Board considers ordinance that would allow tiny homes on wheels
November 14, 2022, Sarah Reith \u2014 A discussion about establishing regulations for tiny homes on wheels led to a call for more regulations, more freedom, and more flexibility in housing at last week\u2019s Board of Supervisors meeting.\n\nAfter the Board updated the building code, as it\u2019s required to do every three years, supervisors turned their attention to recommendations for moveable tiny homes, which would be licensed and registered with the DMV but also required to meet the standards of stick-built homes, including sanitation hookups and water supply, fire agency requirements, and building permits.\n\nLindsay Wood, the \u201ctiny home lady,\u201d made her case, saying that tiny homes are catching on all over the state as a solution to several persistent economic woes.\n\nShe told the Board she had had her own tiny home built in Ukiah, and that she is working on developing a company to build more in the area. \u201cThe Ukiah High School is actively building two tiny homes,\u201d through a Career Technical Education program, she said. \u201cWe have a lot of opportunities to train our youth and also house more people, offering workforce housing, agriculture housing, and so much more, so that people like myself, who grew up here since 1980, can actually afford to live here.\u201d\n\nSupervisor Glenn McGourty asked Planning and Building Director Julia Krog about the current state of tiny home regulations in the county. She told him it is permissible to build a tiny home that is not on wheels, \u201cas long as you meet building code standards.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo this is just a portable version of a tiny home,\u201d he surmised.\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s correct,\u201d she replied. \u201cRight now you are only able to use things like recreational vehicles that are built on a chassis for movement for temporary uses.\u201d\n\nBut a recommendation that tiny homes be situated on a concrete or asphalt pad drew criticism from Supervisor Dan Gjerde as well as environmental consultants who spoke about the need for a grading ordinance.\n\nGjerde, who has long been an advocate for additional dwelling units and affordable housing policies, asked that the regulations not establish permanent concrete foundations as the default standard. And he expressed some skepticism about the whole idea.\n\n\u201cWe don\u2019t really want to see a bunch of asphalt or concrete placed where it's not needed,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd you know, these tiny homes may be here today, gone tomorrow. Who\u2019s to say how long they\u2019ll stay on a piece of property. It could be something of a fad.\u201d\n \nHe went further, explaining that he was concerned about the possibility of tiny homes affecting the character of the neighborhood, particularly if there was not a more conventional house on the property as a primary residence. \u201cIf in 2022, or 2023, we suddenly say, well, you know, for decades you've needed to build a stick-built house on a foundation, but beginning now, a neighboring vacant property could have nothing on it more than a tiny home, especially when you\u2019re talking smaller parcels in more suburban conditions, I think it really could be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood,\u201d he said.\n\nSupervisor Ted Williams leaped in with a defense of personal liberties and the environment. \n\n\u201cI\u2019m weighing consistency, what people expect in a neighborhood, with government intruding on an individual\u2019s right to live in a small house,\u201d he argued. \u201cAnd imagine a neighborhood where all parcels on all sides are developed with 2500 square foot houses. And somebody decides they want to live in a 300 square foot house. Maybe that\u2019s all they can afford. Maybe that\u2019s all the resources they want to use. I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s government\u2019s job to say no, you have to build a large house. What\u2019s wrong with somebody choosing to live in a very minimalist, I mean if we all did that, we would have less of a climate impact.\u201d\n\nGjerde worried that residents of tiny homes would spend most of their time outdoors, possibly making noise that would disturb the neighbors. McGourty took the opportunity to point out the lack of a noise ordinance.\n\n\u201cNoise is noise,\u201d he pointed out. \u201cAnd I have neighbors who live two miles from me, but their big diesel pump is right next door to me. I think that we should have standards for noise in Mendocino County that don\u2019t exceed 55 decibels at the property line, which is kind of standard in a lot of communities, and that would address the issue in the end.\u201d\n\nTwo environmental consultants who had hoped to speak about a presentation on riparian and wetlands protections added their concerns about creating a policy that they thought could lead to unregulated grading. That item was rescheduled, but Estelle Clifton and Heather Morrison warned of possible environmental damage if tiny homes are allowed under a ministerial permit, an \u201cover the counter\u201d authorization that's granted to projects that meet local zoning requirements.\n\nClifton introduced herself as a biological consultant and registered professional forester who has worked in ...