###

In an effort to expand low-cost housing options and alleviate our region’s chronic homelessness, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors today passed a package of ordinances that together will allow tiny home villages and emergency housing villages in certain residential and commercial zones.

The Tiny House Village Ordinance, which was developed by staff and fine-tuned over the course of three planning commission meetings, allows for groups of self-contained tiny homes, each with their own kitchen and bathroom facilities, as well as dependent unit villages, where three or more sleeping units share central kitchen and bathroom facilities.

A pair of ordinances — one for the inland areas and one for the coastal zone — create design standards and regulate such things as water/sewer connections, parking, pets (up to two cats/dogs per unit), bike lockers, power sources and more. Short-term rentals (like Airbnb) are not allowed, and power is allowed with grid connection, renewable power or generators, though Acevedo noted that there are noise and storage standards for the latter. Road access need to meet fire safety regulations for fire truck access.

These villages are intended for permanent residential use, and standards spelled out in the ordinance require privacy between units, common areas and, for the dependent unit villages, property management. The ordinance allows for up to 30 units per acre, with no minimum parcel size, and applicants could be allowed even more units with a density bonus. 

County planner Megan Acevedo, who delivered the staff report, showed a map of more than 700 qualifying parcels that fall within half a mile of a bus stop.

The Emergency Housing Village Ordinance — which also has inland and coastal zone versions — allows for “alternative lodge parks,” which require a use permit. The living quarters here — defined as hard-sided and -roofed structures with living space and possibly a bathroom but no kitchen — only need to meet basic California Building Code requirements, not the full Uniform Building Code. Allowable housing types include movable houses, tiny homes, mobile homes, RVs and trailers.

Such emergency villages will only be allowed while the county has an active shelter crisis declaration. (The current one has been in place since 2022.) Once the shelter crisis is declared over, these sites will need to be removed. The emergency villages, which must be connected to public water and sewer systems, are intended specifically for people experiencing homelessness, and they can only be operated by a government agency, religious institution or nonprofit.

After the staff presentation, Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell voiced concerns about tiny home villages and emergency shelter villages being allowed in downtown Garberville without a public review process.  She noted the struggling economy in SoHum and said, “If you create those housing opportunities in a community and then you have no commercial in that community … what are you creating?”

Planning and Building Director John Ford told her that state law already allows residential developments in commercial zones by right, and tiny home villages are intended to be an alternative permanent housing type.

Requiring public input to permit housing “can become a very painful process that actually discourages [applicants] from even beginning that process,” Ford said.

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn said he’s worried about the potential for massive tiny home developments to pop up in certain locations, such as the McKay Ranch subdivision on the outskirts of Eureka. 

“So could they actually build 1,200 tiny homes out there and set up a nonprofit?” he asked. 

Ford said that since some parcels in that development are zoned for multi-family residential, it’s conceivable that something like this could go there. 

Despite these concerns, the supervisors acknowledged the longstanding issues around homelessness and wound up approving the ordinances unanimously.

Homeless numbers decline a bit

The latest “Point-in-Time” count of people experiencing homelessness estimated that there were 1,573 such people in Humboldt County on the night of January 22, 2024. That’s a 4.4 percent decrease from the previous count, conducted in 2022, and a 7.6 decline from 2019, according to Robert Ward, the Humboldt Housing and Homelessness Coalition coordinator.

Of that latest total, 551 people were considered “chronically homeless,” with almost 80 percent of those being unsheltered, Ward said. Contrary to many stereotypes, only about 412 of the roughly 1,400 homeless adults reported having a significant mental illness, though Ward said that’s a lower standard than what the county uses to qualify people for mental health services. 

Four hundred eighty five of the adults reported a substance use disorder, and 95 percent of those folks were unsheltered.

Families with children saw a significant increase in the count, though Ward said that uptick was partly due the first-time inclusion of people in the CalWORKS temporary homeless assistance motel voucher program, the Humboldt domestic violence services shelter program and a new Hoopa tribal shelter.

“Those folks were there before, but we just didn’t have data in the past,” Ward said.

There was a large decline in the number of homeless veterans tallied, with just an estimated 87 in this year’s count. Ward said he doesn’t know why that is and couldn’t offer any theories. 

American Indian or indigenous folks accounted for 13.67 percent of the total tally, which is more than double that group’s share of the general population, according to Census data.

There are significantly fewer unsheltered people in Eureka and especially Southern Humboldt, while the number in Arcata climbed dramatically from previous counts.

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone had some questions about the methodology, noting that the vast majority of people experiencing homelessness in McKinleyville are on private property, most of which is considered off limits to volunteer counters. 

Letter to San Francisco Mayor London Breed

Toward the end of the meeting, Connie Beck, director of the county’s Department of Health and Human services, presented a draft letter that her department recommended sending to San Francisco Mayor London Breed regarding that city’s new Journey Home program, which offers homeless people one-way tickets to other jurisdictions “without verifying access to housing, family support or employment,” according to the letter.

A recent story in the San Francisco Standard identified Humboldt County as one of the top three destinations for homeless people given bus tickets within California, though, as the Outpost reported yesterday, there have only been 25 such people (sent anywhere in California) since the program launched last September, and the number who’ve been sent here is so small that the San Francisco Human Services Agency said an exact number could be identifying.

Meanwhile, Humboldt County helps relocate “an average of nine people a month” through its own Transportation Assistance Program, according to DHHS spokesperson Christine Messinger.

Still, Beck and other county officials are concerned about an influx of more homeless people with tenuous ties to the community, and the letter urges Breed “to ensure that Journey Home participants have the support they need to obtain housing and employment before they receive transportation assistance to Humboldt County.”

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo said she felt the letter was “a little bit of overkill” in expressing dismay about some people coming to Humboldt County and in submitting a formal request for more information under the California Public Records Act.

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson also voiced concerns, saying he would have preferred if county staff reached out to employees in San Francisco to request more information on the policy before drafting a public letter.

“I kind of feel like it just misses a step,” he said of the letter.

But DHHS staff said San Francisco has made a “dramatic change in their policy” that could result in far more homeless people being sent here. Bohn agreed, saying the city has removed “90 percent of their criteria” for putting someone on a bus. He advocated for sending the letter.

“I don’t want to hurt San Francisco’s feelings, but on the other hand, I don’t care,” Bohn said.

Bushnell and Madrone both said they’re okay with the letter’s content, with Bushnell saying her constituents have expressed a lot of concern about the matter. Bohn suggested excising the Public Records Act request from the letter.

Bushnell made a motion to allow Beck and Bohn to rework the letter as discussed and then send it. Wilson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.