Port Angeles council asks staff to study managed sheltering, sanctioned encampments and safe parking
Loading...
Summary
After a multi‑department briefing, the Port Angeles City Council unanimously directed staff to bring back a proposal on managed sheltering that includes options for sanctioned encampments and safe parking, and set deadlines for a public SOP and related feasibility studies.
The Port Angeles City Council on April 7 directed city staff to return with a proposal for “managed sheltering,” including options for sanctioned encampments and safe parking, and set a series of related work items and deadlines.
Council members voted unanimously to ask the city manager to bring a proposal for managed sheltering—including sanctioned encampment and safe‑parking options—for council consideration at the second meeting in May. The motion was moved by Council member Amy (speaker S15) and seconded; the amended main motion passed without opposition. Council also passed separate, unanimous motions requiring staff to develop a public‑facing standard operating procedure (SOP) for encampment responses and to report back on feasibility questions for regional agreements and non‑law‑enforcement response teams.
Why it matters: Council members said they want predictable, transparent city procedures rather than ad hoc enforcement. Multiple speakers said the city’s present code and operations produce inconsistent outcomes; several council members pressed for solutions that pair clearer rules with alternatives to criminalization, such as permitted camping zones and safe‑parking pilots.
What the council asked staff to return with
- A proposal for managed sheltering that identifies possible sites, operational models, and likely service partners, and that includes sanctioned encampment and safe‑parking options for council consideration at the second meeting in May (motion passed unanimously). Council member Amy framed the request as a feasibility and site‑selection task, not a vote to create encampments immediately.
- A public‑facing SOP for encampment response so that city actions are “predictable and transparent,” with initial deliverables due at the second meeting in May (moved by Council member John, passed unanimously).
- A feasibility analysis for an interlocal agreement (MOU/ILA) with Clallam County that would give the city a stronger voice in how federal and state homelessness funds are allocated within city limits; staff to report by the second meeting in September (unanimous).
- A feasibility assessment of a dedicated non‑law‑enforcement behavioral‑health 9‑1‑1 response team; staff to report an implementation timeline at a later meeting (motion passed unanimously).
What failed: A separate motion to direct staff to return a timeline for a suggested update consolidating camping rules into a single, standalone municipal ordinance did not pass on the final vote. Council members who opposed that motion said they preferred staff recommendations first and did not want to reprioritize existing code‑reform work without clearer direction.
Public comment and stakeholder input: Dozens of residents and service providers spoke during two comment periods. Many urged expanded sanitation (24‑hour restrooms, more trash and recycling receptacles), low‑barrier housing and safe parking, and more coordinated access to services; others pressed for immediate enforcement and cleanup in downtown, waterfront, and known problem locations. Service‑provider presenters recommended a mix of housing first, harm‑reduction funding, and managed site pilots; staff emphasized the city’s role as a property owner and coordinator with county and nonprofit partners.
What happens next: Staff will return to council with the requested proposals on the timetables above. Council asked that proposals identify costs and likely service partners, and that staff be explicit when a proposed approach would require changes to the municipal code or new recurring staff resources.
Quotes
Council member Amy: “I move to direct the city manager to bring back a proposal for managed sheltering, including options for sanctioned encampments and safe parking, for council consideration at the second meeting in May.”
Deputy City Manager Calvin Goings (staff): “Following these presentations, we will have approximately 45 minutes for council discussions…If council has additional discussion or formal action for staff, that will occur under other considerations.”
Next steps: Staff will return initial proposals and SOP text on the council’s schedule; the council may later direct ordinance changes or funding allocations based on those recommendations.
