Arcata1.com on your desktop for a bigger view. Learn more about our city.

No menu items!


Loading

Planning Commission Meeting:  June 14th, 2022

A Discussion on the Process — a 13-minute section

How the Gateway Plan chapters are presented to the Planning  Commission for their evaluation and recommendation

On the video:  1:59 to 2:12   13 minutes


 

 

Defiance and Insubordination

The Planning Commission meeting on June 14th, 2022, contained several clear periods of defiance and insubordination the part of Community Development Director David Loya.

After the experience of the May 24th meeting, once again what is presented here is highly disturbing. David Loya is in open defiance of the Planning Commission’s stated wishes. 

What is not shown here — and which I intend to cover with more detail in a future article — is that the Planning Commission in no uncertain terms requested specific items to be on the agenda for this meeting.  And the Planning Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock went over the agenda for this June 14th meeting with David, and he gave every intention that he agreed.  Let’s get this straight:  The Chair set the agenda; the Community Development puts the Agenda packet together.  It is not in his jurisdiction to alter the agenda that the Chair sets.

But when the published agenda came out those items had been entirely removed by Mr. Loya, and a new item put in to replace them.  This was completely counter to the Planning Commission’s clear direction.

Wouldn’t you call that insubordination?

In addition — and this is of major concern: At this meeting he clearly states three times [Editor: actually, it was four times] times that the issue about the decision-making process will be part of what is to be discussed at the upcoming joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting.  “And so I am, again, more than willing to make this a center topic for the Planning Commission and City Council’s study session,” he said.

And yet we see this on the agenda for the June 22 City Council meeting, for the Council to “provide direction.” In fact, the date of the staff report written by David Loya is June 15 — just one day following this June 14th Planning Commission meeting.

Isn’t this contentious matter of process clearly something that needs to be discussed by the members of the Planning Commission with the City Council?

Opinion:  Reader, this decision will have consequences for tens of thousands of people for a period of fifty years — or, one might say, for forever.

 

And in  his time-line he allots just one or two City Council meetings for a staff report, review, public comment, discussion — and a decision.

 

That’s insanity!

 

This is not how things work in Arcata.

 

Is he attempting to “educate” or sway the City Council to his point of view, prior to the City Council / Planning Commission meeting?

[Note:  I attended that June 22nd City Council meeting.  David Loya presented two possible time-lines for accomplishing the adoption of a Gateway plan.  In my opinion, his presentation showed a timeline which cannot possibly occur in reality.  He allots one or two City Council sessions to discuss and review the entire General Plan and Gateway draft plan.]

[Opinion:  Reader, this decision will have consequences for tens of thousands of people for a period of fifty years — or, one might say, for forever. And in his time-line he allots just one or two City Council meetings for a staff report, review, public comment, discussion — and a decision?  That’s insanity! This is not how things work in Arcata.]

The defiance and lack of support for what the Planning Commission is attempting to do — that is, to do their job — is seen also in David Loya’s continued manner of:

      • Unwillingness or inability to answer the Planning Commissioner’s questions — at times even basic questions — and providing responses that are diversionary and/or not related to the original question;
      • Insistence that his process must be what is followed, even though the knowledge and experience of the Commissioners indicates that other processes are not just possible but considerably more desirable and effective;
      • In talking, mixing up what has been agreed upon with what his opinion is.  Saying, for example, “…there’s no way we’re going to meet this timeline that’s outlined” when what he is referring to is the timeline that HE has outlined — not any timeline that has been outlined and shown or agreed upon by the Commissioners.
      • Time and again, saying one thing at one moment and another thing — often its opposite — at another time.  This is a regular pattern that we are seeing, across the board on items at the smallest and the largest levels.
      • Not being willing to provide information that the Commission has told him is necessary for them to continue their evaluations;
      • Again, as at the May 24th meeting and several meetings prior to that, by putting off requests from the Commissioners for what they have told him is needed, and essentially dismisses the Commission and reduce their ability to do their job.  The large example is, of course, his refusal to provide any bit of the Form-Based Code.
The original time-line for the delivery of the Form-Based Code shows it to be side-by-side with the draft plan.

 

As I wrote in the transcription and video of the May 24th meeting:

We may want the Gateway plan to move forward, yet it appears to be stuck, in multiple ways.  My main concern is that what will be put before the Planning Commission for their “ultimate” recommendation — whether 6 months or 18 months  from now — will simply not be able to be recommended for approval.  And that will slow things down even more. 

The Planning Commission is flailing.  The Community Development Director is showing a lack of support.  The process of reviewing the December draft Gateway plan is stalled. Any “progress” is subject to challenge or review at a later date.

What is going on?
What suggestions do we have about fixing this process?


How to watch this video and read the transcription

The video is cued up and ready to start.  Just press the Start triangle and it will go.
You can pause or continue at any point

This is a transcription of the part of the meeting.  The full meeting was a little over 3 hours.
The video can be viewed on YouTube, link here.

The video takes 13 minutes to watch, if played at normal speed.  You can change the playback speed on the video. 

To change the speed of the video:  After starting the video, use the “Settings” tool button and change the speed to be 1.25x or 1.5x times faster. The video is displayed in a small screen that stays in the lower right corner.  If you want to watch the video on its own, you can enlarge the screen with the Square at the lower right of the YouTube screen.


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” words have been removed.  Some sub-headings have been added.

The transcript is in black text. Highlights have been added as bold highlights. Notes 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.

The video times are showed, so you can easily jump to that section of the video.
This transcription is in chronological time sequence.


 

 

 

Part 1: Discussion on the Process

On the video:  1:59 to 2:12   13 minutes

David Loya 
1:58:51
Okay, I’m not seeing any more online, public speakers.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock
1:59:03
All right. Well, thank you. So before we move on to our next business item, what do we want to see? What do we want, David, to bring this back to us with the changes, which I made a note of?

David Loya 
1:59:15
Yeah. So again, what I’m proposing that we do is to bring all of the suggested changes together at one time for review. Instead of going through multiple iterations of revising the document, I’m just going to tell you right now, I do not have the capacity to do that. Every time a committee asks to see a change that we make that change, and then another committee says, we’ll make this change that’s contrary to that change, then a public member comes forward says make that change — I just, there’s no way I’m going to be able to manage that. 

[Note:  This is NOT what the Planning Commission is saying or requesting.  And — is he “proposing” or is he demanding?]

1:59:45
What I can do is take your recommendation.  If you’d like to go through the items that were brought forward today, and do sort of a straw poll, then I will note that and that will be part of the ultimate recommendation that goes to Council. You’ll be meeting with the Council for a study session very soon, and then moving forward from that the Council will give direction as to the types of changes to be made. And, you know, and you’ll have at that time the benefit of seeing all the other Committee recommendations as well. And so instead of modifying the document and bringing it back at this time, what I’d ask that you do instead is to take a straw poll so that we know that we have a solid recommendation on the items that were brought forward tonight by various Commissioners or not. And then we can quickly move through those recommendations and bring them together at one time.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock
2:00:48
I’m not really happy with that. I feel like we need to see the changes before it goes to the City Council. I mean, we’ve been asked to do a job.  I completely understand that you’re so understaffed. I would be happy to forward you the changes that I made notes of. Maybe we can do it that way. What does everyone else think? Is it just me?

Commissioner Dan Tangney
2:01:21
Point of clarity — Are all the changes in the GA-11 section, the word-smithing and such that…

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 
2:01:27
Yeah, just a few things. But this is a small one. We’ll have bigger ones.

Commissioner Dan Tangney 
2:01:37
Were there anything else that we as a group that came up tonight that we’re discussing, as changes or concerns or….

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 
2:01:44
I can tell you what the changes were. Do you want me to tell you right now?

Commissioner Dan Tangney 
2:01:47
Well, we might as well start with these ones tonight, and then we can move on. If we all agree to change, we want.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock
2:01:56
John says yes.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 
2:02:03
I like the idea of the straw polling on specific changes, but I thought it was pretty clear last time that we had asked you to bring back those changes at the next meeting. And I do understand that there’s limited staff time to do that. This does seem something that it would behoove the City to provide staff to help with. And if the City Council can provide some additional funds to get you that staff that would be great. This may be something that because it’s in part coming from the need to house additional university students, that the university may be willing to contribute to cover the cost of some additional staff to make timely planning more feasible– they do have half a billion dollars to mess around with. And it does seem that if there’s a policy here saying that there should be university contributions to help cover costs, that certainly helping to cover basic planning costs would be part of that package.

David Loya 
2:03:26
No, it’s not just a capacity issue. It is, in part a capacity issue. But it’s also, in part, a workflow issue. I mean, if — I would like to get a straw poll, and what I understood the request of the Commission to be is that I will maintain a list of the recommendations that your body has made, you can review that regularly. And I can certainly commit to doing that. By having one body make a recommendation that’s then countered by another body’s recommendation that’s then countered by you know, or altered by the recommendation of another, you know, group and entity out there.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer
2:04:09
That’s not what we’re suggesting. We would love to have the input from those other committees. But it is the Planning Commission that’s been charged with making recommendations on the Gateway plan and the General Plan update — specifically to the City Council. That’s our job. And that’s our main job in this case. So –
[She is cut off by David Loya.]

David Loya 
2:04:30
Each of the bodies has a role in that. At this point, because this is a legislative action, the City Council has the Planning Commission and all of the Committees as recommending bodies. And so because this is, again, an early draft that you’re reviewing for the first time, and because some of the Committees that have the purview over the subject matter in these documents haven’t reviewed or made a formal recommendation on them, the staff energy put into making modifications that you then might change your mind on or the City Council might change their mind on or not take your recommendation — is energy wasted. And I need to be efficient with the review process and the way that I use my staff.

[Suggestion:  Have the Committees review the draft first and make their recommendations BEFORE that goes to the Planning Commission. Staff does not necessarily have to update the document – the Planning Commission is capable of looking at Change Notes from a committee and assembling those changes with the ones of their own.  It does not have to be as complex as the Director is making it out to be.

What would be required, then, is a master schedule of when the Committees were going to look at the different chapters and components, and what input they need to do that.  For example, the 3D modeling – when is that coming, and who wants it for their evaluations?]

David Loya (continued)
2:05:24
And so I am, again, more than willing to make this a center topic for the Planning Commission and City Council’s study session, but to completely shift gears and move in a direction that I strenuously could not recommend against, because of these efficiency matters, I would need to hear that from the City Council and make sure that they’re on board with us using staff resources in that manner.
[From the context, he likely does not mean “I strenuously could not recommend against” but rather something like “I strenuously could not must recommend against.”]

I think that we have a process that we’ve outlined that brings all of the information forward in the most efficient way possible that we have available to us now and allows for each of these recommending bodies to review these concurrently and provide information to the City Council as to the recommended changes that need to happen to these documents.

[And from David Loya’s point of view, this may indeed be the most efficient way.  In terms of incorporating input from valuable sources and making the best plan, this way may not be the best way – or provide the best outcome. 

So which do we want, Arcata? 
This plan will last perhaps 30 years and certainly will affect Arcata for the next 60 years — or longer. It will shape our town forever. Do we want “the most efficient way possible” or do we want the best possible plan, even if takes another 3 months or 6 months?  Even if it takes another year.  Do we want to make decisions that may save our City perhaps $200,000 (because the City has grant funding in place that may be lost if those grants can’t be extended — we have yet to learn the actual figure) or do we want to have choices that involve perhaps a billion dollars of real estate construction – and the lives of tens of thousands of people over the upcoming years — to be determined because the grant fund deadlines do not match up with how long it takes for us to make a GOOD plan?]

David Loya (continued)
2:06:16
So I guess this would be a good first point of order to take a straw poll on these two matters, you know. 

Should the Planning Commission as a body direct staff to revise these documents with your recommendations, and then later revise them with other recommendations? And maybe then go back and revise them again when the Planning Commission sees this for the second time?

Or should you take the other tack of waiting to see all of the recommendations together at once, for revisions before making that final revision.

[Please, please !  David Loya is using a rhetorical argument technique that is, how shall we say, repulsive. And, unfortunately, he uses this same argument technique regularly.  Actually he is utilizing several rhetorical argument techniques at once.

a) Characterization: Improperly summarizing the Planning Commission’s statements;
b) Presenting the possible selections as choices of extreme positions;
c) Providing only two choices, when other options definitely exist.

Here’s another time he used this style of argument, as on the April 26th Planning Commission meeting (1:37 on the video).  There are many examples, as it is a regular form of David Loya’s speaking.

And so the question is, you know, do we want entire blocks, right in the near downtown area, taken up with mini-storage in the future? And the answer is probably no.
Can mini-storage be incorporated with housing? The answer’s probably yes.
And then if you were to design Arcata from the ground up, would you put mini-storage in the near downtown? The answer is probably no, given where we’re at today.

And there we had:

a) Improper summary: Actually, the Commissioner’s question was about if the narrowing of streets will affect businesses that rely on trucking operations.  What the Commissioner asked had absolutely nothing to do with mini-storage. 

b) Presenting extreme positions:  “Do we want entire blocks … taken up with mini-storage?”  This is irrelevant and attention-diverting.  Entire blocks of mini-storage is ridiculous as a possibility.  Similarly, “if you were to design Arcata from the ground up” is also irrelevant.

c) Providing a limited number of choices: In this case, three choices.  But two of the three are nonsensical extremes and are immediately discarded by the listener as not real.  And so the reader/listener is left with a single choice – because only one realistic choice was offered.  How about, as a potential scenario for Bud’s mini-storage on K Street: Finding some redevelopment funding, removing 80 feet of mini-storage along K Street to build 3-story units (ground floor commercial + 2 stories of living space), and constructing 2-story mini-storage units farther back on the lot.  Would that be a possible option?  If so, it wasn’t on the list of choices.

We see similar false logic when surveys are designed, to lead the survey-taker onto an outcome that is desired by the survey-creator.]

David Loya (continued)
2:06:53
And if you as a body feel that, you know, we should go with the former, then I think that that absolutely needs to be an agenda item for the study session.  If you as a body do not recommend that, and there are a couple of members that feel that way, but the majority of you do not, then we can still bring it up if the majority of you want to with the City Council, but I think that reaffirms the staff recommendation.

[Note:  David Loya is requesting a vote of confidence/no-confidence here.]

 

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 
2:07:21
Okay, I just want to point out that when we’re working on the General Plan — and I talked to John Graves, who was the chair at the moment, or at that time during the whole thing — that’s how we did it.  We did even more. We would look it over, it would come back the next meeting, we would make sure everything’s okay. And if it was, then it would go to the City Council, and it would come back to us again, a third time. I think that’s — I don’t know how other places are doing it. Do you know how other places are doing it? Just look it over once and you just send it in? That’s just seems so casual to me.

Commissioner Scott Davies 
2:07:58
And I’m curious what the concern is about looking at all of the recommendations at once, as opposed to doing them in piecemeal?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer
2:08:10
Can I respond to that? Part of it is that when we’re going policy, when we’re looking at policies and changing specific policies from this initial draft, chances are by the time we get the entire plan coming back in version “This is 10-point-B” — I don’t know what numbered version that would be. The discussions on which our recommendations were based will be months in the past. And chances are we will not remember the basis of those discussions at that time. And anyone who wants to get sticky on a specific point that doesn’t appear as we recommended is going to have a hard time recalling to all of our minds why we recommended that change in the first place.  And will end up spending a lot more Commission time in the long run, and therefore probably a lot more staff time as well, trying to reconstruct those discussions in those rationales.

David Loya
2:09:31
But I guess what I took you to request last time, and what I’m proposing that the staff can do is as you’re having your meetings and you’re making recommendations, we’re compiling those into the list and sharing with those with you regularly. So you’re going to see them on a constant and regular basis. Again, I can’t commit to bring them every meeting, they might get updated, you know, there might be a gap of a meeting that they get updated on. But then you wouldn’t have to remember the basis of the argument because that you all agreed to that made that change, because it would be right there before you every week. So in a sense, you’d have – [Vice Chair Mayer interrupts David Loya]

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 
2:10:04
On a regular basis, what do you mean, if not for our next meeting?

[Note:  David Loya has said four different time periods — regularly; constant and regular; not every meeting; might be a gap of a meeting; every week.]

David Loya 
2:10:13
[Audible sigh] Well, I mean, on a regular basis, that you would have them — I’m not going to commit to, you know, there are other priorities or other staff reports or other things that I’m doing. I’m not going to tell you now that I will bring them to at a minimum every other meeting, and then have one time I couldn’t bring them to every other meeting. And then have failed you, I don’t want to fail you.

[Vice-Chair Mayer did not say “every other meeting.”  She said “for our next meeting” – that is, if the Planning Commission talks about Streetscapes at a certain session, then the notes from that meeting would be brought back at the next session.  She said “our next meeting” and I believe she meant exactly that. David Loya responded with “every other meeting.”  She asked for one thing, and he responded with another thing.  David Loya replaced her words with his own.]

David Loya (continued)
2:10:37
So what I will do, I will commit to bringing them regularly.  My primary objective would be no less than every other meeting. But I cannot guarantee that there won’t be some times when I’m too busy to bring them. But you will see them on a regular basis, this is going to be on every agenda for the rest of the year, probably they’re going to be on every agenda, you’re going to see those recommendations on a regular basis.

[And now he is switching yet again, and saying his objective is every other meeting but it may be even less frequently than that.  If it were to be at the next meeting, that’s a two-week period.  If it’s every-other meeting, that’s four weeks.  It it’s “regular” with no guarantee, it’s six weeks or more.]

David Loya is denying the Chair and Vice-Chair’s request.

It seems to me that what the Planning Commission is asking for is not such a big deal.  Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock takes notes throughout the meetings.  I have been transcribing sections of the meetings and can share my methods so someone else can do the rest, plus we have the original video as a source.  It shouldn’t take more than a couple of hours every two weeks to get the notes into a presentable and usable form.

More, what David Loya is objecting to is what may be a gradual removal of his control.  The Planning Commission does not want all their findings put into a summary – summarized by another party – and then presented to them as part of an overall summary, to be presented to them months from now.  That much is plain.]

David Loya (continued)
2:11:00
Once we have the recommendation structure, you’re actually going to be able to see all of the recommendations coming from wherever they came from on a regular basis, because we’ll just update it.

[This seems to be 100% counter to what David Loya has been saying.  Throughout this discussion he has been saying the opposite – that he is NOT willing to make updates and changes to the document on a regular basis.

from  1:59:45
What I can do is take your recommendation. … then I will note that and that will be part of the ultimate recommendation that goes to Council. . . .And so instead of modifying the document and bringing it back at this time, what I’d ask that you do instead is to take a straw poll so that we know that we have a solid recommendation on the items that were brought forward tonight by various Commissioners or not. And then we can quickly move through those recommendations and bring them together at one time.

2:11:10
The City Council is reviewing the draft of the engagement report on June 22 at their meeting, and that’ll have a lot of the engagement work that we’ve done to date. It won’t include everything because for example the Committees haven’t taken formal action yet.

So there’s a placeholder for the Committee work, discussions they have but they haven’t formalized recommendations. So there’s nothing in there at this point. So that that will be sort of a placeholder for a lot of that information. It won’t be organized in the way that I’m describing, you know, it’s sort of a tabular format. But we’ll translate that over the course of the next several months so that all of that information is in one place.

2:12:00    13 minutes