See also:  The transcription from the April 11, 2023,
Planning Commission on the L-K Street Vote

At the April 11, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, the matters of how to achieve increased safety on K Street and the fate of what the Commissioners want to see on L Street — Linear Park or thoroughfare road — was discussed. Eventually there was a vote. The vote was tallied as 4 to 2, with four members supporting the motion and two opposed.

But what exactly the motion was — that was a bit murky. So murky that, in fact, that the commissioner (Matt Simmons) who seconded the motion and voted Yea on it… by the end of the discussion changed his vote when he recognized that the motion was not what he thought it was. 

The basic issue was:  Do we leave the L-K Street couplet in the Gateway Plan as a recommendation — that the City would actively pursue — or should it be an option, and thus open to discussion at a later date. 

The motion started as:
“I would like to propose that we leave L and K couplet in as something that’s on the table, and urge staff and engineering to work in the short term on bringing us solutions for making K Street safer for bikes and pedestrian, as quickly as possible.” 

And it evolved into:
“… to leave it in as it’s currently envisioned — as a goal policy objective map that we’re seeking our future to look like.”

Here is Fred Weis at the Saturday, April 22 Planning Commission meeting — talking about how the motion changed — drastically — between the time the motion was introduced and when the vote was taken.  Six minutes to watch.

Here is the transcription for the six-minute section from above. From about 16:56 in the full video of the meeting.

Fred Weis  
Thank you and welcome, Commissioners and staff.

I want to separate the Product that you’re working on, the Process, and the Perception — the perception to the public. For the product, I greatly respect what you’re doing. I can disagree; we can agree to disagree many times; I can agree to not disagree many times. [Note:  Should be: I can disagree to agree many times.] But you’re doing a lot of hard work.

In terms of the process: As you know, I review transcriptions of the meeting. At the last meeting, April 11th, there was a motion regarding the L and K Street couplet. In looking at the transcription, it’s clear that the motion changed during the process of the discussion. It changed drastically. It’s a half an hour [on the video]. I did the transcription. The video is on Arcata1.com currently. I urge you to watch it.

It is my belief — and only you can decide for yourselves — that the discussion prior to the vote from Commissioners Tangney, Figueroa, Mayer, Simmons, Lehman — all reflected one thing, but the motion reflected something different.

Commissioner Mayer brought up a proposal. The Chair deferred to David Loya for some suggestions about how to word it. He gave three options. He did not acknowledge Commissioner Mayer’s option. Later it was acknowledged.

As an illustration of what I’m saying, Commissioner Simmons gave the second on the motion. And then when the vote was taken, he changed his vote to a Nay.

I think that the motion was not understood. And I believe if you look at the transcription or look at the video, you’ll see this.

The real question was: Are we talking about the L Street and K Street couplet as an option — or as a recommendation? If it’s an option, it is something to be considered later date. If it’s a recommendation, then we’re moving forward on this.

The motion started as an option and kind of morphed into a recommendation.

What you do is up to you. But I think you should be aware that, in my opinion, the motion was not understood. And there’s evidence of it in the transcription and specifically with Commissioner Simmons.

In terms of perception — none of these things work well with perception. It looks like things are kind of being railroaded through.

I spoke before, I said there’s no evidence. I didn’t say that you’re not listening to us. I mean, I want to make that really clear. I believe you are listening to the public. And I appreciate that. I mean, not just me personally, but just on a general basis.

But the perception is that it’s not happening. If the Commission or staff could say: We’re going to discuss — for instance, what Kevin [Johnson] just brought up, or what Dave Meserve brought up — if we’re going to discuss these zoning options in July [as an example of a date in the future], that would go a long way towards helping the public perception.

Right now it looks like the public is speaking and it’s going into a black hole or a trash can.

Again, the transcript on is on Arcata1.com.

I also have objection to the comparison of Foster Avenue extension to the L Street road. They have as a similarity that roads take a long time to think about, develop, get funding for, etc. And City Engineering Netra made that clear. Other than that, there’s no similarity.

Foster Avenue was built on raw land. The development that’s occurred there is pretty clear. L Street is built up. It’s a vibrant community right now. Anything that goes there disturbs what’s there, not creates what’s there.

I found an aerial photograph from 1980 of the area which shows the area before Foster Avenue was built. I have two articles on my website: a longer one and a shorter one. You can look at that. But the idea that Foster Avenue took 30 years is irrelevant to what’s happening L Street.

If you know Andrea Tuttle, she had a letter back in February [2022] a year and a bit ago. It’s on Arcata1.com. It’s a great letter, in my opinion. I think very highly of her. At a meeting with some landowners and David Loya, and Jen was there also, she said: If you think the next 20 years in Arcata is going to be anything like the last 20 years, you’re … Fill in the blank. You’re crazy, you’re nuts, it’s just not happening. The next 20 years are going to be so different from the last 20 years.

So to say that Foster Avenue took 30 years, I use the word irrelevant. It’s a meaningless conversation.

Look at what L Street is doing now. And that the idea that things might not change for 10 or 20 years — As soon as this plan is adopted, someone can build a six story building on L Street. And that defeats the Linear Park for that section, where that building is built.

You are planners. Think of all this stuff. Again, I apologize. I don’t mean to tell you. you’re doing your job. I respect what you’re doing. But consider all this stuff. There’s more than meets the eye here. Thanks.