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 may 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.

Dear Mayor Schaefer, Councilmember Matthews and Councilmember White,
First of all, thank you for your service and tackling the big issues in the Gateway Area Plan! Secondly, I want to be clear
these are my own opinions and not that of my employer or any organizations I’m in.
There is a huge focus on the circulation concept of the Plan. While there are valid concerns, please do not lose sight of
the broader picture which is that the staff recommendation for the L / K Couplet is specifically designed to
accommodate mobility for the planned growth in the Gateway area. The Planning Commission and other committees have put hundreds of hours into workshopping many elements of the Plan. Your Council should listen, digest, deliberate, direct staff ‐ but ultimately the community needs you to make decisions. Please don’t delay or get distracted from the task because a vocal contingent of the community disagrees with the Plan as proposed. Take it from me ‐ I almost spent my whole evening arguing on Facebook instead of writing this email. (Plus, it seems many critics would take issue with
just about any proposal from City staff. And yes,
The Linear Park idea is wonderful in isolation, and I do appreciate the people organizing for better quality of life in the City. But I do not hear proponents talk about their support for the proposed surrounding uses or consider the circulation needs of the Plan. Yes, there are tradeoffs to L St becoming a one‐way thoroughfare such as increased traffic for existing single family homes on L Street (how much actual truck traffic‐ do we know?) However, in looking at the proposed circulation in the Plan I see a street design that would be a pleasant walking and biking experience while allowing vehicle access to homes and businesses. If this were my neighborhood, I would very much enjoy an evening walk or bike ride to the Marsh on an 11 foot wide sidewalk or Class IV buffered bike lane. I’d probably enjoy it even more because of the interesting urban form and beautiful streetscape around me, and the comforting knowledge that people were able to find a place to live! I see this Plan creating much, much more for the community than it would take away.
I’m a huge trail advocate, and I am personally satisfied by the Plan’s policies regarding the trail system. I’m thrilled to see
several new connecting trails proposed along N and Q Streets. The Great Redwood Trail certainly needs to be a partner
in the design along the rail corridor, but overall I am ok with the policy language calling for no net loss of Class I trails if a
portion is realigned.
There are many other arguments to make in support of this excellent Plan. In fact, I think many of the strong points of
the original draft have been further strengthened thanks to the great work of the PC. I know you all have done your
homework and are well prepared to take this on. Thank you again for your daring leadership!
Sincerely,
Stevie Luther