Guest Opinion | Tiny Villages as a Strategy to Address Homelessness in Pasadena

Dear Members of the Economic Development & Technology (“ED Tech”) Committee: 

I have been a resident of Pasadena for over 19 years. I am an advocate for persons experiencing  homelessness in Pasadena, especially our unsheltered residents. I have also been involved in  direct outreach to our unsheltered residents and I have shared a two-year journey with a formerly  unhoused resident who, after decades of experiencing homelessness and 19 months in interim  housing, is finally receiving a permanent home.  

Through my experience I have observed the extremely difficult circumstances our unsheltered  endure daily and the substantial obstacles to achieving permanent housing and wellness. I have  also learned that our community IS interested in creating a more humane housing situation for  our unsheltered residents through conducting two community webinars and circulating a petition  for more interim housing in our City. 

The Staff Report’s recommendation notes as follows: “This item is for information only; no  action is required.” I hope you will disagree. Urgent action to provide basic shelter and services  for our nearly 300 unsheltered residents IS required. 

I have submitted many letters to you about creating more interim housing for our unsheltered  residents, which are part of the public record. Other community members have as well. The  purpose of this letter is to address important information that is missing from the June 1, 2022  Staff Report to this Committee. 

1. The Very Significant Risks Our Unsheltered Residents Endure and the Benefits of Tiny Shelter Communities Need to be Considered by Staff and this Committee

A key discussion missing from the staff presentation is the significant risks of life on the street  and how adequate interim housing is necessary to protect our unsheltered residents. This is the  reason community members urged that this subject be agendized in the first place.

According to our Housing Department and homeless service providers I have talked to, it can  take over one year for a person to move from life on the street to permanent housing.  Unsheltered persons are extremely vulnerable due to substantial chronic health conditions;  undiagnosed and untreated mental illness; substance use disorders; malnutrition, and/or other  substantial problems, including threats to their personal safety. (See 2020 Homeless Count  Report, pp. 23-25; see also, 2022 Homeless Count Report, p. 15.) Unsheltered persons face very  substantial daily challenges including possible assault and harassment, loss of belongings, health  and mental health issues, food insecurity, lack of readily available bathrooms and hygiene  services, inclement weather, and transportation difficulties. A Housing Department staff  member has stated publicly that “It’s very unsafe on the street. People don’t sleep much.”  (12/8/2021 ED Tech Mtg., timestamp 1:16:00.)  

Tiny homes as interim housing for unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness, have distinct  advantages over scattered-site motel “vouchers,” our City’s primary interim housing model.  Some of those benefits/advantages are as follows: 

• Intensive onsite case management services (health, mental health, substance use disorder  treatment, housing navigation, job counseling) 
• Efficient onsite case management services (both client and provider) 
• Sense of community 
• Continuity of care 
• Sense of security knowing there will be shelter and services for more than just a few days  • Some sites include a medical professional onsite to assist with medications, etc. • Easy transport to medical, etc. appointments 
• Laundry facilities onsite; housekeeping 
• Meals delivered onsite 
• 24/7 Security 
• Cabins available for re-use, unlike motel vouchers; 10-year life cycle 
• Tiny homes can be more cost efficient, operationally, than motel vouchers.1

1. Critical Quantitative Information on the City’s Motel “Voucher” Program Has Not Been Provided to the Community

At this Committee’s December 8, 2021 meeting, Vice Mayor Wilson asked staff to provide the  total number of motel nights, by location, used for interim housing. He stated the City is  spending over $2 million and should be tracking where the money is spent. He noted that, if  motel vouchers are concentrated in a few motels at a few locations, perhaps we could pursue  “ownership change.”

Councilmember Madison stated “[a]t a bare minimum we need to know where every dollar  went.” (1:15:00.) Councilmember Hampton agreed that we should know how many room nights  were used, and where, and that if staff does not have that information, it should obtain it on a  going-forward basis. (1:17:00.) 

Information related to the number of motel nights provided is critical to understanding how many  unsheltered residents our City is actually providing for, and for how long, and how many are  being left on the street with no shelter at all. City staff has not provided any of this information,  at least not publicly as requested by community members.  

Significantly, the Staff Report states that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City’s congregate  shelters have had to reduce their capacities by up to 75%. “Thus, the need for new, non congregate interim or ‘bridge’ housing has grown more urgent.” (Staff Report, p. 1.)  Additionally, in the December 6, 2021 response to my second PRA request (submitted  November 2, 2021), staff stated the following: “. . .[T]he City does not have sufficient resources  to meet the shelter needs of all who need it on a nightly basis. Motel vouchers for everyone is  not a viable or practical solution for several reasons. Scattered-site, motel-based shelter without  on-site services is not a shelter model that appropriately meets the needs of all unsheltered  persons. A variety of shelter models, including congregate shelters and transitional housing for  certain populations, is needed to meet the varying needs of the City’s homeless population.”  

Thus, Staff has clearly advised you, at least generally, that the motel voucher program is  inadequate. Staff notes in the PowerPoint that the City is in the process of developing an  updated Homelessness Plan. The Pasadena Continuum of Care Homelessness Plan was last  updated in June of 2019! The current update is not expected to be completed until December and is purportedly going to serve as a guiding document for planning, funding and coordination  of homeless services in the future. In the meantime, and even though staff admits that the City’s  interim housing is currently inadequate, are our most vulnerable residents expected to just “hang  out” on the “very unsafe” streets? 

1. Staff Has Thus Far Not Provided Information Requested re: Possible Sites for a Tiny Home Village

At this Committee’s March 15, 2022, meeting, staff presented a list of City-owned vacant  properties in response to Vice Mayor Wilson’s request for a list of City-owned properties that  could potentially be available for a tiny shelter community. Committee members discussed the  sites listed, especially the first site. Per the minutes from the meeting, “Chair Hampton asked  Jeffrey Hernandez, Real Property Manager to compile expiring leases of City owned  buildings/office spaces (non-public benefit leases) and to extend his outreach efforts to owners of  vacant lots/buildings (residential and commercial).” Per those same minutes “Mr. Klug stated he  intends to speak with the Interim City Manager regarding tiny shelters and return to the  Committee with an update. The Chair stated he would like the agenda report at the next  scheduled Committee meeting in April 2022.” To my knowledge, none of the information  requested by Chairperson Hampton has been publicly presented.

3 

As the Staff Report notes, from a local zoning perspective, tiny shelter communities qualify as  “Low Barrier Navigation Centers,” which are statutorily defined as “a Housing First, low-barrier,  service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides  temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness  to income, public benefits, health services, shelter and housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65660, subd.  (a).) Low Barrier Navigation Centers enjoy a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and  nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, if it meets certain criteria as specified in the  statute. (Gov. Code, § 65662.) According to Planning Director David Reyes, much of Pasadena  is zoned as mixed use which suggests that a tiny shelter community could be developed, by right,  in many places in Pasadena. And, as noted in the Staff Report, another option available to the  City to create more interim housing is declaring a “shelter crisis.” 

1. The Possible Funding of a Tiny Home Village Needs to be Presented and Considered

An obvious consideration in creating more interim housing, but missing from the Staff Report, is  funding. Before our leaders and community members can determine whether our City is doing  enough to shelter our unsheltered residents and whether the City can and should do more, we  need to know what the City is actually funding, if anything. Our community is entitled to  transparency on this issue. 

According to the Housing Department’s July 12, 2021 response to my first PRA request, the  Department’s FY 2022 Adopted Budget “includes $835,344 for motel vouchers and other interim  housing.” The chart the Department provided me showed that none of those funds are from city generated revenues. And when the City received $26 million last year from the federal  government in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, the Council allocated more money for  the traffic signal at Orange Grove Boulevard and Craig Avenue than for interim housing for our  unsheltered neighbors. Significantly, at the August 16, 2021 City Council meeting,  Councilmember Hampton “asked staff to provide initiatives to address rental assistance, housing,  homelessness and housing vouchers when the second installment of ARPA funds are issued to  the City.” (Minutes of the meeting.)  

A tiny home village can be funded with some of the $26 million in American Rescue Plan Act  funding our City received this year, $20 million of which is not yet appropriated.2 Additionally,  apart from the ARPA funds, the City Council can find funding to provide basic shelter for our  unsheltered neighbors just like it found funding for a helicopter camera surveillance system to  replace a functioning system, to replace a functioning mobile command center, and $21.5  million to cover the debt on the Rose Bowl the past two years. We have the funds for the  upfront capital costs of a tiny shelter as well as additional funds for operating costs. The City  

2 While the Housing Department is receiving $3 million in ARPA funding, that funding is earmarked for  affordable housing projects, not interim housing. Moreover, without that $3 million appropriation from  the federal government, the FY 2023 Recommended Housing Department Budget of $39,307,500 would  

be $4.35 million lower than the FY2022 adopted budget instead of the lesser amount of $1.35 million.  3 According to the Interim Final Rule, which provides guidance for allocating the federal ARPA funding,  the creation of a tiny shelter community would be an eligible use since it provides a critical program that  our most vulnerable residents need to move forward from the pandemic.

CAN provide funding to alleviate human suffering experienced by persons living on the street.  Our City leaders need to take urgent action to do so. 

1. Conclusion

The Staff Report concludes with the following: “The Department will evaluate potential tiny  village opportunities as they may arise and bring such projects to City Council for consideration  as appropriate.” I hope you will agree that this vague, tenuous “plan” is unacceptable. Our City  can no longer ask our most vulnerable residents to “hang out” on the “very unsafe” street. Other  cities in Southern California and beyond have actively sought out opportunities for tiny home  villages, have helped develop them, and have funded them sometimes with the assistance of the  State or local government. Please do not determine that “no action is required” as recommended  by Staff. Rather, ensure that the City does everything in its power to ensure that more interim  housing is created in our City through tiny home villages and through converted motels. Thank  you for your time and consideration of this letter. 

Sonja Berndt