Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Okay. Let's go ahead and call this meeting to order and start with the flag salute. Okay. May we please have a roll call?

Commissioner Scabdahl?

Here.

Commissioner Levy is absent. Commissioner O'Neill is absent. Commissioner West? Here. Commissioner Keriazzi?

Here.

Commissioner McFarlane? Here. Commissioner Fulton?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Any agenda modifications?

There are no modifications to the agenda. There is just a supplemental that came in. It's an email. It's on your dais today. It was emailed to you on Wednesday also, believe.

Okay. Thank you. Just a real quick housekeeping. Agendas are in the corner for anybody who'd like to follow along. And as we move through the meeting and our public participation opportunities, if you are calling in or are on Zoom when we are going to ask for public comment, you can raise your hand. There's a little bit of a lag. So as soon as you hear me bring up an item and you're interested in commenting, please be sure to raise your hand. If you're calling in, you can do that by hitting star nine. With that, let's move to item D, public comment on non agenda items. This is the time where folks may appear before the commission on any matter pertinent to us that is not on the agenda.

So if you would like to speak on this, please approach the dais. And if you're online, please raise your hand now. Okay. I'm not seeing any participants online right now, and I'm not seeing anyone approach the dais or the podium, not the dais. So I think we will move on to the consent agenda item e.

For this one, these are items that are routine in nature and usually approved by a single vote. However, I will poll the commission and the public to see if they would like to poll any of these items from the consent calendar so that we consider them separately with a vote on that matter, separate from the rest of the consent agenda. So I'm going to read through the list and if you would like me if you're a member of the public and you'd like me to pull the item, please just raise your hand. So item E1 is the review and approval of the 05/07/2026 action summary. Okay.

I'm not seeing anybody on the commission pull it and I'm not seeing any members of the public raise their hand. Item E2, Cisco Farms conditional use permits and zoning clearance certificates modification.

Clarification that is continuance to a date uncertain.

Oh, thank you. I missed that piece. Okay. And it is a continuation and I'm not seeing any hands raised. Item E3, amendment to general plan safety element to include updated hazard mitigation plan, Chapter 14 of the general plan.

Not seeing any hands raised. Item number E4, Green Diamond Resource Company zone reclassification. All right, that one will be pulled. And item E5, general plan and housing element annual progress report. I'm not seeing anybody on Zoom and I'm not seeing anybody in the room. Okay.

So then I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the consent agenda items number one, three and five as proposed to continue item two to a date uncertain and to pull item four.

The action on two is to continue so that would be on consent. Yep.

Sorry. Okay. Sorry. Let me rephrase that. I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve consent agenda items one, two, three, and five, and to pull item four.

Second. I'll second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and do a voice vote. All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstain? Okay. So I think I believe you just have a quick question on item number four, correct? E-four? If it's okay with the commission, then we'll go ahead and take that right now and take up E-four for consideration before getting into our public hearing items.

At this point, I'd like to step from the room. I have a conflict of interest.

Okay. We will come get you once we consider it. Commissioner Kerriasi, would you like a full staff report or just a quick question or two?

No. Thank you. Actually, have just a question not necessarily about this particular project, but

Actually, I'm gonna have you hold off for just one second.

Thank you.

Please go ahead with your question.

Okay. So just to staff, I'm curious more of just about the process, the zone reclassification process in general. Since they're rezoning to classifications that were approved already in the general plan update, I'm a little curious as to why the property owner has to apply to rezone to those classifications that were already approved in the GPU. Why weren't why wasn't it just done? And then whatever is existing is legally nonconforming if it doesn't conform to that zone.

Sure. So it is the on the county's implementation plan to rezone all of the properties to be consistent with the general plan. That was our intention to have that done already, but it has not happened. And so to get ahead of that property owners can apply and that's what's happened in this case.

Perfect. That makes sense. That was my only question.

Well, think with that, if there are no other questions, we could consider a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda item four.

And I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second on item E4. Let's go ahead and do a roll call vote for this one.

Commissioner Scavdahl?

Yes.

Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Keriazzi?

Yes.

Commissioner McFarlane? Yes. We have four zero.

Thank you.

And

Just to clarify, for commissioner Fulton abstained, is that yeah. So it didn't show that on the screen. Oh, didn't. He recused himself. It's not abstaining. Got it. Thank you. Okay.

Well, why don't we go ahead and start pulling up the staff report for f one while we bring commissioner Fulton back? Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good evening commissioners. I'm Michael Kine with the planning department. I will be doing the presentation for a conditional use permit for an expansion of 20,000 square feet of outdoor cannabis. It is located in the Carl Heightsville Carlotta area at 6287 State Highway 36 in Carlotta.

APN 20 6 3310 28. The applicant is Irene Levy. The location of the property is in the Hyattsville, Carlotta area on the thirty sixth. Due to its location, the applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit for cultivation within that community planning area and a conditional use permit for exemption from the 600 foot setback required for residents on separate owned parcels where residents are within that 600 feet in that community planning area.

As you can

see here is the site plan for the project. The darker green space towards the middle of the site plan will be where the new cultivation would go, and this is zoned agricultural exclusive. Currently, the project has 50,000 square feet of cultivation. 20,000 of it is mixed light cultivation. 30,000 of it is outdoor, and it has 5,000 square feet of propagation as well.

The applicant is requesting another 20,000 square feet of outdoor cultivation and an expansion of 1,300 square feet for a nursery. Section five five point four point six point two point three point two of the county code allows for up to an acre of cultivation with a special permit in this location And due to county codes allowing up to two triple r sites to move to this type of location, they were able to get a little extra as well. Hence, why they can apply up to 86 or sorry, 83,000 square feet as long as they don't use more than 20% of the arable land for cultivation. In this case, it's under 10%, so it is feasible. They would all trimming and processing would be located off-site, done by a third party, and power is provided by PG and E.

As we were able to discuss slightly at the last meeting, water use was a concern. The parcel is in the Eel River ground water basin and is connected and defined which is a connect and defined basin basin regulated under state law and administered by the Humboldt County Groundwater Assisting Mobility Agency, which is done by Public Works. Their proposal involves an annual water increase from what they previously had of eight approximately 864, thousand gallons to 1,000,000 1,020,000 gallons sourced from a permitted will oh, sorry, well. As you can see, you can see the math there, the numbers from 2025. And then we use those numbers to estimate what the new cultivation would be.

So it would be just over 2,000,000 or just over 1,000,000 gallons. This again kinda goes over the requirements for that location being in a community planning area and the requirements for setbacks of less than 600 feet from a nearest local resident. An exemption was granted under the previous cultivation permits in the past. On this past at the past meeting on May 7, you heard a neighbor who is adjacent to the property who was concerned about the smell and odors as well as the water usage for increased pumping. The code states that because this parcel is located within a map community plan area, the applicant must demonstrate all areas of open air cultivation activities maintain setbacks of at least 600 feet or greater from any resident located on a separately owned parcel and are located within 600 feet or greater from the residently zoned area applicable to a community planning boundary.

Or this cultivation must be in an enclosed structure with odor control measures or obtain approval for a conditional use permit permitting this. This next slide shows the approximate locations of the nearest residents to the new cultivation. You can see that two other residences are within the 600 feet. Due to concerns expressed by the neighbor by neighbors, staff is recommending that the use permit for the exemption of the 600 foot standards setbacks be denied. Should the commission follow this recommendation, the proposed additional cultivation would be and should be approved but not be required for any of the previously approved cultivation.

One other public comment came in regarding this issue from a neighbor who had the same concerns. So this is basically the recommendation. It's technically not a recommendation because it's a code. It's part of the ordinance, but this would be what would be required of the applicant if you approve the cultivation. Staff recommends that the planning commission make all required findings for approval of PLN one eight nine six nine and adopt the resolution approving the PLN one eight nine six nine CEP for expanded cultivation, approve the cultivation within the Heights community planning area, and denied the exception of the 600 foot setback required for residences on separately owned parcels in the CPA.

That concludes my presentation. I'm here for any questions. And the agent for the project is here if you have any questions for him as well.

Thank you. Okay. Let's bring it back to the commission for questions of staff.

Through the chair, I was curious, I wasn't able to find when the existing cultivation was approved. Do you have a history on when that occurred?

It would have been in 2021.

It was in 2021. Okay. And do you recall why so I'm assuming I'm assuming the 600 foot setback condition was in was part of that, and they've got a waiver or got a conditional use permit. Yes. And so I guess I think the previous public commenter had said that they were in support of it during that time. Correct. Yes. Okay. Thanks.

Just another question. Absent the public comments that have come in as a part of this hearing, have there been any complaints about this project in the past?

In the past four years that I've been here, I have never received one. And looking at the past comments in Acela, I there were none in the system that I had find that I found. Thank you.

Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions from the commission. So we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment. You well, traditionally, start with the applicant. They have up to ten minutes to address the commission if they'd like to. If you'd like to address the commission, you're welcome to approach the podium.

Thanks so much through the chair. Andy Powell here, agent for the applicant. I'm just gonna make this quick. I just I wanna take a second to thank everybody in this whole process. I've been doing this for a minute or two, but wanna thank Michael Cliff, Director Ford, all you commissioners.

This is a process. And although this isn't turning out the way the applicant wanted, we also want to thank the neighbors because this public process gives applicants, gives us chances to be better neighbors. I think a lot of one thing that gets missed in this whole process, I think, for the public is to see that they do have a voice. They get to influence how we all work together as a community. So on behalf of the applicant, just wanted to thank everybody for this process, the hard work that's gone into it, and and the neighbors that felt comfortable bringing up their concerns and issues, which we actually appreciate very much. That's all I got. Thank you guys for all your time.

Thank you. Alright. At this time, any other members of the public that would like to address the commission on this matter, please approach the podium or raise your hand. I currently don't see any attendees on Zoom or by phone, and I'm not seeing anybody in the audience who is, approaching the podium. So with that, do we have any questions for the applicant? Should I bring him back up at all? Okay. Well, with that, I think we'll bring it back to commission for deliberation.

I yeah. I would I'm just sort of bit was chewing over the odor complaints a bit more. And was I read through the CCLUO EIR just to kinda get or the odor portion just to kinda get a better sense of where that 600 foot setback came from. And there is good context there because we wanted to try to maximize compliance and the ability for farmers to come into compliance and also honored that outdoor grows, I think, are part of Humboldt County's brand. But I'm curious if community planning areas like this were sort of contemplated during the EIR process when coming up with the 600 foot setback?

And if community planning areas maybe should be considered in the future as maybe requiring enclosed grow or contemplating some kind of change there?

So little history here if I could through the chair. So when we go back to one point zero, the community planning areas really were not contemplated. And cultivation was allowed in ag zones. One of the things that really wasn't envisioned is that there are many community planning areas that have ag general and ag exclusive zones in them. So that was placing cultivation in very close proximity to some residents.

So this was absolutely a negotiated public process to address cultivation within community planning areas. This this was the solution to that problem. And maybe it doesn't seem like enough right now. But really it's saying that if you're gonna be within proximity to residents, need to enclose. And unless, and there's a provision in the code, unless all of your neighbors, if you're preexisting, well, for new cultivation in close unless you can get a waiver.

Yeah. That makes sense. And I saw that at least in the EIR, was stating kind of made the point of where there is no objection to cannabis odor impacts. But it feels like a bit of a put it in and see if it's an impact.

That was for the existing because one of the things the ordinance did which is really rather unusual is it looked back on existing approvals that were within community planning areas. And those that's when the no objection provision came through. For new cultivation, I don't believe there's that you've got to get a waiver as part from the commission as part of the action.

Yeah, I understand that. But I think I was trying to get more out like the intent. The history is really helpful and I think the intent there is to recognize there's potential impact. And I but I'm wondering if at least the structure seems like we have amiable neighbors, they're supportive of their neighbors, they want to see this agricultural product. So we put it in and they say, oh, actually this really stinks. But now they're permitted, so now we're stuck. And I'm wondering if community planning areas, if we should revisit this allowance for

I guess It's really, really hard to completely take away entitlements. And so we have granted entitlements even the two point zero provision to look back at the CCCs that were approved as part of one point zero and give them they had three options that they could go through to bring some compatibility with the residential areas that they may be adjacent to. I spent personally when we were going through this from one point o, a lot of time walking neighborhoods with people who just were so upset because their houses smelled like a skunk. And they were sending their kids to school and their kids smelled like a skunk. And it was like I take good care of my kids.

They they're bathed, they're clothed, but I sent them to school and kids making fun of them because they smell. And and so that really is the public interaction that resulted in the ordinance provisions like they are. So what you're being asked to do today is weigh whether or not you want to grant a waiver to the requirement that was put in place to protect those areas.

Yeah. I definitely understand that my discussion and questions are outside of what we're of we're allowed to because I'm talking about the existing already permitted grow. But it I think just going over this project kind of made me question if the way it's currently structured is effective for community planning areas. But I do hear you about the challenge of pulling back entitlements.

I can tell you the complaints have gone down dramatically since two point o was put in place. Every once in a while, a greenhouse will have a door or something that's popped open, and we'll get complaints, but that's an accident. One of the things that happens sometimes too, or has happened, you gotta be careful about this, is that the greenhouses need to breathe. And so they will sometimes let air in and out. And and then we'll get irrational complaints.

But people have really learned how to do that in such a way that the neighborhood doesn't get very upset.

I have a tangent question, Director Ford. You said it's very difficult to remove entitlements. And I'm just wondering, is the bar to remove an entitlement proof of imminent threat to public health and safety? Or just curious what that bar is.

So it it the the bar is it being a public nuisance, and that really is a very high bar. And when you grant an entitlement, and you're going to take that entitlement away when they're doing everything they're required to do, and now you're going to call it a public nuisance. I'm not gonna speculate on the liability of that, but, you know, you can kind of think for yourself what that might be when if they're doing everything that they were conditioned to do, and you're gonna pull that away.

So it's just like it's a a risk management decision for the county. It just in general. Right? Like, they do have the

Generally authority. Generally, unless a permit

Through the chair.

Go ahead.

This is a legal question to entitlements. What happens when you receive an entitlement is a vested property interest. And then when you take those property interests, you then implicate the US constitution that says you can't deprive life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And so there's a bunch of other legal questions associated with that. And then there's the California constitution that has a very similar sort of phrase. But these are legal questions that we can resolve.

Yeah. I was just curious how we dais. Separate from this. Okay.

Yes. If there I'm I'm I'm happy to make a motion for this if there's no other discussion. I I'm in favor of this. I'd I'm including the staff's recommendation of denying the the request for up for allowing open air.

I'm also in support of staff's recommendation.

Then I will move to read it. Adopt the resolution which finds the we've considered the final EIR for the cannabis land use ordinance and its associated addendum for the Carlotta Gardens LLC project finds the project per per proposed project complies to the general plan of zoning ordinance, denies the request for an exception to the requirement for fully enclosing the proposed cultivation and approves the conditional use permit as recommended by staff.

I'll second.

I just want to acknowledge the applicant's comments about the process and willingness to do their best to be a good neighbor, work with the neighbors, and to accept the fact that their project changed a bit between what was on the consent calendar at our last meeting and what we're approving tonight. And quite frankly, I'm sure from the applicant standpoint changed significantly in an effort to comply with the neighborhood concerns or at least make an attempt to not make it worse, I'll say that, to the extent they can. So I appreciate that.

Also just I think still just put the thought out there of urging staff to consider whether or not the community planning areas are appropriate for allowing, outdoor, unenclosed at all. I mean, I know you have tons of on your plate. It's not a formal request, guess, but I still feel like I need to mention that, if that's if it makes sense to revisit that at some point.

Okay we have a motion and a second on the floor. May we please get a voice vote.

Commissioner Scabdahl?

Yes.

Commissioner Fulton? Commissioner McFarlane? Yes. Commissioner Kiriazi?

Yes.

Commissioner West? Yes. We have a four one vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. With that, that brings us to our next item, which is item f two. I see we have some new participants online. So I'm just going to, start off this item by noting that, if you would like to participate during public comment when we open up when you hear me open up the public comment please raise your hand.

There's a little bit of a lag on the video sometimes so once we get to public comment if you want to speak please raise your hand so I make sure that I see you and make sure we get your comment in. So staff will pull up the report. This is a mixed residential density ordinance enabling higher densities within housing opportunity zones if compliant with development standards. And staff whenever you're ready.

Just getting connected to the network here so I can get on Zoom. Alright. Thank you all for your patience. So as mentioned minutes ago, we're presenting on the mixed housing ordinance today. Let me through.

So these changes are in accordance with housing element implementation measure number 61, which directs us to establish a mixed housing zoning district. Specifically, the the wording of it is amending the zoning regulations to add a principal zoning district to be applied within housing opportunity zones that allow higher dent residential densities and flexible zoning configurations to address workforce housing needs. It's not exactly the way we're going about this, but this will meet the intent. Why are we doing this? The Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, has highlighted this implementation measure as one of the projects in our housing element they'd like us to prioritize.

This ordinance is a means that we've determined would effectively and smoothly fulfill h dash I m 61. What this is gonna do is create an opportunity in areas where affordable housing is needed but would tend not to be developed otherwise. So what this is going to do and where it's gonna affect is treat the housing opportunity zones as a combining zone like layer, adding options to r one and r two zones, which permit single family residential and two family residential respectively, both of which typically result in suburban settings. And the housing opportunity zones are exclusively inland, so this would affect Redway, Garberville, Miranda, Wiat, Scotia, McKinleyville, and the neighborhoods surrounding Eureka. So when this applies is in the areas described, if you're building more dense housing structures on R 1 and R 2 than would normally be permitted, that's when you would be aligning yourself with this code.

This does not apply to any uses that could be permitted otherwise. For example, since r two principally permits duplexes, this code would not apply those development standards to duplexes in r two zones. What this is gonna do is principally permit duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and apartments comprised of five dwelling units or other configurations thereof as long as you're complying with the development standards that we'll get into a little bit. Plus, it adds a conditionally permitted use for apartments comprised of six or more u dwelling units altogether. Just as a visualization, we're trying to codify a means to allow for housing configurations that are more towards the left side of this image.

We can ignore the live work and stacked triplexes and mid rise buildings on the right side. That's not what this is gonna be going for, and it's not gonna be appropriate where they're gonna go. Another aspect of this is it increases the density to 25 units per acre, and it shall not be construed to reduce any existing maximum densities. So if you've somehow got a higher land use density than 25 on your park property, you would be going with that higher one instead. It also raises the maximum ground coverage for these units to 45% up from 35%, and we can compare the density to the residential low density land use where most of this is coming from, which is one to eight units per acre.

Otherwise, interpretable as one unit per 5,400 square feet. Another comparable density is from the residential medium density land use, which is seven to 30 units per acre based on what the general plan use maps say. Couple of related codes to go through. First, we've got parking. The current standard under most conditions is going to be one space per bedroom, but this proposed code instead requires one space per unit for any structure with four or more units.

Plus, we've got an alternative in the proposal to add a caveat for structures that have six or more units when they're within half a mile of a active bus stop in which you would instead require one space per two units instead. In any circumstance, if the parking code would require fewer spaces than this would, then that lower requirement would apply. On a different topic entirely, no short term rentals are allowed in these. We're going with something similar to the ADU ordinance in which there's a thirty day minimum rental term. The density bonus ordinance is somewhat linked to this because you can develop a number of units.

Typically, the density bonus ordinance would only be applied when the maximum density is reached, but we would like to further incentivize target unit development. So we would allow more than five dwelling units per structure without a conditional use permit without requiring that maximum density to be met as long as you're complying with the density bonus percentage tables. And if you're including the target units, then additional units per structure are allowed, and those additional units all need to be evenly divided among the structures. Incentives tied into with both density bonuses can modify the development standards, one standard per incentive, and this code does not grant any additional incentives. So some of the development standards are dependent on the underlying zoning.

Setbacks, for example, mostly dependent on the zoning, but we're adding a 10 foot set back from any other structures both on and off the property. With structures off the property, that side of things isn't gonna matter too much because the minimum setback from the property line is gonna be five feet, and that's on both sides. However, if you're going up to a third story or somehow higher, then it's an additional five feet per of setback per story. Also with height, we're mostly complying with the development standards, which are of 35 feet. But when you're within 20 feet of an existing single family residence, you can't exceed that single family residence's height by 15 feet, pretty much just giving you one extra floor plus some room for a roof.

If you're next to a single fan single story, single family residence, then you got two stories pretty easily, and you can fit most of what you're gonna need with that.

With

walkways, we do require pathing within between units, sidewalks, and driveways all to be hard surface. And then we've got open space requirements in which 10% of the property area should be consolidated into shared open space, and that open space shall not be separated into more than two areas or three structures. And just to ensure that there's an appropriate minimum space per unit, there's a minimum of 100 square feet of total open space, whether that's shared or private combined per unit, And recreational areas with a required minimum of 500 square feet kind of count twice towards that 10%. And your required square footage then gets halved if you're within a quarter mile of a park. Just to visualize what open space could look like, this isn't a scale, so it's not too pretty.

We've got three structures on the parcel on the left, each comprised of several dwelling units, two structures on the center parcel, and one four unit parcel unit structure on the parcel on the right. Just to take a look at how those open spaces can be aligned all in green, that's what would be counted towards your 10%. Like I said, this isn't a scale, so it's much more than 10% in this visualization. But you can see that the parcel with three structures on it can count both sides of the open space. Whereas the other two only get one, we've you can align the structures to the back of the property to kind of maximize that usage.

And here, another visualization. This is a image taken from a suburb that's completely outside of the county. I just want you consider for a moment how many units you think each of those three structures has. And it turns out that we've got four units, four units, and then two units. That surprised me when I was looking at them.

It kind of shows that structures that can support multifamily can reasonably fit in well with a certs within within a suburb suburban area. Excuse me. Alright. Here's some visualizations of the areas where these are mapped out. It's kind of hard to see the housing opportunity zones on all of these.

It is the kind of greenish diagonal polygons with the thick border, and then the r ones are all marked in yellow. R twos, r threes, and r fours are all marked in orange, so it's a little bit hard to tell between them. But there's Redway and Garberville. Here is Miranda, Wiat, and Scotia. Then we've got Pine Hill, Humboldt Hill, and McKinleyville, then Cotton, Myrtle Town, and Ridgewood Heights.

We were requested to provide mapping showing McKinleyville and Eureka as at least in so far where they overlap with housing opportunity zones. And in just a moment, I will show you the r one and r two overlaid over that just so you can kind of visualize how even this is spread. We've got some comments that we'd like to respond to. One comment suggested that we split the proposed codes code between census designated urban areas and finding everything else as rural. So this ordinance applies to r one and r two zones.

Since such zones will result in suburban areas regardless of census designation, increasing density in suburban areas is infill development and combat sprawl. The another comment suggested that the development standards are a barrier to urban multifamily development. The proposed codes are required to match community character. The maximum the one of the standards that were referenced in this comment is the maximum ground coverage where, as mentioned before, this is an increase from 35%. It mentioned the required screening, but that's only one tree per 30 feet and a fence.

And the height limitation was also called out. Again, effectively one story plus roofing above neighboring residences within 20 feet. None of these standards should prevent the creative development of multifamily structures over those of single family structures. Plus, this isn't really intended to compete with multifamily development. Additionally, it was suggested that we eliminate parking mandates in housing opportunity zones, but parking should be really considered carefully based on projected needs.

And this ordinance isn't an appropriate opportunity for that kind of sweeping change. These units aren't on a nexus of transportation corridors, so cars are very likely to be needed. Another portion of the comments recommended that six or more units should be allowed by right in urban housing zone urban housing opportunity zones rather than with a conditional use permit. But depending on the density, six or more units are allowed in all affected areas by this ordinance, just not six or more units per structure without a CUP or a density bonus. Such structures are unlikely to be appropriate adjacent to single family residences anyways.

Anyways. We've also been asked about measure t one from the RCAP and how that might be relevant here. Since measure t one focuses on interconnectivity of active active transportation networks, its considerations are relevant primarily along corridors, which tend to be commercial, industrial, or multifamily, not the r one and r two zones. And we were also asked, does the proposed ordinance meet the midpoint densities described in the housing element? Since the midpoint densities are specific individual parcels in the residential land inventory and were calculated based on the general plan land use density, since this raises the density in every circumstance, there's no circumstance in which the proposed ordinance would lower a project site's permissible density.

So staff recommends that y'all adopt resolution, making the required findings, recommending a specific alternative for the parking element of the code, and recommending the board adopt the mixed residential density ordinance. This concludes my presentation, and staff is available for any questions that you'll have.

Thank you. Go ahead, commissioner Fulton.

I a couple comments or questions. I guess. Being from Southern Humboldt, in some of these areas that you have proposed, streets are narrow, they're limited on sidewalks, and therefore parking is very limited to the single family dwellings. And if your parking is gonna allow one car parking space per structure, and there are multiple people living in these buildings, so you're shoving all those cars on the street where the parking is already limited in front of people's houses. So they're gonna be competing for parking spots in an area where parking sidewalks are already at a prime, if any.

Most most southern humble residential areas don't have sidewalks or streets wide enough for even a lot of the streets aren't even wide enough for street sized parking, especially on both sides of the road. So how is that gonna be addressed in this?

I think while we are proposing to, in some circumstances, reduce parking, we're not really supporting elimination of parking because particularly in Southern Humboldt, but also in the locations of most of these r 1 and r two districts. They're they're not in proximity to where people work or or they may be, but typically not. And so people will drive. And so while one day we would like to see everybody ride their bike, take take the bus, use alternative forms of transportation, we're not quite there yet. And so we're trying to be careful about that.

And if we miss the mark in terms of the reduction that we're proposing, that certainly a decision the Planning Commission can make to modify that or hold to existing parking requirements. We're not opposed to that, we're trying to create a balance between your concern, is to protect the community character, the neighborhood character, but also to achieve the general plan objective of finding ways to provide housing that's affordable to workforce people. And and so there's a balance in there someplace.

I would I would agree that there's a balance there, but I don't think this is the balance. I I don't I really don't think the parking situation, at least in the Southern Humble area, I can't speak for Myrtlewood in in those area other areas that you mentioned. I I really think the cart is in front of the horse on this one as far as those areas go.

Commissioner McFarland and then I guess

this is the fun in having such a geographically distinct county, but I normally side with you, commissioner Fulton, but on this one, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've lived in an apartment without parking before. I figured it out. I also in my current neighborhood, I have multiple neighbors who do not drive for various mobility, age, various reasons. And so I think having the ability to rent an apartment or a duplex, you know, some sort of housing, there is a a subset of the population that would utilize that without parking.

I also think we're not saying you can't add parking. We're saying it's up to the developer how much they want to add. So the developer could make the market decision in this area. Do I think I would be able to sell or rent a property without parking or vice versa? So if anything, would support alternative two or even a potential further reduction.

I'm gonna ask that we put a pin in the discussion point. I think we're gonna have a robust discussion around parking, but I wanna make sure we get through questions and then public comment and then bring it back. But I will bring it back to you. Do you have questions or do you want to get in on the discussion after we do public comment?

Yeah, I'll hold my comments. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Carriazi.

Thank you. Can you go over again how you came up with the five unit threshold? I think you you had some you talked about it a little bit. Can you go over that again?

Decision.

One element that housing and community development kind of wants of us is to allow for more than five units per not more. At least five units per parcel. However, we may be able to permit it. In this case, my gut says four is probably best, But to kind of allow for that wiggle room, some element of reasonable one additional unit of options felt appropriate just to be diplomatic in that.

I saw a question for later than commissioner fold.

Okay this one's a clarifying question not an opinion. You were you said that the units need to be divided equally among structures if they go beyond the density bonus And I was just wondering why.

That's just so that we don't get, like, one structure structure that's three units and another structure that's 10 units somehow. And it's not beyond the density bonus. It's part of the density bonus. If you're getting a density bonus, those units get distributed. Does that help?

Partially, yes. But why would if the site supports it, why would you not want unequal distribution of units? Like a building in the front, it was a triangular shaped lot. The building in the front has three units. The building in the back has seven.

Maybe that would be appropriate in some some circumstances. That would probably result in wanting a CMD. We could consider that. Maybe I'm not sure whether the code as written would allow for that, but it may, and you may consider adding an additional option for that. But this is about matching community character. So we want to ensure that all the visible houses with neighbors are matching in scale.

Commissioner Fulton?

And I I just have a clarifying question. You you kinda zipped through the the map there really quick, I didn't get a a good glimpse of the Southern Humboldt area. But in those areas where you're proposing these changes, were any of those areas impacted by the sixty four flood?

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the last portion of that?

And the other areas of Southern Humble where this this planning change is suggested, were any of those areas impacted during the nineteen sixty four flood? And would that have bearing on these type of developments?

I'm not sure that would have bearing in this because, we can't permit these without meeting the flood restrictions.

Commissioner Kerriase.

Yeah. Can you or in the r one and r two zones as they're currently written, are there height limits for

Yeah. 35 feet.

It's 35 feet. Okay. I guess following up on that, do we still is there also a similar if more than 15 feet, you can't go 15 feet above your neighbor?

No. Exactly.

In this, yes, but not currently in the r one Yeah. In our

current code, but in this code. Right.

Okay.

Yeah. Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you for addressing the the midpoint density part, but I think maybe I'm I'm misunderstanding midpoint density a bit, or it sounds like I might be. Was under the impression that midpoint density took into consideration all of the parcels within the housing opportunity zone. And then you had to make sure that and you have to make sure that whatever we're coming up with is at, you know, at least meets that, if not exceeds it.

And so So so the midpoint density is something that is used to demonstrate the number of units that can be built within an area. So by going well above what that midpoint density would be, which is what this does, we are not violating that. I mean, it's think it's pretty clear that from a midpoint density standpoint versus going from a maximum of eight units per acre to 25 units per acre, this is encouraging far higher density.

I think I'm just curious, what is the midpoint density? Is it eight per acre in R1

and R2? It depends on the area.

Yes, I guess that's sort of my point. So you've already gone through and confirmed that 25 units per acre is not lower than the midpoint density for the different areas that we're looking at.

Right. Yeah, it'll never approach that.

Okay. So I think I was hoping to see an actual table of what those midpoint densities are, but that's

Well, you took the land use, maximum land use of low density residential, eight units per Midpoint density would be four.

I see. Okay. That that's what I was trying to figure out is how do we arrive at that number? What is the midpoint density? Yeah.

And and and frankly, then when you start to develop things at a certain density, The thing that you start to see is is that mister Grishaw used a 5,400 square foot lot, but that's including the street. So that's really tight.

Cool, thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, I'm not seeing any other questions for staff at this time, so we'll go ahead and open up public comment. If you'd like to make a public comment and you are online, please raise your hand. And I'm going to take it to the room, see if anybody in the room would like to make a comment. I'm not seeing anybody in the room.

If you are online and you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand now. I'm going to give just a minute because we do have some folks online, in case they want to raise their hand and we have a lag. Okay. I'm not seeing anybody raise their hands, so I think we will take it back to the commission. Discussion?

Respectfully, I think there's areas that are prepared for this. I am in agreeance with Commissioner McFarland that there is a need for this in certain areas. I just don't particularly think that some of these areas within the Southern Humboldt region have the infrastructure and or are ready for this type of development. I think if this was split between our urban areas, have an urban one and a rural one that is able to address those concerns in our rural areas. And I put Weyacht, Myers Flat, Miranda, Phillipsville, all those areas in the rural areas.

I just don't know that the infrastructure is there. The streets aren't wide enough. There's no sidewalks. Parking is a premium. But I I think it is a necessity. We will need it eventually. But I would like to see the the infrastructure in place before we implement something like this in those rural areas. And maybe the areas around Eureka, Arcade, McKinleyville are better prepared for this type of stuff.

Can we do that? Can we split it?

So I just want to remind you, The general plan housing element says housing opportunities us. That's that's all we've done is trying to go along with what adopted housing element, the housing element that's been accepted by HCD. This is an implementation measure to carry that out. So I just I don't wanna be defensive, But I want to say before you start carving stuff out, understand that this is really about trying to provide housing that's affordable to workforce people throughout the county in places where that housing normally wouldn't be found. And these are largely areas.

Don't disagree that utilities are important, that transportation is important, that it's all got to be there. But these are largely areas that are within CSDs. They have utility hookups. They have presumably power, and that we, you know, we know what that is. And and, yes, the streets may be narrow, but a lot of the planning thought at the current time is narrow streets and residential areas are better because it slows traffic down.

So you can absolutely carve areas out. But the thing that I just want to caution you before you start carving stuff out is that while we're trying to do is do something we said we were gonna do in the housing element to provide sufficient housing throughout Humboldt County. And and it may be that some utility districts, some CSDs are struggling a little bit. But I mean, when you look at the number of infill lots that are actually going to be affected by this, that's relatively small also. This is not having large scale expanses of new development.

Commissioner Scappel, you've been waiting, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, totally agree that we need this housing, I also recognize that we're going to add multifamily housing into single family residential neighborhoods. K? Let's and when we do that, the public that's not here today will be right there, and it'll be no different than allowing a cannabis farm in a community zone that we just dealt with tonight earlier. Okay?

And we find ourselves in these situations where it's easy to adopt these regulations and put all these conditions on here. And then when reality hits us and somebody actually proposes to develop apartment with multiple units and no parking in a residential neighborhood, that's gonna push that parking onto the streets and out into the neighborhood, we're gonna hear from everybody, and we're gonna go, oh, how do we do this? And so I share that concern. And very personal experience, have my own you know, of my children lives in apartment unit that is workforce housing. He works in the trades.

People in the trades have a company work truck and a personal vehicle. And when they can't park it in their parking lot because the new apartment next door that was built with no parking overflows into their spaces, has a parker's work truck on the street, it gets broken into and his tools get stolen. So those are real world problems. So is the fact that, you know, we want want to encourage people to use other transportation and everybody have a car. And but I don't I think most developers are going to try to develop their housing for the lowest cost and try to keep the rents down.

And if we say they don't need to have parking, they're not gonna put in parking. It's not gonna be voluntary. I'll develop this apartment complex and add extra parking. It's not gonna happen. So how do we have the flexibility?

How do we give ourselves ourselves some flexibility to win, and I think that's the point people are getting, when these are in an area where there's broad wide streets, there is on street parking, there are bus stops, there is public transport. They're close to the university or where people work or whatever. We have less parking. But maybe when they're on a narrow street in a tight cul de sac where there's no place for people to park, we have the flexibility to say, wait a minute, you have to put some on-site parking. I guess I want my cake heated too, trying to figure out how to do that.

Yeah, chair, if I could just talk about that for a little bit because it is a struggle. I mean we agree it's a struggle. And we're, you know, the focus of tonight is to look at this and see if the balance has been achieved and where that balance is. The other thing that we're called upon to do by housing community development is to remove restrictions to development, which is as you know is discretion. Yeah.

So if you know, if the commission's opinion is we wanna see the make sure there's sufficient parking in the worst possible circumstance, maintain some level of adequate parking. I don't disagree with that. If the more discretion you work into this, the more hurdles there will be to get development approved. So I would just offer you that as you think about this, that you know, if we really wanna create housing with low barrier permitting, you know, making it really simple, no decisions need to be made. If you want to see the parking there, require the parking.

I mean, that's going be the balance sheet that is before you tonight.

Can I follow-up? When these parking requirements that we're talking about in here now, one space per unit, those are not counting on street parking, if there's frontage?

Correct. Those are all on parcel parking.

If I may ask real quick, what's the are these one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, or is it up to the developer's discretion?

In essence, it's up to developer's discretion. However, in practice, the kind of results of this density is gonna probably be one bedroom, like studios to one bedroom. Thank you.

Commissioner McFarland, and then You said it was

spot per bedroom. So does that mean you could have a development with three one bedrooms in a studio and only require three, or is it per unit?

That's the existing code? Yeah. Yeah. That's existing code. It's not this.

Okay. Gotcha.

Commissioner Kiryasi?

Well, I think I'm

kind of

aligned here with commissioners Scavdol and Fulton, but I think for very different reasons. The I think the concern I have is the housing opportunity zone locations themselves and that we're proposing infill in these particular locations. I tried to dig into the process of how the general plan process came about with how the housing opportunity zones were defined in the first place. And it wasn't particularly successful, but I think the intent really is that you seek you're seeing communities develop here, and so you want to encourage infill in places where there's sort of a defined community and such as Wiyatt or Miranda. And and then the the sort of the EIR I think sort of partially or justifies that through saying if you put infill in communities, then you're reducing the number of vehicle trips because then they potentially have access to services and amenities in those communities.

The challenge I see here is that a lot of these locations, particularly in Southern Humboldt, are simply bedroom communities. They're they're the the the amount of amenities that exist is actually quite low. And so I I think for me, the way I see this playing out is is that the a lot of these areas will need cars to go to work, to buy groceries, to do all of those the things we have to do every day. And so I'm I've also, when reviewing this, was starting to lean towards this, you know, can we divide this up somehow? However, I think recognizing that as Director Ford was saying, we've the general plans gone through this already.

We've entertained the process of where we're defining these housing opportunity zones. And is this really the place that we dig all of that up? And I think it's and and then in addition, we bring in the recently adopted regional climate action plan, the RCAP, and the particularly measure t one e talk

you know,

requests establishing standards for when and how multifamily developments or how they shall provide interconnected bike and ped facilities. And again, that intent is we're infilling in places where that bike and ped facilities make sense versus know, Miranda or Weah, which are fantastic communities, but they're bedroom communities. We're not going to see Murphy's go into Miranda most likely.

If I could I I don't I agree with what you're saying, but I would draw a distinction for this. While it does very much seem like this is multifamily residential, this is not an r three or an r four zone. This is not a commercial district where now we allow residential up to 30 units per acre by right, because we just adopted that. So we've already put in place that what hopefully will be very intense development along corridors. One of the things that hopefully this does, and maybe the opportunity zones are entirely misplaced, but you're right that they were set up already.

And the housing element said do this here, and so we're trying to do this now. And and maybe all that's misguided. But I think what this does is provide an opportunity for developers who don't do big multi family to do three to five units, or three to 10 units in multiple structures at a time, on parcels where that makes sense. And that does create new housing opportunities. And so much of what we're doing to try to implement the housing element, the last housing element that we adopted in cycle six, before we get into cycle seven, which we're working on right now, is really to create opportunities.

This is just a different opportunity to create housing.

Yeah, think I understand that. Think maybe to clarify what I'm struggling with is how we're justifying is our justification particularly in the transportation side in the EIR addendum. And I think that we're just simply saying trips will be reduced because we're infilling in areas where there are amenities and I just think that's simply not true.

Well, if you're not satisfied with that, we can definitely take a look at that. I completely understand your concern with that. And we will we can take the language there probably needs to be clarified anyway.

Commissioner Scapdahl.

Speaking to that concern, and I appreciate the concern, but I think it's one that the market is going to more sort out than the community development area. I just don't see a lot of a significant number of multiple unit housing complexes going into the residential areas in some of those neighbourhoods that we're describing. However, I do note that we're closing a hospital in Garberville, and there's likely going to be a need for workforce housing. So there's an example where perhaps it would go into some of those neighborhoods in Garmentville or Redway. I want to come back to the parking.

And maybe Maybe I'm I'm going to I'm trying to come up with a solution to the dilemma that I proposed. I guess I would be more comfortable if if we're talking about a development where there is street frontage. So if there's one parking space per two bedroom unit, I think is what we're proposing right now off-site. But if there was, let's just say, for example, a half space per unit on street parking, that would mean that a type of a development that had a reasonable amount of street frontage, so maybe a long narrow lot could take advantage of that street frontage parking. But if somebody were to develop multiple units, let's say, a cul de sac where there is no street frontage parking, they would have to develop more parking on-site.

Does that make sense?

So what I'm hearing you say, so establish a parking requirement and then allow a certain amount of that to be by say what I heard you say was a half space on street.

On street. You have credit for on street parking.

Yeah. And I know And and just to clarify. So that half space, that would be a full space.

It would be a full space. I'm just saying

But you get credit for half of

You know, one and a half spaces per per two bedroom unit. Yeah. Yeah. That's all I'm saying. Right? I don't wanna create too much parking, but I don't wanna put a burden out in the neighborhood. And I'm worried about these spaces. And I'm more I'm more concerned about the parking quite frankly in the more suburban areas. To me, in the rural areas, in my experience, and I've lived both very urban in the Bay Area and very rural, The rural areas tend to be larger lots and people quite frankly park on their property. Whether there's a sidewalk or driveway or doesn't really matter, they find parking.

So I'm not quite as concerned in those neighborhoods. I'm more concerned about the denser urban areas where we're gonna be perhaps pushing parking over onto the current neighbor that has a single family home with street frontage, and they like to have parking, they like to have nobody parking in front of their house because they want it for their guests or whatever, that we're gonna fill that up and people aren't gonna be happy about it. But that's that's what I'm trying to avoid.

Okay.

Not that there's a you know, again, if it were Bay Area, those spaces don't belong to you and people park in them. But up here, people feel some sort of ownership to that space.

To your last point, I think, I really hesitate to count on the street parking for any it is it is public parking. And as much as people have feelings about it, I I really firmly believe that it is public parking that is available for anyone. And if you want more parking for your guests, have to put it on your own property.

I I don't disagree. It is public parking for anybody. But if you're letting the neighbor develop without parking on there, then you're, quite frankly, dedicating that public parking for anybody to those units. And I don't think that's fair.

I hear that. I I don't agree personally. Yeah. I hear that. And I appreciate you trying to to find a compromise in there.

I think where I stand, I I think how it's written is for me, a pretty good compromise between desire, I think, to support more certainty for builders and take as many barriers away as possible to develop housing. And it does have a little bit more parking required than we've seen in other places. But I do think, to everybody else's points, that for me, it's appropriate given what we're talking about. But I don't think I can support raising the parking requirements any further. Commissioner Kirazi.

Is there interest kind of started off with the idea of sort of splitting into rural and urban? Do we want to go down that road? On the one hand, you know, I started doing that already during my review process, but on the flip side, it starts to complicate things. And

I think after listening to the discussion a little bit more, I'm you know, thinking back to time when I did live in a neighborhood that had every third house was a duplex, and that meant that by default, the duplex was using this the public street parking as dedicated parking for residents. And that is how it worked out. Like, even though it was public, it it was how it worked out. And

and so I

guess I'm thinking it a little bit more. I would kind of I would be okay with sticking with what is proposed. I don't think that I would push for for changing for reducing the parking requirement further. How which is how I was originally I was originally leaning more a little bit towards alternative two or maybe even further. But if we're not gonna do the split, then I think I would stick with it as it is.

Questioner Fulton.

Yes. Ian, after listening to Director Ford's comments in regards to splitting, I'm not so sure that that's the appropriate thing to do after listening to Commissioner Scabdal's comments in regards to Garberville. I mean, because then you're because Garberville is set up a little bit better. It's more of a I know there's a lot of vacant lots that would support this type of operation. But I also I mean but I'm also torn between the communities of Ouiat and some of the communities in Miranda.

I mean, I would I'm fully in support of what we're trying to accomplish here. But I think there needs to be some forethought in regards to approving some of these things in specific areas. I think they really need to think these through as opposed to having a developer come in and say, why are you telling me I can't do it? This thing says I can. And we know by looking at the streets, it's a it's a single lane already.

And in regards to parking, you tell somebody that's been parking in front of their house for thirty years that that's no longer their parking spot and see where that gets you. I know that I grew up in a in a residential area. The street was not ours, but that's where we parked the second or third car. That's just the entire neighborhood was set up that way. You move a parking you move a an apartment complex in there and you start shoving people from parking where they have been parking for years, it's going to cause a lot of problem.

We're going to have

a whole bunch of people at that podium. There has to be and I get it. It's public. I understand it, and I agree with you. But there are we we have to come to some sort of medium here as to how we can address all these situate I I just don't know that it's appropriate for every situation in your map. I think it's appropriate for accounting and appropriate for lots of locations,

but it's

not appropriate for every situation on your map.

I I think even though I'm probably perceived as a city person, I would agree Garberville. I I would think that actually this is more appropriate for Garberville and that I did not flag Garberville as a place where I thought this shouldn't happen because you have have grocery stores, you have stores, you have coffee shops, you have work opportunities there. And whereas, for example, the Ridgewood area, even though that's close to Eureka, I don't think it's appropriate. There's no way you can walk or bike or have an alternative way to get to amenities in Cotton or in Eureka from the Ridgewood Heights area. So maybe there's potential for agreement there.

And then second, I think to your comment around the parking in front of their house on a public street, I just want to remind that that's not an entitlement. So we don't have a way. I I don't think it's we can hear all the public comment we want in the gripe, but it's not an entitlement. So

I think I mean, I'm also struggling with the one size fits all of this when it I mean, this is not the first time we've had a struggle where our county is very varied. It's quite large, and it's hard to develop policies that fit everything. And I also understand where director Ford is coming from and trying to meet the demands of the state, which are numerous and continuing to grow.

Could I

ask a question? Yeah. So if you were to try to divide this and create different maybe standards, is there a way to get there that it does allow the next use in all the housing opportunity zones. But what is it about the more rural areas that you don't like because they're gonna drive? I I mean, I don't know that we could ever overcome that.

But if it's about the narrowness of the streets, we often put in a requirement for street width into ordinances as as locations where they come controlling factors. And and so I just am curious if there's a way to make that division without saying here but not here.

Commissioner Kerriazy?

Yeah. I think I mean, I'm not saying that it's I'm not focusing on the will people drive or not. I agree that that's way too vague and challenging. I guess my approach is from the EIR justification arguing that there is no increase in trips. And so I think my thought is to look at maybe take guidance from how the RCAP approach that and they used the terms economic hubs or amenities.

And so for me, I think you can reasonably argue there are economic hubs and amenities in Garberville. You could possibly argue that in Redway. Can you argue that in WIAT or Miranda? I don't think so. I don't think you could argue it in Humboldt Hill. So that that's one

So I I I would caution that we're trying to mix objectives at that point. And I would also offer that I think I would propose to change the addendum to say that the EIR evaluated cumulative traffic impacts and there weren't intersections that would be affected by this that would be triggered to anything below an LOSC. Level of service.

And just a comment, I think the level of services will rise if the populace rises. If there's more housing and more people move into these areas, then there will be more services that will follow. As far as amenities like a grocery store or even a small outlet like in Wiyath, there's not a store anymore. But if the populace goes up and the demand is there, then there's a potential for those amenities to arise.

I think we just earlier kind of argued that we're not going to see significant development in these areas. I mean, we're going to see population increase of 10 or 20. Actually, I could jump in there, the population in

the rural areas is going down rapidly. ACD has lost their mind with how much housing they're asking us to build Because housing demand won't go up until we have jobs. Without jobs, there's no reason for people to stay here. Without jobs, there's no reason for people to build this housing. And and and so it's a vicious cycle that we're in right now.

And and I don't wanna say that don't worry about it because you're you're what you're struggling with is what you should be struggling with. But I I think that at some level that there should be some well, I I would just encourage you to recognize what we're confronted with with which is this is horrible thing to say, but is to satisfy a paper requirement. And this really if you want us to do go and look and do an inventory within the housing opportunity zones of how many lots, this really would involve, I mean we can do that. Because I don't think it's gonna be a huge number. And then if there's areas where the streets are too narrow and we need to create a requirement to have a certain street width, so that we're not creating safety problems.

We can absolutely look at doing that. But I just I would ask you to focus on the objective here, which is really to create housing throughout the entire county for workforce people, and it's not related to the R CAP. I know you wanna tie it into the R CAP, but the r cap is looking at multifamily residential at a far different scale than what's being proposed here. These are lots that are like 10,000 square feet or less. They're not big.

I saw Commissioner McFarland and then Commissioner Scabdall.

I don't know if this is doable, but could we let's say we adopted it as proposed tonight, but could we put a time extension on it and say or a time limit and say so that way we can see if any of

all of our

concerns are justified, see how many people actually apply to develop. And so in x amount of years, we can choose to change it and just I mean, if population's going down and we think we're not even gonna get development applications, then we're sort of discussing nothing. But so, I don't know. I just, if we can put a time qualifier on it and see how it plays out and see if the county's economic future gets brighter or not.

Commissioner's Capital?

I'll just say, I think we need this. So I'm definitely in support. And I struggle every time with we have such diversity in Humboldt County. I struggle every time with trying to come up with a one size fits all ordinance. I think staff has done a pretty good job at that.

I've shared my concern. I wish there was some flexibility regarding these going in neighborhoods where I'll say there's lots of on street public parking available versus neighborhoods where there's no on street public parking available. I would like to see more flexibility for staff to be able to ask the developer to in some of those situations to put in more on-site parking. But I mean, I'm not gonna follow my sword on that one because I think overall it's a good ordinance and staff has probably been wrestling with the same issues that we're talking about and knowing that some of us on this commission would like to see more parking and some of us on this commission would like to see less parking. I think you've probably done a pretty good compromise already.

So I guess I'm saying I'm willing to support the ordinance as written with, I think it was the first parking option.

Alternative one?

Yes.

Would you want to do sort of like a trial period that allows us to come back in however many years and decide do we need to carve this out?

I think we can always do that. I don't think we need to try it. I think if something's not working, staff can come to us and say, hey. You know what? We adopt this ordinance, and this part doesn't work that well. And we need to amend it.

Commissioner Kiriase.

I think I'm still I I heard director Ford suggest adding language to the the EIR addendum, saying that level of service would not drop below level c. I I definitely appreciate staff's interest in trying to reword the addendum language. I think I'm still just fundamentally struggling. I I don't I I don't agree that the R CAP doesn't apply here. I I I think R CAP wasn't just talking about very large multifamily. At least that that's not how I read it.

No. RCAP was talking about transit corridors and developing around transit corridors. This is the housing element that wants us to create housing options beyond everything else that we're doing. And we committed to HCD that we would do this. I I mean, I I don't wanna keep banging that drum too loudly, but this is a commitment that was made when the housing element was adopted.

So I think that rather than going around and rezoning properties, that's the other thing you could do is say, you know what, we don't want it to happen in all housing opportunity zones, we want you to tell us where you're gonna rezone this. And and that could be done. But I think the thing that the genius of this is that it doesn't require us to pinpoint things in specific areas. It allows a more ubiquitous approach. It allows that housing in other areas.

I I really would advocate or encourage you or to to think about the fact that this, if we wanted to be strict about the r cap, we wouldn't allow housing anywhere outside the transit corridors. And that's not the objective. The objective is to create greater opportunities for transit to be effective so that people have alternatives to their vehicles.

I guess I don't read the RCap is strictly limited to transit corridors.

But the T1 that we keep talking about, that's what that was focused around was because there's existing transit corridors and wanting to develop it it goes back to the BART model in the Bay Area, where there were stations that were built. And the development then started building up around those stations because then people could walk to the transit stop, get on the train to Oakland or San Francisco and get out and walk to their place of business without ever getting in a car.

Hear you. I think we're just going to disagree here. I think the intent, what the RCAP is trying to capture is that we need to be more thoughtful about where we're doing infill. And I think there's still guidance there even if it's not specifically measured T1. I was referring to that just in terms of about why the fact that it talks about economic hubs and amenities.

The and and so I'm I'm coming from do we really want infill? And so it and I struggle here and I struggle with like, well, we're not actually going to see it. And we're trying to check the box with HCD. And I understand that the position that staff is in, but I think I also want to be cognizant of we're setting a precedent and we're making a public justification of why we're saying this, why we're approving this. So I I I'm unfortunately leaving leaning a little bit towards no on this.

And and I also struggle with the LOS of c even though the GPU EIR still used LOS at the time. Think we I struggle with accepting the continued use of LOS as a I only referred to that

because that is the analysis in the GPUs. So you can't do an addendum to something else.

Yep. I know. I I hear you. Chewing on it a bit more here. I I'm chewing on this a bit more here. Yeah.

Commissioner McFarland? I

have an easy one while he chews on it. I think in the CEQA addendum, there's a typo in assumption one. It's like page three, the first bullet. I don't know if that really matters.

We'll correct that.

It's like

the first bullet in assumption one. I think you're just missing the word more. Missing the word more? More.

If I could, I just wanna respond to something commissioner of curiosity said. While the GPU EIR did focus on LOS, it is the one that looked ahead and saw that we're going to VMP and it did begin to contemplate those things. And some of the things that this commission has approved along the way are very much related to that.

I have a couple of smaller comments similar to commissioner McFarlane while I sort of contemplate what my final vote will be. That's okay. One is so in in section six point five point six, it gives examples of walkways. And one of the examples is cobblestone. And I thought we should probably remove that because it's not ADA compliant.

It's kinda nitpicky. But and six point five point eleven point one, which kind of addresses community character, it references that it should have retained sort of similar colors as the surrounding neighborhood. And I thought that was a little bit constraining and outside of the kind of the spirit of what I see humble communities, how humble communities are. So I propose just removing the and colors portion. And for six point five point fourteen point four, this is around rounding down for the number of units.

If you end up with a unit number of units, that's a decimal. And I would argue to round up. We round up for parking spaces. Let's round up for units as well. And then in six point six point seven, I would propose that we add at the end of that whichever is greater. So it refers to parcels which have undergone a lot split and limited to either two dwelling units per per resultant parcel or the number of dwelling units that would be allowed. It felt clarifying if we say whichever is greater if that's the intent.

I could be in support of of those proposed changes.

Perspective.

Correct is okay too. I'm okay being corrected.

For the calculations resulting in remain remainders. This if we round up, we're granting more units than would be permitted otherwise.

That's the point.

Well, by a density bonus.

Does the density bonus require to round out?

It's required to round out.

So we're getting up on 08:00, which is traditionally our break time. But we are also almost the end of our agenda. So I kinda wanna take the temperature of the commission, whether or not we think we are headed towards more discussion or whether or not we're headed towards a motion here, whether you would appreciate a break before we finish this out.

I would appreciate a break if commissioners would be accommodating of that.

Okay. Let's go ahead and do a ten minute break and come back at 07:57.

Recording in progress.

All right. Let's come back from break and continue on item F2, I believe. Yep, F2. So we're still talking about mixed residential density ordinance.

May I add one thing? Please. To alter your suggested alteration for footpaths, sidewalk walks shall be ADA compliant hard surface, e g concrete asphalt or flat top cobblestone, some other third stone option. Actually,

you you don't need to give examples of what the payment is. Just ADA compliant.

As long as we get the commission to make the inclusion in their

decision.

Okay. I see a couple of folks interested. So let's go with Commissioner McFarlane and then Commissioner Kirazi and then

I just wanted to do a recap of the points that you brought up. Commissioner Kirazi said that the paint color, yes, that works. We just talked about the ADA. We we don't need Can you remind and then we the dent the bonus the rounding up. Was that the only other one?

There was there were two more. The the the rounding up, but it sounds like because we're reliant on existing density bonus language, we can't that would go be modifying existing approved language in the different ordinance areas, so we can't do that. The second one was at the very the very last section. Oops. Lot no. It's here.

61617.

Yeah. Thank you. Just adding whichever is greater. It's it's sort of like a it's just making sure that we're compliant with government code. It's it's just a clarifying language.

We've added that. Okay.

Commissioner of curiosity, did you have other comments?

I did. I kind of have my thoughts on the EIR addendum, which I have a a few points. There were other shorter points first.

I wanted to address and try to understand Mr. Kiraiza's concerns in the rural area. So I just wanted to pamper that back and forth a little bit, if we could. Yeah. And because I really do understand your concern that we're trying to encourage development in the urban and suburban areas and particularly as what we approve with the RCAP.

Specifically infill development. So I'm not like I'm opposed to

these No, I understand. But you know, that's where we want the denser development. Right? But I also recognize in these small rural communities, and I granted there's not a lot of unemployment there, but there are people that live there and have lived there for generations. And we're talking about existing parcels that are already zoned R1 or R2.

So they can be developed already with a McMansion or maybe a fourplex now if we do this. And those communities also have people that need low cost housing. In fact, I can argue there's even a greater need in some of those really rural poor communities for some lower cost housing. So and I don't think we're going to see a significant influx. In fact, we might not see anything happen.

But if somebody did want to build a fourplex in Miranda or Ouiat on a parcel that's currently zoned R1 for residential, I really don't think it's going to have much of an impact as it relates to the R cap or infill development in the larger community. And I think it's something that those communities could really benefit from. So I'm going have a problem if we try and if we're going to exclude that opportunity there. I don't think that's fair. And I think it is a need in those communities. And so I wanted to express that. While I recognize your concern, there's another side for the housing concern as well.

Yeah, I definitely appreciate that. And I think we're in agreement actually. I think really my challenge is how we're justifying it in the EIR addendum and just sort of the and the precedent being set there. So I I think in general, I I I'm in agreement as well that housing there is okay. But to say that we're going to the number the vehicle trips are going to be reduced and the vehicle lengths trip lengths are going to be reduced. And then also the greenhouse gas section just doesn't even acknowledge that. That's what I'm struggling with.

That I fully understand. I

do have question to staff. I'll wait.

I have an alternative for you. Okay. State law was just passed that exempts housing ordinances altogether.

Provided they were in the housing element.

Exempts what? The adoption of ordinances to implement a housing element that's been adopted certified by ACD.

I see. Exempts in terms of we don't have to have the sequel addendum. Correct. Right.

So the action would be to find it exempt according to public resources code. I'm not going to pull that out of my head.

I think while you while you do that, I think that this would just be kind of an unfortunate example of where it's, you know, one size fits all doesn't doesn't quite quite work. And I think part of the challenge is we're still, as you pointed out, we're still using the the 2017 general plan update EIR. So and I think

the language that you're putting in here is pulling from that. I understand that. We're willing to change that. We can go and spend 20 or $30 thousand dollars on a traffic study if that would help. I I mean, although it's exempt now.

I I do understand your point that it's not necessarily gonna reduce trips. But the objective is is to absolutely provide housing in areas where the EIR absolutely did envision housing. And the amount of housing that's being developed does not exceed the amount of housing that was evaluated in the EIR. That's true. And so an addendum to the EIR is very simple if it's just modified to say the EIR contemplated the amount of traffic that will be generated by this.

Yep. I absolutely appreciate that. And sort of in my notes when I was reviewing here, was writing that perhaps I just don't even have grounds for this for exactly those reasons. And so I'm starting to just disagree with an already approved EIR, which is not what's before us. And so I hear you. But at the same time, I'm putting a vote in approving language that is you know, it's it's it's legislative. It's not quasi judicial, but and I'm approving my approving the language here. And so that's where I'm struggling.

Absolutely agree with that. And I understand your struggle. I mean, we we spent a lot of time on the RCAF. And I think it's a pretty good document to guide the whole county forward. And I don't wanna ignore it at all.

I think the the struggle is, and maybe I don't completely understand what you're advocating for is that we also have a document that was adopted by the planning commission or recommended for approval by the planning commission and adopted by the board of supervisors saying that we're adopt this ordinance within the housing zones. And and so we've got these competing interests. And so I would submit for your consideration that you're not compromising your core thoughts about the importance of the RCAP. You're focusing on what we've agreed to do in the housing element.

Yes, I appreciate that. And guess to clarify, I'm not trying to implement the r cap here. I was just trying to use it as for examples. So I I guess to maybe we'll go back to this that was the state law that was just passed maybe after I bring this up. But so for possible solutions, is it possible to remove from the transportation section of the EIR addendum the part of a sentence which says which should reduce vehicle trips and trip length and just simply remove that?

We will gladly remove that and we will rewrite that to indicate that the amount of housing that would be the amount of traffic that would be generated by this amount of new housing development was contemplated in the EIR.

And did the greenhouse gas section of the twenty seventeen GPU include greenhouse gases from transportation trips? Because it doesn't it just addresses energy in this. Well,

didn't to the extent that the mitigation for that was the RCAP.

Oh, it did. Can you repeat that one more time?

It did. And then it identified the mitigation for that's the R cap.

Okay. My last question is you have a wildfire section in the addendum and are any of these areas in this high severity or a very high severity wildfire area? And do we need to contemplate that or can we contemplate that?

Can absolutely contemplate that. I'm gonna need to did you look at that?

They are, at least least some, in high fire hazard severity zones. I don't believe in very high.

Okay. Yeah. Garberville's a high fire hazard zone. I think Redway is as well. Probably Miranda.

Right. But they are served by fire districts.

Yeah. I don't think we've had. We've considered that in past projects either. But I thought I would

We actually do. The policy in the general plan is that if you're approving development in a high fire hazard area that doesn't have a district formed, you've got to record something on the property indicating that so future buyers are aware of that. But I believe that all these areas that are housing opportunity zones are within districts.

Okay. Then I think I'm leaning that sounds like well, guess maybe wrapping up, are is staff proposing potentially throwing out the the EIR addendum in favor of?

No, that's how we noticed it. I think we're proposing to make the modifications that we talked about and asking you to adopt or consider the addendum, consider the IR. And based upon your testimony today, you've thoroughly considered it.

Is commission open to removing that portion of the sentence in the transportation sector section?

I am. Yes.

Yep. That's fine.

And then I think I saw Commissioner Scaffold, you had some comments to make?

No. No. Okay. I'm ready to make a motion if we're ready. Not sure how to do that, but I'll take a stab at it.

Appreciate you doing accommodating my complexity.

I'm going to propose I'm going to make move that we adopt the resolution, finds the Planning Commission has considered the environmental impact report previously adopted for the general plan, as well as the end with the EIR that was prepared for the residential density ordinance project pursuant to the CEQA guidelines with the changes that we noted here today. And I'm not going to repeat those. Finds that the project is in the public interest and consistent with the general plan and state planning law and recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the mixed residential density ordinance with alternative one for the parking element. And I'm sorry, I don't have the other page.

It's just the line, the section.

Oh, what that said. Yeah. Which so that's my motion.

Can director Ford, would you mind clear just so we're all on the same page with the I think there are four changes. What these are?

Did did you include the changes in your motion? Yes. Okay. So the changes were to remove color from the design requirements, to remove the specificity relative to the pavement type and identify that that needs to be ADA accessible. And in section six dot six dot seven, the end of the paragraph would be whichever is greater. The fourth one is rounding up, but that was inconsistent with the density bonus. So there's actually three changes. Yeah. No. He I didn't.

I would second that.

Okay. Any I have a motion and a second. Any more discussion on the motion before we take a vote?

I think I'm leaning towards alternative two, so I'm considering no on this motion.

Okay. Will we please have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Scabdahl?

Yes.

Commissioner Fulton.

Yes.

Commissioner McFarlane. No. Commissioner Curiazzi. No. Commissioner West. No. Motion fails.

Okay. Do we have an alternative motion?

Yeah. So the motion failed. That's not, you know, an action on it. That's lack of an action. So now

I would be open to the exact same proposal you made, but with alternative to for the parking. Okay.

Can you remind me and just be specific what alternative to parking is?

I can. So it is so alternative one has four or more residential units, has a minimum off street parking of one space per unit. Alternative two is four or five units have a minimum required off street parking of one per unit. And units of six or more that are also within a half mile of a bus stop that has service at least twice daily, Monday through Saturday, off street parking is one per two units.

So since it's the same as alternative one, but reduces off street parking in the vicinity of a bus stop?

Four units with six or more?

Yes.

Four larger projects. Yes. Larger parcels. I think it's modest change.

I'm not going to have a problem with that. So are you restating your motion to be the same motion

that No, maybe Commissioner McFarlane take the lead.

Can I make a motion to repeat Commissioner Scavdahl's motion with the change I'll from alternative one to second that?

Okay, we have a new motion and a new second on the floor. Any more discussion about this second motion before we take a vote? Okay, let's go ahead and roll call again please.

Commissioner Fulton?

Yes.

Commissioner McFarlane? Yes. Commissioner Curiazzi? Yes. Commissioner West? Yes. Commissioner Scabdahl?

In the interest of housing, yes. And I'll try not to say I told you so later.

But if you do, as you reminded me, we can bring this back up for discussion and redo it.

There you go.

Okay that's going to bring us to our next agenda item. G, items pulled from consent, we covered that already. Item H, report from planner.

Yeah I want to just give you a quick update. The Board of Supervisors upheld the Planning Commission's actions on the Humble Commons. And so that was really kind of a tight vote. It was three-two, but it was upheld. They also upheld the Planning Commission recommendation on the Westfall general plan amendment zoning zone amendment and contract cancellation.

And then if you didn't see, they revoked forty four cannabis permits due to noncompliance with cannabis ordinance. So I just wanted to kinda give you an update on the Humboldt Bay Area plan that is gonna start heading into the news and public forum. The public review draft, this is not the ultimate draft that the planning commission will see, but the public review draft is going to be coming out in June. Then we're going to have a public meeting, I think on June 16. And that will be to just receive the kind of comments from the public and gauge concerns.

And then we're

What date is that again?

June 16. We'll be sending out a flyer on that. And then we're gonna bring a workshop to the planning commission in July. And then we expect to come back to the planning commission to start the public hearing process in September. And that's all I have for today.

Thank you for we we know that we have a more contentious policy topic that you do a workshop. I really I think it's a format that seemed to work well for us, and I appreciate you making the time for it. Okay. Let's move on to I, Planning Commission discussion items. Have a question.

Think in hindsight, I probably would have been more appropriate to ask it to pull the progress report on the housing element and ask this question, but I'm hoping it's okay to do so now. I'm just curious from the implementation measure in the housing element where the Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of supervisors that amendments be initiated to the if the progress report shows insufficient progress has been made. And I was just curious if staff had guidance. I know I'm kind of putting you on the spot, but like how we can what is insufficient progress to or how should we think about that?

So insufficient progress could be that we're not getting enough housing element implementation measures done. But I think we've been bringing a match up pretty regularly over the last six months or so. It could be that we're not seeing enough housing built and we're not. Realistically given what our objectives are given by HCD. But I think that we would want to talk about the whys of that before trying to tackle that head on.

We are trying to we're gonna be getting doing some new things with our housing and grants team to start to put together opportunities for partnerships between private public. I mean this is not new. Eureka is doing it right now. But it seems to be a model based upon somebody I talked to recently that's done housing, affordable housing for probably nearly forty years is that you really need to find partnerships to get things done. And so we've been able to do that with one local developer pretty effectively, but we'd like to speed up the pace of that, if that makes sense.

But you can always bring that up as an item to be agendized and discuss that and make a recommendation to the Board that there should be different priorities or different emphasis or whatever it is.

Any other discussion items? Okay. Well, there are no further discussion items. Let's go ahead and adjourn until our next meeting on 06/04/2026, 06:00 in these chambers.