The letters shown here are:
- The quick reply from David Loya (25 minutes later) to the original letter.
- The response from Fred Weis to his reply.
The original letter can be seen on Arcata1.com here.
This new letter ends with the 4th sentence of the opening paragraph of the first page of the Brown Act below, as a reminder of to David Loya of his obligation, by California State law, to not withhold information from the public.
Quite ironically, this very sentence is mangled and rendered unreadable in the City of Arcata’s transposition to a PDF file. How odd it is that the very subject that the letter is discussing — that information is being withheld from the public — is itself withheld from the public.
No person is to blame for this mangling of State law — a computer did it. You can see this unfortunate error at the end of this document. Press or click here to go there directly.
Reply from David Loya, Jun 12, 2023, 4:55 PM 25 minutes following the original letter
David Loya
Mon, Jun 12, 4:55 PM (7 days ago)
Reply to Sarah, Netra, Dave Ryan, Fred, Karen, Scott, David Caisse
Mon, Jun 12, 4:55 PM (7 days ago)
Reply to Sarah, Netra, Dave Ryan, Fred, Karen, Scott, David Caisse
Fred,
I was not at the last TSC meeting, but I uploaded the TSC’s adopted comments on the Element verbatim as they were transmitted to me. In the staff report, I provide a link to those comments and acknowledge that while there was not time to incorporate them before release of the PC staff report, we would review and incorporate where necessary. The Commission now has the ability to ask to see the Mobility Element again, if it would like based on this new review, which was provided transparently to the PC through their agenda packet.
It was reported to me that two of the Committee members said that they had read the current PC reviewed version of the Mobility Element and thought that much of their concerns had been addressed. This actually seems like a pretty positive outcome, both in terms of content and process, considering the TSC started their review several months ago and were on the verge of not having any comments considered before the PC’s July 11 target for recommendation to the Council.
I would leave it to others to judge, but I’m having a hard time following your characterization of the situation.
Regards,
David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
==============================
Reply by Fred Weis to the David Loya response. Jun 12, 2023, 8:32 PM
Councilmembers and Commissioners:
Below is Director David Loya’s reply to my earlier message to you, and my reply to his response. In his reply to me, David Loya removed all Councilmembers other than the Mayor and all Commissioners other than the Chair. Because this is an important message for all of you, I am re-including all of you.
As we have seen and known for this past year and a half, our Community Development Director oftentimes withholds information that he should supply for good planning and procedural decisions to be made. As yet another example, he determined that it was not necessary to include the Transportation Safety Committee’s full recommendations in the initial draft General Plan. As I believe all of you are aware, this is not his determination to make.
Along with building height, inclusionary zoning, and the Form-Based Code, the decision on the L Street Corridor Linear Park is among the most important of decisions that will shape the Gateway and determine its success in our city. As Commissioners and Councilmembers, you need to have more information, not less. I would say that you want to see this information directly, not through a link.
Because the City Council will be making their decision on the Gateway Plan and on the General Plan, in this case — where a Committee’s recommendations are so much opposed to Staff’s proposal, and where this is such an important decision — it is my opinion that the Council should have all Transportation Safety Committee input in front of them.
— Fred Weis
[David’s full letter was inserted here — because he had sent to the full City Council and Planning Commission, but only Mayor Sarah Schaefer and Chair Scott Davies. It was considered both important and proper procedure for all of the original recipients of the 1st letter to see David Loya’s response.]
[from Fred Weis to David Loya]
Hi, David —
Thank you for your very quick reply.
You wrote:
>> I’m having a hard time following your characterization of the situation.
I say to you: Try harder.
If you are claiming to not see the difference between calling something a recommendation for the K/L street couplet — which is what you wrote — or a recommendation against the K/L street couplet … then that’s a problem. And this is not the first time that your writing has mischaracterized the viewpoints of the Transportation Safety Committee.
If you are claiming to be finding nothing wrong with the Chair of the Transportation Safety Committee and the most senior member of the Planning Commission both objecting to how you are presenting the TSC recommendations … then that’s a problem.
The Transportation Safety Committee has been saying for the past year that they are not in favor of the K/L Streets couplet. They’ve said this in many forms, again and again.
I had suggested to the TSC that their recommendation be along the lines of “Staff has suggested a K/L Streets couplet design, and the TSC believes there are alternatives to this design which are preferable” — and that language could be incorporated into the General Plan. That would be a way of keeping the conversation open.
But they went way beyond that. Their recommendation was exceedingly clear: “This Committee opposes the L St Couplet and would like to see any reference to it removed” is what they wrote. And: “Eliminate all references to the K & L St couplet.”
You wrote in your reply to me:
>> “In the staff report, I provide a link to those comments and acknowledge that while there was not time to incorporate them before release of the PC staff report, we would review and incorporate where necessary.”
That is not what you wrote in the staff report. If that indeed was what you had written, we would not be having this conversation. If you are going to paraphrase yourself, you need to be more accurate.
What you wrote in the staff report was: “Staff will incorporate the adopted changes, with the exception of the recommendation for the K/L street couplet, unless the Commission directs staff not to included specific recommendations.”
And I say to you: How can you take it upon yourself, by your choice and your direction, to exclude the most important part of the Transportation Safety Committee’s recommendations?
David,you referred to “the current PC reviewed version of the Mobility Element.” Just to eliminate the possibility that we’ve been looking at different documents, could you please send me the link to the version you are referring to.
The staff report said “Most TSC policy recommendations released May 30, 2023, are similar to the PC recommendations.” I wrote that I counted 44 distinct recommendations in the Transportation Safety Committee’s policy recommendations, and of those, I counted 5 that are similar to the Planning Commission recommendations. If I am incorrect in that analysis I will apologize and correct the numbers.
The next-to-the-last paragraph that you wrote in your reply:
>> “It was reported to me that two of the Committee members said that they had read the current PC reviewed version of the Mobility Element and thought that much of their concerns had been addressed. This actually seems like a pretty positive outcome, both in terms of content and process, considering the TSC started their review several months ago and were on the verge of not having any comments considered before the PC’s July 11 target for recommendation to the Council.”
If I am reading this correctly, you are saying that the TSC was on the verge of not having any comments “considered” before July 11. Do you mean “considered” by you? Do you mean “considered” by the Planning Commission? What exactly does it take to get “This Committee opposes the L St Couplet and would like to see any reference to it removed” to the Commission’s and the Council’s viewing? Not as a link to a document — as a statement that they can read.
How about asking the Planning Commission about this? How about asking Dave Ryan to present this to the Planning Commission in person, as has been requested? By what authority do you exclude this all-so-important recommendation from being included in the initial draft General Plan?
So that the Mayor, the Planning Commission Chair, and the City Manager can better interpret what you wrote, let’s be clear.
- The TSC normally meets monthly. They discussed the General Plan Circulation Element at their January 17 meeting and at their February 21 meeting.
- The accelerated schedule for getting out an initial draft of the General Plan updates was presented to the Planning Commission at their March 14 meeting. That was when the big rush started.
- For their own reasons, the TSC was not able to meet on March 21 and again on April 18.
- They met and discussed the General Plan Circulation Element at their May 16 meeting.
- They called for a Special Meeting for May 30 to further discuss this. (This was a true “Special Meeting” — that is, one that is in addition to their regular meeting, and not as a replacement for a regular meeting on the same date.)
- The TSC’s statement “This Committee opposes the L St Couplet and would like to see any reference to it removed”came out of the May 16 meeting. So did: “Removal of couplet in favor of a linear park through the L St corridor.” And: “Eliminate all references to the K & L St couplet.”
If the TSC was “on the verge of not having any comments considered” as you wrote in your reply, that would be because of your unwillingness to accept their comments — not from them not supplying their recommendations.
“This Committee opposes the L St Couplet and would like to see any reference to it removed”
“Removal of couplet in favor of a linear park through the L St corridor”
“Eliminate all references to the K & L St couplet”
“Removal of couplet in favor of a linear park through the L St corridor”
“Eliminate all references to the K & L St couplet”
— You have stated that you are purposefully excluding this from the initial draft General Plan update.
David, as we both know, you are not stupid and you are not incompetent. If you were to claim that you do not see how withholding the TSC’s recommendations from inclusion in this initial draft General Plan update — and in that sense eliminating it from the view of the City Council when they view that initial draft General Plan — is not a dereliction of your job, then that is a very sad and dangerous situation for the people of Arcata.
You remember the Brown Act, yes? I’ve included the 4th sentence of the opening paragraph of the first page of the Brown Act below, to remind you.
Cheers,
— Fred
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.
==============================
The “official” version, from Arcata’s website Public Comments page.
The letter ends with the 4th sentence of the opening paragraph of the first page of the Brown Act below, as a reminder of to David Loya of his obligation, by California State law, to not withhold information from the public.
Quite ironically, this very sentence is mangled and rendered unreadable in the City of Arcata’s transposition to a PDF file.