Skip to main content
Last week, Portland City Commissioner Dan Ryan and his office announced the first three locations for the city’s six safe rest villages.
One of them is at 8330 SE 45th Ave., a paved lot adjacent to Errol Heights Park in the Brentwood-Darlington neighborhood. And it’s the first selection to receive formal pushback.
Neighborhood associations and nearby business owners regularly object to officials suggesting a homeless shelter for their street. But the objection to the site comes from another quarter: the Audubon Society of Portland.
On Oct. 1, the Audubon Society’s conservation director, Bob Sallinger, raised questions to the city on its placement, saying he thinks the parcel of land is the staging site for a future wetlands restoration project by the Bureau of Environmental Services, which owns the parcel of land, and should therefore not be used as a safe rest village. (Sallinger tells WW those familiar with the project told him it was a staging site—but says the “information is very preliminary.”)
He sent an email to the project manager of the safe rest villages, Chariti Montez, and a handful of other policy directors for the city to express his disgruntlement. That email was obtained WW.
“When the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability developed rules for siting safe rest villages, it was clear that natural areas were to be avoided,” Sallinger wrote. “While this site is not currently zoned as open space, it was purchased by BES with the intent of using it for that purpose: first as a staging area for restoration and later as part of the natural area. The selection of this site would appear to violate the intent if not the letter of the rules developed by BPS.”
The project Sallinger alluded to is a $12 million park restoration project for the Errol Heights Park, including restoring the park’s wetlands, widening trails to allow for wheelchair access, and adding more recreational areas. In total, it’s a 16-acre project.
Sallinger tells WW that the Audubon Society was told about the site 20 minutes before Ryan’s office publicly announced it Thursday afternoon, and that “we were caught completely by surprise on this.”
“Commissioner Ryan’s office contacted us because they realized that this site might be of concern given its immediate proximity to the Errol Heights Natural Area,” Sallinger said. “While I appreciate the heads-up, obviously we were not provided with any time to proactively engage with Commissioner Ryan’s office on this topic.”
Sallinger wrote in the email that the city could possibly face legal challenges if it moved forward with the project because the safe rest village would not fall under BES’s intent when the bureau purchased the property.
“Use of this site for a safe rest village is potentially a violation in terms of use of BES rates for activities (purchase of the site) not related to BES’s mission,” Sallinger wrote, noting that the city was sued over a similar issue in 2011 and lost. ”From our perspective, this lawsuit set BES initiatives back years, and it would be very unfortunate if the city repeated this situation. Has the city gotten legal advice around potential ‘Anderson issues’?”
By “Anderson issues,” Sallinger means a lawsuit brought against the Water Bureau and Bureau of Environmental Services in 2011 by a ratepayer (and former city commissioner) named Lloyd Anderson, who argued that any project funded by water and sewer rates must directly provide water and sewer services. (The city settled.)
BES officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Sallinger also mentioned it’s a flood-prone area and that it might have “significant pollution” because it “was used as a car wash and its immediate proximity to Precision Cast Parts.”
“The site is subject to periodic flooding and is likely to become part of the floodplain when the city does its remapping,” Sallinger wrote. “Does it make sense to house people in a site that was purchased by the city due to periodic flooding?”
The parcel was not on the city’s initial list of 70 potential sites for safe rest villages.
The other two sites announced by the city last week are the 2300 block of Southwest Naito Parkway and the Menlo Park Park & Ride at Southeast 122nd Avenue and East Burnside Street.
“Should this site move forward, we are very interested in actively being part of the conversation so that we can work proactively on issues and opportunities that may arise related to natural area/ natural resource impacts,” Sallinger wrote. “However, we question given the background on this site whether it actually makes sense for this purpose.”
Sallinger tells WW that, at this time, the Audubon Society does not plan to challenge the site further.
“We hope that by working proactively with the city and local communities,” he says, “we can alleviate some of the challenges and conflicts that have occurred at natural areas during this houseless crisis.”