Note: What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website. It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable. (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)
What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It will contain typographical errors and other departures from the original. The PDF displayed above is accurate. The text below is not accurate. It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.
This document was handed to the Transportation Safety Committee members at their meeting on February 21, 2023. What is here is modified from the original handout. Added is:
- Page 23 Page 2-52 in the Draft Circulation Element
Figure T-k “General Plan Vehicular Circulation” shows L Street as the one-way southbound - Paragraphs of text at the top of Page 5 added, about “fait accompli.”
- Other minor edits.
From the document:
“Other Considerations Gateway Draft 2-1-23 Posted”
This document is said to contain considerations from the public and from community members that are not in agreement with the Draft Gateway Plan.
Chapter 7: Mobility
L Street
Recommendation: Maintain current configuration; remove concept of L Street as an arterial couplet with K Street from figures.
Source: TSC
Policy Implications / Staff Recommendation:
Direct conflict with plan as drafted. On PC list of concerns and alternatives will be presented with opportunity to discuss.
This is Fred Weis communicating to the Transportation Safety Committee:
I say that this statement, with regard to L Street, is not an accurate representation of what the TSC has very strongly voice.
Your recommendation is NOT: “Maintain current configuration”
Rather, it is: Create an L Street Linear Park.
Your recommendation is NOT: “remove concept of L Street as an arterial couplet with K Street from figures.”
Your goal is not to remove the drawings that are in the plan. Your goal is to see one or more alternate plans for K Street. To replace what is in the Draft Plan with a working, viable street design for K Street.
From the Transportation Safety Committee meeting,
January 17, 2023
The transcription is intended to be accurate, but may contain minor errors.
Fred Weis 55:52 on the audio track
In terms of the L Street – K Street couplet — I’ve been following you and what you’re doing. It seems like you’ve been extremely clear on this. I don’t know what is needed. As Patricia [Cambianica] mentioned, there’s a second draft [of the Gateway Plan] that came out on [October] 1, but it only includes things that — the word is “comport” — with the original draft. So it doesn’t include your findings about the L Street – K Street couplet. In this draft of the 2045 General Plan, I counted seven instances that referred to the L Street – K Street couplet. If it’s helpful to any of you, I’ve got the page numbers. It can be in there, if it’s worded in a different way. Worded as one of the considerations rather than stating it as a fact, as something that’s done. This is a small item, but important: When you do your revisions and inserts, amendments is up to this, I would strongly request that you label, if you’re going to have them as individuals, that use all three initials of your name, not just two initials, and then you do TSC, dash, ABC (the initials of your name). Because some of the Committees only use two initials, they don’t identify the Committee. And it’s difficult for the reader.
In terms of the L Street – K Street couplet, if I can support you on that, please ask anything. You may know my website, Arcata1.com. There are about six articles about the L Street – K Street couplet. I have videos and transcriptions from meetings and quotes. As far as I know, you requested an alternative plan back in January [2022]. And then again, I think in May or June [2022]. No alternative has ever been offered. As Patricia mentioned, the depiction that exists does not provide adequate room for an emergency vehicle. Todd Tregenza of GHD gave a talk, a presentation during the [City Council / Planning Commission] joint study session. It was about 12 minutes long. His video and slides are on Arcata1.com along with my critique. I think that he’s just flat out wrong in many many cases, including there being no room for emergency vehicles.
Otherwise, I just keep repeating what Jim and Patricia have said. That in an ideal world, this L Street – K Street couplet would be done [that is: A decision would be made] and complete before the General Plan, before any of this stuff was done. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. The reason why it’s important to me, aside from the thinking that it’s an ideal location for a Linear Park, is that the codes for the Form-Based Code — for the creation of building heights, building styles, building massing — will be very different if L Street is a thoroughfare or if it’s a linear park, as linear park buildings will likely be two stories high next to it, so you get adequate sunlight. If it’s a thoroughfare, they could be four or five or six stories, say four or five stories. So this is a very different situation. And I’ve been hammering on the Planning Commission and the City Council that this is a decision that needs to be made before other decisions. So now you’re confronting it again with this General Plan update. So thanks again. And, again, my website is there, with maps. I made it to make things easier for everybody. If there’s something that you can suggest that would make things easier for you, or for anything you think of, please contact me.
Wendy Ring 1:00:12 on the audio track
That’s a question is sort of, I mean, along the same lines as — We took a position on the L Street couplet, and it doesn’t seem to have made any difference. So I am wondering, I mean, we could do a lot of work and try to rewrite this Circulation Element. Does it make any difference? How can someone educate me about the process? What happens to our input? How does the decision get made? I’m sorry, I don’t know.
Dave Ryan 1:00:53 on the audio track
I’m going to surmise that, since all we can do is make recommendations to the City Council. And they’re also getting input from a lot of other sources, whether it’s the public or whether it’s staff or whether it’s their consultants, that, I guess they can take it or leave it based on their own personal positions and maybe weighing that other input in deciding what. So yeah, I hear you. I didn’t know there was a second draft out, even though I’m kind of on the email list of when their meetings and things like that I have not seen the second draft of the gateway. Did you see that?
Wendy Ring 1:01:40 on the audio track
I guess I’m asking about this part of the General Plan that we’re working on. And then my other question about it was if there hasn’t been community input, because, you know, COVID changed a lot of things about that, if there hasn’t really been kind of robust community input about the Transportation Element, is that something that our Committee could sponsor?
Dave Ryan 1:02:02 on the audio track
Some kind of a workshop? Yeah, maybe we can, we can recommend it to City Council that, you know, that this deserves something more than just us. That maybe it’s something that involves a representative or two from the TSC, along with creating an ad-hoc committee of public members, workshops, this thing. So to me, if you’re getting a sense, which I think is somewhat justifiable at this point, that they may just take what we say and “Ah, well, that’s what they said” and we’ll move on, then. Maybe we need something that suggests a separate committee. And that’s a little bit what I was getting at when I kind of early on find out how much or you know — this is important. It’s not going to be done against supposedly, until 2045.
Twenty years ago, it seemed like it was heavy public involvement, and not just three minutes standing at a lecturn-involvement. It’s like getting a chance to have big maps, and back and forth. And not following parliamentary procedures, et cetera. It’s, you’re doing the job. So I think that’s a recommendation we could make to come out of this. I would certainly support that. That idea and concept.
From the minutes of the October 18, 2022 meeting:
Gateway Plan Update: Transportation and Circulation Element–L Street Couplet Discussion Staff Member David Caisse opened up the discussion asking the TSC Members if they wanted to further discuss the Gateway Project or if the TSC is satisfied with their original submitted recommendation. Dave Ryan commented that he attended the City Council meeting where the Council read the TSC recommendation on the Gateway Project. He went on to say that he mentioned the time that the TSC has studied the project, the discussion that has taken place, and listening to public comment. He suggested to the Council that if they needed more information, they can view the YouTube videos of past TSC meetings. Discussion followed with TSC Members agreeing to leave the TSC’s recommendation to the Council as is.
From the minutes of the January 17, 2023 meeting:
- For Discussion: 2045 Arcata General Plan Draft Circulation Element
Lots of discussion about the L street couplet with mention that the TSC Committee is not in favor of the L Street couplet.
Draft Circulation Element
Instances of the L Street – K Street Couplet
Request: REMOVE all instances of “L Street – K Street Couplet” from the Circulation Element
In theory, the phrase “L Street – K Street Couplet” could be in the Circulation Element – if it is worded as a design that’s under potential consideration, and if (hopefully) other designs under potential consideration are shown also.
To show this as a “fait accompli” is very poor.
(Fait accompli: a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.)
Examples of the phrase “L Street – K Street Couplet” or references to it:
Page 21 in the packet Page 2-50 in the Draft Circulation Element
Additionally, implementation of the mobility improvements within the Gateway Area Plan, including the “K” and “L” Streets couplets, and the 8th and 9th Street couplets extension, will alleviate traffic congestion within the Gateway and will ensure all transportation modes remain comfortable, convenient, safe, and attractive to residents, workers, students, and visitors.
Page 22 Page 2-51 in the Draft Circulation Element
K Street & L Street One-Way Couplets Redesign “K” and “L” Streets to be one-way couplets south of 14th Street. Traffic Signal coordination at Samoa Boulevard….
Page 23 Page 2-52 in the Draft Circulation Element
Figure T-k “General Plan Vehicular Circulation” shows L Street as the one-way southbound
(continued on next page)
Page 24 Page 2-53 in the Draft Circulation Element
As part of the Gateway Area Plan, the City is exploring mobility concepts and proposing circulation patterns to convert two-way streets into one-way couplets on K Street, L street, 8th Street and 9th Street (continuation west of I Street).
Changing K Street to a one-way couplet maintains a travel lane and parking but would then allow the street to be upgraded with a Class IV facility through implementation of the Gateway Area Plan.
Page 45 Appendix T-A in the Draft Circulation Element
Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes
The traffic model run also included the proposed circulation network improvements identified in the Gateway Area Plan, including conversion of “K” and “L” Streets to one-way couplets between Alliance and Samoa Boulevard.
Also: “Traffic Volumes” states: “The largest percent increases in daily traffic volumes is on Samoa Boulevard west of “K” Street are on Alliance Road, “K” Street, “L” Street, and 11th Street.” This is a false statement. There is no through traffic volume on L Street. (The sentence also needs a grammatical correction.)
Page 49 Appendix T-A in the Draft Circulation Element Table T-3
K St & 11th St (one-way couplet)
K St & 9th St (one-way couplet)
K St & 8th St (one-way couplet)