This is a 4-story building with 41 studio and one-bedroom apartments, built on a 0.20 acre lot — about 8700 square feet.  I present it here not as something we can copy for Arcata, but as an example of what can be done. It is built to the north side of existing single-family homes, so it does not substantially shade them. To put the parcel size in perspective, the St. Vinnie’s parcel at 5th & K Streets is 0.43 acres. The previous Patriot Gas Station parcel at 11th & K is 0.21 acres. So if you want to imagine a 4-story building with 41 apartments at the old gas station site, this is how it could be.

This article is an expansion to Visualizing Compatible Density which shows townhouses in Seattle with 36 units per acre and 44, 59, 162, and the 205 units per acre apartments.

To me, this is the single most important issue facing the Planning Commission with regard to the success of the Gateway Plan. As David Loya has told us, “Project proponents will be driven by the Density Bonus provisions. And our design standards and Community Benefits programs are unlikely to be implemented due to waivers and concessions.”

Commissioners, perhaps you would wish to devote an hour or a full meeting to a discussion about this. To put it bluntly, why craft a code that could have its important aspects be ignored?  By utilizing the State Density Bonus Law, a developer can effectively negate much of the work that the Planning Commission has done over these many months. There are solutions. Doing nothing is too passive.

The companion article is the 15-1/2 minute video from David Loya. On Arcata1.com with a full transcription and the video, if you want to watch the video and read at the same time. State Density Bonus Laws / Inclusionary Zoning / Community Benefits — David Loya presentation

Other articles on Feasibility of creating housing in Arcata, Density, Cost, Site considerations, and more are here. 

Commissioner Yodowitz read a passage from a US Congressional Research report on housing trends at the September 12 PC meeting. His research prompted me to put up that article and four other Congressional Research reports, see here. The report he read stated that in 2021 the average cost of regulation for a single-family home amounted to $93,870.

That figure seemed fishy to me. I am not at all faulting Commissioner Yodowitz — that’s what was in the Congressional Research report. But spending close to $94,000 on regulation costs for a house with a selling price of $394,000 seems suspicious.

I tracked down the source of that $93,780 figure, and I do not believe it is anywhere close to being correct. It is a figure assembled in a fairly small survey by a national industry group. An August, 2022, report from the Terner Center looks at hard and soft costs of housing. While regulatory costs are higher than ever before, it is the costs of materials, labor, and interest that have gone up even more, and are the large costs contributing to housing costs. 

The Terner Center report does outline local costs that can be reduced. The largest of this group are: Reducing parking requirements and reducing the time it takes for permit approvals by streamlining the process — both of which our Community Development Director and the Planning Commission are promoting.

The Terner Report conclusion (3 paragraphs) is here.