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.
Attached (and below) are my proposed comments on the K/L street couplet. I’ve also attached the sea level rise comments I presented to City Council last week and requested be sent to you as well, in case you didn’t receive them. Thank you for all your work on behalf of our wonderful community.
April 11 PUBLIC COMMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Fred Weis has already drafted an excellent justification for eliminating L Street as a one-way street through the Gateway Area. I agree with his comments, and want to add a few of my own. Staff argues that there are no alternative direct north-south routes from Alliance to Samoa, and one is needed a) to ease projected traffic as a result of projected increased residential density and b) avoid pedestrian and bicycle accidents. And if it’s in the Draft Plan, it will remain an option. There are several problems with this argument. 1) Arcata currently does not own the right-of-way at either the north or south end, and indicates no plans to use
eminent domain to obtain it.
Plus, Arcata does not own the right-of-way currently owned by the Great Redwood Trail where the Trail is
projected to go.
2).One of the primary goals of increasing density and limiting parking is to increase walkability and bikeability. That Is not
accomplished by putting a prime through-street alongside a well-used linear path, and would create both noise
and air pollution along
with increase likelihood of vehicular-caused accidents.
3) The safest path for pedestrians and cyclists is one where there is no or very limited vehicular traffic
moving at speed (the current
status)
4) The Creamery District is a prime center for community events, many of which occur outside in the
summer. Outside events involve people
and children walking around in crowds and increase the likelihood of accidents. Increased traffic in that area
would be disruptive to such
activities.
5) The Draft Gateway Plan proposes a new park near Samoa Blvd. Such a park would be a long way from most
residents in the Gateway Area.
Upgrading the Linear Path to a Linear Park that goes throughout the Gateway Area would increase
accessibility to all residents. Pocket
parks on private land are no substitution, even if developers propose them as an amenity
2
6) There are many ways to increase the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians alongside and crossing K Street,
including more stop signs and
lighted pedestrian crosswalks. If that slows down traffic for a few minutes, that is probably highly desirable if
accidents can be avoided. If
that causes leakage to other north-south streets, that’s a minor inconvenience. We don’t need people to be
racing through Arcata.
7) If the K/L-street couplet is not in the Draft Plan, that does not mean that the Plan cannot be amended at a later
date to permit the proposed
couplet if it is determined to be necessary. The cost of creating a new street and obtaining the needed rights-ofway would undoubtedly be
much higher than the cost of carrying out the 2010 plan for creating a linear park. And we could probably obtain
grant funding for such a
park, as we have elsewhere.
8) A linear park throughout the Gateway Area would be a draw for attracting new residents to the Gateway Area and
increase its desirability.
In light of these points, I recommend that the Planning Commission vote to designate L Street as a linear park as
recommended by two City Committees and almost 600 petitioners, and follow through with the recommendations of the
2010 Great Redwood Trail study.
Thank you. Jane Woodward, Arcata resident.
April 5 PUBLIC COMMENT TO CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
First I’d like to thank the City for scheduling the Sea Level Rise Joint Study session held March 28, and for
having such excellent panelists. And I appreciated that you included the questions I submitted in the
packet.
I have several disappointments, however: First, there was no time for oral communications or the
addressing of questions from the public at the end.
Second, for some reason the study session was required to end at 8:30, although historically both City
Council and the Planning Commission often stay longer, and thus even David had to skip some of the
questions the City listed in the packet because of concerns about time constraints. Mine didn’t get
specifically addressed.
Third, neither City Council nor Planning Commission members had or really took the opportunity to
discuss the implications of the expert testimony for the City’s development plans for the waste
treatment plant or the Gateway Area Plan, and particularly with respect to the Coastal Zone. I’m hoping
that you consider ensuring that the time and opportunity are provided for such discussion. It currently
does not appear on the Planning Commission’s proposed accelerated schedule.
It would be most regrettable if we as a City ignore this sea level rise information in our plans for
population growth and high density development. I’d like to hope that we plan in more than 20-year
segments. We should plan for our infrastructure to last far into the future, and not waste public or
private funds for projects that will be guaranteed to fail over time when we should know better.
Thank you. Jane Woodward, Arcata resident