Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homeless Shelters Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears competing views as staff maps industrial zones, buffers for proposed homeless‑shelter UDC changes
Summary
City staff presented maps showing industrial parcels that would meet council‑requested 500‑ and 1,000‑foot buffers from residential zones and major corridors for potential siting of standalone homeless shelters; public comment was divided and council gave mixed guidance without adopting an ordinance.
City planning staff presented two maps and sought council guidance on whether to limit standalone homeless shelters to industrial zones and whether to require separation buffers from residential zones and from major corridors.
Staff said the April direction to prepare maps came after a 5‑to‑4 council vote asking for more analysis, and presented two scenarios: industrial parcels that are at least 500 feet from residential zones and major corridors (U.S. Highway 287, U.S. 34, State Highway 402 and Taft Avenue), and a second map using a 1,000‑foot buffer. The maps highlight a limited number of industrial parcels that meet those criteria, and staff cautioned that many such parcels are already developed, lack pedestrian and service infrastructure, or are at or near the airport.
Staff reminded council that the UDC currently allows homeless shelters as conditional uses in both business and industrial zones; a conditional use requires a neighborhood meeting, planning‑commission review and gives an appeal path to council. Staff noted that community‑based shelters tied to religious organizations are treated differently and are federally protected; the current proposal concerns principal standalone shelters.
Public testimony was strongly divided. Some speakers urged council to avoid placing shelters near schools, downtown corridors or residential areas and supported industrial‑only siting and buffers; others urged the city to avoid “hiding” unhoused people at the urban fringe and instead locate services where transit and social supports are accessible. Multiple commenters and councilors raised the need for regional leadership—several speakers said shelter planning and funding should be coordinated at the county or regional level rather than left to one city alone.
Council reactions were mixed: a few councilors favored restricting shelters to industrial zones with a 500‑foot separation; others urged leaving business zones eligible or said the better approach is to treat shelter proposals as conditional uses that must come to council so each proposal is judged on its merits. City attorney staff noted that striking the use entirely from the UDC is possible but would not prevent an applicant from seeking a rezoning or a planned‑unit development (PUD), which could still be approved by council. Several councilors asked staff to explore an overlay or more finely tailored process and to evaluate whether any listed industrial parcels are realistically available and suitable.
Staff will return with proposed code language and options for council consideration; no ordinance change was adopted at the meeting.
