The Bud Clark Commons in Portland, Oregon provides housing and services to individuals experiencing homelessness. It contains a 90-bed men's shelter, resource center, and 130 permanent supportive housing units. When siting the facility, the city engaged the local community through a collaborative process. This included a Community Advisory Committee to provide input on the design. Additionally, a Good Neighbor Agreement was developed through negotiations to address community concerns and establish protocols for ongoing relations. Overall, the facility was successfully sited through an innovative partnership between government, service providers, and community stakeholders.

1. The Bud Clark Commons
Portland, Oregon
Kara Silbernagel
image: http://www.aroundthesunblog.com

2. Emerging Best Practices in Siting Housing First | 16
Abstract 3. Concentrate resources on programs that offer measurable
On June 2, 2011, Portland, Oregon opened a multi- results.
faceted homeless facility in the heart of the city. e Bud Clark Inherent within the Home Again plan, as outlined with
Commons, the cornerstone of Portland’s 10-year plan to end these three key principles, is a “housing first” methodology to
homelessness, provides tiered services to people experiencing end homelessness and develop a comprehensive homeless
homelessness (Home Again, 2005). Within the 10-year plan, facility. At the cornerstone of the plan was the Bud Clark
Portland identified three critical services that helps individuals Commons (BCC), originally known as the Resource Access
achieve stability and end homelessness; shelter services, access Center. e BCC was developed from an innovative partnership
to resources, and most importantly, stable housing. e Bud with the City of Portland’s Housing Bureau, Multnomah
Clark Commons is the linchpin of the plan by providing all County, Home Forward (previously the Housing Authority of
three services to individuals within the same building. e Portland) and local service provider, Transition Projects, Inc.
facility is a LEED-Platinum building that houses a resource day While Portland Housing Bureau, Multnomah County were key
center, men’s shelter and 130 studio apartments. ese players in siting the facility, Home Forward and Transition
apartments provide permanent housing to the most vulnerable, Projects are instrumental in the management and day-to-day
chronically homeless populations under the Housing First operations of the facility.
model. e following case study looks at the innovative e first floor of the building houses a 90-bed men’s
partnerships between the City of Portland, Multnomah County, shelter, with the second and third floors hosting a Resource Day
service providers, business associations and citizen groups to Center. e Day Center provides resources such as mental
successfully site and design the facility while keeping sight of health, veteran services, eye care and social security services to
the overarching goal: helping individuals overcome personal anyone in the community seeking assistance. e remainder of
and social barriers to achieve stability. the building is made up of 130 Housing First studio apartments
that provides permanent housing to chronically homeless
Discussion individuals who suffer from personal barriers such as mental
In 2005, the City of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah illness or drug abuse. See Appendix A for a layout of the facility.
County developed “Home Again – A 10-year plan to end
homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County.” e 10-year Appetite for Collaboration
plan addresses several issues throughout Portland and Portland has a strong history for collaboration and civic
Multnomah County, highlighting three key goals: engagement. Critical to these civic engagement efforts is the
1. Focus on the most chronically homeless populations. Office of Neighborhood Involvement, a bureau within city
2. Streamline access to existing services in order to prevent government. In Portland there are 95 distinct neighborhood
and reduce other homelessness. associations recognized by the City and actively involved

3. Emerging Best Practices in Siting Housing First | 17
community government. Whether private or public, any new housing typically do not have the means to support businesses
development, deed or permit must notify and engage with and retail. Without a balanced housing market, the community
appropriate neighborhood association(s) prior to receiving could not sustain a vibrant business district. Owners would
approval from City Council.1 is process allows community leave the neighborhood, creating a windfall for the community.2
members to voice their concerns and provide valuable feedback At the onset of the siting process, members of the
to City officials to better shape development in Portland. community, specifically OTCT were unhappy with the location
e Bud Clark Commons is sited at the juncture of Old and many argued the City ignored the Vision Plan and its goals
Town China Town Neighborhood and Pearl District in for balance in the community. Members felt the City was
downtown Portland. Historically known as the “skid row” of placing an unjust burden on the Old Town Chinatown
Portland, Old Town Chinatown (OTCT) is the common neighborhood. While residents and business owners accepted
gathering location for people suffering from homelessness, that the community needed to provide services to the homeless,
mental illnesses, drug addition and other illnesses. In an effort they felt adding additional low-income housing was shiing the
to help individuals overcome such barriers, several human balance and creating an unsustainable community.
service providers have located to the neighborhood over the In addition, OTCT Vice Chair, Nancy Stowell recalls at
years. Local service providers, such as Transition Projects have the beginning of the siting process that the Bud Clark
been providing men’s and women’s shelters, meals and social Commons was not the only development being proposed. ere
services to the homeless in OTCT for years. As a staple fixture were multiple low-income and affordable housing developments
in the community, many of these service providers are not only under consideration which only increased the community’s
businesses, but they are also active, engaged community concern about an unbalanced neighborhood. rough the siting
members participating in neighborhood associations. and design process, the City and project partners actively
Approximately 30 years ago, the Old Town Chinatown engaged with residents and businesses to address their concerns
Neighborhood Association adopted a Vision Plan for the and ensure the facility would not inhibit the value of the
community. Due to the neighborhood’s longstanding reputation neighborhood, but rather sustain and contribute to a safe,
as “skid row” residents were determined to address the issues healthy community.
facing the area and develop a plan to create a vibrant, safe, and
healthy community. Rather than try to clean-up and eradicate Case Study
the neighborhood of its nuisances, OTCT embraced and Phase I: Location
integrated the diversity of the area in their plan. e Vision Plan e Bud Clark Commons facility is located in OTCT,
set out goals to balance low-income, poverty residences with just south of the Portland Union Station, and borders the Pearl
market rate and above housing. Residents of low-income District neighborhood – a historically higher income,
1 Office of Neighborhood Involvement (http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/)
2 Stowell, Nancy. Vice Chair of Old Town China Town Neighborhood Association. Interviewed 4.17.12

4. Emerging Best Practices in Siting Housing First | 18
destination neighborhood. e specific space was a vacant lot renewal block. e other half of the block would be set aside for
owned by the Portland Development Commission (PDC), the redevelopment and market-rate housing. is resolution,
urban renewal agency for the City charged with developing coupled with the fact that the intent of the 10-year Home Again
projects to meet the City’s housing, economic and homeless plan was always intended to site the facility in Old
redevelopment priorities. In 2008, City Council transferred the Town Chinatown, helped to alleviate tensions between
block from the PDC to the Portland Housing Authority to community members and service providers. Citizens moved
develop the site for the Bud Clark Commons.3 e siting beyond opposition and entered into a collaborative decision
resolution outlines an alternative block if the NW Irving block making process with the site developers to ensure the facility
is deemed inadequate, due to an environmental assessment or simultaneously addressed homeless needs in the neighborhood,
cost. is alternative block is still located within OTCT as well as community member concerns.
neighborhood – demonstrating the City’s plan to develop the
facility that is the cornerstone of the 10-year plan within OTCT. Phase II: Design
e resolution also outlines that the Office of Neighborhood e Portland Housing Board and Home Forward
Involvement must help facilitate a good neighborhood created a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to
agreement between all agencies and neighbors, “as required by participate in the development and design of the facility. Local
City Policy.” residents from neighborhood associations, business association
As mentioned above, there was high interest from representatives, service providers and individuals who had
community members in the siting of the facility. To address previously been homeless and could speak on behalf of those
community concerns, the Old Town Chinatown Visions currently suffering from homelessness served on the CAC. For
committee hosted twelve meetings between 2007 and 2008. One two years, the advisory committee, with leadership from Home
of the top concerns from these meetings was the housing Forward, worked with the designers and architects to create an
imbalance it would create in the neighborhood, as well as that engaging design that reflected the values of the community.5
the siting may impede future redevelopment of the Broadway e advisory committee provided crucial perspectives
Corridor – a significant city project to promote redevelopment on pieces ranging from exterior design, aesthetics to overall
in downtown Portland.4 As a compromise for both resident and community impacts. For example, the CAC helped problem
business concerns, the PDC and Portland Housing Bureau solve a common concern, queuing. Oentimes, individuals
agreed the facility would only be on half of PDC-owned urban queue in front of facilities, blocking sidewalks, littering and in
3 Resource Access Center (RAC) Resolution, 2008. http://www.homeforward.org/system/files/docs/developments/RAC-sitingresolution.pdf
4 Portland Development Commission Resolution, 2008. http://www.homeforward.org/system/files/docs/developments/RAC-PDC-resolutionblockU.pdf
5 Allen, Kate. Senior Policy Advisor, Portland Housing Bureau. Interviewed 3.31.12

5. Emerging Best Practices in Siting Housing First | 19
some instances, exhibiting disruptive behavior. To resolve sparked the idea for the Good Neighbor Agreement, Kate Allen,
queuing tensions, the Bud Clark Commons only allows Senior Policy Advisor stated it is a common practice in Portland
individuals to queue within the facilities courtyard. Not only and required by City policy for certain developments, such as
does this provide a safer, cleaner environment for the this one.8 While neighborhood agreements and processes differ
community, it also provides a safe, protected environment for depending on circumstances, it is common for the City’s
the homeless, especially during times of bad weather when lines Neighborhood Involvement Bureau to facilitate neighborhood
are the longest.6 CAC members were also concerned about how agreements, oentimes between business development and
the design of the facility may impede future redevelopment on neighborhoods. e idea to develop a neighborhood agreement
the remainder of the block. is was agreed upon by all parties was always planned to be a part of the siting process.
and helped foster the design of the ground floor in ways that Many of the stakeholders that participated in the
supported the functionality of the building without creating Community Advisory Council were the same as those that
problems for residents or the Portland Police Bureau.”7 rough participated in the Good Neighborhood Agreement (GNA)
two design workshops multiple Community Advisory negotiations. However, GNA stakeholders represented a larger
Committee meetings, the architects were able to incorporate the congregation of community stakeholders than those that
needs and concerns of all the stakeholders into the facility. participated in the CAC. In addition, Transition Projects
Additionally, the Community Advisory Committee also identified homeless representatives to also participate in the
played vital roles in securing permits, receiving authorization process. As part of the GNA negotiations, future Bud Clark
and financing for the facility. Representatives from the CAC Commons residence were engaged in the process to build
provided vital testimony for City Council throughout the community and help residents take responsibility for their
process, including the Resolution process transferring home. e impact from their participation can be seen in the
ownership of the block, approving the design of the facility and GNA. When neighbors saw that residents were engaged and
eventual development. Again, reiterating the collaborative taking a stake in their combined community, there was a large
decision framework. shi from an “us versus them” to an “us” mantra.5
To effectively enter into a neighborhood agreement, the
Good Neighbor Agreement Development Process City paid for a professional facilitator to manage the
Once the Bud Clark Commons secured funding and discussions. is allowed representatives from the Portland
began to move forward with building the facility, the Portland Housing Bureau, Home Forward and Transitions Project to
Housing Bureau initiated a community engagement process to participate as stakeholders, rather than a facilitator.
develop a Good Neighbor Agreement. When asked what Representatives of these agencies were largely leadership and
6 Home Forward (www.homeforward.org)
7 Design Workshop Notes, 2008. http://www.homeforward.org/system/files/docs/developments/RAC-DesignWorkshop-SummaryNotes053108.pdf
8 Allen, Kate. Senior Policy Advisor, Portland Housing Bureau. Interviewed 3.31.12

6. Emerging Best Practices in Siting Housing First | 20
Board Members. Staff from these agencies served mostly as Good Neighbor Agreement Impacts
resources to address questions, rather than participate in the In the end, the Good Neighbor Agreement is simply not
Siting Committee. just a paper of signatures. Rather it outlines, in detail, how the
As a staff resource present at these GNA negotiations, community, businesses, and Bud Clark residents can mitigate
Ms. Allen lauded the role of the facilitator. e facilitator was concerns and conflicts moving forward.10 e GNA provides
critical in rephrasing comments and concerns into constructive protocols for addressing any safety or disturbance concerns.
criticisms and a common platform. is helped mitigate the role Rather than allowing any circumstance to escalate, the
of emotions and allowed the stakeholders to effectively and Good Neighbor Agreement encourages any persons with a
efficiently address concerns. It created a comfortable, safe concern to call representatives. is helps to address concerns
environment, free to be critical while remaining respectful of immediately and proactively respond. e GNA also includes a
others.9 In the end, the stakeholders were working towards a detailed call list of stakeholders which, according to Ms. Allen,
common goal, rather than complete opposition. has been instrumental in the operations of the facility. is
As part of the GNA negotiations, the Portland Housing allows person-to-person connections, rather than simply feeling
Bureau developed an outreach and communication plan to that a concern may not be addressed.
effectively engage as many residents, business owners and other Another aspect of the Good Neighbor Agreement also
stakeholders as possible. It is clear that Portland Housing includes the Operating Rules for Bud Clark Commons
Authority went beyond generally accepted engagement for this residents. is inclusion into the Agreement allows community
process. Rather than simply posting public meetings in legal members to see that BCC residents are also held to a high safety
sections of newspapers, PHA compiled a complete PowerPoint standard and they are responsible for maintaining a safe and
presentation that was available on their website, went into the clean neighborhood as well. is helps ensure the weight of the
community, and hosted a GNA signature party once the community is equally dispersed among neighborhood residents
negotiations were complete. is outreach fostered the idea that and businesses, agency partners and Bud Clark Commons
negotiations were not a one-step process that ended at a one- residents.
time meeting. Rather, it was an iterative process that depended In efforts to continue community development with all
on the stakeholders to carry-out the GNA once the facility was the stakeholders, neighborhood associations invite residents to
built. For a complete list of stakeholders see the Good participate in their quarterly meetings. In addition, service
Neighborhood Agreement, Appendix B. provider representatives also participate in meetings. As both
Ms. Allen and Ms. Stowell reiterated to me, the residents at the
Bud Clark Commons are not isolated, but rather part of a
9 Allen, Kate. Senior Policy Advisor, Portland Housing Bureau. Interviewed 3.31.12
10 Good Neighbor Agreement – Appendix B

7. Emerging Best Practices in Siting Housing First | 21
community, which can be just as vital to attaining housing balances housing market. rough thoughtful and articulate
stability as housing itself. meetings, project partners and community stakeholders were
able to site, design and operate a facility to tackle homelessness
Conclusion and provide a value-added benefit to the neighborhood.
While the Bud Clark Commons Housing Facility What lessons can North Boulder Alliance and Boulder
initially received community push back, through a Housing Partners learn from the Bud Clark Commons? It is
comprehensive community engagement process and evident that community engagement is embedded in the City of
collaborative decision making, the facility was successfully sited Portland. ere were strong expectations that community
in its intended location. While some of the efforts from the members would be integrated into the process. But is that not so
project partners were innovative and transparent, such as the different from the culture in Boulder? Boulder also has a strong
Community Advisory Committee that was involved from the tradition of transparency and engagement that is oen
beginning, the City of Portland has historically fostered a correlated to Portland. Moving forward the City of Boulder may
transparent, collaborative process between city government and develop regulated procedures that foster a civil civic
residents. For over thirty years, Portland has officially engagement process. Provide a platform for neighborhood
recognized neighborhood associations and created policies and associations to be heard, such as a Neighborhood Involvement
regulations that regularly involve community members. is Bureau. is not only benefits community members, but it also
environment for collaboration and transparency created a high outlines a process for all developers. Planners and developers
level of expectations on part of both residents and project can plan for methods to alleviate opposition and conflicts,
partners to ensure the Bud Clark Commons met the needs and rather than address more common claims, which is that the
concerns of stakeholders. community wasn’t heard. Boulder Housing Alliance can learn
In looking at the Bud Clark Commons process, we can from Old Town Chinatown and adopt a vision plan for the
learn from their community engagement to ensure successful community. e homeless providers are not leaving the
housing services in the City of Boulder. While common neighborhood. e facility is going to be built. It is time to work
opposition to the Boulder Housing First facility is that one with the city, engage with the homeless population so they are
community is bearing the burden of services for the entire city, also part of the community, and adopt policies for future
the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood association accepted development so the burden can be address immediately.
this role within Portland. In addition, several years prior to
developing the facility, the City highlighted that the cornerstone
to ending homelessness would be providing services within Old
Town Chinatown. Guided by a decades-old Vision Plan that is
formally recognized by City Council, OTCT addressed the issue
head-on. Community Advisory Committee members addressed
specific concerns related to business sustainability and a