideally, we would evaluate how many of the potential sites could actually be used given the proposed zoning changes, and begin a process of evaluating sites for actual projects.  

2.3 Number and types of units.

2.3.1 Number of accommodations.

Increase the number of accommodations allowed by-right for Outdoor Shelters to accommodate 60 accommodations. As we heard from the Low Income Housing Institute, one of the leading providers of outdoor shelters in the nation, that the ideal houseless village has 50-60 residents in order to have enough people to share responsibilities (e.g. security, cleaning, etc.). Another approach would be to have the accommodation limit set by the Fire Marshall based on Life Safety.

2.3.2. Types of units.

The remit stated in City Council ordinance No. 189387, of February 19, 2019, directing BPS and JOHS to undertake this project says:

g. BPS in coordination with the Joint Office of Homelessness Services (JOHS) is directed to develop a legislative proposal to amend City Code to allow for temporary housing, shelters, and alternative shelter siting;

It appears that BPS has chosen to interpret this by following a State guidance on "transitional housing accommodations:

Outdoor shelter is a new type of Community Service use being proposed for addition to the code. What the proposed code calls “outdoor shelter” the state law calls “transitional housing accommodations” but the intent is to conform the City Code to state law with the two terms having the same meaning. The state law says, “Transitional housing accommodations are intended to be used by individuals or families on a limited basis for seasonal, emergency or transitional housing purposes and may include yurts, huts, cabins, fabric structures, tents and similar accommodations.

However, we propose that this is limiting the possible options without presenting any rationale, and beyond what the City Council directed.

"Temporary housing" can and often does include many dwelling types which are building-code compliant, legal housing. For example, homeless or transitional-housing villages in many places including Seattle and San Jose use small homes or duplex cottages or multi-unit modular housing, as does temporary worker housing worldwide. California's Emergency Shelter laws allow for wide variety of structure types including those built to International Residential Code and others.

We propose that it might often be a sensible approach -- and preferable from the standpoint of Outdoor Shelter residents, to have, you know, housing! -- to use forms such as modular housing or tiny houses that aren't trailer mounted.

We also propose, looking forward, that a high-potential way to achieve transition to permanent housing, and a working 'continuum' or shelter to housing, would be to facilitate movable dwelling units being siteable first in Outdoor Shelter or emergency contexts, but relocatable to be siteable as low-cost Accessory Dwelling Units or detached bedrooms on residential property.  (See a proposal on how to do this from Village Coalition, McCormick, et al, "New Starter Homes," 2018-2029. https://tjm.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/New-Starter-Homes_2019-12-10.pdf).

3. Group Living Recommendations

3.1 Allow Congregate Housing structures by right in all single-dwelling zones.

3.2. Allow short-term shelters with up to 40 beds, not 20.

3.3 Allow easier review procedures for new mass shelters: Change Type II review requirements to Type 1x and change Type III to Type IIx.

3.4 Increase the number of shelter beds allowed in each zone

Zones CR and CM1: 50 bed, not 25

Zones RX, RM3, and RM4: 100 bed, not 50

Zones RM1, RM2, CI1, and IR: 40 beds, not 20

3.5 Allow kitchen facilities, or at least kitchenette facilities such as minifridge, bar sink, and convection hot plates, in sleeping rooms.

2.6 Remove the requirement to have kitchen facilities on each floor of a congregate living facility.

3. Other Recommendations

3.1 Vehicle dwelling on private residential property.

Since 2017, due to the Housing State of Emergency, the Bureau of Development Services has suspended enforcement of the city ordinance prohibiting dwelling in vehicles on private residential property–e.g. in vans, trailers, RVs, or tiny houses on wheels (THOWs). This has effectively allowed one vehicle-dwelling per site with single-dwelling and multi-dwelling residential zoning.

In part due to this decriminalization, such vehicle-dwelling is relatively widespread in Portland, seemingly with little public objection or reported problems. Nationally-known alternative-housing leader Kol Peterson, and Planning & Sustainability Commission Chair Eli Spevak both expressed strong support for permanently legalizing this practice, at the June 25 Portland Forum on Alternative Shelter and Villages. Additionally, Peterson has documented at his web site how the practice is widespread in the Cully neighborhood, as an example.

We believe that due to wide community acceptance and expert endorsement, this decriminalization should be enacted by the City as part of S2HC. Also, we believe this and other allowance for movable housing falls within the remit stated in City Council ordinance No. 189387, of February 19, 2019, directing BPS and JOHS to undertake this project:

g. BPS in coordination with the Joint Office of Homelessness Services (JOHS) is directed to develop a legislative proposal to amend City Code to allow for temporary housing, shelters, and alternative shelter siting;

See 2.13 and 2.14 above for specific recommendations in this area.

3.2 General vehicle-dwelling permitting.

An important dimension of homeless shelter / low-cost living is on-street vehicle dwelling, which large numbers of people de facto do in Portland today. This also seems to be a major focal point of public concerns about homelessness.

We propose that, beyond just considering case-by-case "Safe Parking" sites, the City and community develop a general vehicle-dwelling permitting program. This would build upon the  existing system of parking zones, permitting, and enforcement, to manage allowed vehicle dwelling in specific zones or sites potentially anywhere in the city, in a flexible and at-scale-of-need way, also addressing concerns such a vehicle safety and ensuring services such as waste disposal.  See further discussion of concept and precedents at: https://housing.wiki/wiki/Parking_Dwelling_Permit.

A successful near-local model is Eugene’s Overnight Parking Program, to provide legal places in the community for unhoused people to sleep in their vehicles.

3.3 Innovative Housing Demonstration Policy


We propose the establishment of a program modeled on the City of Redmond’s Innovative Housing Demonstration Policy (IHDP), which would allow development of a limited number of projects to evaluate opportunities to increase the availability of innovative housing in Portland neighborhoods. This small set of pilots provide a pathway to test innovative housing models, study code barriers, and demonstrate viability. The Innovative Housing Demonstration Pilot Policy precedent can be found at
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Redmond/CDG/RCDG20C/RCDG20C3062.html

Ideally using this policy framework as a base for permitting, process, evaluation, and review, this could fill the gap in code now to continue innovation on multifamily and larger single-family zoned sites. Examples could include those models we want to encourage but are challenging to do now (e.g. Tiny Houses and Tiny Houses on Wheels on larger existing developed sites as infill, etc). Until permanent ordinances regarding tiny houses and THOW housing projects can be implemented, this could allow a limited number of regulated projects with low risk.

We propose that development of pilot Parking Dwelling Permit program be authorized, and resources for it requested, as such an IHDP Ordinance.

3.4 Status of Houseless or Shelter Residents

We propose to remove or revise the provisions in Proposed Draft which define 'shelter' as a state of being a 'client' or 'guest'. First, definitions of these terms are not provided or referenced, so the terms shouldn't be put into city code unless they are.

Second, this definition seems to make paternalistic and limiting assumptions without a clear rationale, and may support denying shelter residents rights such as those enjoyed by residents of residential zones. Can we not imagine shelter residents being, say, members of a co-operative, or self-managing?

Margaret Zebroski, of Hazelnut Grove Tiny Homes Village Board notes that villages can and do exist as self-managed entities. Hazelnut Grove has existed for 5 years, and crime rates went down in the area. Residents have worked with fire department to create safe living areas with zero fire emergencies.

We look forward to this code project, and projects based on it, making a positive impact on our community, and thank the City/staff for all work on it so far.

Signatories


To Do / Questions / draft points for Dec 8/15th testimony

note 'PD' = Proposed Draft of S2HC.

hi

1)  (tm): this is perhaps the most crucial point of Proposal, in regard to Outdoor Shelters: where they'd be allowed (by right, aka permitted as an "allowed use") and with what number of 'accommodations'. Let's make sure we understand what the Proposal says and what we might counter-propose:

33.285.040.C.2

In the multi-dwelling (RM1-RMP) and the IR zones, an outdoor shelter may be allowed by right [when provided on the site of an existing institutional use and the standards of 33.285.050 are met - how many are there of these even? -tm] with up to 20 individual shelters. Individual shelters are described under the definition of outdoor shelter in 33.910. More than 20 triggers a conditional use (CU) review, and the applicable approval criteria are the same as those that currently apply to mass or short-term shelters in residential zones.


In
single dwelling (RF-R2.5) and CI1 zone, all outdoor shelters are subject to a CU review, and in no case may an outdoor shelter contain more than 20 individual shelters in these zones.

33.285.040.C.3

In the C, EX, and CI2 zones, an outdoor shelter may be allowed by right with up to 40 individual shelters.


        33.100.100 - Outdoor Space zones

"short term, housing and mass, and outdoor shelters are prohibited."
However, "Note, all types of shelter may be placed in OS zones as a temporary activity, either during a state of emergency, or for distinct periods of time such as the winter months. See page 78 for information on the code provision under Chapter 33.296, Temporary Activities."
   in Notes: "Shelters will continue to be prohibited in the OS zones as the purpose of the OS zone has never been to provide permanent facilities for shelter or housing."

[comments on above provisions]

(tm) - "the purpose of X has never been Y" is quite a weak argument, it's like conservativism for conservatism's sake. For one thing, generally we don't know the full intents of anything passed into law -- it's generally multiple interests combining and compromising, we don't get sworn testimony from everyone about what their true intents were, all we know is what the resulting law said, and anything legislated takes on a life and functions of its own. In any case, the law is there for us to shape to address our needs, within bounds set eg by state and Constitutional law. Public land has historically been used for all kinds of purposes, including emergency housing, permanent housing, commercial activity; public land means it's for the public to decide what to do with it.

33.285.010

Throughout the zoning code, the term “short term housing” is being changed to “short term shelter”. Long-term housing is a type of residential use and short-term shelter is a Community Service use. Shelters offer a provider-to-client relationship or a host-to-guest relationship rather than a landlord-to-tenant relationship.

(tm): this basic move seems to me all kinds of problematic, and the motivations for it seem unclear or undisclosed. Why is shelter redefined as not a "residential use" -- are people in shelters not residents? Perhaps this is a means to support excluding them from all residential zones, where legitimate city residents live and where conflicting uses such as industry are excluded?  There's a name for that: exclusionary zoning.

Also, why must shelter residents be strictly 'clients' or 'guests'? (which are, as far as I know, undefinedin city code).  Can we not imagine shelter residents being, say, members of a co-operative, or self-managing? It seems to make paternalistic and limiting assumptions without a clear rationale, and support denying shelter residents rights such as those enjoyed by residents of residential zones, or tenants.

Also, defining 'housing' as a landlord-to-tenant relationship is obviously flawed or incomplete, as a housing resident may also be an individual property owner, a condominium owner, or or part owner of a cooperative. They could be part owner of a co-op that is itself a tenant of a Community Land Trust that owns the land, as in SquareOne Villages' CLT-Limited Equity Co-op model. Etc.


33.285.010

What the zoning code calls “outdoor shelter” the state law calls “transitional housing accommodations” but the intent is to conform the City Code to state law with the two terms having similar meaning. The state law says, “Transitional housing accommodations are intended to be used by individuals or families on a limited basis for seasonal, emergency or transitional housing purposes and may include yurts, huts, cabins, fabric structures, tents and similar accommodations. 

33.910 Definitions

Outdoor Shelter. Individual tents, yurts, huts, cabins or other similar individual shelters that do not contain sanitary or cooking facilities, and recreational vehicles with or without cooking and sanitary facilities, grouped together in an outdoor setting. The shelter is managed by a public agency or a non- profit agency, with or without a fee, and with no minimum length of stay. An outdoor shelter may or may not include buildings that have food preparation or shower facilities

(tm): BPS chose to define "outdoor shelter" as equivalent to Oregon law's "transitional housing accommodations," but why?
a) it isn't clear that this comports with the remit given to BPS by City Council to write code supporting "temporary housing" options;
b) there is no particular rationale given;
c) it would prohibit practices routinely used for temporary housing, such as modular housing units.  
d) it would in most case prevent units in Outdoor Shelters from including plumbing, shower, bathroom, kitchen, toilet -- why would we want to do that? Aren't residents in Outdoor Shelters residents, who'd often probably like to have these things, if possible, such that we shouldn't prohibit it?

(tm): Proposal defines Tiny Houses on Wheels (THOWs) as Recreational Vehicles, citing Oregon state law practice. Does this present any problem for long term use? RVs are typically defined in law as not allowing long-term continuous residential use.

[A: yes, this is problematic, significantly constrains possibilities, and seems to misinterpret Oregon law. See Kol Peterson's testimony in MapApp].

- (tm) resubmit 1st joint testimony letter, with updated list of co-signers:

(see:  s2hc-letter.pdxshelterforum.org).  

- confirm: Proposed Draft allows Outdoor Shelters as permitted use on sites for 180 days per calendar year. Therefore, an OS could be permitted use for 1 year straight, from June 1 to May 31. [A:  Seems to be, Yes].

- can Outdoor Shelters be permitted as a Conditional Use on Residential parcels? Or would a Conditional Use allow only for the extension of an OS on one the sites where is an allowed use without C.U.? -tm.  [A:  Yes, by CU in R zones].

- what are the parameters of RVs / THOWs that Proposed Draft would permit in Outdoor Shelters and/or on any Residential lot?  e.g. outer dimension limits, height limit, limit on livable square footage? -tm.  [see Kol Peterson's testimony for tips].

- if an RV or THOW were used for residence on residential lot, what requirements or fees would apply?  ADU SDC charge?  requirements for (how to) supply electricity, water, sewage?

   [A: for one thing, an RV-type hookup for power, water, sewage.  But see notes from Kol Peterson, these needn't and arguably shouldn't be required, it isn't necessary].

Seems it would take a change in state law to allow a residential unit to not connect to water/sewer where that is available -- or, so BPS interprets the law to mean.

Q: how might we pilot and advocate for off-grid possibilities?  Not connecting to grid utilities, particularly water/sewage, allows a lot of money savings and greater flexibility.

-tm.

- Right of Way:  S2HC Proposed Draft, Vol.3, 17.44 Street Obstructions addresses Right of Way (apparently, just city R.O.W.), and rules out shelters being on any such land.  It allows the Director of BoT to issue temporary permits at their discretion for "Portable sanitation, health, hygiene, day storage, and kitchen facilities."

This seems to me an important issue, given that currently a large portion of all informal camps are on r.o.w., and some projects such as Maddy's Cart have long been planning to use r.o.w.  How can we evaluate and suggest a position about this?  -tm.

- (tm): A related question:  if the Proposed Draft rules out Open Space, and right of way land, *what* city-owned land would remain on which an Outdoor Shelter could be permitted as allowed use?  This seems to me a possible introductory overarching frame/point:  in a public crisis, housing crisis, how is the City bringing to bear upon it the key asset it has in owning large areas of city land?

- (tm): issue with "Shelter Shortage" replacing "Housing State of Emergency"

Vol.3, 15.04 - proposes that "Housing Emergency" in city code, allowing waiving of restrictions, be removed, and a "Shelter Shortage" provision be created to replace it. This allows specifically (and only?) "the temporary activity time limits imposed by Portland City Code Subsection 33.296.030 H. shall not apply to outdoor and mass shelters."  
But.. what about other easements currently occurring under State of Housing Emergency?:  e.g. de facto non-enforcement of prohibition on public camping on right-of-ways?

It looks like this maneuver would mean that certain current State of Emergency de facto policies i.e. easements of restrictions, would or could be ended upon enactment of S2HC (as proposed in Proposed Draft), even if the Mayor/Council wished to continue a State of Emergency declaration.

Buuut, is anyone anticipating that housing and homelessness problems are likely to get less urgent and dire in the coming year?

- (tm) vehicle dwelling in Outdoor Shelters:
in the applicable section, PD Vol. 3, 29.50.050 Illegal Residential Occupancy, it seems there is not a necessary exemption from 29.50.050 for the case of a dwelling in a vehicle in an Outdoor Shelter.

- (tm) Overlay Zone approach: in our last joint advocacy letter, we asked them to consider this approach, rather than specifying what allowed referencing current zones, because it would allow the areas of application to be changed more easily, e.g. by a Council vote.  BPS did not reply to this. Pursue some way?

- (tm): testifiers tip:  update your Zoom profile with an image, and consider how your name / affiliation text field will appear, before this or any Hearing.  This is particularly important for the cases (which you may not know in advance) where you will get an audio but not live video stream. In that case, all other attendees will see just see a small text label for you, vs glorious carefully-chosen headshots and organization logos from those audio participants who are hip to the game.



General Notes/questions

Current city planning code (Title 33): https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/31612.

Submitting official testimony:  via Web: https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/mapapp/proposals/#/s2hc.
This method has the advantage that soon after submitting you can confirm it was received, others can see your testimony so it could inform their views, and you can link to it. [-tm].

On siting and restrictions on shelters, the details presented in Discussion Draft appear when compared to current code to follow existing rules quite closely. We should try to identify and pull out the ways Discussion Draft differs, and ask if the changes seem to meet city and residents' goals and needs. [-tm]

On "Outdoor Shelters" (OS)

A) Structures

what sorts of structures or units, or specifications for them, would be allowed a) minimally, b) maximally?

    Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum asked:

Could outdoor shelters include vehicle dwellings (e.g. RVs, cars/vans, Tiny Houses on Wheels), or redeployable housing such as modular units or movable tiny houses?  could units be redeployable, permanent structures -- e.g. modular units, building-code compliant tiny houses? 

    Mercedes Elizalde (she/her) Central City Concern asked:

Is there a square footage limit per "pod"? Do the "pods" have access to running water or electricity?

Shelter

Kelly Doran MD MHS  @KellyMDoran Oct 16

Yet another study showing dangers of congregate shelters during the #COVID19 pandemic. Findings mirror those from past studies. 1,717 people tested across 21 Chicago shelters in Mar & April -- 30% of shelter residents & 15% of staff tested were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

https://twitter.com/KellyMDoran/status/1317274183919931392?s=20

Could Outdoor Shelter sites use all or some vehicles types (cars, vans, trailers, RVs, dwelling structures built on trailers) as accommodations? Could they use building-code compliant structures such as modular housing units or tiny houses designed for on-foundation use?  

Eric Engstrom, BPS replied:

They could potentially be Tiny House on Wheels, or similar, yes.

?

Can they be vehicles? Does "Outdoor Shelter" cover the scenario of a "Safe parking site"? 

claudia schroeder, she /her/hers, asked:

How does the " safe parking" program fit into these plans/ outdoor shelters?

?

[seems unclear, BPS staff at 10/13 session said it's still being discussed].

B) Siting

Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum asked:

Can you summarize where would new outdoor shelters be allowed -- what are the "certain zones" allowed, and any other location restrictions?

Eric Engstrom, BPS replied:

"Up to 20 outdoor shelter accommodations would be allowed on the site of an institutional use in multi dwelling zones. Up to 20 allowed outright on commercial sites. Above that is a Conditional Use. Limited allowance on small sites less than 2 acres in industrial zones. Conditional Use in employment zones."

Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum asked:

one for the road or the after-party:  

Outdoor Shelter siting, allowed by right (no conditional use approval required)-  is this correct, that the suggestion here is to

a) not allow in "single-dwelling" zones, and

b) in "multi-dwelling" zones, allow only on existing institutional use sites (mostly churches); c) allow on Commercial sites, and certain Industrial sites; and

d) In all cases, 5,000 square foot size minimum, and facilities requirements, apply.

?

Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum asked:

to clarify under impending state OR 2001 reforms, are there still multi-dwelling zones technically? [I meant to say, single dwelling zones.  HB2001 from 2000 requires duplexes to be allowed on all lots zoned for single family housing, and all areas allowing those to allow all missing middle types -- defined as duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhouse, + cottage clusters. -tm].

?E

how soon after being used for an Outdoor Shelter could a site be used for one again? 

?

Do these proposed rules allow OS on public land, if so in what circumstances? 

   Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum asked:

how about on public land, e.g. outdoor space, PBOT, ODOT? Also, to clarify under impending state OR 2001 reforms, are there still multi-dwelling zones technically?

?

How would an Outdoor Shelter or village be able to plan its path, if sited with a 6-month by-right approval but not knowing if or when a required Conditional Use permit would be granted to remain there?  Without a clear timetable, the OS/Village would have to be preparing a subsequent temporary site, plus also how to continue at same site, plus possibly having to terminate.  
        How about setting up a firm timetable
for decision on CU permit?  see as analogy the mandatory permitting timeframes established in recent California ADU laws.

?

Would the six month by-right permitting period begin when the Housing State of Emergency ends?  e.g., for current villages like Agape Village. 

?

Could dwellings be relocated from an Outdoor Shelter to be sited as permitted detached bedrooms or accessory dwellings, if the siting met requirements for the latter? 

?

Taffy Everts asked:

What is the timeline for St. John's Village, and how many people will it accommodate?

?

Matchu Williams asked:

Could streets be used to site outdoor villages? For example, redundant streets such as slip lanes that are not essential to the transportation system yet already in city ownership.

What private-public partnerships exist with parking garages or parking lots?

?

C) Other: 

Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum asked:

the discussed 20 accommodation limit, does that mean 20 structures, or 20 people, or?

Eric and Al clarify, the discussion draft suggests 20 sleeping units, not including other structures eg kitchen/common;  a sleeping unit could have more than one occupant.

Required liability coverage? 

?

Could an OS offer residents a tenant relationship, and therefore under Discussion Draft's proposed definition, be 'housing'? 

?

What forms of OS would allow a resident to be counted as 'sheltered' by the City, County, or HUD policy? Could any form allow a resident be counted as not homeless?

?

Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board asked:

The Kenton Village as well as similar models are a great option, if they are transitions to permanent housing. It is my understanding that many in these units have been there for a very long or extended stay. Is there a way to make this work for transition to permanent housing. Also people who are unhoused form community and do not like to be broken up. Do you have a plan to not break up these groups which have formed over some time of being unhoused?

?

On vehicle dwelling

Why has the current State of Emergency allowance for vehicle dwelling on private property (1 per single-dwelling lot) been excluded from this proposal? 

Parking spaces are about the size of a tent. Jeff L: “We make so much space available for automobiles, but deny anyone using these spaces for people.”

There are two aspects to people living out of vehicles:

LaVeta Gilmore Jones asked:

LaVeta from Leaven Community: Is the ordinance for living in a mobile home/tiny home on private property going to be addressed in this set of code changes?

?

[tm] Official/community support for this practice:

Other

Richard Rubin asked:

Are any of the participants with groups or organizations that I can actively participate with in developing these ideas?

A: (tm):  PDX Shelter Forum pdxshelterforum.org runs online/email forum and helps organize public forum events.  Some neighborhood associations are discussing this, or might.

Notes on the Introduction (Vol. 1)

Notes and Proposals for Zoning Code (Vol. 2)

Notes

(p. 29, 33.140.100 9. This appears to introduce a new prohibition on short term and mass shelters that are currently allowed in Employment and Industrial zones, so that only outdoor shelters would be allowed in those zones???) LP

Proposed Changes

(p. 59-61 33.285.040 C. 2.a(1) and 3.a(1) Allow outdoor shelters with up to 60 accommodations, not 20.) LP

p. 47, 33.285.040 A.1.a(1) Allow short-term shelters with up to 40 beds, not 20.

p. 63 Table 285-1 Double the numbers of shelter beds allowed in the zones in the last three lines of the  table:

Zones CR and CM1: Make the maximum # of beds 50, not 25

Zones RX, RM3, and RM4: Make the maximum # of beds 100, not 50

Zones RM1, RM2, CI1, and IR: Make the maximum # of beds 40, not 20) LP

p. 13, section 33.110.200 B, Table 110-2: Allow Congregate Housing structures by right in all single-dwelling zones.

p. 31, Table 140-1, Allow group living as a conditional use in IG1, IG2, and IH zones. (Group living should always be allowed under the same conditions as household living.)

pp. 51-57, 33.285.040 B. Conditional Use sections: Allow easier review procedures for new mass shelters: change Type II review requirements to Type Ix, and change Type III to Type IIx.

p. 59-61 33.285.040 C 2, 3, and 4 Conditional Use sections: Allow easier review procedures for new outdoor shelters: change Type II review requirements to Type Ix, and change Type III to Type IIx.) LP

Notes and Proposals for Other City Code (Vol. 3)

Notes

(p. 37 of pdf : 24.15.055 and 24.15.075. I'm not sure the distinction being drawn between "congregant living facilities" and "dwelling units" makes sense. Any ordinary house or apartment with two or more bedrooms and a kitchen would count as a "congregant living facility" under the proposed definition, since it would have "sleeping rooms" and yet residents would share "a single kitchen."

        Also, since every congregate living facility with seven or more sleeping rooms is required to have a full kitchen on each floor, any such facility will presumably provide the "complete and permanent provisions for eating and cooking" that are needed to meet the definition of a "dwelling unit."

        By the way, the proposed code seems to use the terms "congregant living facility" and "congregate living facility" interchangeably. You should pick one  term or the other.

p. 43 of pdf: 29.30.290 C. Delete this. I don't see any good reason to prohibit kitchen facilities in a sleeping room.

29.30.290 F. Similarly, I don't see a compelling reason to require a full kitchen on each floor of a congregate living facility. Why not allow the option of a separate mini-kitchen in each sleeping room?) LP

Proposed Changes

October 13 Info Session

Presentation doc

http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/S2HC_Presentation_20201013.pdf

Meeting video

https://www.portland.gov/bps/s2hc/events/2020/10/13/s2hc-informational-session.

15:24:02 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

Thanks Stacy

15:25:22 Keith Wilson:

Denis, how many beds available in 2015 and how many beds are available now? Thanks,

15:26:39 Peter Finley Fry:

Map looks really different and much better.  Now for westside.  Also congratulations on making shelters more livable.

15:27:32 Denis Theriault / JOHS (he/him):

It was about 650 beds in 2015, now about 1,400 now.

15:29:23 Mary-Rain O'Meara (Central City Concern) :

When do the code proposals go forward for council approval?

15:30:38 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

We maybe should briefly describe what a Conditional Use is, and how that is different than “allowed”.

15:30:40 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

not knowing how long Covid will continue will this change the length of shelters being open?

15:30:43 Keith Wilson:

Thank you, Denis.

15:31:07 Melinda Fleming:

How will the public be informed about the public hearings?

15:31:16 Mary-Rain O'Meara (Central City Concern) :

Thank you for that response.

15:32:16 Helen's iPhone:

what safeguards would be in place for neighborhoods like Old Town where there is a high concentration of shelters and social services so that additional shelters are not automatically added

15:33:49 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

thanks

15:33:56 Richard Rubin:

Cohousing as building apartment suites of 4 BR, 2 Bath for occupation by any group of unrelated people is an important economic and social model.  what about that?

15:34:28 Marita Ingalsbe:

Thank you for this informative presentation.  Does this project encompass the opening of winter shelters, or just year-round shelters?

15:37:37 Richard Rubin:

ok

15:39:20 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

d

15:40:13 Taffy Everts:

Richard, check out Argyle Gardens (https://www.argylegardensapts.com/) up the street from the Kenton Women's Village.

15:42:54 anthony:

I don't know if these are relevant questions If not i'm ok with that .In these shelters how are the meals prepare? does everyone eat together in a large area, or do they prepare their own food? and if the do where? is there's a kitchen?

15:43:59 Stacy Borke (she/her):

Hi Anthony, it totally depends on the shelter - some provide kitchens, some provide prepared meals, some have volunteers prepare and serve. Most shelters have common areas for eating and gathering.

15:44:27 Mercedes Elizalde (she/her) Central City Concern:

Is there a square footage limit per "pod"? Do the "pods" have access to running water or electricity?

15:45:00 Denis Theriault / JOHS (he/him):

To Anthony's question, SJV and Kenton both have (or will have) kitchens.

15:45:06 anthony:

thank you

15:45:53 claudia schroeder, she /her/hers:

How does the " safe parking" program fit into these plans/ outdoor shelters?

15:46:01 Taffy Everts:

What is the timeline for St. John's Village, and how many people will it accommodate?

15:46:01 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

The Kenton Village as well as similar models are a great option, if they are transitions to permanent housing. It is my understanding that many in these units have been there for a very long or extended stay. Is there a way to make this work for transition to permanent housing. Also people who are unhoused form community and do not like to be broken up. Do you have a plan to not break up these groups which have formed over some time of being unhoused?

15:47:25 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

BDS can correct me if wrong, but I think structures below 200 square feet do not require building permits.

15:47:41 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Could outdoor shelters include vehicle dwellings (e.g. RVs, cars/vans, Tiny Houses on Wheels), or redeployable housing such as modular units or movable tiny houses?

15:48:06 april rohman:

The sleeping pods themselves are not required to have those things, though Kenton Women's Village pods have electricity and the St Johns Village pods will as well. Electrical wiring requires permitting, the pods themselves do not.

15:48:06 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

They could potentially be Tiny House on Wheels, or similar, yes.

15:48:37 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Can you summarize where would new outdoor shelters be allowed -- what are the "certain zones" allowed, and any other location restrictions?

15:49:08 Kristrun Grondal:

So sorry to join this late. I was stuck at another meeting.  Where can I pick up the recording of this meeting?

15:49:19 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thanks Eric.

15:49:24 anthony:

In these shelters what are the percentage of BIMPOC are in these shelters?

15:50:27 claudia schroeder, she /her/hers:

Yes, thanks for including Safe Parking in the plans!

15:52:03 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

Up to 20 outdoor shelter accommodations would be allowed on the site of an institutional use in multi dwelling zones. Up to 20 allowed outright on commercial sites. Above that is a Conditional Use. Limited allowance on small sites less than 2 acres in industrial zones. Conditional Use in employment zones.

15:53:13 Taffy Everts:

Thanks for the info!

15:53:14 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

that's fine

15:53:27 Denis Theriault / JOHS (he/him):

Gladly, Taffy!

15:54:01 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

the discussed 20 accommodation limit, does that mean 20 structures, or 20 people, or?

15:57:28 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

what are “[existing] institutional uses” where Outdoor Shelters are suggested to be allowed in multi dwelling zones — is that like a church or community org site?  sorry not clear on how term used in PDXX code, off top of my head.

15:58:11 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

yes thanks Eric and Al for clarify it’s 20 sleeping units suggested.

15:58:18 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

Institutional uses are mostly faith-based organizations

15:58:48 Stacy Borke (she/her):

SRO - Single Room Occupancy

15:59:26 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

SRO's worked well, is there a plan to bring them back

15:59:37 Denis Theriault / JOHS (he/him):

Anthony, here's a link to the Joint Office's 2018-19 outcomes report (the 2019-20 report isn't up yet). It gives you a sense of how many people came through shelter in the fiscal year and includes info on demographics: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/566631e8c21b864679fff4de/t/5e30ad5d879d1a2b33887ffa/1580248417990/2019+Joint+Session.pdf

16:00:15 Mercedes Elizalde (she/her) Central City Concern:

this chart says so much

16:00:30 Stacy Borke (she/her):

@Mercedes - YES!

16:01:10 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

A key set of terms for this section: “household living” and “group living”. With the new code, group living would be living in a dwelling with more then 6 bedrooms, or living in buildings that are not “dwellings”. Dwellings must have a bathroom, kitchen, and bedrooms. So buildings where people live with shared kitchens or don’t have them, that would be group living.

16:01:58 Stacy Borke (she/her):

Here's the presentation link that we're looking at now: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/S2HC_Presentation_20201013.pdf

16:02:14 Helen's iPhone:

will the recording of this presentation be accessible?  I have to jump off for another meeting.

16:02:25 Stacy Borke (she/her):

VASH - Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing

16:02:48 Stacy Borke (she/her):

@Helen - yes, recording will be available

16:02:54 Zach Kearl, Mayor's Office:

A recording will be posted on the S2HC project page

16:03:01 Helen's iPhone:

thanks!

16:03:28 claudia schroeder, she /her/hers:

SRO can mean a few different things: some include a kitchen row and toilet?

16:03:39 Richard Rubin:

What is an SRO vs. studio?

16:04:05 Stacy Borke (she/her):

Traditionally, an SRO is a private sleeping unit with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities

16:04:06 Eric Engstrom, BPS:

SRO would not have a kitchen in each unit, and may share baths too.

16:04:14 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

suggestion, posting this chat transcript along with recording would be helpful, as many questions, answers, clarifications posted here.

16:04:48 claudia schroeder, she /her/hers:

My concern is for people with significant criminal back ground - who are traditionally declined from regular application processes - like all of these.

16:05:28 Stacy Borke (she/her):

From Richard Rubin to Everyone:  03:33 PM

Cohousing as building apartment suites of 4 BR, 2 Bath for occupation by any group of unrelated people is an important economic and social model.  what about that?

16:05:29 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

for Outdoor Shelters, is there a minimum site size, either in area or in number of accommodations?

16:06:15 Richard Rubin:

Colleges have offered  shared suites as housing for a long time.. why not that model extended

16:07:19 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

As one of the Co-Chairs of the Multnomah County Behavioral Health Advisory Council, I have serious concerns regarding many who are dealing with Mental Health Issues, mainly getting them housed and services to keep them housed. They are traditionally one of the harder groups to house as they need oversight. Any plans for this group?

16:09:52 Mercedes Elizalde (she/her) Central City Concern:

Have you thought about how some of the language changes around group living can change how state agencies qualify SROs for different regulations or funding. There is a history of mismatch that has caused complications, we have finally gotten some consistency for SROs but wonder how some of these language changes might toss us back into gray area? Happy to follow up with someone directly given this is a little "weedy"

16:10:43 LaVeta Gilmore Jones:

LaVeta from Leaven Community: Is the ordinance for living in a mobile home/tiny home on private property going to be addressed in this set of code changes?

16:13:31 Richard Rubin:

Are any of the participants with groups or organizations that I can actively participate with in developing these ideas?

16:13:39 claudia schroeder, she /her/hers:

I think generally as many different housing options as possible is great. I am worried that people ideally should have a choice - so, lowest income folks should not only qualify for SRO/ group living - or have it used as transitional places?

16:14:02 Jaidra YWCA (she/her):

Is there any work being done concurrently at the state or local level for updates to landlord tenant law to make it more applicable for group living situations?

16:15:37 april rohman:

Yes, Stacy, exactly right. We are attempting to open up possibilities for the physical spaces of our sheltering and housing options with these code changes, to preserve and build on the good work we've done during this state of emergency. There is more work to do in designing the programs themselves through AHFE workgroups and the Supportive Housing Services Local Implementation Plan.

16:16:10 Phil Nameny - BPS:

Message from Phil @ BPS. MInimum site size for an outdoor shelter is 5,000 square feet. There is also a maximum size of 2 acres in I zones, but those have to go through a conditional use review regardless.

16:16:29 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Richard:  PDX Shelter Forum pdxshelterforum.org, an email/web forum and initiative, is actively discussing these issue and developing suggestions. There is also the older Portland Homeless facebook group.

16:17:18 Mercedes Elizalde (she/her) Central City Concern:

I am actually pointing to state code alignment, not just within the city code

16:17:32 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

yes thanks Phil.

16:18:43 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

I believe that HUD uses the term SRO

16:18:56 Mercedes Elizalde (she/her) Central City Concern:

thank you jessi!

16:19:46 jessi conner; phb:

Mercedes, I can be reached at Jessica.Conner@portlandoregon.gov

16:23:50 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

Link to project page for more information: https://www.portland.gov/bps/s2hc#:~:text=News-,New%20zoning%20code%20proposals%20aim%20to%20provide%20more,shelter%20for%20people%20experiencing%20houselessness&text=BPS%20and%20partners%20retool%20City,to%20meet%20the%20homeless%20crisis.

16:24:34 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

Please see this page to learn more about the project. There is a list of upcoming events, in addition to a link to provide comments and testimony

16:24:46 Stacy Borke (she/her):

Here's the presentation link that we're looking at now: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/S2HC_Presentation_20201013.pdf

16:25:00 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

one for the road or the after-party:  
Outdoor Shelter
siting, allowed by right (no conditional use approval required)-  is this correct, that the suggestion here is to
a) not allow in "single-dwelling" zones, and
b) in "multi-dwelling" zones, allow only on existing institutional use sites (mostly churches); c) allow on Commercial sites, and certain Industrial sites; and
d) In all cases, 5,000 square foot size minimum, and facilities requirements, apply.

 Qs: how about on public land, e.g. outdoor space, PBOT, ODOT? Also, to clarify under impending state OR 2001 reforms, are there still multi-dwelling zones technically?

16:25:14 Michael Thurman-Noche AHFE Coordinating Board:

A big thank you to everyone for this information

16:26:03 Keith Wilson:

Pop-Up Temp Shelter - Hey everyone, TriMet and I did a demonstration this past Saturday for World Homeless Day. Here is the link if you would like to view the video: https://www.facebook.com/100045753248172/videos/194167805451660

16:26:04 Melinda Fleming:

Thanks!

16:26:04 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thanks everyone for joining from many different parts of the communities, and hosts/staff for clear well-organized replies.

October 22  Info Session

Presentation doc

Meeting Video

Chat channel transcript

18:06:57 Andy O:

Has anyone with lived experience been involved in the planning ?

18:09:08 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Is the PSC meeting on 11/10 a work session?

18:10:40 Eric Engstrom:

11/10 is a briefing, similar to today’s session. The hearings will start in December, with a work session in early 2021.

18:12:32 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Thanks Eric. When do you expect to have the Proposed Draft out?

18:13:21 Eric Engstrom:

Depends how many changes we need to make, but probably a few weeks before the first hearing.

18:14:31 Andy O:

It would be helpful to understand the cost per unit for each of these types of housing

18:21:20 Andy O:

Does the JOHS consider Dignity Village as part of the shelter system?

18:22:33 Eric Engstrom:

Andy, your question reminds me to talk about terminology. The terminology in the City code distinguishes “shelter” from permanent “housing”. As we are talking about shelter, these are mass shelters, transitional shelters (which have bedrooms), and outdoor shelters (with sleeping structure that are not full dwelling units - in that they don’t have kitchens or bathrooms within them, and they might be yurts or tents rather than buildings).

18:23:23 Andy O:

I believe the site included in the JOHS 2015 map included Dignity Village as a shelter

18:24:30 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Eric–When does the PSC work session take place relative to the first hearing?

18:24:30 Eric Engstrom:

Dignity Village would be an example of an Outdoor Shelter in the language of the new code.

18:26:55 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

on traditional shelters, there is growing international advocacy to end the use of congregate shelter because of increasingly documented high risks of Covid-19 transmission, as well as the inadequacy as dwelling (e.g. privacy).  How is Portland considering these recommendations and the risks of congregate shelter?

18:28:59 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

review of studies on that from Dr. Kelly Doran in NYC: https://twitter.com/KellyMDoran/status/1317274183919931392?s=20.

18:30:13 Andy O:

Interviewing folks living at Agape Village, Dignity Village, Hazelnut Grove etc. would provide direct input from people with lived experience.

18:31:52 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

+1 on Andy’s comment. Another idea is to hold a joint session with the Village Coalition which is composed with a majority of folks with lived experience.

18:32:45 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Vahid Brown is a good contact for VC

18:36:37 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

Thank you Andy and Sean. Our program has been very involved with Hazelnut Grove and have worked with Vahid as well.

18:38:03 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Could Outdoor Shelter sites use all or some vehicles types (cars, vans, trailers, RVs, dwelling structures built on trailers) as accommodations? Could they use building-code compliant structures such as modular housing units or tiny houses designed for on-foundation use?

18:38:40 Eric Engstrom:

Yes. There is flexibility on what is used as the sleeping structure.

18:39:20 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

ok, so all vehicle types, all structures types including code-compliant permanent-capable structures. So this means these could be Safe Parking sites.

18:39:31 Eric Engstrom:

Tiny houses on wheels, Tents, or Yurts could also be allowed.

18:39:49 Andy O:

why

18:40:34 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

We have pretty wide testimony from experts such as Low Income Housing Institute at public forum last week that says good village size is larger, 20-50 people. Smaller is often hard to make work.

18:40:52 Eric Engstrom:

One limitation is that they must be non-profit or publicly run.

18:42:25 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

why would dwelling units be excluded from Outdoor Shelters, if it is feasible to provide them?

18:43:05 Eric Engstrom:

Its not that they could not be dwelling units, but the zoning code allows a collection of dwelling units through other provisions.

18:43:15 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

A conditional use permit could be bypassed by a vote of City Council?

18:45:03 Andy O:

keeping the number at 20 will mean each C3PO village will have to go thru conditional use.

18:46:37 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

I believe the state statute *allows* those vehicle dwelling cases, but doesn’t prevent cities from doing further.

18:48:22 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

A conditional use permits cost $20,185 in review fees and takes 6+ months (plus the cost of preparing the land use review application)

18:49:17 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

How would an Outdoor Shelter or village be able to plan its path, if sited with a 6-month by-right approval but not knowing if or when a required Conditional Use permit would be granted to remain there?  Without a clear timetable, the OS/Village would have to be preparing a subsequent temporary site, plus also how to continue at same site, plus possibly having to terminate.  

        How about setting up a firm timetable for decision on CU permit?  see as analogy the mandatory permitting timeframes established in recent California ADU laws.

18:50:55 Andy O:

Its not the right number.   Ask the folks living at the villages what works

18:52:39 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

I believe there are mandatory timelines for CU permits reviews. I think it’s 120 days.

18:53:10 Eric Engstrom:

Yes, through waivers of that time limit are sometimes negotiated

18:54:28 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Plus the time to prepare the application and it may require the creation of a good neighbor agreement.

18:54:44 Phil Nameny - BPS:

The 180 day temporary option is really intended to provide an opportunity for the seasonal shelters. A provider interested in setting up a permanent outdoor shelter would apply for the CU review before they start operation. Then they would not have an investment until they find out if they can be approved.

18:57:19 Andy O:

Phil - The reality is that informal outdoor shelters are already all around Portland.  If we don’t make it easy to “formalize” them we will see more and more informal ones..

18:57:29 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland to Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum (Privately):

in Portland maps (and you probably know this) if you click on zoning and zoom out it shows all of the various zoning with different color designations. That really helps in showing what can go where.

19:03:48 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Outdoor Shelter followup, Q1: can the City release a map of the city showing the sites where OSs would be allowed (by right, not by Conditional Use) under the Discussion Draft siting criteria? A detail on that, Eric Engstrom mentioned in Info Session last week that "Conditional Use [required] in employment zones," I'm unsure which multi-dwelling or Commercial or Industrial sites this would exclude.

19:04:00 Andy O:

3 walls and a roof?

19:04:21 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

That would be amazing

19:05:22 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Q2: how soon after being used for an Outdoor Shelter could a site be used for one again?

19:05:39 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Q2: could Outdoor Shelters be on public land, if so in what circumstances?

19:06:37 Andy O:

Since the city set up 3 Outdoor Shelters that are larger than 20, will the city be submitting testimony suggesting the number be higher than 20>\?

19:07:31 Andy O:

Same comment on the 6 months

19:07:34 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

number of days is one parameter, how often or after what length of time a site could have one again is another parameter.  Compare e.g. to SHARE/Wheel arrangement in Seattle which specifies both.

19:08:51 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/mapapp/proposals/#/s2hc

19:09:06 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

Here is the link to submit testimony regarding this project for folks who are interested

19:09:09 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Why are we restricting by zone?

19:09:30 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Why are Outdoor Shelters prohibited in Outdoor Space public land? Seems like these might often be well suited for that use.

19:10:42 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Reasons for map: to visualize also with requirements such as minimum/max lot size, what sites have “institutional uses” existing, what are excluded “employment zones”, or any other requirements that arise.

19:11:48 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Thanks Eric

19:12:25 Eric Engstrom:

I agree it would be helpful for us to include some maps in the next draft, so people can better understand these geography issues.

19:12:50 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Was an overlay zone considered? Wouldn’t that allow City Council to apply an overlay zone (to a site without it) without a CU permit?

19:14:24 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

One of the State of Emergency policies in recent years has been vehicle dwelling on private property (1 per single-family lot). Why was this left out of S2HC draft so far, i.e. the portions touching on city code beyond title 33 / zoning?

19:16:50 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

State problems? how does state law prevent vehicle dwelling? (California state law has some pre-emption, not OR that I know of. Federal law, no).

19:18:53 Andy O:

Thank you all for working to create more options for very, very affordable housing

19:19:07 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

It’s Portland city ordinance that (currently) prohibits vehicle dwelling, not a state or Federal law. City reforms could revise it, as far as I know.  See discussion at Alternative Shelter and Villages forum, June 25, and “Parking/Dwelling Permit” proposal on HousingWIki

19:19:08 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

Thanks for hosting this and answering our questions.

19:19:11 Zach Kearl (he/him), Office of Mayor Wheeler:

Thank you Jonny!

19:19:21 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

jonathan.lewis@portlandoregon.gov

19:19:24 Jonny Lewis (he/him), HUCIRP/City of Portland:

Thanks all!

19:21:48 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

viability of a shelter/village also has a lot to do with how long it can be there, and how much it needs to be preparing for various possible outcomes in future, e.g. closing in 180 days or moving to new site.

19:23:53 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Yes let’s see cost breakdowns for all approaches, both to startup and operations cost per day — traditional congregate shelters, motels/hotels, alternative shelters / villages of various forms.

19:26:46 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

I have a lot of lived experience living in informal, self-built, off-grid, vehicle, etc. housing. Happy to share experiences and proposals that grow from them.

19:27:24 Sean Green (he/him) NECN:

April–Do you remember what separation was required?

19:28:58 Zach Kearl (he/him), Office of Mayor Wheeler:

thanks for that reminder for the rationale, Al

19:29:13 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Another important dimension of homeless shelter / low-cost living is on-street vehicle dwelling. Large numbers of people de facto doing that now.  There are proposals for citywide management of this through a permitting/zone program — e.g. https://housing.wiki/wiki/Parking_Dwelling_Permit.

19:30:50 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

what if you *want* to make it meet building code, but don’t want to pursue the far larger project of making a permanent development?

19:31:51 april rohman:

Thank you for facilitating, Jonny!

19:31:55 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

It seems like there is a persistent non-imagining or unexplained non-acceptance of the idea that dwelling units might be created somewhere for relocation. Ie. on an Outdoor Shelter site, to become ADUs later.

Oct 25 Advocacy Working Session


from
announcement email sent by Sean Green, Oct 23:

"As most of you know the Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) project is going to, among other things, define what kind of alternative shelters and villages are allowed and where they are allowed.

The PDX Shelter Forum, Portland: Neighbors Welcome, the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty, and the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods are hosting a virtual advocacy working session this Sunday from 4-6pm. At this meeting we will identify and discuss potential areas we wish to provide feedback and hopefully collaboratively create and work towards consensus on some specific language/recommendations we can provide.

S2HC Advocacy Working Session

Sunday, 10/25 from 4-6pm

Calendar Link

Zoom Link

Working Document Link"

Video:  with participants' permission, we recorded it for the purpose of reviewing / taking notes later.

Notes

Public

Agenda

  1. Introductions
  1. Add your name, preferred pronoun, affiliations (optional)
  2. Best covid restaurant?
  1. What is S2HC
  2. What are our goals?
  1. Organize testimony/feedback (written testimony submitted by 10/30, individual or joint)
  2. Advocacy/questions for next information session
  1. Specific ideas
  2. Next steps

Introductions

Add your name, preferred pronoun, affiliations (optional)

Favorite restaurant to eat at or meal to make during the pandemic?


S2HC Questions

Advocacy Points

There are two aspects to people living out of vehicles:

Chat transcript

15:41:42 Sean Green:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RDSqq5l9iZpS0nyjCdTqiRIqS-Rzfu5V?usp=sharing

15:57:47 Sean Green:

s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org

16:08:54 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

this Fri 30th 5pm is deadline for comments on this Discussion Draft of S2HC, but isn’t the last opportunity, and actually isn’t technically ‘testimony’ since it’s only a discussion draft.

16:18:05 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Also, S2HC is just part of the puzzle, mainly about what zoning code could allow;  any real project would also involve funding, neighborhood buy-in, etc.  And some of the things we might want to advocate, could be raised here but pursued/done in other vehicles. E.g., vehicle dwelling legalization might be pursued with separate legislation at City, or in revisions to ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) ordinance.

16:20:10 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

hi iPhone, who’s that?

16:21:52 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

hi Multco_DX4YDAYVHG6W & iPhone, you are welcome to say hi and introduce anytime.

16:22:35 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

welcome Keith

16:22:37 Sean Green:

http://s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org

this is the shared document. If the new folks want to add their information to the Introduction section would be great

16:24:07 Keith Wilson:

Thanks Tim. Just got back from a hike. Beautiful day.

16:27:33 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

about allowed sites, we might imagine/compare different ways a process might go. Vs this code, verbal defining of what allowed, we could imagine City Council having asked Planning to come up with a way to site 100 Outdoor Shelters. Or, a map showing all sites of any zoning type where it could be feasible.

16:30:04 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Keith’s popup shelter model:  how might it be done in S2HC Discussion Draft rules, or with revisions to those rules that we might propose?

16:30:17 iPhone:

Jeff Liddicoat here., with Stop the Sweeps PDX. email outsideartsale@gmail  Phone 503 482 3188

16:30:25 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

hi Jeff thanks for joining.

16:31:31 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum to iPhone (Privately):

hi Jeff, we have a shared document we’re discussing and putting notes in, at s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org, if you are able to access.

16:32:49 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum to iPhone (Privately):

is it ok to put your name & that affiliation / info into the meeting participants noted in the doc?  Or what part of it you want?  Don’t have to, it just helps other some and shows what range of input we got.

16:32:55 iPhone (Jeff Liddicoat, Stop the Sweeps PDX):

The person speaking may have a good heart but he has clearly not had much experience with a broader cross section of actual homeless..

16:36:01 iPhone (Jeff Liddicoat, Stop the Sweeps PDX):

Thank you Tim, unsure about going to the document without losing this connection, and feel free to include. my info

16:37:45 Keith Wilson:

Thank you everyone for your time and listening.

16:50:30 Sean Green to Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum (Privately):

Matchup’s has his hand raised

16:57:42 Multco_DX4YDAYVHG6W_iOS:

Hi this is Sara Ryan from Comm Jayapal‘s office. Really enjoying the conversation and definitely support some form of safe parking. The challenge we’re hearing is how to staff the wrap around supports.

16:59:56 Sean Green:

Hi Sara!

17:00:12 Sean Green:

Thanks for joining us

17:00:51 Sean Green:

Are you able to speak what Commissioner Jayapal has been thinking with regard to safe parking?

17:02:03 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

hi Sara, so glad you could join us. Lots of interest in ways to do safe parking!

17:02:28 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

“Multnomah County re-try plan to allow churches to host homeless campers in parking lot” - The Oregonian, June 20, 2018. https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2018/06/multnomah_county_re-try_plan_t.html.

17:02:55 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

article notes that they’d made a previous effort in 2011 that got only one church participant.

17:07:15 Joshua Baker:

I have to sign off in a few, but thanks for setting this up. very informative!

17:07:44 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

we might look at various systems whereby people rent out driveways or lots for short-term parking around events, or to let people park an RV or tiny-house for a time. CraigsList sort of exchanges.

17:08:15 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thanks Joshua!  feel free to add notes or email/add any ideas later on.

17:09:50 Emma Dixon:

I've got too much background noise to unmute, but if we're going to promote safe parking I would also want to emphasize the way it can promote safety by making people more likely to bring in emergency services as needed; and making it easier for emergency services to find/access callers

17:11:15 Keith Wilson:

Tim, you are spot on. Enable a person who owns a lot $10 per spot per night so long as security and safe will engage the community, faith, community and private.

17:11:51 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Emma yes great point.  More stability/consistency / unstealthiness of where one can be really helps connection to all kinds of services. Getting mail, having healthmobiles & showermobiles stop off, etc.

17:21:00 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

good places for outdoor shelters:  access to peace, nature, recuperative experience, privacy, being non-unwelcome or stigmatized.

17:22:30 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

on a basic level, excluding (new) shelters from any residential zone other than on existing “institutional uses” seems… really bad.  Are shelter residents not residents, not residential?

17:26:31 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

exercises like finding village sites in your neighborhood, all neighborhoods, are probably quite useful for surfacing issues like, are allowable sites really unevenly distributed among neighborhoods.

17:27:16 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Q of numbers allowed in villages. One sub-Q:  should it be #s of people, #s of households, # of sleeping units?

17:30:31 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

also, perhaps numbers should related to the site size.

17:30:59 iPhone:

I am greatly and pleasantly surprized by the quality of this discussion - the quality in terms of both thinking outside of the box and in terms of thinking about those who live outside as full citizens that are inherently of greater value than mere property. Thank you.

17:35:02 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

awesome, thanks Jeff, glad to have your views too.

17:38:04 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

yeah, maybe then not much separates shelters from regular multifamily development. Maybe we should generally allow such things on available space for at least 6months, possibly allowed to grow into permanent villages/building.

17:42:14 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

right Jeff.. I too don’t like to be enclosed/inside too much… I feel like I need windows opened and cross-breeze all the time.. some kind of genetic/inherited roaming instinct, needing free air.

17:42:14 Keith Wilson:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-american-sroTim, here is a reference on the thought process 100 years ago. It matches with your point of matching a person to their income.

17:42:43 Keith Wilson:

Sorry, here is the link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-american-sro

17:43:26 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thanks Keith great visual article.

17:44:55 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

also we could consider the quite different, less fixed and property-oriented ways indigenous people lived, in this area and most places, and evaluate our current models or prescriptions against that.

17:49:00 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

I think we could turn this group today into an unstoppable public-testimony tag team.

18:00:06 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

I strongly endorse making any discussions / process as fully available asynchronously and diversely as possible.. i.e. allowing participation from people with different schedules, habits, attention patterns, communications patterns etc.

18:02:02 Emma Dixon:

I have to head out but thanks so much for getting everyone together, this was hugely informative and inspiring for me

18:02:28 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thank you Emma for joining and your thoughts. Catch you later!

18:02:52 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Timetable:  they’re talking, get this passed by City Council in spring. That is based on the current expected expiration of the housing State of Emergency, actions under which are meant to be permanently enabled by S2HC.  However, it’s possible this state of emergency gets extended, and so the pressure to pass S2HC gets relieved until later.

18:03:31 Multco_DX4YDAYVHG6W_iOS (Sara Ryan from Commissioner Jayapal‘s office)

Thanks everyone- great conversation.

18:04:00 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thank you Sara for joining!

18:05:19 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

incidentally, the chair of the citizen Planning & Sustainability Commission, Eli Spevak, has publicly (and to me, surprisingly) quite endorsed a number of the things we talked about today.  E.g., vehicle dwelling on private property, tiny houses on wheels.

18:06:36 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

tmccormick@gmail.com

18:08:25 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Keith yes I think allowing shelters on city “Open Space” is definitely something to be discussed. I haven’t really investigated it, but on the face of it, it seems Open Space is very much where Outside Shelters might logically go.

18:10:01 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

converging Neighborhood emergency centers activity with homelessness responses..  A+

Oct 27 Info Session

6-7:30pm

https://www.portland.gov/bps/s2hc/events/2020/10/27/s2hc-informational-session.

Attendees

Tim McCormick

Eric Engstrom (BPS)

April Rohman

Zach Kearl

West Women's

Jessie Conner - PHB

Sean Green

Tim Mather

Phil Nameny

Linda Bauer

GInny

Al Burns (BPS)

Paul Falsetto

Derek Bradley

Alex Gillow-Wiles - Providence

Rachael Hoy

Janice Yaden

Samuel Diaz - Mayor's Office, housing advisor

Chat transcript

18:23:08 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

on this Terminology:  why need a non-permanent site i.e. Outdoor Shelter site not host permanent or full dwelling structures?  Many interim situations do use movable/redeployable housing, including villages in Seattle, & worker housing.

18:35:29 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

How many sites in the city would allow Outdoor Shelters under the siting criteria in the Discussion Draft? or, how could that be determined?

18:37:24 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

btw, the image at left in the current slide is from SquareOne Villages, Eugene, which I work with. It shows one of three models they have described, a relief village; the 2nd and 3rd models are a transitional village and a permanent village. We now focus on the third type.

18:37:46 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

that was a comment not Q.

18:38:36 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

my question is how many sites would allow it, not what categories; or how this can be determined.

18:41:54 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

What is the rationale for excluding Outdoor Shelters from city Outdoor Spaces?

18:42:08 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

In what cases would an Outdoor Shelter resident be counted as 'sheltered' by City, County, or HUD-required counts?

18:54:59 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thanks April. Comment: I think HUD has criteria for what counts as ‘shelter’, and there is some debate over what kinds of structure or site setup qualify.

18:56:40 West Women's:

This Amanda - Housing Advocate at The West Women’s and Children’s Shelter. Thank you so much for all this information. I have to step away but it would be great if this recording could be shared through email - my email is amanda.delavega@usw.salvationarmy.org  - Thank you so much!

18:56:54 Sean Green:

Could you clarify on opportunities to comment throughout the course of the process. For example, if organizations are not able to comment by Friday, when is the next opportunity to comment and how long will the comment period be open?

18:58:03 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

I just meant, what number of sites would qualify for Outdoor Shelters under the proposed criteria, recognizing that this in itself doesn’t make them viable.

18:58:39 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

fyi: Title 33 - 33.100 Open Space Zone regulations https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/53294

18:58:51 april rohman:

I'll follow up with Amanda from West Women's and share this BPS site with links to previous presentations: https://www.portland.gov/bps/s2hc/news/2020/10/12/new-zoning-code-proposals-aim-provide-more-housing-and-shelter-people

19:02:05 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Could Outdoor Shelters be sited on right-of-way areas?

19:02:22 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

Mayor Wheeler in press conference yesterday (https://youtu.be/mvt_TaenIGA) said we need a "moonshot" to build 5000 low-income homes in next three years, on top of existing plans. Do you plan to evaluate the S2HC program for whether it achieves necessary code changes to achieve the scale of the Mayor's goal?

19:02:43 april rohman:

Sorry, Al! Dodgers are still down 0-1.

19:07:08 Sean Green:

Thank you

19:08:27 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

yeah we do these weekend dance-party / code-commenting events, we could fit another one in Sat night to Sun morning if there’s time.

19:08:39 Tim McCormick - PDX Shelter Forum:

thanks everyone, cheers!

Advocacy Letter 10/30/20


To:        Portland Bureau of Planning and
        Sustainability

From:        Shelter PDX / alternative shelter and
        villages coalition

        (see signatories at bottom)

Date:         October 30, 2020

Subj:          Recommendations on Shelter to
        Housing Continuum Discussion Draft

Dear BPS and other City department staff:


The Shelter To Housing Continuum (S2HC) Project promises to increase flexibility in our codes to better our community including options to support our unhoused neighbors.

The urgency of the affordability and homelessness needs was underscored by a statement by

Mayor Wheeler, in a press conference this week, October 26th (https://youtu.be/mvt_TaenIGA). He said we need a "moonshot" to build 5,000 low-income homes in the next three years, on top of existing plans.

We propose that S2HC proposals should be evaluated against the sheer scale and urgency of need, and homelessness being the #1 reported public concern in Portland, to determine if the regulatory reforms do all that can be done. In that spirit, we offer these recommendations in response to the S2HC Discussion Draft:

1. Outdoor Shelter Recommendations

1.1. Siting

1.1.1. We ask that the use of an Overlay Zone be evaluated, to allow more flexibility when it comes to determining which sites can have outdoor shelters. This would allow, in future when needs are better understood, new outdoor shelter sites to be allowed for example by City Council resolution, rather than a costly and complex Conditional Use permit or requiring revision to the code. We should explore the benefits and drawbacks of each approach with regard to allowing new shelters, especially outdoor shelters.

1.1.2. Residential Zones. We are concerned about the Draft's exclusion of outdoor shelters from all residential zones except for existing Institutional Use sites in multi-dwelling zones. This essentially puts all shelter sites in Commercial or Industrial zones, which generally segregate non-compatible uses away from residential uses, due to issues such as noise, pollution, and traffic. Unhoused Portlanders are residents as well, with the same needs and susceptibilities regarding noise, pollution, etc, so we question why they would not be allowed in residential zones like any other resident.

1.1.3 Open Space zones.

We ask that the blanket exclusion of Outdoor Shelters from city Open Space areas be reexamined. It seems that public, open spaces may offer some of the most appropriate sites for outdoor shelters.

1.1.4.  FAR 

To provide the most flexibility, accommodations in outdoor shelters should not count against the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) or building coverage.

1.1.5 Siting time

We request that Outdoor Shelters be allowed for a period of 1 year, rather than 6 months.  We see that the Draft proposes a process whereby an Outdoor Shelter could be allowed for a time, then apply for a Conditional Use (CU) permit to continue for longer. However, considering the practicalities of this, a CU takes typically 120 days or more just to process, and so it would seem unfeasible for an Outdoor Shelter site sponsor to, within the currently proposed 180 days siting, be able to produce, pay permit fees (about $20k) for, and pursue a CU application, let alone any appeal.

1.1.6 Subsequent shelter use of a site.

The code should clarify how soon, after the by-right (i.e. allowed) use of a site for an Outdoor Shelter, it could be used again for this purpose.

1.2 Process

1.2.1  Map representation of code proposals.

We ask that the City produce and publish maps giving its best estimate of where outdoor shelters will be allowed given the code it is proposing. This would help the community understand how potential sites are distributed throughout the City. HUCIRP created a list of potential outdoor shelter sites. Ideally, we would evaluate how many of the potential sites could actually be used given the proposed zoning changes.  

1.3 Number and types of units.

1.3.1 Number of accommodations.

Increase the number of accommodations allowed by-right for Outdoor Shelters to accommodate 60 accommodations. As we heard from the Low Income Housing Institute, one of the leading providers of outdoor shelters in the nation, that the ideal houseless village has 50-60 residents in order to have enough people to share responsibilities (e.g. security, cleaning, etc.). Another approach would be to have the accommodation limit set by the Fire Marshall based on Life Safety.

1.3.2. Types of units.

The remit stated in City Council ordinance No. 189387, of February 19, 2019, directing BPS and JOHS to undertake this project says:

g. BPS in coordination with the Joint Office of Homelessness Services (JOHS) is directed to develop a legislative proposal to amend City Code to allow for temporary housing, shelters, and alternative shelter siting;

It appears that BPS has chosen to interpret this by following a State guidance on "transitional housing accommodations:

Outdoor shelter is a new type of Community Service use being proposed for addition to the code. What the proposed code calls “outdoor shelter” the state law calls “transitional housing accommodations” but the intent is to conform the City Code to state law with the two terms having the same meaning. The state law says, “Transitional housing accommodations are intended to be used by individuals or families on a limited basis for seasonal, emergency or transitional housing purposes and may include yurts, huts, cabins, fabric structures, tents and similar accommodations.

However, we propose that this is limiting the possible options without presenting any rationale, and beyond what the City Council directed.

"Temporary housing" can and often does include many dwelling types which are building-code compliant, legal housing. For example, homeless or transitional-housing villages in many places including Seattle and San Jose use small homes or duplex cottages or multi-unit modular housing, as does temporary worker housing worldwide.

We propose that it might often be a sensible approach -- and preferable from the standpoint of Outdoor Shelter residents, to have, you know, housing! -- to use forms such as modular housing or tiny houses that aren't trailer mounted.

We also proposed, looking forward, that a high-potential way to achieve transition to permanent housing, and a working 'continuum' or shelter to housing, would be to facilitate movable dwelling units being siteable first in Outdoor Shelter or emergency contexts, but relocatable to be siteable as low-cost Accessory Dwelling Units or detached bedrooms on residential property.  (See a proposal on how to do this from Village Coalition, McCormick, et al, "New Starter Homes," 2018-2029. https://tjm.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/New-Starter-Homes_2019-12-10.pdf).

2. Group Living Recommendations

[thanks to Leon Porter for advising this].

2.1 Allow Congregate Housing structures by right in all single-dwelling zones.

2.2. Allow short-term shelters with up to 40 beds, not 20.

2.3 Allow easier review procedures for new mass shelters: Change Type II review requirements to Type 1x and change Type III to Type IIx.

2.4 Increase the number of shelter beds allowed in each zone

Zones CR and CM1: 50 bed, not 25

Zones RX, RM3, and RM4: 100 bed, not 50

Zones RM1, RM2, CI1, and IR: 40 beds, not 20

2.5 Allow kitchen facilities in sleeping rooms.

2.6 Remove the requirement to have kitchen facilities on each floor of a congregate living facility.

3. Other Recommendations

3.1 Vehicle dwelling on private residential property.

Since 2017, due to the Housing State of Emergency, the Bureau of Development Services has suspended enforcement of the city ordinance prohibiting dwelling in vehicles on private residential property–e.g. in vans, trailers, RVs, or tiny houses on wheels (THOWs). This has effectively allowed one vehicle-dwelling per site with single-family residential zoning.

In part due to this decriminalization, such vehicle-dwelling is relatively widespread in Portland, seemingly with little public objection or reported problems. Nationally-known alternative-housing leader Kol Peterson, and Planning & Sustainability Commission Chair Eli Spevak both expressed strong support for permanently legalizing this practice, at the June 25 Portland Forum on Alternative Shelter and Villages. Additionally, Peterson has documented at his web site how the practice is widespread in the Cully neighborhood, as an example.

We believe that due to wide community acceptance and expert endorsement, this decriminalization should be enacted by the City as part of S2HC. Also, we believe this and other allowance for movable housing falls within the remit stated in City Council ordinance No. 189387, of February 19, 2019, directing BPS and JOHS to undertake this project:

g. BPS in coordination with the Joint Office of Homelessness Services (JOHS) is directed to develop a legislative proposal to amend City Code to allow for temporary housing, shelters, and alternative shelter siting;

3.2 General vehicle-dwelling permitting.

An important dimension of homeless shelter / low-cost living is on-street vehicle dwelling, which large numbers of people de facto do in Portland today. This also seems to be a major focal point of public concerns about homelessness.

We propose that, beyond just considering case-by-case "Safe Parking" sites, the City and community develop a general vehicle-dwelling permitting program. This would build upon the  existing system of parking zones, permitting, and enforcement, to manage allowed vehicle dwelling in zones or sites potentially anywhere in the city, in a flexible and at-scale-of-need way.

See further discussion of concept at: https://housing.wiki/wiki/Parking_Dwelling_Permit.

A successful local model is Eugene’s Overnight Parking Program, to provide legal places in the community for unhoused people to sleep in their vehicles.

We look forward to this code project, and projects based on it, making a positive impact on our community, and for all the City/staff work on it so far.

Signatories

Tim McCormick, PDX Shelter Forum, Shelter PDX / alternative shelter and

   villages coalition project

Sean Green, co-organizer of alternative shelter and village coalition project
  Chair, Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods

Leon Porter, Portland: Neighbors Welcome

Jan Roberson, Portland State University; Advocacy 5

Ronda        , Central Northeast Neighbors INC. Coalition office

John Mayer, BeaconPDX

Aisha Musa        

James, Operation Nightwatch

Emerson Loustau        

Brian Hoop, Executive Director, Housing Oregon

Keith Wilson        

Will Hamel, 211info

Daniel Amoni, Bike Loud PDX, Inner Southeast Action

David Groff, Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

Tom Hickey, Bridgeton Neighborhood Association 2020 chair

Sarah Carolus, Interfaith Alliance On Poverty

Lisa M Hawash, Associate Professor of Practice, PSU School of Social Work

Jan Kahn

Howard Silverman, Pacific Northwest College of Art

Marian Gallagher



Administrative matters

How to use this document

This is a collaborative document. Those who have access to it include members of Portland Neighbors Welcome, the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty, the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, and other folks who have been working to help our houseless neighbors. If you have any questions or concerns about access please contact Sean Green on slack or at green@aforma.co.

 

To create a new section:

  1. Write a title for the new section, highlight it, and select “Heading 1” from the formatting bar

 

  1. To update the table of contents, click on it and hit the refresh button

  1. The table of contents will be updated to show the new heading that you just added.
  2. Note: For Subheadings use “Heading 2” for normal text use “Normal text”

How to Add Comments to a Google Document

  1. Highlight text to comment on. If you want to comment on a entire section, you can highlight just the heading of that section.
  2. Go to the “Insert” menu and click “Comment”

Collaborators (self-identified)

*Feel free to add yourself and share whatever contact information or affiliation you want

Important Links

Administrative Tasks (To-Do)

Important Dates

Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Information Sessions

The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB) and the Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) have partnered to amend City regulations to better address the homelessness crisis.

The goals of this project are to further fair housing laws, expand the range of shelter and housing options, and improve how the regulatory environment affects for-profit, nonprofit, and public-sector-shelter and housing providers.

BPS is hosting three virtual information sessions in the month of October to share details of the proposed City code changes and answer your questions. The City is especially interested in the feedback from the AHFE community.

We encourage general membership of AHFE to attend the Oct. 13 session, which will be facilitated by Coordinating Board Co-Chair Stacy Borke.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

3:00 to 4:30 PM Pacific Time

Join Zoom Meeting

Thursday, October 22, 2020

6:00 to 7:30 PM Pacific Time

Join Zoom Meeting

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

6:00 to 7:30 PM Pacific Time

Join Zoom Meeting

Proposed Collaboration Process

Not sure what the best way is to collaborate.

Everyone has commenting/suggesting permissions on the discussion draft google documents. This means people can comment and edit those documents directly and everyone will have access to those comments and edits (similar to track changes in word). Feel free to add comments directly to those google documents &/or this document. We’ll see what works best.

*Feel free to provide feedback on collaborating here.


Dec 7 Advocacy Working Session


Working Document Link"

Video:  with participants' permission, we recorded it for the purpose of reviewing / taking notes later.

Notes

Public

Agenda

  1. Introductions
  1. Add your name, preferred pronoun, affiliations (optional)
  2. Best covid restaurant?
  1. What is S2HC
  2. What are our goals?
  1. Organize testimony/feedback (written testimony submitted by 10/30, individual or joint)
  2. Advocacy/questions for next information session
  1. Specific ideas
  2. Next steps

Introductions

Add your name, preferred pronoun, affiliations (optional)

Favorite restaurant to eat at or meal to make during the pandemic?


Subject: 2nd PSC Hearing Today on S2HC 5-7pm / Contribute to S2HC Letter

The 2nd Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) hearing on S2HC is today from 5-7pm. You can watch it live or view a recording after the meeting here.

Myself and Sean Green have been working with other advocates to draft a letter to PSC on the S2HC Proposed Draft. The deadline for written testimony has been extended to December 21st at 5pm and can be submitted via the Map App here. You can view the draft letter, propose changes, and add your name to the signatories list here. Once the letter is complete, we will send out a message with a link to sign it as we did for the Discussion Draft.


1. Extend the Housing Emergency and Take More Time to Improve this Code Change

Portland declared a housing emergency on October 7, 2015 to help address the needs of our houseless neighbors and lack of affordable housing is set to expire on April 4, 2021. The 2019 ordinance (189387) that extended the housing emergency given the continued community need stated that “BPS in coordination with the Joint Office of Homelessness Services (JOHS) is directed to develop a legislative proposal to amend City Code to allow for temporary housing, shelters, and alternative shelter siting.” The impact statement for Ordinace 189387 states that the amendments to Title 33 are intended to “offer sustainable solutions to…(2) expeditiously allow for temporary housing and issuance of permits related to shelter and alternative shelter siting and, (3) create an expeditious process for design review of affordable housing projects.”

Many of the findings cited by City Council to justify the extension of the housing emergency have not improved–or have not improved enough–to justify letting the housing emergency expire. These include: percentage of households cost-burdened by housing costs, the number of people experiencing houselessness, and the number of people living outside. The current economic crisis and the spike in evictions expected once the moratorium is lifted means our community will, by all predictions, soon see an increase in the number of unhoused neighbors.

The original housing emergency ordinance (187371) which has been extended multiple times gives Portland the “tools and methods not currently available to provide adequate, safe and habitable shelters for persons experiencing homelessness, many of whom are our community's most vulnerable people” (187371 impact statement). City Council is empowered, through the housing emergency declaration, to “[w]aive Portland City Code regulations or administrative rules to the extent necessary to respond to the housing emergency” (15.08.025(B)(7)).

Proposed Draft places too many restrictions–and adds to much cost and time–to strategies to help our unhoused neighbors.

It is not the right time to let the Housing State of Emergency expire and limit the available tools to meet the needs of our community.

We ask that City Council extend the housing emergency and give more time to develop the proposed code changes.

PDX Shelter Forum - members’ testimony  on Shelter to Housing - March 30, 2021