Humboldt supervisors adopt mixed‑residential ordinance to expand 'missing‑middle' housing, 3–2

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on July 14 adopted a new mixed residential density ordinance that the county planning staff said will create opportunities for “missing‑middle’’ housing in designated housing opportunity zones.

Planning Director John Ford, presenting the ordinance, said the code change implements Housing Element Implementation Measure 61 and creates a combining zone applied to R‑1 and R‑2 areas inside the county’s housing opportunity zones. “This is an ordinance to implement the housing element,” Ford said, calling out provisions that allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and apartments of two to five units as principally permitted uses and treat larger apartment structures as conditionally permitted.

Supporters said the measure reduces permitting barriers. Staff explained key standards: the ordinance raises a permitted maximum density to about 25 dwelling units per acre in the applied zones, increases maximum ground coverage from 35% toward 45% in some cases, requires at least 10% of parcel area be consolidated as shared open space (100 square feet minimum per unit), and sets a 35‑foot height limit with neighborhood transition rules. Parking minimums were modified: structures with four or more units must provide one space per unit (with additional reductions where within a half‑mile of an active bus stop) rather than the former per‑bedroom standard.

Supervisor Arroyo said she supported the planning commission’s “middle‑ground’’ recommendation but pressed staff about design guidance, saying design standards would help developments “fit with the neighborhood.” John Ford and planning staff said the ordinance intentionally kept thresholds lower to meet state housing requirements while preserving some basic development standards; they said more detailed design standards could be explored later. Supervisor Bone and others raised concerns about parking impacts and neighborhood character and asked for follow‑up reporting on development outcomes. One supervisor asked for an 18‑month or 24‑month follow‑up to track uptake; staff agreed to return with implementation updates.

Members of the public both urged more permissive parking rules to encourage production and asked for stronger design protections. Planning staff noted the planning commission recommended the ordinance by a 5–0 vote and would publish the required post‑adoption summary.

After debate and a minor amendment to require conditional‑use review when developers seek changes to entitlements beyond the ordinance, the board adopted the ordinance by roll call vote, 3–2. Planning staff will publish the post‑adoption summary and return with implementation updates and any recommended design standards as directed.

The adoption implements a housing‑element item the California Department of Housing and Community Development had flagged as a compliance priority; the county will apply the new rules only within the housing opportunity zone boundaries described by staff.