Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows safe‑parking pilot rules: micro‑shelter cap, neighbor notice, and review triggers agreed
Summary
The council discussed a proposed safe‑parking pilot and micro‑shelter provisions. Council agreed on a capped number of micro‑shelters per site, a finite review/sunset approach, adjacent‑property notice on private sites, city‑property council review, and a revocation/amendment authority with a 60‑day relocation window.
Redmond city staff and councilors spent extensive time discussing a proposed safe‑parking pilot that would allow supervised parking for people living in vehicles and limited micro‑shelter structures on temporary sites.
Linda (staff) walked the council through draft terms, including a trial period and site review requirements. Councilors asked whether the pilot should be a fixed 12‑month period or a 12‑month period that begins when individual sites become operational. Staff noted steps needed before use of certain public funds, permitting and shelter modification work.
Major points of agreement recorded in the meeting include: a per‑site cap of four micro‑shelters with case‑by‑case exceptions requiring council approval; a requirement for site plan approval for city property and a council hearing before siting on city‑owned parcels; public participation and adjacent‑property notification for private property applications; authority for the city manager to revoke or amend authorizations when sites are not working; and a relocation/notice period of roughly 60 days if a site is closed or modified for operational or safety reasons.
Councilors expressed concern about clustering shelters near vulnerable facilities such as Shepherd’s House; law‑enforcement advice against siting by that facility was noted. Council members emphasized the pilot’s temporary and transitional intent and said they did not want the program to evolve into a permanent ‘‘safe village’’ on public property. The council discussed the practical consequences for residents if a site shuts down mid‑pilot, and members agreed that any off‑ramp must include time to rehouse residents.
On the emergency process, staff explained that declaring an emergency for ordinance adoption would waive the 30‑day delay normally required for code changes; some councilors said an emergency could be justified given funding timelines. The transcript does not record a formal roll‑call ordinance adoption; instead, councilors gave direction and agreed to return a draft with clarified language and an explicit sunset/review mechanism.
Staff will produce a revised draft that includes the agreed caps, public‑notification language, city‑property hearing language and an enforcement/off‑ramp procedure for council review before a scheduled vote.
