Original article published July 31, 2022.

In terms of what the L Street pathway contributes to the joy and humanity of the Creamery District, if the southbound traffic currently on K Street is instead routed to L Street —

 

Then the L Street Pathway as we know it and love it will cease to exist.

This letter to the City Council and Planning Commissioners was written and sent on June 9, 2022. As of August 2023, that was 14 month ago.

Arcata’s Transportation Safety Committee had been asking for alternative plans to a K-L couplet repetitively, starting in January 2022 — immediately after the draft Gateway Area Plan was first released. No alternatives were offered by City staff until August, 2023 — over a year and a half later. And what was offered is missing the biggest, most obvious alternative of all: If a K-L Street couplet cannot be built, then do not have a couplet and make other plans.

In the year and a half since this letter was written, both the Transportation Safety Committee and Arcata’s Planning Commission have called for needed, simple, and relatively inexpensive improvements be made immediately to improve the pedestrian and cyclist safety on the existing sections of K Street.

To the extent that K Street can indeed be made more safe, there are few compelling reasons for shunting K Street traffic onto a to-be-built-in-the-future “L Street.” There is huge value to creating a full-width linear park in the L Street Corridor. Putting a through-road there would ruin it.

See also:
The L Street Corridor — It’s a goldmine, waiting to happen
Why the decision on the L Street Linear Park is so important — and so crucial
L Street – Proposed design does not fit
The L Street Pathway Deception
L Street – K Street Couplet: Does the City have the Rights-of-Way to construct this?
The L Street Corridor Linear Park vs. the K-L Street couplet
    A selection of maps, aerial views, images, and articles

The letter, as written:

To:

Arcata Planning Commissioners
Honorable Mayor Stacy Atkins-Salazar
Arcata City Council Members
City Council member-elect Alex Stillman
Community Development Director David Loya
Arcata Community Development Department
Arcata City Manager Karen Diemer

From:  Fred Weis
Date:   June 9, 2022

Re:       Streetscape misrepresentations in the December 2021 draft Gateway plan
            Request for a “Plan B” if the K Street & L Street couplet cannot be constructed

Dear Mayor Atkins-Salazar, et al –

For the record:  I am in favor of infill.  I am in favor of a unified plan for the Gateway area. I find the December 2021 draft Gateway plan to be lacking in many, many ways. As I have expressed to Community Development Director David Loya, I believe the existence of this plan has made his job considerably more difficult, in terms of trying to support a plan with limited feasibility.  In terms of planning for what actually could happen – planning for what has a good probability of truly getting constructed – I rate this plan very close to Zero.  The plan is filled with wishful thinking that is unlikely to be seen in reality.  That is my opinion.

The Planning Commission has given some review to, and will continue to review, the draft plan’s depiction of Streetscapes and Mobility, which includes traffic patterns and bike lanes.  A large part of this is the “couplet” that would be made of K Street going northward and L Street going south.

The question is:  What is the practical likelihood of this couplet being built?

As we know, the City of Arcata does not have the rights-of-way to build this couplet.  Without the couplet, the traffic patterns and bike paths that are shown in the draft plan would be vastly different.

While a proposed alternative is not always a part of a plan of this sort, in this case it is, I feel, 100% necessary. Much of the street design, traffic and bike lanes, sidewalk setbacks, even building design, etc etc is determined by whether K Street becomes 1-lane 1-way or retains its 2-lane, 2-way status.

I request that the Planning Commission and/or the City Council direct Community Development Director David Loya to determine and report to them:

1. The factors at play in evaluating whether the couplet might happen.
2. A true and real assessment of the probability and time-frame for acquiring the necessary rights-of-way.
3. A valid and complete “Plan B” to be presented as an alternative, to be used as part of the plan until such time as the couplet becomes possible and likely to be built.

In addition, I request that Director Loya be instructed to create a presentation, in writing, with sufficient diagrams or 3D modeling, for the Creamery District Community as well as for the general public, of what would happen to the L Street pathway if that couplet were to be created.

The car traffic, delivery vehicles, and transport trucks that currently are a part of the K Street traffic would instead be passing alongside the buildings of the Creamery District – the southbound part, that is. The areas where people now meet, sit, talk, and play will be removed.  It is incorrect and a severe misrepresentation to say that the L Street pathway will have “minor modifications” and “will continue to be its current width” as is stated in the City’s Gateway FAQs.  In terms of what the L Street pathway contributes to the joy and humanity of the Creamery District, the L Street Pathway will cease to exist.

Thank you.

Fred Weis
Arcata

The above is what was sent to the Planning Commission and the City Council on June 9th, 2022.  As of August 1, it has yet to appear appeared in a Planning Commission packet or a City Council packet.

The last line should be re-written, to have what is expressed be more clear.  As:

In terms of what the L Street pathway contributes to the joy and humanity of the Creamery District, if the southbound traffic currently on K Street is instead routed to L Street, then the L Street Pathway as we know it and love it will cease to exist.