From the March 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting: A statement by Arcata’s Community Development Director, David Loya, in which he illustrates once again that he uses language in ways that no other English-speaking person does — and then expects us to believe what he says.
Policy CM-5e-7 — Retain the Class I trail in the L Street Corridor.
Jump to the video. 3 minutes, 24 seconds.
Jump to the transcription. 2 minutes to read.
Will the Class I Trail in the L Street Linear Park remain?
“So as far as I know, at this point, the existing Class I multi-use trail will remain in its current location, in its current configuration, in perpetuity — you know, until something else changes.”
Arcata’s City Council has determined and decided that the L Street corridor will contain a full-width linear park that runs from Alliance Road to Samoa Boulevard. This is counter to the original Gateway Area Plan document and the wishes of Arcata’s Community Development Director. That plan showed the L Street corridor as containing one street of a “couplet” with K Street and carrying the south-bound traffic of what’s now the K Street truck route. For more on the L Street Linear Park, see here.
As it is written now (March 2024), a policy in Arcata’s draft General Plan 2045 seems to indicate that the Class I Trail — the pedestrian / bike pathway along “L Street” currently, and that is part of the Great Redwood Trail system — could be removed or relocated.
The Question is asked
This was brought up for discussion by Commissioner Dan Tangney at the Planning Commission’s March 12, 2024, meeting. Commissioner Tangney asked a question and got an answer — maybe. In actuality, the Community Development Director did not adequately answer the question.
Background
Starting from the first time I observed David Loya, Arcata’s Community Development Director, speaking on the Gateway Area Plan and Arcata’s General Plan, I came to realize:
-
- He commonly does not actually answer the question that is asked.
- The person who asked the question typically does not realize that their question was not answered.
- As part of replying to the question, the Director will introduce a variety of statements as facts, even though those “facts” may or may not be pertinent to the issue at hand. This is an acknowledged rhetorical debating technique (see “The Gish Gallop” on this website) in which providing lots of statements makes it more difficult for the listener to determine whether the point of the discussion is actually being addressed.
- Points that are stated as though they were facts indeed sometimes are facts, and sometimes are his viewpoints — not fact.
- He will say just about anything as a way of satisfying the person who asked the question. What he says does not have to be real or true, as long as it sounds reasonable and valid.
Does David Loya know what “in perpetuity” means?
The 3-minute 24-second video of this section of the March 12, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, along with a transcription of what was said, is below. A key sentence, as spoken by David Loya, is:
“So as far as I know, at this point, the existing Class I multi-use trail will remain in its current location, in its current configuration, in perpetuity — you know, until something else changes.”
The phrase “in perpetuity” means forever. The property of lasting forever.
It does not mean: Forever unless something else changes.
Here’s a video clip of that 15 seconds. David Loya is speaking.
.
The General Plan Policy CM-5e can easily be updated to ensure that the trail stays in place
Since the City (and David Loya) seem to be absolutely positive that the L Street Linear Park pathway will not be removed or relocated, it would make sense to add one sentence to the Policy so that any future reader knows exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed. As a suggestion:
————————-
“This policy specifically does not allow a section of Class I trail in the L Street Corridor to be relocated or removed from that L Street Corridor, unless it is to be replaced with separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways within that same corridor.”
————————-
While it could be argued that that section of the Great Redwood Trail system that will be running through the L Street corridor will not be removed or relocated — I say, great: Let’s put that in writing.
Director Loya:
“
There’s certainly no capital improvement plan right now to modify that trail.”
What does it matter that there’s no capital improvement plan right now? There’s no capital improvement plan right now for lots of things that will happen in Arcata. This is a superfluous “fact” that does not tell us “yes or no” if the trail may be moved.
Director Loya:
“I still think it’s an important policy to keep in the document, because if a project does come forward that we don’t know about right now that may relocate rather, you know, that Class I trail, we want to make sure that we don’t lose the connectivity or that it’s re-routed in such a way that makes it ineffective or, you know, anything like that.”
The policy can be kept in the document — but it has to be clear that the policy does not apply to the trail in the L Street Corridor linear park trail. The trail needs to stay in the Linear Park. It is not as though a project could come forward “that may relocate … that Class I trail.” Such a project would need to be rejected. Thus the need for the added sentence.
Here is the current text that’s in the draft General Plan 2045. Highlight is added. It does not say that the clause doesn’t apply to the trail in the L Street corridor. And as Director Loya’s misunderstanding of “in perpetuity” tells us, the trail may stay there “until something else changes.”
—————–
CM-5e
7. In general, retain the current total linear feet of Class I trails within the City, even if current facilities must be realigned or relocated to other routes. In limited circumstances, the City shall retain the discretion to allow an applicant to demonstrate removal or relocation of Class I Trail sections would improve active transportation access and connectivity. Collaborate with the Great Redwood Trail Agency and other landowners and agencies to retain and expand the Class I trail and Class 4 bikeways throughout the City.
—————–
And this is what could be added, in order to make it clear that this policy does not apply to the pathway that’s in the L Street linear park:
“This policy specifically does not allow a section of Class I trail in the L Street Corridor to be relocated or removed from that L Street Corridor, unless it is to be replaced with separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways within that same corridor.”
The video
3 minutes 24 seconds. This segment starts at about 2 hours 52 minutes on the full meeting video.
The transcription
Community Development Director David Loya:
Okay. So update to reflect the GRTA, I’m sorry, the Great Redwood Trail Agency, as opposed to the North Coast Railroad Authority.
Commissioner Dan Tangney:
And really what I was looking for was clarification there. Which might be going go beyond this exact policy about what’s happening with the Class I trail that runs through the L Street linear park corridor. Is it going to stay exactly as it is? I know, we have a policy that says we won’t reduce the length of or the distance of Class I trail throughout the city. And we’re sticking to that, right. I’m just looking for clarification on all this. And along the linear park, is there any chance that it’s going to meander a little bit here-there, or are we pretty locked in on it staying within the rail bed or approximately where it is now?
Community Development Director David Loya:
The policy that you’re referring to that called for, you know, essentially, no net loss of trails was included to allow for under, you know —
The previous proposal which had, you know, the K and L Street couplet, there would have to be some modifications to the trail clearly there. And then there are a couple of other areas where, you know, segments of trails might be, you know, need to be moved.
And so the idea was that we wouldn’t lose any of those Class I trail. In the sense that if it was acceptable to move them, to realign them, or to relocate them, but that we couldn’t lose the connectivity. That’s what that policy is about. That’s the intent of it. And I believe that’s what it identifies.
Since the L-K couplet has been removed from the plan, there’s a lot — I don’t have anything that I can point to in the Plan that would specifically alter any Class I trail. There’s certainly no capital improvement plan right now to modify that trail.
So as far as I know, at this point, the existing Class I multi-use trail will remain in its current location, in its current configuration, in perpetuity — you know, until something else changes.
I still think it’s an important policy to keep in the document, because if a project does come forward that we don’t know about right now that may relocate rather, you know, that Class I trail, we want to make sure that we don’t lose the connectivity or that it’s rerouted in such a way that makes it ineffective or, you know, anything like that. So this just gives, you know, policy direction where, you know, as we’re updating our capital improvement programs, if they address that, that they’re covered by that “no net loss” policy.
Commissioner Dan Tangney:
I’m content with it all. I just wanted to hear everybody.
