It’s taken nearly a dozen meetings and more than two years to develop a plan to repeal and replace the rules that govern how and where low-income people are assisted in Vancouver.
On Wednesday, the Vancouver Planning Commission, which is an advisory group, voted to send the revised Human Services Facilities ordinance to the city council.
The planning commission doubled down on its initial recommendation, known as Option A, to reclassify human service facilities and implement conditional use permits and performance standards for shelters, day centers and soup kitchens. This recommendation comes despite the city council’s request to reconsider tacking on additional standards and fees that may unintentionally burden service providers.
Essentially the question is this: Should the city hold homeless service providers to high standards, even if they are cost-prohibitive? Or should the regulations be relaxed in hopes more providers will deliver more services?
There’s a legal component too. Since Vancouver’s current siting ordinance was adopted in 1991, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected similar laws, raising concerns the city could be sued. Specifically, the city is concerned about lawsuits relating to discrimination against physical abilities and familial status as outlined in the Fair Housing Act.
Despite the court’s opinion, some planning commissioners say the city’s current ordinance still works.
“I would love to keep what we have,” said Commissioner Jim Atkins. “While it’s not a perfect solution … Option A balances the needs of finding locations for these services against the needs of the rest of the community.”
Commissioner Steve Schulte agreed that including performance standards in the updated siting ordinance is important. Proposed standards include a litter control plan, indoor storage and an adequate number of restrooms.
The last time the city council discussed the ordinance, in May, some people expressed concern that placing performance standards on these service providers is inequitable.
“Putting more restrictions and making it harder actually defeats the purpose, in my opinion,” said Councilor Alishia Topper during the May workshop.
Kate Budd, executive director of Council for the Homeless, said the existing standards make it difficult for service providers to open new facilities in Vancouver.
Budd testified before the planning commission and encouraged the body to move forward with a replacement ordinance. The planning commission serves as an advisory body to the city council.
Although Budd would like to see a new ordinance, she prefers Option B. It would eliminate performance standards and conditional use requirements for community centers, shelters and group meal services.
“What that allows for are providers to say ‘Yes Clark County, and city of Vancouver specifically, we want you,'” Budd said.
The existing ordinance makes it more difficult for service providers to expand or site no-cost and low-cost services, according to city staff.
The proposed replacement ordinance would use the existing city rules to allow service facilities to locate anywhere where like services are allowed.
Shelters would be classified as commercial lodging, group meal services would fall under the category of eating and drinking establishments and day centers would be part of a new community centers category.
The Clark County Food Bank doesn’t provide hot meals, meaning it’s unlikely the organization would be subject to performance standards. But the new zoning classifications change where new or expanded sites could be located.
Matt Edmonds, communications manager for the food bank, said they would need to look at industrially zoned sites in the future. Edmonds said staff has not yet evaluated how the proposed requirements might impact them.
The food bank’s partners, including Share’s hot meals program, would be required to obtain a conditional use permit for any new facilities. There’s a $7,450 fee associated with those applications as outlined in Option A. In the past, facilities have paid $617 for new site permits. The planning commission voted unanimously to amend the proposal to reduce the fee, although a specific amount was not outlined.
“I don’t think we intended to make it explicitly expensive,” said Commissioner Audrey Mattoon. For a brief period of time, the commission was considering setting a $500 rate, but ultimately decided to leave the dollar amount up to the city council.
The planning commission also opted to forward a recommendation without alternative language, which the city council had requested.
Community and Economic Development Director Chad Eiken said he intends to forward to the city council the complete ordinance the commission considered Wednesday, which includes the alternative language. The ordinance is scheduled to come before council Oct. 8 for a workshop, at which point the city council could opt to amend the recommendation as it sees fit.
