Bend Planning Commission continues work to revise controversial shelter code proposal

BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) -- Bend's Planning Commission continued its wordsmithing work Tuesday evening on controversial proposed development code revisions to broaden where homeless shelters would be allowed and under what conditions, both to address public concerns and their own.

After nearly four hours of discussion, refinement and new direction to planning staff, they weren't done and will revisit the remaining elements at a third meeting, on Tuesday, March 8 at 6 p.m.

After much criticism in recent public testimony, planners came back to the panel Tuesday with some options to consider, such as restricting what kind of shelters could be allowed in residential zones, or not allowing outdoor shelters (including tents and RVs) in those zones unless connected to a public or institutional use, like a school or a church.

There also was discussion of whether to have buffers between shelters and schools or neighborhoods, similar to the type of 1,000-foot restrictions in place for marijuana-related businesses.

The Bend City Council will hold its own work session and public hearing when whatever the planning commission recommends is completed and sent to them.

There were concerns raised that hardship housing such as an RV in a driveway could become a de facto short-term rental – even though the STR code doesn’t allow them to be in RVs, so language was proposed to say any payment of a fee, rent or other mandatory charge would be prohibited.

Commissioners often weighed the balance of being too restrictive and “prescriptive,” in ways that could defeat the very purpose of the new rules – to encourage creating more safe, managed and off-the-street places for those among the homeless who are willing to trade some freedom for a safer place and programs offering a potential path to a safe, permanent home.

There was much discussion about proposed “Good Neighbor Guidelines” – on which types of shelters they should be required, and how detailed they should be. Commissioners generally agreed land-use codes were no place to specify what kind of rules such facilities impose on their clients. Then there were issues such as whether to require secure storage areas, screened if outdoors, similar to the rules for portable restrooms.

Commissioner Suzanne Johannsen brought back up the issue of enforcing the rules, and city staff said it would need to be much the same as other city code enforcement – complaint-driven (due to staffing challenges, not just policy), and with education as the first option, seeking voluntary compliance, and fines or permit revocations only when that doesn’t work and a process that includes a hearing to make their case.

Commission Chair Scott Winters said he’d be against siting “low-barrier shelters” in residential areas or within 1,000 feet of a public school or park. But Housing Director Lynn McConnell said that wasn’t proposed because the widely used term “low-barrier” has no universally accepted definition.

A similar challenge came with the talk of providing more notice to neighbors of proposed shelters, temporary or permanent, hardship or outdoors.

In regards to hardship shelters (such as an RV in a backyard or driveway), Senior Planner Pauline Hardie said extending notice to neighbors might just be a recipe for frustration, similar to what came up during the recent accessory dwelling unit discussion: If city land use rules allow them, neighbors would have little recourse if they didn’t want it there.

Hardie said permanent shelters may or may not require that neighbors get a notice, depending on whether it's a simpler Type 1 or more complex Type 2 land-use permit application.

Also discussed: Whether to require on-site management, rather than an on-call option. Several commissioners said requiring full-time, on-site management could make it an even tougher challenge for service providers, and a straw poll found all seven commission members favoring leaving the on-call option inn.