This was originally published in September, 2022.
It is updated now to reflect new changes.

Chair Dave Ryan:

I think it’d be a missed opportunity to turn this into a people-gathering place for bikers, walkers.

 

I see cafes there in the future, bakeries, little music venues, kids on bikes, parks, parklets, outdoor tables, and then at night… it transforms.

 

There’s lighting and there are people coming through and walking and having dinner and bringing their relatives from out of town on a great walk through there, and they’re not dealing with cars.

The Transportation Safety Committee met on January 18, 2022 — just six weeks after the draft Gateway Plan first came out. Gateway-related issues amounted to about 2-1/2 hours of that meeting. What is here is a 37-minute section of the audio of that meeting and a transcription of what was said.

Among what is significant are:

1. Quotes from Transportation Safety Committee members
The quote to the right is a prime example.

Other quotes from Chair Dave Ryan:
“This is an opportunity to really put our money where our mouth is in terms of making it a little less of a car-centric area.”

“Make the priority to improve L Street as a people corridor. That’s what I would personally love to see.”

Korina Johnson:
“I enjoy not having cars right next to me. I mean, you can hear the birds singing, people talking and laughing, the wind blowing in the trees. L Street is just going to be — all you’re going to hear is cars.”

2. The need for a “Plan B”
Way back then, in January 2022, Community Development Director David Loya and City consultant  Todd Tregenza both acknowledged the need for one or more alternative plans, referred to as “Plan B.” At the time, “Plan B” was spoken about in the present tense, as though the plan existed. The TSC requested to see the Plan B numerous times through the first six months of 2022, and then apparently gave up. Some — but not all — alternatives were disclosed in the August 11, 2023 video put out by the Community Development Director. And so the “Plan B” did emerged, 17 months later.

Transportation Safety Committee
January 18, 2022

The full discussion on Gateway-related Transportation Safety issues started at about the 20-minute point on the original audio.  This section starts at 1 hour 42 minutes — over an hour and 20 minutes later. This page consist of the ending 37 minutes of the meeting. It is included here to show what the Transportation Safety Committee was thinking about and discussing as early as January 2018, just six weeks after the December 2021 draft Gateway Plan was released.

This transcription is believed to be an accurate rendition of what was said.  Any discrepancies between what was spoken and what is written here are unintentional and are not believed to alter the intent or meaning of the speaker.  Many of the “uh” and “you know” and “um” and “And so” words have been removed.  Some sub-headings have been added. If you see errors in the transcription, please write — using the Contact Us page or to Fred at this website: Arcata1.com. Your help in making this website better is appreciated. The transcript is in black text. Highlights have been added as bold highlights. Notes have been added in Green and comments have been added in Red.  The comments and opinions are those of the author and are not presented as fact, but as opinion.

Transportation Safety Committee January 18, 2022

Partial transcript.  From approx. 1:42 to end.  Includes conversation on L-K Street Couplet

SPEAKERS Transportation Safety Committee members:  Chairperson Dave Ryan, Korina Johnson, Wendy Ring, Mishka Straka Staff:  David Loya, City Engineer Netra Khatri.  Other:  Todd Tregenza (GHD)

Dave Ryan  00:00
Well, I have a few, a few things to add to the conversation. First of all, I think you’ve done a very creative, great job with the kind of what the overall strategy and goals are stated in the policies here — if ultimately the City Council goes with most of this in concept. I love the additional trail segments that are going on. I think the Eighth and Ninth street concept of coming through there is great. I don’t know how the Creamery District people think about that. But I think it’s only going to add to what they’ve got going on as that area — that’s an area for a destination and as it grows with arts and culture and music and nightlife and people gathering places.

I have a few [items]: K Street crossing of Eighth and Ninth does concern me. I’m not sure what you can do. I mean, I see you’ve done some bulb-outs that limit the time that people are in the street. But if we are going to be connecting the Plaza to the Creamery District, I would like to see some more energy and creativity put towards getting pedestrians and bicyclists either crossing K either via Eighth or Ninth. I mean, I know a bridge is an expensive proposition. A tunnel is kind of creepy. I don’t know. It’s just, I’d love to see some way — and I don’t have the answer — but I’d love to see the transportation planners and the community brainstorm of getting people walking from one part of the town to the other safely.

L-K Street Couplet

And then — I guess the thing that catches my eye the most. I’m really not a fan of the whole L Street concept of creating that as one-way and K Street and L Street as a couplet, that I guess is the term you use. I know there’s going to be increased congestion, you’re talking about the life of this project, I believe being 3500 units, residences, people are not sure if that’s people or what, the number 3500 is what comes to mind. [Note:  It is stated as 3500 housing units, which corresponds to about 8,000 people.] And, of course, that could take years and years. You know, development doesn’t happen very quick in Arcata historically. It’s just going to be when the projects are there and people want to pursue them. So this is going to happen very, very incrementally.

TSC Chair Dave Ryan:

 

I think it’d be a missed opportunity to turn this into a people-gathering place for bikers, walkers.

 

I see cafes there in the future, bakeries, little music venues, kids on bikes, parks, parklets, outdoor tables, and then at night… it transforms.

 

There’s lighting and there are people coming through and walking and having dinner and bringing their relatives from out of town on a great walk through there, and they’re not dealing with cars.

I see the L Street corridor as such an opportunity for this community to actually plan something wonderful. We don’t get this opportunity very often to actually plan something that’s kind of a — It’s a destination, rather than just a thoroughfare.

I mean, it’s already starting to show hints of what it can be if you go to the Pub, and the Redwood Raks in that area down there, the Creamery District. There’s some trees planted down there. There’s some picnic tables. They’ve got some grassy areas.

I see this whole corridor — I mean, I don’t know how far north and south, I don’t have that figured out yet. But at least that corridor of L Street being mostly car-free, other than the little lanes that exist right now on the very east side so that those businesses and residents can still be reached.

But it does not — and I don’t endorse it as becoming a thoroughfare. I think it’d be a missed opportunity to turn this into a people-gathering place for bikes, walkers. I see cafes there in the future, bakeries, little music venues, kids on bikes, parks, parklets, outdoor tables, and then at night it turns into … It transforms. There’s lighting and there are people coming through and walking and having dinner and bringing their relatives from out of town on a great walk through there, and they’re not dealing with cars.

This is an opportunity to really put our money where our mouth is in terms of making it a little less of a car-centric area.

So I really encourage looking at an alternative to keeping K Street is the main thoroughfare for handling the traffic. Sure, we may get some more congestion. I guess our focus isn’t necessarily on increasing traffic flow, getting cars, more cars through in cars through quicker. But I think there’s a way of dealing with the increased traffic, it’s going to be incrementally over a period of years.

I really would hope you can give us a priority to at least make that part of it. Like you said, the funding and the timing is unknown. Because we’re out here and big picture, maybe put that down near the later down the project, if we really need it, if we’re going to get people out of their cars and get them more on bikes and walking, you may not need K Street and L Street to handle all the cars.

So maybe you put that in and timing as an as needed. thing, but don’t make it a priority, make the priority to improve L Street as a people corridor. That’s what I would personally love to see. And if we need to get the Transportation Committee out there walking it and envisioning that and meeting your team out there, David, I would love to do that. So we could consider that prospect if the Committee is open to it. Or if there are others who share my concerns about that. So that’s what I’ve got. I wouldn’t mind hearing, you know, David and Todd, your thoughts on that or hearing other Committee member thoughts on primarily the L Street corridor.

David Loya  06:31

Yeah, I’ll leave the sort of the concepts around why we ultimately chose the couplet, you know, have Todd circle back on that. But what I can tell you is this: My initial response to the proposal to adding any new streets was no, let’s save them for other uses. Other people-gathering areas, areas for economic activity or areas for housing, which is one of the primary motivators of this plan to begin with.

And I was compelled by the arguments that as the city grows, ultimately, we do need to have a plan in place for this additional traffic. One of the crazy ideas in order to preserve L Street throughout, people were interested in what, what kind of ideas we had? Well, one is to have an elevated K Street. So if you need one-way couplets, you can have one underneath the other on K Street, which seems kind of ludicrous given the size of our town, but it is a possible way of resolving the traffic concerns.

Community Development Director David Loya:

 

So I do think that combined with the fact that there are some tricky segments of L Street where acquisition needs to be made, both from private individuals as well as from the North Coast Railway successor.

 

So we definitely need a backup plan, a Plan B.

So I do think that combined with the fact that there are some tricky segments of L Street where acquisition needs to be made, both from private individuals as well as from the North Coast Railway successor. You know, that is a long-range vision, a very long-range vision that frankly may be speculative for most of the plan, period.

So we definitely need a backup plan, a Plan B. And we, Todd, can maybe touch base on what the Plan B is. But Plan B does not have the same sorts of accommodations for bike and ped improvements on K Street, as the current plan does. This current plan, I think, provides for the best improvements to address some of the other things that we heard, including, you know, crossings at Eighth and Ninth across K. So it’s this team’s best effort at a proposal after kicking around ideas even as crazy as having, you know, an elevated roadway on K Street. That being said, that is what this public process is about.

So if folks can come up with ideas that are superior to what’s in this plan we want to make sure and bring that forward to the Council and have them consider it. And, Todd, if you can sort of riff on why we came up with this, as opposed to some of the other.

[Note:  David Loya talks as though there is indeed a “Plan B.”  This was in January 2022.  Well, there may be a “Plan B” conceptually, but there does not seem to be any Plan B on paper.  This was the subject of my June 9, 2022, letter to the Planning Commission and the City Council, read it here.  And a portion of a further letter to the City Council on August 16th, here.

As of mid-September 2022, we still not have seen any “Plan B” or any alternatives to the L Street – K Street Couplet, nor has there been any public discussion or presentation of an alternative. Nor has this been presented to the Transportation Safety Committee.]

Todd Tregenza (GHD)  09:18

Yeah, certainly. You know, one of the things that we heard, that I heard early on is no traffic signals. Let’s let’s not have any traffic signals in the city right away. Ultimately, based on the forecasts that have been published in the past — and one thing I’ll note and David alluded to this earlier, we haven’t done a full forecasting on this plan yet, or that is going to be part of the General Plan update. We’re going to look at all the Land Use — that’s this plan for the whole city including this Gateway area. And look at what the traffic generation is given the intensity of development in the Barrel District notwithstanding the fact that we’re designing it to be bicycle and pedestrian, you know, we’re going to have to plan for kind of worst case, right? That’s what CEQA, that’s what the environmental rules compel us to do.

And so we’re going to be looking at forecast numbers that show quite a bit of growth on these north/south streets, both 101 and then what is today K. So I’m confident that we will need to look at traffic signal control at 11th and K.

And a roundabout has been suggested in the past, I think I heard somebody mentioned it today, I’m a huge fan of roundabouts personally. Those would still need right-of-way based on their corners. And so they’re going to have a wider footprint than what’s available there.

And then also, as David mentioned, you know, we certainly need to maintain at least one lane per direction on K, potentially some turn lanes along K as well. So maybe 3-lane sections to allow for that movement. And so you would see a degradation of what’s possible with the proposed concept.

 

City Consultant Todd Tregendza:

 

And I look forward to coming up with a Plan B.

 

There have definitely been other options described and and evaluated here at a high level.

 

We’re probably going to need to come up with one that we that we analyze in greater detail as a backup plan.

 

And to speak to the, you know, the amenity, the treasure of the existing L Street alignment, we get it, we agree.

The proposed concept keeps one lane per direction, but it allows for increased movement at intersections. It, again, it splits those conflict points out which helps so the southbound left turners are no longer conflicting with the northbound left turners, and those are, you know, those are some of the major conflict points we have at intersections. So it improves the ability for vehicles to move around freely, and without having to install traffic signals.

So we saw it as a potential avenue to explore. And then once we really saw what was possible within that right of way for complete streets, it’s what we stuck with. I do agree that it is a challenging alignment. There are certainly challenges along that corridor.

And I look forward to coming up with a Plan B. There have definitely been other options described and and evaluated here at a high level. We’re probably going to need to come up with one that we that we analyze in greater detail as a backup plan.

We’re not there yet. And I don’t have the answer to what that kind of consensus backup plan is. But there will be something else in here to address the potential of it being at some point infeasible. And to speak to the, you know, the amenity, the treasure of the existing L Street alignment, we get it, we agree. And it was not an easy decision to make to propose changes to that corridor. But ultimately, we thought together it it kind of resulted in the best system.

Dave Ryan  12:59

All right. Great, thank you. But just just one final thought for me on K Street. I guess maybe what I was thinking I don’t want to see K Street degraded in any way as less of an area for bicyclists. Although I don’t ride it — I always find somewhere else. K Street is not a good street as it is now for bikes. So I guess if there’s some way to eliminate the L Street one-way, by making K Street — What did you describe that earlier, Stress Level 4?  Let’s just keep it for people who are good with Stress Level 4. So we don’t need any real fancy bike lanes. Go ahead and let’s go ahead and acknowledge okay, we’re going to let cars take priority here. If you’re okay, at Stress Level 4, there is some space there for a bike.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I guess that’s how much I envision:  Don’t put a street  down L Street.

So any other members have anything to weigh in on any other questions or comments, follow up.

Mishka Straka 14:09

I kind of am beginning to see what you’re getting at Dave, in terms of making L less of a thoroughfare in the way that K is, and keeping K as a higher capacity way of getting through the area. So that L can remain more people-centric and less and less about the convenience. So I like that.

David Loya  14:39

I’d like to suggest just as a matter of process, we certainly, the Committee can take action if this was something that the Committee felt strongly about. I think the action to be taken, we can make that recommendation based on what we’ve heard here tonight, but I do think that you know some of the additional analysis that GHD is going to do for us when we get to the General Plan, will be instructive.

[Note:  This was January 18, 2022.  This article is being updated in mid-September, 2022 — eight months later.  Has this “additional analysis” been done?  And, if so, can we see it?]
[Update, August, 2023. Any additional analysis from GHD? I don’t believe there has been.]

And, you know, maybe a recommendation would be more informed at that time. You know, ultimately, it’s, it asked and informed by data out of our models as to whether or not there could be a K Street solution, that would be the preferred solution, it would likely mean removing the parking lanes, as well as the bike lanes from K Street to accommodate the additional traffic. And ultimately, if traffic is bad enough on K Street, you’ll start to get a bleed-off on to other streets. And so I think some of some of where we ultimately landed with this couplet idea was to try and control and contain traffic that would otherwise be looking for alternative routes, because of pressure. So you can take your travel demand management only so far by making it inconvenient. And so as long as the plan and the data accommodate that, certainly that can be a recommendation from the Transportation Safety Committee. I guess I would just ask that you wait until we have that additional analysis before you make a strong recommendation for that.

Dave Ryan  16:28
Yeah, I mean, that sounds fair to me, I would definitely like to keep the discussion open. And unless I’m in a minority here, and the rest of the committee doesn’t see it is that big of an issue. But if there’s no need to really take a strong position, one way or the other, I would really love to see Ryan 16:28 the issue left on the table to be pliable in the future, to keep some keep some other options open. So, yeah, we would love to be involved. And maybe come back to us when we when we get to the General Plan stage, and we’re looking at those issues. So, with that, I think maybe we’re — Oh, Netra, I was going to ask you if you have anything to add?

City Engineer Netra Khatri  17:21
Well, you know, just on your comment, I just wanted maybe, and just I know, we went to multiple alternatives for Eighth and Ninth, and then for L and K. And I understand the way you’re putting it, keeping L Street as a livable city, having restaurants outside, people walking, that I think it was considered, we thought about that. But the trade off here, when we discussed as a group was, instead of keeping L Street like a livable city, we can work on Eighth and Ninth, hence the other part of the project, make them like a more livable city and which connects the Creamery District and a downtown street, east-west. And that will be much more walkable, connecting the trail, connecting the downtown with Eighth and Ninth Street. And making that more bike- and ped-friendly and livable streets. I think that was the idea. I think that was a trade-off. Just for the before we make the decision, I just want you to know that.

Dave Ryan  18:14
So, yeah, good point. I did think about that today as I was walking through there. I was going well, you know, can I see Eighth and Ninth is serving that. And for some reason, I’m not visualizing it quite the same, especially because you have to cross K. So there was a way — You know, it’s K Street that is the is the booger here, isn’t it?

City Engineer Netra Khatri  18:35
I know. Yeah.

Dave Ryan  18:37
But that’s a good point. I and I think — that’s why I really appreciate the fact that the City is looking at what they’re going to try to do with the Eighth and Ninth thing. I think that’s very visionary and looking forward, so. Okay, well, I appreciate that feedback, Netra. I think we are at the end, nobody else has anything else. We have any members who — Korina, go ahead.

Korina Johnson  19:00
Dave, just you know, when someone raises their hand, it puts their feed on the upper left corner. You’ll notice Wendy, is it your upper left? Okay. And then across the screen in order. You notice I’m after her because I raised my hand after just FYI.

Dave Ryan  19:24
Okay, do you have your hand up? Wendy, are you saying your generally? No, I do. Okay, go ahead. Oh, I see.

TSC member Wendy Ring:

 

What you’re doing is you’re looking at this projected growth and these number of housing units and then the traffic and then everything has to fit that traffic.

 

And I was curious as to where that growth projection came from, because it certainly is a lot more than other things that I have seen.

Wendy Ring  19:32
It’s just a color contrast issue here. Yeah, I was just wondering, I mean, because essentially, what you’re doing is you’re looking at this projected growth and these number of housing units and then the traffic and then everything has to fit that traffic. And I was curious as to where that growth projection came from, because it certainly is a lot more than other things that I have seen.

David Loya  19:58 That’s a really great question.  And this answer, you know, I hope I’m able to articulate what something that is, you know, somewhat nuanced, and I found it difficult to convey. So I’m gonna, I’m gonna give my best if you don’t understand it, please, it’s my fault for not explaining it well, certainly not your fault for not being able to understand it.

The growth projections for maximum build out within the Gateway area are actually disconnected from the growth projections for the City overall. So the maximum build-out is 3500 units based on some assumptions around unit size, floor area, so on and so forth, total building height. And so we pulled those projections together as a way so that when we come to the point of doing our environmental analysis, we can fully understand what full development looks like in that area.

I’ll give you an example of a full build-out scenario. Right now in the Central Commercial area, the area around the downtown though the entire southern block region around the downtown. Right now currently today, as the zoning code stands, you can build a four-story building, you can have zero setback from the street frontage from the right away frontage. And you can have residential above commercial. And so every single parcel in the surrounding downtown area is allowed to build a four-story building, that’s what the maximum build out potential is. And if I calculate out that maximum build out potential for you, you would probably be floored by the amount of development potential there is in the downtown. We have to assess that, we have to evaluate that, assess it and tell people what that for maximum build out potential is. That’s step one, obviously, the downtown hasn’t been fully built out with four story buildings, we have two of them, or maybe three, I’m not sure if the one on Eighth Street is four or three. But it’s a very large three story if it’s three.

[Note:  The building on Eighth and I Streets, adjacent to the Co-op, is a tall 3-story building.

We’re not talking about development in the downtown area. We’re talking about development in the Gateway area.  The downtown does not have entire blocks — and larger acreage parcels — of vacant or underutilized space. The Gateway area does. Further — and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough — the development here over the next 20 years will not be anything like that over the past 20 years, for all kinds of known, obvious causes.  Anyone who looks to the past 20 years as a guideline for what is going to come has a severely constricted and unrealistic notion as to what is on the horizon.]

So that kind of gives you a sense that even though the code would allow for a full build-out potential, the market is only bringing so many of these products to the City within a given planning period. Now, shifting gears a little bit, our General Plan update is looking at a 20-year time frame, and what growth potential is going to happen in that 20-year timeframe. Now we’re embedding the Gateway area plan inside the General Plan. So there’s a little bit of overlap between the estimates that are going on here. We’re right now working on the growth estimates for that General Plan. And so it could be that all of it gets concentrated in the Gateway area. That’s not real likely, but it’s possible.

What’s more likely, is that we’ll see the similar development patterns that we’ve seen over the last 20 years, that certain opportunity sites, certain key sites that have a lot of potential get developed with higher density. We have smaller sites that are developed out, we have videos that go in, so on and so forth that’s essentially dwelling in it.

And so the circulation and transportation needs to be designed for the entire City’s growth and development. So we’re not, we haven’t resolved on those. I don’t have those numbers. I can’t share those with you today. But what I can tell you is this is that my reasoned belief, based on the data that we’re looking at right now, is that we’re going to need to plan for this kind of transportation infrastructure, regardless of what the total unit count for maximum build-out is in the Gateway area, that between the Polytechnic, the fish farm, the data centers, the expansion, the COVID refugees, the economic refugees, people pouring into our area, from outside this area — we need to plan for that growth, we need to take the bull by the horns and say to ourselves, we know that the growth is coming.

We want to make sure that we’re in control of what that growth looks like. The State is making plans for growth with us if we choose not to plan, the state is making provisions so that the private party can bring that housing to our community, without our say, and so they’re making it so that they have to be ministerial approvals.

[Please do not bring this up, David — this notion of “if we choose not to plan.”  We are planning.]

Recently, the state adopted SB 9, which allows for small lot subdivisions, which essentially — if you take a look around your neighborhood — all of your neighbors, every single one of them could come in and get a ministerial approval. You have no say over the document or the approval process, as a citizen of this or a resident of this community. They’re allowed to have two lots on their one line with some minor exceptions. And so, you know, the reason why I emphasize this is because it’s important for us to understand that we can’t stop the growth by not planning for it, that would be the worst possible outcome, we must plan for it.

So I hope that kind of answers the question. It doesn’t get to the heart of what your question was. But it’s forthcoming in the General Plan, what the total population build-out is?

Wendy Ring  25:40
Well, I think my question was just because all the population projections that I’ve seen — which are admittedly outdated, because of the Polytechnic and COVID and all those things — it didn’t look like there were projecting a lot of growth of population. So that’s why I’m wondering where these new numbers are coming from.

David Loya  25:58 (starts to speak)

Korina Johnson  25:59
Let’s not forget, it’s not just growth. In the “before” times, we didn’t have enough housing, we had college students living in their cars because they couldn’t find a place to live.

David Loya  26:12
I’m going to look at the specific projections that you’re talking about. The HCD does projections for us for our Housing Element cycles, and our regional housing needs allocation updates. And what I can tell you is that HCD’s methodology, while it is a little dense, it’s also backwards looking. And so they’re not projecting based on, you know, what they’re seeing happen in the future. They’re not basically basing it on projects that are being developed in your community right now. They’re just simply looking at did population grow or shrink in this community in the last Housing Element cycle, and they’re projecting that forward. And it, it actually leads to really odd projections that are disconnected from the reality that we’re seeing on the ground. We had a Housing Element a couple of elements ago, where they projected approximately 5% growth. We had never seen 5% growth, except for just after World War Two, when there was a big housing boom. And so it was just, they just had a small data sampling error is essentially what I’d liken it to, they have a small sample size and then carry that error forward into their projections. And so we’re trying to do is to, you know, plan for population growth based on, you know, the variables that we do know.

David Loya:

 

And then the other piece to this is that, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know, there’s a full build-out scenario that’s not likely to occur.

And then the other piece to this is that, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know, there’s a full build-out scenario that’s not likely to occur. We’re still planning for the ability for those kinds of developments. You don’t, you can’t spot zone, you can’t say to yourself, hey, you know, we think that we’re going to grow by 1000 people. So let’s plan for 1000 units. You have to kind of pick a zoning and you blanket zone that. You pick your targets and then as your property population approaches those targets, then it may mean that you need to revise your long-range planning documents sooner than you were anticipating. So it’s kind of a long, rambling answer, but the HCD population projections are not consistent with what we’re seeing on the ground. I would, I would say is my short answer.

Wendy Ring  28:37 Thanks. got it.

Dave Ryan  28:40 Korina, did you have something to unmute, please?

Korina Johnson:

 

I enjoy not having cars right next to me. I mean, you can hear the birds singing, people talking and laughing, the wind blowing in the trees.

 

L Street is just going to be — all you’re going to hear is cars.

 

So that said, I understand why. And I understand it, but I don’t have to like it.

Korina Johnson  28:51 Sorry, sorry. Regarding L Street. I admit to being really really reluctant to turn that into a road  — Straight, because I enjoy not having cars right next to me. I mean, you can hear the birds singing, people talking and laughing, the wind blowing in the trees. L Street is just going to be — all you’re going to hear is cars. So that said, I understand why. And I understand it, but I don’t have to like it. So do what you gotta do.

Dave Ryan  29:40
Okay, well, with that. David, I’d like to thank you and Todd and Netra for being in our meeting tonight. And thank all the members of the public who showed up and gave comment, you may still be out there listening. And all the Committee members, and our city of Arcata staff. I appreciate everybody’s time this evening. The last thing I guess, Josh, sorry, we had to send you off to sit in the corner. You can come back now if you want, and we can talk about the very last item on our agenda.

David Loya  30:12
We just kind of put in a plug for January 21-22 meeting.

Dave Ryan  30:18 Please do.

David Loya  30:20
Okay, so you can you can find this information by Googling SIRP — S I R P — and Arcata and then following the “how to get involved” links. We’re having an in-person open house on January 21st from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. And then January 22nd, Saturday from, I’m sorry, the 21st is 11:30 to 7 p.m. and the 22nd is 9:30 to 3 p.m. So that’ll be an exhibition style, we’ll let people in and we’ll all be COVID safe, you’ll be able to come in in small groups, interact with the materials. We’ll have exhibits there for you to interact with and provide feedback on the plan. And look forward to seeing people there. Again, that’s located on the SIRP page on the ongoing community outreach page. Thank you for allowing that.

Dave Ryan  31:11  All right. Great. Netra.

City Engineer Netra Khatri  31:14
Just on the process-wise, I know, David, you provided the staff report and you’re looking for some input recommendation, how that recommendation should come to you. In some ways I think it would be good to maybe for Dave to know. Is it — I know it’s hard to approve the plan right now. But is there a list of recommendation from TSC [Transportation Safety Committee] that you were expecting to get at some point? And is there a timeline for that so that we can agendize — and we can get to you that what you’re looking forward for your plan to move forward.

David Loya  31:45 Question for me, Netra?

City Engineer Netra Khatri  31:47
Yeah, in general, like what is that in the seeking from TSC? Because I know you got a lot of feedback, you got input, but is that it? We are done here? Or you will be coming back? Or you’re looking at a list of recommendation from TSC?

David Loya  31:59
No, it definitely sounds to me like TSC would appreciate further discussion on L Street and some of the planning around that. So we’ll bring that information back when we have it. Obviously, we’ll have additional TSC meetings as we’re going through the General Plan update. For this stage, I’ve recorded all the comments and the input that we’ve received, and we’ll be able to convey that to the City Council. And we haven’t resolved exactly yet on how to make a specific recommendation. But I think that that could be a second agenda item for the TSC to talk about, you know, where do we want to go with this? Do we have specific recommendations that we want to make? And we can bring that back at another meeting.

City Engineer Netra Khatri  32:43 Okay, thank you.

David Loya  32:45
Because I’ll be, obviously, the only thing I’ll say to that is that a recommendation — voted on by the majority of the body — has a different impact on decision-makers oftentimes, and you know, just one-off comments from one or more community members.

Dave Ryan  33:03 All right, great. Thank you, David. So, two final things. Anybody have any future agenda items to add for our next meeting, which will be February 15? Korina, you’re waving your hand.

Korina Johnson  33:17 Yes. Frantically? Yes. I want to discuss Assembly Bill 43. That was the governor signed into law, which basically gives municipalities more leeway and more control in setting speed limits. Because I am picturing, check this out — 15 miles an hour around the Plaza and one block in each direction and all the streets. Imagine a big hash mark.

Dave Ryan  33:57 Okay, let’s put that on to the next meeting. That’s AB 43. That was?

Korina Johnson  34:04 Yeah, I haven’t had a chance to read it. I just read briefly about it. But yeah, basically, you can take pedestrian safety into consideration when you’re designing or when you’re setting your speed limits rather than just how fast people already drive. Yes, that’s a thing.

Dave Ryan  34:25
Okay, anybody else have anything they want to add? I mean, I’m sure there will be things that pop up in the next month through City Engineering, Josh?

Josh Wolf  34:32
Yeah, I had a quick follow up the last meeting where we talked about Samoa and G Street. Just because it keeps coming up. I thought maybe it should be an item that we agendize. I don’t know, doesn’t have to be the next meeting. But thinking, you know, Netra may be having Dave Morgan come in at some point. Just to get him connected with the Committee. As opposed to — I know you suggested writing a letter but I was thinking it might be better just having him come to the meeting and talk through what we’re seeing and see what he thinks. At some point in the next few months [words not clear]. [Dave Morgan is a Project Engineer for Cal Trans.  Samoa Boulevard is State Hiway 255.  The City of Arcata can make recommendations, but decisions go through Caltrans.]

City Engineer Netra Khatri  35:07
We can agendize items. Thank you, Josh, for bringing that up. I did contact David Morgan, I cannot promise that he will be coming to TSC meeting, I’ll definitely make a request for him to attend the meeting if he can on that matter. But I did send him an e-mail with the information and requested what the plans are and suggested what we discussed at the meeting, at the last meeting, so thank you. I think it’s a good idea to keep that in an agenda, if not next of the following one in March.

Dave Ryan  35:34
All right. Sounds good. You still have your hand up, Korina. Are you finished?

Korina Johnson  35:44
Sorry, yes, again. Speaking of intersections, did we ever come to a conclusion about the issue of Q Street and 17th intersection? In fact, Q Street in general. There was — it was, it may have been in discussion about something else, but the Q and 17th is a bit of a mess.

City Engineer Netra Khatri  36:10
We did discuss, I’m not sure what was recommended. We did discuss maybe two months ago and I’ll look at my notes and see what was the decision made.

Korina Johnson  36:18
Okay. And there’s also the 17th and K Street intersection.

City Engineer Netra Khatri  36:24 17th and Alliance. Yes, you’re right.

Korina Johnson  36:27
Oh,Alliance. I never know exactly where it’s going to turn.

Dave Ryan  36:31 Okay. Okay, great. Our next meeting is February 15th. Thank you, everybody, for being here this evening, and we’ll see you then, 4:30.