SAN JOSE – One looks like folded origami with glass windows and wooden shelves inside. The other looks like a sideways triangle with a slanted roof and space for a small couch.
City leaders on Monday unveiled two designs for the 80-to-140 square-feet sleeping cabins, one of San Jose’s innovative ideas for housing the city’s 4,000 homeless. They’ve also come up with a new way to pick sites for the “tiny homes.”
The two concepts designed by Gensler architectural firm at no cost to the city were created to be aesthetically pleasing, according to city staff, but also to be efficient, safe, practical and comfortable.
The City Council in August approved a one-year pilot program to try building the tiny homes in no more than three locations citywide. A state law by former Assemblywoman Nora Campos last year eased building codes to allow San Jose to construct the unconventional tiny homes.
One design, called the “folding home,” features a pop-up look with room for a bed, a locking door and storage shelves inside. The other, dubbed “better together,” has a contemporary slanted roof with a small living space and large windows.
Cities like Austin, Portland and Eugene have created tiny homes or micro-housing to shelter people living outdoors. In Oakland, city leaders on Monday started moving homeless people into “Tuff Shed”-like shelters. Fresno has a similar concept called Village of Hope.
But San Jose’s biggest challenge, officials said, is deciding where to put the tiny home communities, which will house up to 25 homeless people until 2022.The idea stalled earlier this year after fierce neighborhood opposition forced officials to scrap all possible sites and start over.
Now, they’ve recommended a new way of ranking potential sites. The scoring criteria – which keeps the homeless housing farther away from schools and homes than marijuana collectives — comes after backlash last summer forced city officials to trim a list of 99 city-owned sites to two.
Mayor Sam Liccardo on Monday said the debate isn’t about whether homeless housing should be permitted in certain areas. “Asking, ‘Are we going to allow housing in one neighborhood?’ is the wrong question to ask,'” Liccardo said during a news conference unveiling the new designs. “They’re already in our neighborhoods… the question is, how will we house them?”
City leaders are now recommending the sites be at least 1,320 feet away from schools and 530 feet away from residential homes — rules that are more stringent than medical pot shops. The city also asked agencies such as Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority for help finding sites, and they came up with 23 new options for the tiny home villages.
Combined with the original 99 city-owned sites, 122 locations were under consideration for tiny homes. But after ruling out the sites that are too small, only 37 options remain — those that are a half-acre or more and near transit. City leaders are recommending no more than one tiny home community per City Council district.
But to further pare down the list of sites – which still need environmental review — officials are recommending a new scoring matrix to rank them. Each location is assigned points based on its size, how easy it is to develop and who owns the land — public sites are cheaper to develop than private land.
The City Council on Dec.12 will consider adopting the new scoring criteria and a broad community outreach plan that includes everyone. Then city leaders will come back with a list of five to 10 final sites to go through an environmental review process.
Habitat for Humanity was chosen to build the tiny homes. HomeFirst, a nonprofit that runs shelters and warming centers around the county, will operate the villages.
HomeFirst CEO Andrea Urton said the key to dealing with NIMBYism — when people don’t want homeless housing near them — is education and outreach from the city. Especially because the face of homelessness has changed.
“Look at me. Look at the receptionist at your office or the janitor at your kid’s school,” Urton said. “So many of us are just a paycheck away. I was homeless as a youth, and look what happened to me.”
But the cost of creating tiny homes is a sticking point for some elected leaders. If San Jose builds 20 sleeping cabins on a half-acre site, it’ll cost $90,550 per cabin. If it builds 40 cabins on one acre, it’ll be $73,125 per cabin. Those costs rise by $10,075 to $17,450 per cabin when services such as security, transportation and meals are factored in.
Some elected leaders want to explore alternatives such as sanctioned encampments. Cities such as San Diego and Seattle have tried legal tent cities.
Councilman Tam Nguyen, who visited a sanctioned encampment in Seattle, said he found it “very practical and workable.” The benefits, Nguyen said, include low costs, no bureaucracy and effective organization.
The outdoor tents are much cheaper, according to a staff report, costing $33,575 per resident annually. But San Jose Housing Director Jacky Morales-Ferrand said Monday “Silicon Valley can do better” than creating tent cities.
Advocates worry that option still leaves people out in the cold.
“Sleeping in a tent outside is not the best we can do,” said Jennifer Loving, who leads the nonprofit Destination: Home. “We have to start somewhere and a home, even temporary, is better than a tent on the ground.”
Even though the tiny homes are dubbed a short-term solution, it can still take a year to plan and build. And while lawmakers debate their options, the clock is ticking: AB 2176, the law that allows San Jose to build tiny homes, sunsets in 2022.
Frank Perez, 55, hopes the tiny homes are up and running soon — he’s been homeless for two years and said he’s been transferred from one case worker to another.
“Anything would be better than this,” said Perez, who became homeless after brain surgery. “I’m just looking for another chance to get out of here. It’s a place to sleep, have a shower and go out looking for a job.”
