Woodland City Council members expressed disdain toward having to adopt ordinance changes due to state-imposed zoning requirements for California cities to be able to adequately house all homeless people from their most recent homeless count.

California Assembly Bill 2339 states that a minimum of 200 square feet per person must be provided to unhoused individuals, which can be used to “calculate the number of homeless individuals that may be accommodated on a site,” according to the report.

City staff has used this formula to assess vacant sites within the city’s corridor mixed-use zones using Woodland’s unmet homeless shelter data provided by the annual Yolo County homeless count.

“Using the 2022 numbers, there is a shortfall of 167 beds,” the report highlighted. “The sites inventory evaluates the number of vacant sites found in the four CMU zones to meet the shortfall.”

The smallest vacant site in Woodland is 6,098 square feet, which could accommodate 30 individuals under the requirements outlined by the assembly bill.

However, most emergency shelters will be permitted in primarily lower-income areas in Woodland.

The Woodland Planning Commission, who recommended the council adopt the ordinance amendments, explained that this is because “pursuant to state legislation, emergency shelters shall be considered a by-right use in mixed-use or nonresidential zones that allow multifamily as a by-right use. The zoning update is implementing the state requirement.”

Additionally, California Assembly Bill 101 requires that Low Barrier Navigation Centers be allowed as a “by-right use in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements, according to the report.,

“A LBNC means ‘a housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter and housing,’” the report highlighted.

The report explained that the primary intent of these centers would be to reduce barriers to entry into temporary shelter for chronically homeless individuals.Councilman Richard Lansburgh asked Woodland Principal Planner Cindy Norris, who delivered a presentation on the ordinance changes to the council Tuesday night, why the city should be required to create shelter for 167 more homeless individuals if they did not wish to be sheltered.

“I don’t think the state understands real life because if we had 167 people that really needed the shelter…we’d be doing it,” Lansburgh argued. “I just think this is impractical limitations on what we do with our property. I think it’s unpopular with our constituency when they hear that we got to put resources towards putting this additional bed space in areas that they don’t want it.”

Norris said that for the purpose of meeting the state requirements, “we have to show that we have the ability to allow for that many beds to be constructed, that we provide the zoning and that we provide the opportunity for that to occur.”

City Manager Ken Hiatt added that the state requirement does not distinguish between those who are willing and seeking housing and those that do not. However, cities are still required to have sites zoned and available to provide shelter for all homeless people within their city.

“The good news here is that we’re actually probably not the community that the state’s intending targeting these towards because we’ve been proactive in trying to address this need,” Hiatt highlighted. “There are many cities throughout the state that are not interested in trying to figure out how to solve their local community homeless challenges.”

He argued that having these imposed ordinance amendments might help Woodland by requiring other cities to house their own homeless individuals instead of relying on cities that have been proactive in addressing the issue.

Councilman Tom Stallard agreed with Lansburgh’s comments but said there’s not much discussion to have about this because “basically, a gun is being held to our head.”

“We’re compelled to do this as a matter of the state regulatory law,” he explained. “But what is offensive to us and local government is that the state is now taking away our discretion. We don’t have the choice to do what’s right, we’re compelled to do what may be a good public policy.”

Stallard expressed his disappointment in the state for not “cutting any slack for us,” noting the city’s recent East Beamer Way Campus project with a 100-bed emergency shelter and 61 supportive housing units.

“I feel like it’d be better if the imposition of a set of requirements like this was based on failure to make any progress at all, in which case we would not be placed in the same bucket,” he emphasized.

The council approved the ordinance amendments unanimously, with one abstention from Lansburgh.