Council members on Monday evening voted to move a Planning Commission recommendation that would allow temporary, non‑affixed housing shelters in R‑3 and B‑3 zones to the council for first reading, setting up additional debate in December.

The ordinance, introduced from the Planning & Development Committee, would permit 'temporary housing shelters' that do not contain kitchens or bathrooms, require 'one sink and one toilet ... within 200 feet for every 3 temporary housing shelter units,' and calls for service‑safety‑director approval and annual reapproval of the use. Council member Swank read the commission's recommendation into the record.

The proposal prompted public comment and council debate over scale, safety and oversight. Resident Jack Stauffer told council, 'If we are truly trying to help the homeless, then they need real shelter inside a building of some type,' and expressed concern that moving people into tented shelters would harm neighborhoods and public safety. Member Thomas proposed a package of amendments intended to address those concerns: shelters should be 'under the supervision and care of a licensed local health and welfare agency' (with provision for churches and state‑licensed public welfare organizations), approved agencies must have an MOU with the service safety director, a maximum of six beds per location, a maximum of five locations citywide at any one time, and a prohibition on charging fees for use of the shelters.

The council debated whether it should adopt Thomas's changes now. The law director and council members noted a city rule (cited by section number in the record) that any amendment differing from a Planning Commission recommendation requires approval by at least three‑fourths of the full council—six of seven members. The amendment drew five votes in favor but fell short of the six‑vote threshold, so the ordinance moved forward in the original form recommended by the Planning Commission and was read for the first time.

Council members who expressed caution said they want to see how existing pilot projects (the 'gathering place') and the Sunset Motel project affect capacity before broadening the code citywide. Supporters of the amendment urged moving it forward so the public could comment on the amended language during subsequent readings.

The ordinance will return to council for additional readings and a final vote in later meetings.