The Transportation Safety Committee discussion of the L Street – K Street Couplet

September 20, 2022

At the August 23 City Council – Planning Commission joint study session there was a slide presentation by Todd Tregenza of GHD, the City’s engineering consultant on the Gateway Plan. That presentation can be seen and listened to in its entirety, along with a transcription of what was said, and commentary and critique of the presentation, on this website here.

Following the viewing of this presentation and some discussion with Todd Tregenza, the City Council requested staff to have the Transportation Safety Committee revisit their recommendation. The Transportation Safety Committee had already given a strong recommendation to the Council:

• Preserve the L Street Pathway and L Street Corridor
• Do not construct a new road there
• Do not construct an L Street – K Street couplet
• Explore other ways of increasing safety and traffic flow for K Street

The Transportation Safety Committee had already considered the L Street – K Street pathway at three meetings. The answer has been constant, with ever-increasing solidity. In essence, the Transportation Safety Committee did not understand what it was that the Council did not understand about their decision and their recommendation.

What follows is a transcription of the portion of the September 20, 2022 meeting at which this was discussed.  Please note:  This transcription is not perfect and is not presented as being perfect. It is here to help Arcata’s elected officials and the public have a more clear understanding of the workings of the Transportation Safety Committee. Please note the errors and contact me so that I can fix them.

For further inquiry, please see the Transportation Safety Committee meeting of January 18th, 2022 here, the July meeting on the City’s YouTube channel, and the August 2, 2022 meeting here.

Noted:

From about 12 minutes into the video, from Dave Ryan:

I don’t know that what they’re proposing with K Street is going to magically transform it to something that’s going to be less than continuing to be a mess, or a disaster, whatever word the Councilmembers used, because of our love of cars, and traffic.

But guaranteed – There would be a tragic transformation of the L Street corridor with what they’re proposing.

So those two things, to me, there are questions whether, you know, what they’re proposing, if they’ve given us their best alternative.

You know, if those consultants are saying, Hey, here’s our best, and here you go. If that’s the case, my recommendation to the City Council would be to ask them to add somebody, add a member to their team and go back and give it a fresh perspective.

And maybe somebody on their team, who’s not necessarily looking at all the historical traffic numbers, but more from the standpoint of livable communities, quality of life, maybe just a little bit more of an imaginative perspective that gives them a fresh view on it. So maybe that’s something that’s needed, if this is indeed the best that the consultants can come up with.

How to watch this video and read the transcription

The video is cued up and ready to start.  Just press the Start triangle and it will go.

This is a transcription of the part of the meeting – about 45 minutes including the public comment.

If you are short for time, just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes.

The transcription can be read in less time.  You can also change the playback speed on the video. 

By skimming for highlights, specific phrases and passages, the comments and opinions that are expressed by speakers at the meeting will stand out — and can be viewed here far more easily than by watching the full video.

To change the speed of the video:  After starting the video, use the “Settings” tool button and change the speed to be 1.25x or 1.5x times faster. The video is displayed in a small screen that stays in the lower right corner.  If you want to watch the video on its own, you can enlarge the screen with the Square at the lower right of the YouTube screen.

The Transcription

Dave Ryan  1:45:37 on the full video   00:07 here

Yes, we’re going to get to the Gateway Area Plan update. And the reason this is on our agenda today is that the City Council and the Planning Commission had a study session. And again, I think it was August 22 [Note: It was August 23, 2022], to talk about the Gateway Area Plan. And I think they were taking some polls to get, you know, throw out some ideas to get a feel for where the City Council and the Planning Commission come down on some of the different, you know, more options that are happening relative to the plan. I know, they talked about building heights and took some polls and batted around a lot of that. And I actually listened to — I tried to watch it, you could sort of see it, but it was mostly a listen-to.  I listened to that study session. And I did concentrate on the portion mostly that was related to transportation element of the Gateway Plan. So I kind of heard that the concerns and I’ll relay those to the Committee.

I guess the consultants had given a presentation that apparently some of the City Council members had not seen some of the graphics that they were talking about for K Street and L Street. And when they had heard we had recommended to eliminating L Street as a street and keeping it as a linear park, some of them must have figured we just didn’t have the same information they did or were unaware of the Plan.

And, I mean, I would just like to reiterate that we first heard about this at a January 18 [2022] meeting that we spent almost two hours on. We had a July 19 [2022] meeting that we spent approximately two hours on.  August 2 [2022] meeting, that was a special meeting. I don’t have the time, but I’m pretty sure we spent more than an hour on this. We’ve had access to the Gateway Area Plan, 110 page draft, since December [2021], since it’s come out. I’ve got a copy on my computer, and I’ve got the whole Mobility chapter printed out, and I’ve thumbed through that many times. I can’t say I’ve read every word. But certainly we’ve had access to that.

I’ve personally watched one or two of the other Committees on Zoom on how they were handling the Gateway discussions. I followed the coverage in the newspaper. And I did listen to that Council and Planning Commission meeting.

I don’t know I can’t speak for the other members. But I think we are quite aware of what the alternatives have been and what have been planned. And maybe we didn’t get the exact same presentation that the City Council and the Planning Commission study session got that evening.

But one of the things they said was that those things they saw were a game changer and couldn’t believe that we voted and recommended against L Street.

And I would just like to say that, you know, we knew exactly what we were doing when we did that, when we took that vote.

So that’s just a little bit of history. So I’m not sure exactly. You know, out of due respect for the Council wanting us to take this up again or talk about it. I don’t believe they’re asking us to revisit it and change our recommendation. I don’t believe that would be appropriate. I’m not exactly sure what we should and are being tasked with doing today. So I think what I would like to do is, with that background, maybe ask some of the Committee members — Where do we see this going? I mean, I see a couple of options, we can…  I don’t want to read discuss the whole thing and give our background on how we came to our various votes. We don’t even have everybody here who voted that evening. And some are here who weren’t there that evening. But we could put together a synopsis that gives you two or three sentences of each Committee member, puts them together and sends them into staff and they compile it into our position. And maybe at the next meeting, we look at that, tweak it, edit it send it on to the Council so they have some thinking on the background on what our thinking was. All they had was one sentence that we recommended against that. I don’t believe they had any sense of what our discussions entailed. Unless they go back and look at the meetings, those meetings are on YouTube. [Note: January 18, July 19, and August 2, 2022 are on YouTube. As of January 8, 2023, this September 20 meeting is not on Arcata’s YouTube channel. You can watch this September 20, 2022, meeting here in this article, or directly on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyjGgUMjnPw ]

Dave Ryan  1:50:11 on the full video   04:41 here
That would be one other consideration is we could, we had — The night we made our recommendation, there may have been a critical 10 or 15 minute portion of the discussion where we talked about it, entertained a motion, took our vote, maybe that could be cut and pasted and sent in a link to them and say, well, here’s what the Transportation Safety Committee was thinking, here’s how they came to their vote.

Dave Ryan  1:50:37 on the full video   05:07 here
So I’m not really sure what our action is tonight. So with that, I will be quiet and open it up to Committee members to suggest — how do you guys wish to proceed? Anybody have an idea? I know, I know, staff has going  to weigh in. But let me, since we put the time in, and we’ve, you know, we put in six hours on this, and we’re going to put some more time in on it tonight. I’d really want us to hear what does the Committee think of the City Council sending it back to us, saying, well, ”We’re not sure they have their information.”

Or maybe they don’t, you know, maybe they don’t know. It does sound as though the consultants are — they have preferred alternatives that they’ve shared with the City Council. And maybe some City Council members have alternatives that they want and go for. [Editor’s note:  There have been no alternatives that have been provided or seem to exist, as of January 2023.] And if we don’t endorse those or agree with them, they would like to bring us along. I think our task is to study it, discuss it, analyze it, come up with what we think happened and send it back to him. And that is what we did. So, Korina, go ahead, your hand is up.

Korina Johnson  1:51:59 on the full video   06:29 here
As always. Okay. I have thought about this. And I still don’t get it. I mean — I see crossing as being an issue, crossing K Street. But for those, what is it, 12…10 blocks between Samoa and 15th Street. From what I hear, you want to increase capacity without increasing capacity. So — I don’t get it. I mean, for pedestrians and for bicyclists. We’ve got a gorgeous path on L Street, we’ve got a nice bike boulevard on J Street. I would think that throwing in some bulbouts at the intersections and some enhanced crosswalks, with the blinking lights would help for crossing, it would do a lot. But it’s gotta be cheaper than building whole new street. So sorry, one more time. Why?

Dave Ryan  1:53:29 on the full video   07:59 here
David, I know you were wanting to say something. Go ahead.

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  1:53:34 on the full video 08:04 here
Yeah, I was just gonna say that. I think I think the intent of this and the reason we’re here is basically just to give everyone an opportunity to view that video and the presentation if they hadn’t seen it. And maybe if they do see it, and they see it in a different light. And it would change their opinion, to just give you guys an opportunity to speak up and say that. And if your opinion hasn’t changed by watching that, then I think that’s fine. I don’t I don’t know whether there needs to be, it needs to be a recap of the discussion or your thoughts. Just basically, if you looked at it, and you guys still feel the same, then then that’s great. And I don’t know that anything needs to be presented, I think I can I can pass that message along unless you guys feel differently. And you would like to change your recommendation, and then I feel that should be an action item. So I don’t know if that helps or not. But that does — That’s how I understood.

Dave Ryan  1:54:25 on the full video 08:55 here
What was video are you suggesting we watch?  

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  1:54:29 on the full video 08:59 here
The YouTube video about the Planning Commission meeting, the special Planning Commission and City Council meeting on the 22nd [23rd] that you mentioned, because GHC did a separate presentation just describing the L Street Couplet and, and just a little bit more, I think, details in a better presentation perhaps, maybe then what our Community Development Department explained. I’m not saying it’s better, I’m just saying that seems to be the bit, possibly the thought, that maybe there’s there was better insight or more information in that presentation that you guys may have not seen.

Dave Ryan  1:55:01 on the full video 09:31 here
Yeah, I remember I said, I watched that. I’m not sure I saw anything that was substantially different than what we had seen before. You know, like I said, we’ve had access to all the documents and all the original presentation that David Loya gave to us back in January, but how long are you talking about a video to watch?

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  1:55:22 on the full video 09:52 here
The video itself, I think is like three and a half hours. But I think the – yeah I know. The L Street Couplet portion — I didn’t watch the whole thing to be honest. But I saw some reference to it about an hour in. So yeah.

Korina Johnson  1:55:38 on the full video 10:08 here
Yeah, helps if you turn the speed up to like 1.25. They’re talking faster, but it moves faster.

Dave Ryan  1:55:46 on the full video 10:16 here
And a lot of the sound was pretty poor, because many of them were not miked up, people were sitting at tables, I think the presenters you could hear, yeah, for sure. I mean, a couple of things that I heard, we added, you know, a couple of Council members that I just want to acknowledge, they either used the term of K Street being a mess or a disaster. And, I mean, it’s, even though I will acknowledge, and I have done this before, I acknowledge it again, that I think a great way, the Gateway Plan has done an excellent and have done an excellent job with it. I believe the overall Transportation Elements are fantastic. I don’t know that what they’re proposing with K Street is going to magically transform it to something that’s going to be less than continuing to be a mess, or a disaster, whatever word the Councilmembers used, because of our love of cars, and traffic.

But guaranteed – There would be a tragic transformation of the L Street corridor with what they’re proposing.

So those two things, to me, there are questions whether, you know, what they’re proposing, if they’ve given us their best alternative.

You know, if those consultants are saying, Hey, here’s our best, and here you go. If that’s the case, my recommendation to the City Council would be to ask them to add somebody, add a member to their team and go back and give it a fresh perspective. And maybe somebody on their team, who’s not necessarily looking at all the historical traffic numbers, but more from the standpoint of livable communities, quality of life, maybe just a little bit more of an imaginative perspective that gives them a fresh, fresh view on it. So maybe that’s something that’s needed, if this is indeed the best that the consultants can come up with. Go ahead, Korina.

Korina Johnson  1:57:37 on the full video 12:07 here
I’m sorry. I was saying, especially as it’s — after a few blocks, it just dumps everybody back onto Alliance and you’re in the same mess you were in before. It doesn’t change anything. And it does create an unsafe intersection on Samoa, where people are going to turn right — into cyclists trying to cross. I don’t see the point. And a slightly different question. Why is the City still working on using Level Of Service as a metric when most communities and agencies are going to Vehicle Miles Traveled?

Dave Ryan  1:58:26 on the full video 12:56 here
Well, the consultants aren’t here to answer that. So let’s maybe let that hang as a rhetorical question. So I want to ask some of the other members and I see Wendy has put her hand up. Are you guys interested in looking at this video? Not today. But have somebody send us a link and tell us what, what time to open it up? Because I said, I’ve been there. I’ll watch it again. What are the other members interested in being sent a link and on your own time look at it, and then we’ll come back and discuss it at the next meeting. Go ahead, Wendy, whether you answer that question or not, or you had something

1:59:02  on the full video 13:32 here
Oh, well, I did want to say I think it would be if somebody would excerpt the relevant parts. It’s too much to ask us to — But I also I wanted to, when I was reading that was also in the packet, the Transportation Element for the general plan. And I have the same question about Level Of Service. We’re really supposed to be looking at Vehicle Miles Traveled. And one thing about couplets that I did read is that they increase VMT because people kind of have to go around in circles to get where they’re going.

Dave Ryan  1:59:35 on the full video 14:05 here
Yeah, Todd Tregenza — I think that’s his name. He did talk about his use of LOS — Level Of Service. The law changed in 2013, and to not use LOS, and the guidance was to use Vehicle Miles Traveled. Now we’re getting into the weeds of technical stuff that I really don’t want to get into. But the Governor’s Office of Planning said to start using VMT because it’s going to be more of a measure of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation, preserving open spaces and promoting diverse land uses and infill development. Wow. Sounds like the Gateway plan to me, exactly what the goals and the visions of the Gateway plan are.

But Todd said the LOS still serves as valuable numbers for doing a lot of the analysis that they were doing. But I question, I think, I fear — I could be wrong about this, I fear they’re using — thinking about long-standing traffic patterns, behavior patterns, have us as drivers to project into the future of what our behaviors are going to be and our traffic patterns. Were I think we could do better as a community and in terms of our transit systems and our better as individuals. And I think the majority of us can and will do better to make a commitment to not put a street through there. And those who can’t, or won’t, you know, I still think that the majority will and it would make a make it feasible to not have to put a street down L Street — and ask them to go back to the drawing board and do what they need to do with K. To make it the best it can be. But it may not be a magic bullet. Mishka you’ve got your hand up.

Dave Ryan  2:01:28 on the full video 15:58 here
I think you’re freezing up. We’ll give me a second. See if you fall out — at least on my computer. Anybody else hearing or seeing Mishka?.

Dave Ryan  2:01:50 on the full video 16:20 here
Try. Try it again in a bit and just just let us know when you’re ready.

Korina Johnson  2:01:54
Just go you muted yourself.

Dave Ryan  2:01:57
I think he’s trying to lower his bandwidth or something. There you go. We can hear you.

Mishka Straka  2:02:05 on the full video 16:35 here
Okay, I think I would be willing to give that video a look again, I when I clicked on the link that was sent to us to you know, recently, yeah, it’s like three hours and three hours plus, and I didn’t really want to toggle through it and try and find that relevant information for us. So I would give it a look, because I’m not sure. I wasn’t with the group in January when it first maybe came up on the radar. So I’d be willing to. And then I, Dave, to your point of should, or would Committee members consider putting something in writing in regards to our decision on the L Street, I would be willing to do that. And I would put, in fairness, I would watch the video first to make sure that I did have the comprehension that I needed to answer it, you know, correctly or the fullest information I would have to make my decision. So just want to be on record. I would do that.

Dave Ryan  2:03:11 on the full video 17:41 here
Okay, Korina? Oh, I’m sorry, Sue – you’re up first.

Sue Cashman   2:03:15 on the full video 17:45 here
My feeling on all this is that the purview of our Committee is transportation safety. And that our role is to decide what is safe. And that is our priority. Whereas the City Council has many more things to balance. They’re worried about many more issues, and safety is only part of it. And so I don’t think we’re ever going to necessarily agree because I think our jobs are different. I mean, I can see our Committee dealing with questions and comments about specific, you know, buildings or variations as the Gateway area is developed. I can see specific intersections  or crossings coming up as issues that we would work with individually, but I don’t see that we are, that our role of determining whether something is safe or not is something we can really bring into play on a very large issue. And I know a lot of us have preferences and justifications and reasons that we volunteered to be on the Committee, but in terms of modes of transit, but I really don’t think that our Committees job is to consider things beyond safety.

Dave Ryan  2:04:43
Korina, you have your hand up.

Korina Johnson  2:04:45 on the full video 19:15 here
Yeah. Looking through the video. I think the transportation element starts at about one hour, 30 minutes. If that helps. Okay.

Dave Ryan  2:04:58  on the full video 19:28 here
Yeah, I appreciate your perspective on that. So, and it’s one of the things I always bring myself back to when I go. We’re a Transportation Safety Committee. I’ve been unable in the six or five or six years I’ve been on this Committee, I can’t disentangle quality of life, and livable communities from safety, transportation, safety, they go hand in hand. And almost always, when you consider, you know, one or the other, you can’t disentangle that. That’s just my perspective on that. So I, you know, if that issue were to ever come up, that’s just the way I would portray that to the Council. So I think we’re — David, let’s, let’s do one thing, if you could, maybe, we already sent us that link, I guess, because that meeting, we just need to go in about an hour-30. Let’s all take a look at it again. And at least do that. And as for putting something in writing. Maybe we just have a discussion on that after, you know, at the next meeting after we’ve seen it. Anybody else have anything to add before we go to public comment on this? Because I do see some hands up. All right, let’s, let’s let some public members come in.

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  2:06:30 on the full video 21:01 here
Right, we have Cindy first. All right. Go ahead, Cindy.

Cindy Wilcox  2:06:37 on the full video 21:7 here
Thank you. I don’t know if this is an issue or no but I haven’t heard anybody mention this, regarding L Street. But where it ends at 7th, there’s a ditch which — I haven’t gotten out there with a shovel, but it looks like there’s a wetland there. And I don’t know if that means the City has to mitigate for this. I don’t know if it’s a stumbling block or just a minor issue that they would mitigate someplace else. But I haven’t heard anybody mentioned this in, you know, could make it a non-starter if nobody is [missing words on the video] if they are not in the coastal zone. I don’t know how the City of Arcata handles this.

Dave Ryan  2:07:23 on the full video 21:53 here
Yeah, I don’t know if we can answer that today. And but certainly a question. I think that issue has been raised before by others. So I believe the Council and the consultants are maybe aware of if there’s a potential issue there. So Okay, moving down. I think Colin you have your hand up, Colin.

Colin Fiske  2:07:49
Thanks. Thanks. Hello, again, folks. So I’ll try to keep it brief. One thing is, I completely agree that Level Of Service is, you know, shouldn’t be used as a motivating factor for the planning here or anywhere else for all the reasons that you all said. I disagree, though, with folks who said that they didn’t think that the plan would really change much on K Street. And I’m a little confused by that. I think, you know, as a transportation advocate, who works on these issues in a lot of places I see the proposed design for K Street as being really a complete transformation, both in providing protected bike infrastructure along the street in a current environment that really only the most confident bicyclists feel comfortable using, but also for the crossing, in terms of narrowing the distance, and all the other crossing improvements that are provided. So in addition to the features, which would calm traffic and slow it down, so in my mind, the K Street transformation would be significant. And also really is necessary for all the reasons that we’ve already talked about in this meeting in other contexts so how problematic K Street is. So what I would hope — and I apologize that I actually missed a meeting where you made the original recommendation [Ed Note:  It is on YouTube] — but I totally understand and support the idea of maintaining a low-car, no-car environment on the L Street corridor, but I think we have to do something about K Street and what’s on the table is a real transformative opportunity. So if the Committee, you know, wants to maintain that L Street as a linear park or some other, you know, variation on that — great, but I hope that you will also recommend more than just some window dressing on K Street. Thank you.

Dave Ryan  2:09:56
Thank you, Colin. Looks like Fred Weis, you’re up next.

Fred Weis  2:10:02
Yes. Hello, thank you. To echo Dave, what you said your idea of some sentences to reinforce your positions. I heartedly support that. You have my article from the Mad River Union in your packet — you know where I stand on L Street and K Street. I think this is a huge opportunity for Arcata. Korina, you’re correct. It is at one hour and 30 minutes. It’s 14 minutes long. There are 17 images on Arcata1.com. I’m about 95% complete on a transcription of that 14 minutes, I find things much easier to read [than watching a video]. I’ve got all the images there. So you can stop and look at the presentation there. I will have that either tomorrow or Thursday. I’ll send an e-mail to you for that. At the joint study session, Todd Tregenza gave this presentation. I feel that he discussed the benefits of a K street – L Street couplet but did not discuss the detriments. In addition, with all respect to Todd, I think he made some statements which are actually false. And that is explained in my article that I’m preparing. In the designs that we’ve been shown to illustrate, the current designs, there is no room for an ambulance or emergency vehicle to pass another vehicle — another vehicle would have to turn off at a side street to get there. It shows hedges or trees as a separation. There’s also not a sidewalk — As you’ll notice, on the west side or the Creamery side of L Street, it’s a shared bike path sidewalk. A possible alternative from Alliance going south is to go — and this is just an idea I have, I’m not saying it’s a good idea — but to go south on M Street, past Bug Press, the City would acquire the rights at a parcel south of a Bug Press to cross over to N Street, going down N to 8th, which is where the industrial section starts. And then part of that Master Plan will be to continue through there. I think that’s a real possibility because the intersection going from Alliance to M Street is already pretty established and in place. As I wrote, I’ve got I’ve got nine articles on L Street on that pathway on the Arcata1.com. website. I feel passionately about this. I recognize, as Dave said, the K Street may be reaching the end of its capacity. But to look at this in terms of how traffic will be in the future is just not correct. As Dave said — you said this many times — to look at things in a car-centric or car-oriented way is just a partial solution for a problem that we really hope is not going to exist in the future. And when I say hope, I mean strongly believe it’s not going to exist in the future, as we become less car-oriented. But, nevertheless, if a road is built on L Street, it’s permanent. And we all know that. In the transcription from January 18th [2022], which is also on the Arcata1.com website, Dave, I will quote you again, you said this is an opportunity to really put our money where our mouth is in terms of making it a less of a car-centric area.

Finally, I’d like to see some clarification of the process and the situation that the City does not have the legal rights-of-way to build L Street. This is clear — I’ve got two articles on this, and I have maps. The City needs to either tell us how this can legally be done — or should we remove this from the conversation, so we can move forward. If it can legally be done then they should tell us how. But there is not room in the right-of-way to build a street on that area. Thanks very much. Again, I will have the completed transcription of Todd Tregenza in just a couple of days, I’ll send an email. And, to repeat myself, I find it much easier to read than to watch a video — much more informative. Thanks.

Dave Ryan  2:14:02
Thank you, Fred. Looks like we have Chris. Next. Go Chris.

Chris Richards  2:14:10
Hello, Transportation Safety Committee folks, appreciate all what you’re doing there. I really value and believe in your decision that you made and I even wrote a letter to the editor in the Times-Standard with kudos to Dave. Some of the things you said and then your ultimate decision with what you thought about this:  People-friendly corridor and, you know, all the things you’ve said going all the way back to January. But I wanted to touch bases a little bit on the presentation by Todd from GHD at that study session for the Planning Commissioners and the Council. And it’s a running dialogue that continues onward. The simple point like Fred mentioned, toward the end of what he said just previously — They don’t have the rights to the property at the north end to create this roadway. And I’ve had staff, David Loya, and Karen Diemer out here, we’ve had conversations. It’s a well-known fact that they don’t have  the rights of that property on the north end of it. And they’re creating a dialogue that continues onward for this road that nobody appears to like and most folks don’t believe in. It is just, it’s ludicrous. It’s ridiculous. The thing, like I say, Todd did not mention that in that presentation that you’ll be able to watch and read — it sounds like if Fred will create that rapidly and get that through, it’ll be a great way to interact with that. And then you’ll see what’s there. But I’ve spoken numerous times at meetings, many Committees, the Commissioners, about this point, and it continues to be masked off, and I don’t understand that thinking. They allude to “Plan B” … they allude to “Plan C” … and we never get to see what that is. So I’m with you — the engineers could probably come up with some other viable ways of dealing with this problem in the future. And, you know, I’m still with the belief that an extra truck route down through the L Street Corridor would be a huge mistake, and a very big lost opportunity for the future of Arcata. The development that would be built along that linear park and people-friendly corridor is going to be completely different than if they run out another truck lane down there. So you know, there’s other solutions to making K Street safer, that I think would be viable. And anyway, I’ve taken up plenty of time. But thank you again, so much for what you’re doing. And, you know, good luck to you in the future. Thank you.

Dave Ryan  2:17:04
Thank you, Chris. Looks like the next person with their hand up is Patricia.

Dave Ryan  2:17:15
Go ahead and unmute yourself. Patricia, if you’d like to add to the discussion.

Patricia Cambianica  2:17:20
Okay. So sorry about that. I started and didn’t realize I was still muted.

We just saw four plans for 8th and 9th Street. And we’re still asking for a “Plan B” for an alternative to the K-L Street couplets. So I really liked to see it would be nice to have at least three more plans. I think K Street does need a lot of work. And maybe we can look at Portland for some examples. And then I think it’s time to look at K – Q Street as a way out, I think it would help the developments that are going in west of Foster.  Heather Way would be an ideal way to get people out to Samoa.

I’ve always thought that the plan for L Street was to be a linear park. And I couldn’t really ever recall if I heard that or saw that. My vision for  L Street is stated in my letter that went into the agenda packet. But there’s always been another image floating around in my head, you know — it was somebody else’s image. It was a vague memory of a pastel-colored picture of a park with people and trees and bicycles. I was searching the Internet this week.

I found the final draft of the Arcata Rail-to-Trail Feasibility Study and Operations Plan from 2010.

I finally found that picture that I had been that had been ingrained in my memory. It was on the cover, and there’s a full version, a picture in that plan that says L Street, quote “L Street will be where the City and the trail converge, creating a vibrant community gathering space”. And this is 160 pages. It’s covering the different aspects of the rails to trails, their vision and the creation of it.

On the section on trail amenities, there’s quite a few pages under the L Street conception plan. This is another quote from that. It says the one location where the Arcata rails with trails interfaces with the street grid network network of the City is at L Street. This is a very low volume street with almost exclusively local traffic. This is the ideal location for a shared use street that includes the Arcata rails with trails. And so L Street was proposed to be a multi-use street back then and a bicycle Boulevard between 13th and Samoa. They were going to use bollards to close the street to through traffic, just to permit local will access and to permit you know, fire access, and the amenities and the visions were colored pavings at intersections, site furnishings, trees, bicycle parking benches, planters for community garden spaces, food cart spaces, sculpture footings for art installations, they wanted to do a large bronze statue of a replica of a Wiyot basket and honor the history of the Wiyot tribe. They had a faux roundhouse Plaza to celebrate the history of the Arcata Mad River Rail railroad. And they wanted, they thought it would be a good location for a train engine or a car. So you know, so it was supposed to be a linear park at one point. I don’t know what happened to that plan. I don’t know why the City ditched it. Yeah, I think

Dave Ryan  2:20:52
Patricia not to interrupt you. But just in the interest of generally keeping keeping it fair in terms of amount of time, people. Could you wrap up your comments, I appreciate it. Okay.

Patricia Cambianica  2:21:02
Yeah, no, that was pretty much it. I just would like to see an alternative to this. And I think a linear park is what was envisioned years ago. And I think we could we should stick with that plan. So thank you so much.

Dave Ryan  2:21:15
Thank you. And it looks like we have another member of the public, Jane. Yeah. Hello.

Jane Woodward  35:54
My name is Jane Woodward. And I’m a newbie to attending this Committee that I wanted to reinforce all the comments — Well, first of all, the position that Committee has taken with respect to maintaining L Street as a linear park, and point out that not only have we had this reinforcing what Patricia said, but there is an issue of how to create park and open space and parking space within the Gateway Area plan. And we already have one. They’re talking about trading amenities in response to, in order to get amenities such as parkland in the area, that we trade off building heights, so we can bargain with developers to give us open space and parkland. Well, we already have it. And there’s so much — you know, we wouldn’t have to buy it, we wouldn’t have to bargain for it. We have it already. And I want to point out that also the Creamery Area and land there has become an entertainment center. And there’s an enormous amount of people who walk there. They have events there. And I can’t imagine L Street becoming a major thoroughfare and continuing to have that as being an alternative community festival space, in addition to the Plaza. So I really commend the position you’ve taken, I think you should stick to it. I think you should write up your justifications for why it’s important. And you can refer to, obviously, the 2010 plan, to the issue that they don’t have the right of way and they know it. No, that’s case. That’s the rumor I got. So I commend you for what you’re doing. I would suggest your justification for why you’re taking this position. 

Dave Ryan  37:59
Thanks to all the members of the public that have taken the time to attend the meeting and weigh in. We appreciate your participation. Anybody on the Committee or staff have anything to add before I propose that we just everybody take an opportunity to try to watch those 14 or 15 minutes. That doesn’t sound too painful on that video, and be prepared to we’ll keep this on the agenda for next time. And I would encourage everybody, I mean, I’m not sure exactly it gets a little a little dicey. I’m not sure what’s appropriate, because there were only four of us who were at the meeting to vote on it. But I think it’s appropriate for every Committee member to weigh in. But if you want to write up two or three sentences, on your thinking on the issue, and come prepared with those at the next meeting, after you’ve watched the video, we can decide whether that’s something we want to pass along to City Council. So they know more where we came from in the history, it so if they want us to take a look at it, then we need an opportunity to do that. So okay with that, I think we’re done with this agenda item, and we’re going to move along is a turn to page, New Business, Transportation Safety Committee Annual Report, I’ll let David introduce this, this item, and maybe it’ll go, go quick and efficient. 

[Note:  The transcription beyond this point has not been fully checked for accuracy, and there may be some typographical and other errors. If you find errors and wish to bring them to the attention of this website, please do so.]

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  39:48
Okay, um, so every year we do an annual report, just that we, we discuss a lot, a lot of the items that we’ve discussed in our various meetings, talks about how many meetings we had, and things like that, who, who’s part of the Committee. And so, in your agenda packet, I put this year’s annual report, and I did a lot of preparation of that myself, with some help of other staff. But basically, I went into all of our meeting minutes and copied and pasted a lot of the minutes directly in there, and then just separate it into its specific categories. So yeah, I guess the intent is for you guys to look through that make sure that makes sense with with kind of your thoughts or your recollection of what’s the happenings, I guess, in the past year, and then assuming you guys approve that, we’ll pass that on and presented City Council.

Dave Ryan  2:26:15
Yeah, I think the idea was from Yes, typically, it’s put by staff and we get a chance to review it. See, if we, you know, they’re certainly they have con their input on it. Otherwise, we’re…

Netra Khatri – City Engineer  2:26:27
I will move this to the for the Council meeting that scheduled for October 5. And we need to decide who’s going to present. Mostly, I think most of times the chair. So most probably be Dave, if you’re not available, then it will be a vice chair. So we can talk about that. And then ultimately, I’ll synthesis item, I’ll give you a heads up. That seems to be a talking about a Gateway. And they may ask you the question on the spot about the prior discussion that we had on L Street and K Street. So I would say who was going to present that be prepared with that answer, I would say

Dave Ryan  2:27:01
Or be ready to dodge it sufficiently right now. Haha — no, I don’t mean that. So what’s the date of that meeting, Netra?

Netra Khatri – City Engineer  2:27:13
October 5, I understand at 6pm.

[Note: The “Annual Report from the Transportation Safety Committee” did take place on October 5, 2022. A video and partial transcription of Dave Ryan speaking to the Council is available on this website anc can be found via a search.]

Dave Ryan  2:27:16
I think I’m around and I could tentatively do that. But it would be nice to have a backup in case I can’t. And Korina, you’re the vice chair, I believe. So you would be the next. Next in line. If I’m if I look at my schedule, and I’m not around. Are you available to do that? I don’t think you’re vice chair. You know what? That’s a good question.

Dave Ryan  2:27:44
Because I saw that on our annual report. And I think I corrected David and maybe I uncorrected it.

2:27:51
Maybe that’s not correct.

Dave Ryan  2:27:54
Well, we should have it documented somewhere. We the vice chair is but or do we have a volunteer in case? I can’t make a list just so Okay, well, I think we can finalize that and put me down as being willing to attend that meeting. And I’ll let you know if something changes.

Korina Johnson  2:28:13
That’s good. Thank you.

Dave Ryan  2:28:17
And then general updates trail Summit, September 24 22. That is actually this Saturday. And I think that starts at 9am at the Sequoia conference center off of Myrtle. And then the presentations begin at 10. I don’t know if you’ve got something David or nature that you were going to give any more details about that.

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  2:28:38
I don’t have any more details that there’s a flyer that is in the packet for that as a bit of information about it. But yeah, there’s going to be a specific discussion about the Annie Mary trail in there. So yeah, just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of that case you want to attend.

Dave Ryan  2:28:53
And trails in general, throughout the county, if you’re interested. I think Hank Siemens is going to speak and maybe somebody else and there’ll be an hour of going around tables and things and checking out. So that’s this Saturday. Okay, General, okay, date for our next meeting and future agenda items. I don’t have a calendar in front of me, but I think it’s October 18. Does that sound right? That’s right. Yeah. I will just barely be getting back in town. Yeah, a couple of things. I should be here. So a future agenda items. These were some things that I think we talked about at the last minute of our, our last meeting. And similarly. Okay, great. All right. So we’re on the future agenda items. And I think some of these were brought by do we need or were these just information Oh, that you want Committee to know about? I mean, I know that meeting or just a future meeting.

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  2:29:57
Yeah, so that one also In your agenda packet is the latest draft of the transportation element of that. And the idea was to give you guys a little bit more of a heads up. So you guys have about a month or so to take a look at that. And then community development will be present for the next meeting. And they’ll talk about that. I don’t know if they’ll give a presentation. But there’ll be discussion. And there’s just opportunity for you guys to get a chance to read it ahead of time and be able to have a better discussion at the next meeting. Okay, great.

Dave Ryan  2:30:31
Consider open streets concept for the Arcata Plaza. I don’t know if that’s the same thing that we’ve been talking about for the last three years, or is that a variation in some manner?

Dave Caisse, Asst City Engineer  2:30:43
I believe it’s the same thing that we’ve we’ve talked about generally here and there. So I think it’s just it’s keeps popping up. We’ve leave Yeah, like you said, we’ve talked about it here and there. So I didn’t know if we want to keep it on they’re in have a formal discussion and a plan of attack for it. Or if we want to remove that, but it was put put up there as an option. So

Dave Ryan  2:31:02
why don’t we keep it for now with a caveat, to discuss it during the offseason of the farmers market. Because farmers market people have been kind of instrumental in being involved in that and find out their interest still, because they’ll be starting a new season in April or something and they wind down in November, other than the winter market. So we could I think we can keep that on there. And just address it when we think we have some time and that it starts to come up. But it’s just about trying to create some some days and times where it becomes a People’s Park. And cars aren’t impacting the experience. Maybe even if it’s just once a month is a trial. Consider updates to the City’s speed table policy. I guess you sent out the speed table policy to us. So we should read that. And something new science. I think we created something in recent years. Okay, well, let’s keep that on there. This one might have been from you. Karina discuss Portland’s downtown Car Master Plan. Am I mistaken that that was yours?

Korina Johnson  2:32:13
That was me. I sent I sent a link to City I don’t know, they for I think they forwarded it to everyone. I could do it again. It’s very interesting. And where we’re at now, it might actually be pretty relevant.

Dave Ryan  2:32:31
Do you want to lead it? Keep it on an agenda for the future and just lead a little discussion on it. Tell us what you’re

Korina Johnson  2:32:38
doing? Yeah, we can discuss it and see what they think see what you know, would be applicable to us.

Dave Ryan  2:32:44
All right. So we’ll leave those on there for now. And we always have the option of deferring them or talking about him and finishing them. Anybody else have anything else? In general? I guess I blew past general updates. That was also an opportunity for anybody on the Committee to just bring anything up that we didn’t have have on the agenda but can’t really take any action on. Anybody have anything interesting. They read lately heard lately. Other than that, our next meeting is October 18th. Anything more from staff before we adjourn?

2:33:20
Everybody good.

Dave Ryan  2:33:22
Well, thanks for everybody’s time and patience. And we kind of ran a little late today. But appreciate your commitment on the arcade on the transportation safety Committee and showing up month after month. We’ll see you on October 18. This meeting is adjourned.

Korina Johnson  2:33:39
Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Good night. Thank you.