On Thursday, the Humboldt County Planning Commission passed a pair of ordinances designed to address the county’s affordable housing needs – the Tiny House Village Ordinance and the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance – moving the policy documents on to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

Both ordinances, which have been in the works for nearly two years, seek to alter current Humboldt County zoning regulations, which do not allow for multiple small residential units on a single property. Development of the proposed policies was funded by a California Department of Housing & Community Development planning grant aimed at increasing low-income housing in the state, and the close of the funding window is fast-approaching. 

The commissioners’ conversations on Thursday night underscored the age-old balancing act in affordable housing development: keeping barriers to development as low as possible while providing the highest quality of living to village community residents.

Presented by Associate Planner Megan Acevedo, changes made to the draft Tiny House Village Ordinance fell into five categories: density of tiny houses per acre, zones in which tiny houses would be principally permitted (meaning that the villages would be made an allowable use in that land use designation, allowing for minimal red tape in development), the number of household pets allowable in each unit, parking requirements and development standards for common kitchens.

Setting standards for nuanced aspects of tiny house villages that consider community needs down to minutiae like food storage has placed the county in largely unexplored local government territory, according to Acevedo.

“In my research I have not found any tiny house village ordinances; we are the first county to do this,” she said.

The first proposed change from prior drafts concerned density, which the commissioners had recommended increasing from 20 to 30 units per acre in non-residential areas at their June 27 meeting. The change was reaffirmed in Thursday’s meeting as a way to increase affordability for village residents as the entities operating communities shoulder tax, insurance, utilities and management costs. 

“It’s just impossible to survive with only 20 [units] and keep the rent down,” Fifth District Commissioner Peggy O’Neill said, adding that she wants the units to be accessible to elders surviving on social security, students and disabled community members, among others.

Density standards for tiny house villages in residential areas will be kept consistent with communities’ general plans.

On the second category of changes discussed, the zones in which tiny house villages would be principally permitted, O’Neill pointed out that the parcels identified – approximately 922 of them, according to Acevedo’s presentation – fell primarily in the county’s developed coastal areas rather than Humboldt’s rural reaches. 

“Having worked for the majority of my career for people who don’t live in areas that have all of this [development], they still need housing,” she said. “They’re still living in bushes and in cars, and this would be a step up from homelessness … . They don’t want to move to Eureka or McKinleyville to get that housing. They want to stay in their community.”

Planning Director John Ford responded that the ordinance prioritizes sites that have adequate access to utilities, public transportation and services. (Around 718 of the 922 eligible parcels are within a half-mile of a transit stop). 

“I totally understand wanting to take people out of the bushes and put them into housing. We absolutely want to do that, but we also want to do it in a way that’s true to the purpose of the different districts,” he said, noting that sites in Humboldt’s rural regions often fall into resource lands designations, such as timberland. 

“’While I generally support your sentiment, I could not be supportive of adding resource lands to the zoning,” At-Large Commissioner Lorna McFarlane chimed in.  

The debate was ultimately put to bed by Chair Thomas Mulder’s point that including resource lands in the zoning may trigger additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, which could lead to delays that affect the ordinance’s funding. (The County is currently seeking a CEQA exemption for the project).

Another concern voiced in the zoning portion of the discussion was the identification of Industrial Commercial (C-3) zones as areas principally permitted for villages.

“I’m concerned from a health and safety standpoint,” First District Commissioner Iver Skavdal said, noting the prevalence of noise and heavy trucking in industrial areas. At-Large Commissioner Sarah West countered that Humboldt is rife with “a tremendous amount” of underutilized industrial land. The commission settled on moving Industrial Commercial zones into conditionally (rather than principally) permitted use. 

The point on pets – a quick discussion, commissioners agreed that two household pets (defined as cats or dogs) in each unit is acceptable – led into the longest portion of the meeting: parking requirements. 

As proposed, the draft ordinance required one parking space per unit, with additional reduction options available for projects that have on-street parking or bike facilities (5% reduction for providing bike racks, 10% for fenced bike racks and 25% for providing bike lockers or racks within an enclosed secure space). Twenty-five percent reductions would also be available for projects within half a mile of a public transit stop. 

In her presentation, Acevedo said that the options could be “stacked” to allow up to a 50% reduction in required parking – lowering development costs.

The commissioners’ wide-ranging parking discussion hit on many transport-related considerations, from how breachable bike lockers actually are to parking impacts for the neighbors and businesses that will surround tiny house communities.

“One of the core struggles I’m having with this ordinance in general is that there are a lot of situations … where you could have five houses on a rural property, living in a communal fashion in a very rural area,” West said. “But at the same time, we’re also talking about addressing housing needs in a much larger way and enabling much denser developments … all in one swoop. And how do we meet all the needs all the way around?” she asked, summing up the struggle of creating a catch-all ordinance for a vast county with living styles ranging from semi-urban to very rural.

“I feel like we’re not quite getting there on either end, and maybe that’s the best we can do,” she concluded. 

In the end, all seven commissioners agreed to scratch the 5% reduction for unsecured bike racks, add a requirement for “some version of a secure bike locker” per every two units and lower the parking requirement to one space per unit for projects within a half-mile of a transit stop.

The final meaty discussion regarding changes to the Tiny House Village Ordinance was on common kitchens, an area of regulation in which no state or California Building Code requirements exist to guide or provide examples for the ordinances, as Acevedo noted. Kitchen situations as outlined in the ordinances vary by tiny house community type: the drafts envision both common kitchen situations, where residents are cooking for themselves, as well as service kitchens providing cafeteria-style dining for residents.

The Commission’s kitchens talk centered on requirements for common kitchens, and carried through the theme of the night: keeping costs as low as possible for developers while ensuring that residents have what they need to live comfortably. 

Considering that some people cook more or less than others, and not every resident will eat at the same time, the Commission settled on a requirement that each common kitchen should have the equivalent of a residential kitchen (loosely defined, but including a four burner stove) per every eight units.

Emergency Housing Village Ordinance

With those changes hammered out, the Commission unanimously moved to approve the Tiny House Village Ordinance as amended, and the discussion transitioned to the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance.

Unlike communities in the Tiny House Village Ordinance – which are geared toward more long-term residency, may include ownership opportunities and seek to add diverse affordable housing opportunities to the county’s stock (including some market-rate units) – the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance is intended to aid persons experiencing homelessness by relaxing building standards for Emergency Dependent Unit Villages and Alternative Lodge Parks under the County’s 2022 Shelter Crisis Declaration.

Director Ford made clear that the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance governs “hard structures” only, and that sheltering in vehicles or in tents on approved sites will continue to fall under the County’s Safe Parking-Safe Shelter Pilot Program. 

The Commission had one change to consider on the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance: whether or not to principally permit Emergency Dependent Unit Villages in Industrial Commercial (C-3) and Highway Service Commercial (CH) areas.

“These are uses that would probably generate a little bit of public comment,” Director Ford said, explaining the thinking that looking to “areas that have less concerned neighbors” would allow more projects to come to fruition.

Commissioners reiterated concerns with quality of living in industrial areas but agreed that wherever an emergency housing village is placed, it will likely be safer than where residents are currently living unhoused.

“I think we should use the available land,” Commissioner McFarlane said.

The Commission ultimately moved to add Industrial Commercial and Highway Service Commercial to the zones that Emergency Dependent Unit Villages are principally permitted in (which also include Residential Multiple Family [R-3], Apartment Professional [R-4], Mixed Use Urban [MU-1], Neighborhood Commercial [C-1] and Community Commercial [C-2]).

Commissioner O’Neill also brought up whether or not the ordinance should include parking for on-site service staff, but the majority of commissioners decided against mandated parking to maintain the “spirit of as few requirements as possible” (in Mulder’s words).

“I would leave it at the discretion of the person who is operating the village to know … what they need to operate and not unintentionally limit them on what they can do on the site with parking requirements,” Commissioner West said.

“This is an emergency housing village and less is more here,” Commissioner Skavdal agreed. “I would not add the parking requirement.”

District Four Commissioner Jerome Qiriazi then opened a discussion around potential air quality issues that generators could create in emergency housing villages.

“We may have an emergency shelter in place for many years,” he said. 

Commissioners discussed limiting the number of generators running on each site, but ultimately decided to stick with the language as written, which already requires a special permit for generator use. 

The Commission also decided to narrow the sites available for emergency village development to those within fire districts, in response to a concern raised by Commissioner Skavdal regarding emergency service access. As the majority of the 699 parcels identified for emergency villages are already in fire districts, Director Ford called the proposal an “easy add.”

Closing discussion on the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance, Commissioners directed staff to extend the period of disassembly for emergency villages from 90 to 180 days in the case that the Shelter Crisis Declaration is no longer effective to provide residents adequate time to figure out next steps.

The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance as amended, and directed staff to explore modifying the Building Code to allow for use of more alternative structures (including tents and yurts) in Alternative Lodge Parks. 

“This is the policy, this is the framework by which we’re doing things, but I hope this is not where the County stops in building resources and providing information and really supporting organizations doing this in our community,” Commissioner West said before the vote. “I think this is one of the biggest challenges that we face as a county and I hope that we throw as many resources as possible at it.”

Director Ford said that September remains the goal date to have the Tiny House Village Ordinance and the Emergency Housing Village Ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors. 

As the meeting was over the three hour mark, the Commission continued discussion of the Draft Commercial Residential Ordinance – which allows for residential development in zones where office, parking, or retail uses are permitted – on to its August 1 meeting.