###

At a special, single-topic meeting that lasted more than six hours on Friday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors denied an appeal aimed at blocking a McKinleyville subdivision and housing development project, instead approving a modified, slightly downsized version of the project. 

The original proposal, which was approved by the Planning Commission back in November, calls for a 2.47-acre property near the future Town Center to be subdivided into 19 parcels and developed with 62 new housing units, some multi-family, others single-family, built in two-story townhome style.

McKinleyville resident Laura Peterson speaking on behalf of the appellants, dubbed the Coalition for Responsible Housing.

The appellants, a group of neighboring residents going by the name the Coalition for Responsible Housing, raised a number of objections to the project, including its density, height (and resulting shadows), potential fire and flooding hazards and the fact that it never went through an official design review process, as required by statute.

In presenting the facts, history and regulatory context of the project, Planning and Building Director John Ford highlighted the county’s profound need for housing and the increasing difficulty of getting it built in California – and Humboldt County, in particular.

Regarding the design review requirement, Ford said that absent an official committee, the board itself could serve that function during today’s hearing. He also noted that larger and denser housing development is principally permitted on the site.

The public comment period was dominated by neighbors of the project, who insisted that they are not NIMBYs and not against housing generally but feel this particular project is inappropriate for the area.

“[W]e are more than willing to provide our fair share of housing,” said Laura Peterson, a member of the neighborhood coalition. “We just want it to be beautiful housing that fits with the character of our neighborhood, and we don’t think the goal of housing and the goal of beauty are mutually exclusive.”

Developer Dane Valadao addresses county supervisors.

Developer and applicant Dane Valadao, who lives near the project site with his family, said he purchased the property in 2019 because it was already zoned for multi-family housing and seemed perfect for development.

“We liked this property because it’s the definition of infill and well located for walkability purposes,” he said. Later he added, “We are invested socially, financially and professionally in our community. We live in this neighborhood, about two blocks up the streets, with no plans to move. We’re very involved locally and want this to be a successful development as much as anybody.”

During the deliberation process among the board, Supervisor Steve Madrone, who represents the McKinleyville-inclusive Fifth District, advocated largely on behalf of the appellants’ concerns, and he suggested a series of potential modifications to the project, including reducing one row of townhomes to a single story. However, the motion he wound up making failed for lack of a second.

After further deliberations, county staff met in a closed room with both the appellants and the applicant. The opposing sides emerged having arrived at “an uncomfortable consensus” regarding a compromised version of the project.

The revised plan reduced the number of lots from 19 to 17 and the total number of units from 62 to 56. The spacing of lots on the western property line will be expanded to increase green space, and among other conditions, Valadao agreed to attempt to form a Permanent Road Division that would fund road maintenance. Speed bumps and a crosswalk will be added to the design and must be approved by the Department of Public Works.

Furthermore, four of the planned “half-plexes” will be reduced to two single-story, single-family residences, and hydrological studies will be conducted.

The board unanimously denied the appeal and approved the revised project.