Dave Ryan:

 

This important topic being relegated to a “conflict” and in an attachment nevertheless diminishes the work put in by this committee.

This letter was sent by Dave Ryan, Chair of Arcata’s Transportation Safety Committee, to David Caisse (the TSC liason), to the full Transportation Safety Committee, and to David Loya. It was distributed to the Planning Commissioners at their April 11, 2023, meeting. It was partially posted to the City’s website — just the first page, and not the whole letter — on April 14. Here is the full letter from Dave Ryan.

The reader may also wish to see the 9-minute segment of the video and transcription of the same August 2, 2022, Transportation Safety Committee meeting, in this article here on Arcata1.com:  Dave Ryan says: Abandon the L-K Street Couplet. Embrace the L Street Linear Park and Pathway. ]

April 11, 2023

From: Dave Ryan, Chair, Arcata Transportation Safety Committee

To: Staff Liaison David Caisse (please agendize and forward to committee members and Community Development Director David Loya)

Subject: Agenda item for Transportation Safety Committee meeting of April 18, 2023

I will not be able to attend the April 18 meeting. I will be out of town.

After our February meeting, I took an opportunity to briefly review the second draft of the Gateway Plan. There have been questions raised whether this draft accurately or adequately reflects our recommendation regarding L St being designated a linear park. As a committee, we’ve spent more than 6 hours over the course of several months, spanning 5 or 6 meetings listening to presentations, discussing the Plan, and offering recommendations. At one point, the City Council asked us to revisit our position regarding this linear park, the implication being we were somehow uninformed, or unprepared to offer this recommendation — so we discussed this again at our October 2022 meeting and reaffirmed our position, with 2 additional members who were not present for the original recommendation agreeing to affirm our position.

Although we’ve made several Gateway Plan recommendations, the issue at hand is the proposed linear park and the recommendation made by this committee after deliberations from the July and August meetings. The Zoom recording of the August meeting shows that at about the 20-minute mark, I made my first specific reference to “revise the plan so this area is eliminated as being considered for new streets and car traffic. My recommendation is that it is to become a car-free linear park that prioritizes people”. I then made the following motion about 53 minutes into the meeting:

“Revise circulation plan that eliminates L St as being considered for new streets and car traffic. This area is recommended to become a car-free linear park that prioritizes people.”

 This motion was devised to be succinct, concise, and unambiguous. Unfortunately, this exact wording was not typed into the document being used by Community Development staff to record our actions that evening. What was entered was the following: “Revise circulation plan that eliminate L St southbound as a through road and maintain L as a linear park.”

 After some discussion of the recommendation, Community Development staff asked me to confirm if what was typed “captured” the idea, and I concurred. I now regret this decision. I regret that I didn’t insist that my specific wording be incorporated directly into the document. It seemed in the moment to reflect the essence of the motion, but in retrospect is insufficient.

Further, upon review of the second draft of the Gateway Plan, I find no mention whatsoever of this recommendation. The only mention I find is in an attachment to the draft entitled “Other Considerations”. This attachment contains “recommendations that are either in conflict with the draft or have competing recommendations”. The only place I can find anything remotely resembling this recommendation is in a table under a heading of L St.; it states, “Maintain current configuration; remove concept of L Street as an arterial couplet with K Street from figures.” It’s clear now the exact motion, comprising a mere two sentences, should be reflected verbatim in the draft of the Gateway Plan. I request this be done and that the Planning Commission and the City Council be made aware of these two sentences.

This important topic being relegated to a “conflict” and in an attachment nevertheless, diminishes the work put in by this committee.

I’m willing to attend any Council or Planning Commission meetings if necessary, to deliver our recommendation. Below are two links that would clarify the background for the motion. One starts 12 minutes into the meeting and goes for about 8 minutes, at which point the recommendation is made.

The actual motion is made at the 53 minute mark:

12 minutes into meeting:
https://youtu.be/wtd9zAWIKiM?t=721

Entire meeting:
https://voutu.be/wtd9zAWIKM

[Editor’s note: These links may not be valid.  Better links are:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtd9zAWIKjM?t=721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtd9zAWIKjM ]

The following minor edits are suggested to clean up grammar:

“Revise circulation plan that to eliminates eliminate L St as being considered for new streets and car traffic. This area is recommended to become a car-free linear park that prioritizes people.”

[Editor’s note: To be very clear, below are the two sentences, without the strike-outs, and with “Street” spelled out.]

“Revise circulation plan to eliminate L Street as being considered for new streets and car traffic. This area is recommended to become a car-free linear park that prioritizes people.” 

This is what is on the City’s website as of April 14, 2023 — just the first page of this important letter.