###

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors today took a couple of small steps toward increased flexibility in multi-family housing development.

With Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo absent, the board passed a pair of ordinances that will implement and expand upon a state law that took effect last year. That law, called the Middle-Class Housing Act of 2022, allows housing to be built in zones where office, parking or retail are permitted.

There are certain restrictions on those allowances. For example, any new housing projects must be located within an “urban cluster,” and here in Humboldt they’ll have to be built at a density between 15 and 30 units per acre. No single-family houses and no huge apartment complexes, in other words.

Potential locations for this new housing development include Fields Landing, Cutten, Scotia and the long stretch between McKinleyville and Fortuna.

There were some differences of opinion among the board members as they discussed potential tweaks to the Commercial Residential Ordinance, which the Planning Commission passed along with a recommendation for approval from the supes. 

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson argued that multi-family housing shouldn’t be put in commercial zones right next to industrial zones, and he said the ordinance should specify that new housing development must occur only in areas with existing services, such as public water and sewer and access to public transportation. 

“I’m not agreeing with everything you’re saying,” Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell interjected. Regarding his call for housing to be located in existing service areas she said, “For the very unincorporated areas, especially in my district where housing could be appropriate there, I’m not feeling his language change.”

In particular, Bushnell asked about the potential for development in the Cooks Valley region, and Planning and Building Director John Ford said Wilson’s suggestion would indeed exclude that area.

Wilson said that’s justified. 

“Housing is very needed,” he said, “but we can create a pretty substantial service burden, from a local government perspective, if we’re putting multi-family housing in areas that are quite isolated.”

The two wound up compromising by having the ordinance say that multi-family development in areas without services may be allowed, but they’ll require a special permit.

Another point of disagreement arose in a discussion about parking requirements. Wilson suggested eliminating parking requirements for all housing that’s within half a mile of a bus stop. First District Supervisor Rex Bohn pushed back on that idea.

“I mean, I know we’re trying to get everybody out of their cars and everything else, but I’m pretty sure we all drove here this morning,” he said. “So I just think [allowing development with] no parking is an issue.”

Ford said that the Planning Commission also struggled with this topic but decided that parking requirements should not be required for affordable housing projects or those served by public transit.

Bohn also made the argument that excessive red tape is preventing housing from being developed. 

“We’re not building a lot of stuff,” he said. “Everybody wants to get a piece of their pie, and it just seems like — .” He stopped himself. “I’m going through the same rant that I always do,” he lamented.

Wilson said today’s decisions should actually help resolve that complaint.

“In general, this ordinance increases entitlements and decreases restrictions for building housing,” he pointed out.

The board voted unanimously to pass the Commercial Residential Ordinance after excising parking requirements for developments within half a mile from a bus stop and specifying that any developments that aren’t in an “urban cluster” must first get a special permit.

Considerably less debate accompanied passage of the Zoning Updates Ordinance — tweaks to existing regulations “that individually are quite small,” Ford said, adding, “Cumulatively, they’re not significant.”

The changes involved such matters as fence heights the and definition of the terms “family” and “mini-storage.” 

Bohn objected to an element of this ordinance that will prohibit mini-storage units in certain zones in an effort to keep them on the periphery of mixed-use commercial and residential areas. As such, he wound up voting “no,” but the motion still passed with a vote of 3-1.