To jump to a summary of what could be built on this site, scroll down or click here.

Here’s the map as supplied by the Community Development Department.

This map has been in the Planning Commission agenda packets eight times — on May 10, 2022; August 9, 2022; January 10, 2023; January 24, 2023; February 14, 2023; February 28, 2023; March 14, 2023; and March 27, 2023. Significantly the map was not in the agenda packet on April 27, 2023 — which was the date that this matter was discussed by the Commission, even though it was not on the agenda.

Here’s the image from the City’s GIS website. The orientation has been rotated about 17 degrees, for no other reason than to have 17th Street be parallel to the edge of the image.

And the same image, with the property boundaries colored in bright green, to provide further clarity.

This next image corresponds with the City-supplied map of this area.

And then color-coding the parcels to show what the current zoning is.
And some labels added for orientation. Alliance Road is shown as pale yellow. The City boundary is shown as a dashed red line on the west (left) side.

Next we’ll add the APN parcel numbers and the parcel sizes. Note:

• The eastern A-R parcel 061-034, which looks as though it might extend to Alliance Road, does not actually go all the way to Alliance Road. 
• The railroad rights-of-way are actual APN-designated parcels with independent parcel numbers. The railroad parcels are not included in the proposed rezoning.
• APN 505-161-031 is split into two non-contiguous pieces.  The area proposed for rezoning includes the south-western (left) part, and does not include the north-eastern (right) part.

Here is that non-contiguous parcel, filled in with light blue.

Summary:
What could be built on these sites?

Here’s where it gets interesting.

On the site that’s close to Alliance Road, — in blue, above — we can see:

• That portion of 161-031 that is depicted for the possible rezoning to Residential High Density is separated from Alliance Road by the railroad right-of-way, the parcel shown here as 161-010. We more or less assume that there is a formal easement for the driveway — otherwise where General Machine is would have no legal entrance. How would that work if apartments were to be there?
• Because of required riparian setbacks, how much of that lower south-western part of the parcel could be built on?

The area marked in red is an approximation of the buildable area, if this area would be rezoned for Residential Medium or Residential High Density housing. The area is only about 0.65 acres. What could be built there? Is this where a developer would choose to put apartments?

On the site that has the truck repair operation currently, let’s look at the financial realities.

This property, 1800 Q Street, is Assessor’s Parcel Number 505-161-030. It shows a land value of $255,000 and an improvement value of $657,900. That total is almost $913,000. 

Do we think that someone is going to tear down over $650,000 in value of an existing building — in order to construct housing at that site?

If a developer wanted to construct housing, there are other sites in Arcata that are more suitable for apartments and would cost less to acquire.

Bottom line
Does an up-zoning to Residential Medium Density or Residential High Density do much to help create housing for Arcata?

No, it does not.

The Planning Commission is looking to enable developers to create new housing (i.e. apartments) in Arcata.

They (and we) need to look elsewhere. 

For one innovative approach, check this article “Uniontown Revisioning: Put housing over CVS and Safeway” included here on Arcata1.com back in August, 2022.