See also: Fred Weis explains how the
April 11 vote on L-K Couplet went off-track

Contents
Click on any blue link to go to that section.
Use your back-arrow to come back to these contents.

Background
What was the motion?
Explanation
Video – about 29 minutes
Full transcription of what the Planning Commissioners said

In looking at and reading the transcription —

 

It appears that the motion does not match what the Commissioners had been discussing.

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. It was meant to be a “straw-poll” vote (i.e. informal) but became a formal vote. As per the format of the “special meetings” the Planning Commission is now utilizing, there was no specific opening for public comment on this item prior to the vote. The vote was tallied as 4 to 2 — with 4 members supporting the motion and 2 opposed.

But what was the motion?

The issue of what was the motion was discussed back and forth among the Commissioners and staff for 29 minutes — from ~1:34 on the video to 2:03.

The nature and wording of the motion changed during this discussion. So much so that the Commissioner who originally had seconded the motion — and had originally voted in favor of it — subsequently changed his vote from being in favor of the motion to being opposed. This is Commissioner Matt Simmons, just prior to 2:03 on the video.

In looking at and reading the transcription, it appears that the motion does not match what the Commissioners had been discussing.

A commissioner asked for clarity:

 

I think leaving it in as the option that we’re going to pursue — 

which is the way it appears in the Gateway Plan now —

versus leaving it in as “consider this option for the future” are two very, very different things.

The basic issue was:  Do we leave the L-K Street couplet in the Gateway Plan as a recommendation — the the City would actively pursue — or should it be an option, and thus open to discussion at a later date. (There are several ways of wording this as an option.) And, as an option, there should also be alternative options expressed. Or the wording of the option can be the subject of a future Commission discussion.

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 are some portions of the transcript where they are trying to determine what the motion is. The full transcript of this half-hour portion of the meeting video is below.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:55:25
Let’s try and take a straw poll here. And I think 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.

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:55:43
Can you be more specific about what you mean about “leave it in” ?

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:55:55
It sounds like it’s an option that’s currently written in for the future. I am saying that we agree to leave that option on the table for the couplet. And knowing that the timeline is very, very long as Netra just said, 30 years for Foster. That in the short term we look at solutions to making K Street safer, knowing that it’s going to be a long time before any sort of traffic change on L Street impacts K Street.

Matt Simmons  1:56:31
I’m ready — I know it’s not a motion, but I’m ready to second what you said.

. . . 

Dan Tangney (Commissioner)  1:57:25
I would suggest that what is probably holding us back from wanting to push it towards an Implementation Measure is that we need more, we need another meeting on this topic specifically to look at graphics like that. Would it go all the way through to Samoa Boulevard?

. . . 

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  2:01:02
I think leaving it in as the option [i.e. the only option, the single option] that we’re going to pursue — which is the way it appears in the Gateway Plan now — versus leaving it in as “consider this option for the future” are two very, very different things. And so if before we do any straw polling or go further, it would be good to resolve which of those we’re talking about.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:01:28
I think staff clarified that is that it is written as the option to be pursued in the Gateway Area Plan. Am I getting, characterizing that correctly?

. . .

David Loya – Community Development Director  2:01:41
And so I think, you know, with that clarification, if you could you agree, Scott, is that’s what you were referring to, that you wanted to leave it in as it’s currently envisioned — as a goal policy objective map that we’re seeking our future to look like.

. . .

Matt Simmons  2:03:14
I’ll just, I was more on “Consider.” And so I’ll say that I was [words not clear, but he is rescinding his vote.]

Commissioners Mayer and Simmons voted against the motion. Looking at what other Commissioners said prior to the vote, is my belief that Commissioners Tangney, Figueroa, and Lehman would also have voted against the motion.

The motion changed from what it was at the beginning to what it was at the end. Were the Commissioners aware of this?

Community Development Director David Loya had outlined three options. Commissioner Mayer had outlined a 4th option — based on what she believed and on what (I think) Commissioners Tangney, Figureroa, and Lehman had already said. The option that Commissioner Mayor suggested was ignored by Commission Chair Davies. Subsequently, David Loya did paraphrase Commissioner Mayer’s option, although not completely.

It is my opinion that if the motion would have been understood, the vote would have been 1 in favor and 5 against. And that if a motion along the lines of what Commissioner Mayer had proposed were put on the table, the vote would have been 5 (or maybe 4) in favor of that motion, and 1 (or 2) opposed.

Here is the video, starting at 1:34:48. The transcription is below. NOTE: The transcription may not be perfect. If you see errors, please write to me. Thank you. The times shown are from the City video. To get the time on the YouTube video, subtract about 30 seconds from the time shown here.

The Transcription

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:34:48
I’ll preface what I’m about to say by saying I’m new to this whole discussion, and I have not heard the years of discussion that you occurred previously. But it seems to me, if we did proceed with a couple of that we could make K Street into a very nice Street, if we took all 50 feet made one lane of traffic, a separate bike lane, and wider sidewalks, it would be wonderful. It would be a new K Street with trees and grass. I am not. When I first saw the idea of a couplet, I thought it was a good idea, I still think it’s a good idea. I have not seen what else street would and I use the path by the way, very often, frequent users. So I really like it, I think it’s great. I have not seen a picture of what it would be like, especially further south, by the wing. And in a gas place. You know, what would it look like? What would the street look like? How much separation? Would there be to the bike path? I don’t have an image of that. So I find it hard to make a decision. I think maybe if it were well planned, we could have a linear park and a road. I’m not sure that that’s true, but be great if we could. Thanks, Peter.

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:36:36
Yeah, um, one of my concerns with with the couplet other than the fact that we would lose the amazing asset that we’ve been developing for the last 10 or 15 years there. With the couplet as it’s currently envisioned, as it doesn’t have a timeline to it. And what the material that Netra has just presented to us does is it allows us to address many of the problems on K Street *now*. And that, that goes very well with a safety first approach to mobility, to transportation planning. We don’t need to wait for anything to make any of those improvements that we’ve heard recommended today.

Eliminating on-street parking on K Street gives us a lot more room to make the best safety choices there. It may not be as theoretically ideal in terms of minimizing potential points of contact or interference or accidents as the full-blown couplet scheme. But making those changes on K Street, we’ll do it now. And from a safety first perspective, now is what we need. So the idea that we can make decisions about K Street now really gives us quite a bit of leeway in terms of thinking about L Street. A safer K Street will still give us the possibility that people who want to whiz down a street at 30 miles an hour on their bike can go about 200 feet over and do it on L Street, like I do. Though, the old ladies who are terrified of riding a bike with traffic, like me, can continue to do that. And that will not be torn up during our bicycling future, which for me, you know, may not last more than about 10 years. So I like first, the idea that K street improvements now will buy us some time on an L Street consideration that right now has no timeline. And that has some serious, you know, land acquisition right of way acquisition impediments. I don’t want to lose that L Street opportunity to whisk down the hill on my bike in the next 10 years while things are dug up. I appreciate the note that Dave Ryan, the chair of Arcata’s Transportation Safety Committee, wrote us, which basically suggest that we take the couplet off the proposal table for now. We can always put it back. And so saying that we will consider options for L Street leaves open the possibility that we will put our resources in developing a linear park that may allow development further back along K Street, in any number of the configurations that we’ve seen suggested. But make these changes on K Street now for safety for convenience. It is a pretty cheap way to go about doing it.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:40:58
Thank you,

Matt Simmons  1:41:01
Yeah,  I support what Judith said, I’ve heard the community about L Street and they wish to keep the path way. And I think we need to make serious safety improvements to K Street and look at everything on the table, right? Taking out lanes of parking, being okay with some more congestion. I think those things are part of what the Gateway Plan is about, like switching over from driving everywhere and expecting to be able to quickly drive everywhere. Because that’s what the conflict is. And so I think we should be looking at biking and walking on both L Street and K State, and K Street being a street that is safer, and L Street being a pathway.

Dan Tangney (Commissioner)  1:41:48
Are you considering a straw poll here?

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:41:50
I suppose I would just weigh in now that I’ve had a chance to hear from everyone. I approached this thinking first and foremost about pedestrian and bike safety, like so many of us. I use that L Street walkway to walk from 12th/13th Street all the way down into the marsh. I’m intimately familiar with it. I love that. I think listening to City staff, though, if you prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety, moving forward, it’s clear to me that the L and K Street couplet is the best way to get there. I think it still allows us to have greenway down L Street. It’s going to mean that instead of just having it on L Street, we’re going to also have it an improved K Street. To me it’s a net positive change to both the north and south traffic for both L and K Street. It’s going to be better for bicycling and walking on both thoroughfares. 

What we’re looking at this evening isn’t an “instead of” — it’s: If we decide to do the L and K Street couplet… I mean, my understanding is that this is a — Netra, maybe you can weigh in on this — this is a project that would be 10 or 15 years in the future. So that this isn’t something that the City is going to do immediately. And I think if the Planning Commission could see fit to move forward with the planning [of] the L and K Street couplet idea, that what we’ll be looking at with the K Street options we saw this evening, are a variety of interim measures that, as Judith said, will give us a lot more safety in the short term. But I still think in the longer term planning objective, the couplet idea — I agree with Dan and Christian — that that’s going to provide the best safety and walking biking experience.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:43:53
Can I ask — The current bike and walk path that is there on L Street, is that going to stay the same, if we did the couplet? It would not change?

Netra Khatri – City Engineer  1:44:09
It will be same — there might be some modification, but we will keep the width to be 10 foot wide for bike and pedestrians. It will not be at the exact same location everywhere. We might have to make some minor adjustments. But the goal would be to keep at least a 10 foot wide bike and pedestrian Class One trail.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:44:27
And it would still have the separated vegetative strip. So the plan currently in the Gateway — and I think Delo has brought up some images to look at. We also have the Gateway Plan so you can kind of resolve that question that you’ve had.

Netra Khatri – City Engineer  1:44:49
Well, no, I don’t want to get the whole slides here. Earlier, Peter asked the question, how would the L Street look like in future. And this is just an example of, maybe. On the top, you can see there is a Class One trail, there’s a bit of buffer, and there’s a travel lane. So we have enough right-of-way to do that, having a one travel lane, in some locations parking, or a buffer and a Class One trail. When I say Class One, it’s like a 10-foot wide paved, and two-foot shoulders on either side. [NOTE:  This is a very misleading statement. The City does not have “enough right-of-way to do that.”]

Christian Figueroa (Commissioner)  1:45:26
I also see it as an opportunity. You know, if we, you know, as things stay now, or ending, in regards of either turning into a linear park or whoever, you know, roadway, we’re going to have to resolve the issue that’s out there. There’s historical contamination associated with the old railway. You know, there’s levels of arsenic, there’s levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, that are going have to be dealt with, whether it’s a linear park or to roadway. And resolving the issue here, I feel, I walk that trail every day with my little Shih Tzus. And it’s a great asset to our community. And I feel that introducing — and again, this is a phased approach. Where we really need to resolve the K Street situation. But in regard to developing the Gateway Area where, in which we want it to be, we really have to think about congestion and traffic calming and so forth. And having this as an option on the table for the next generation or for the future of this community. I think it would be an asset. [Editor: I believe by “it” Commissioner Figureroa is referring to the Linear Park.  As in “And having this (the linear park) as an option on the table for the next generation or for the future of this community. I think it  (the linear park) would be an asset.]

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:45:28
Go ahead, Christian.

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:46:54
One of the one of the things that concerns me about the timeline issue here, regardless of whether L Street is conceived as a linear park with a bike path going through or as part of a couplet is that’s not going to happen anytime soon. And yet, we’re going to try to promote fairly massive development to the east of L Street regardless. And so I really would like to see some options explaining how whether L Street changes or remains largely the same, we’re going to provide good access to that land, to the west. Our east-west running streets — because in terms of access to new development in the Gateway, you could do it with a one-way couplet. You could also do it with a two-way K Street and good access on the east-west streets to that development behind. And that’s something that I don’t think we’ve really talked about at all, and something that I think we should explore. So I haven’t seen anything about that at all. And if the L Street transition, even if it does happen, could be 10 or more years in the future, we need to investigate those options too, for accessing the sort of new newly accessible Gateway sites for development.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:48:42
It sounds to me like we have a consensus on what to do immediately on K Street. So I recommend that we — Well, perhaps I should phrase it as a motion. I move that we recommend that K Street be reconfigured as a two-way street, with no parking, with bike lanes, and perhaps wider sidewalks, if possible.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:49:20
But we have before us still the question of the couplet.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:49:22
We do, and I’m recommending that we just do this part and then take up to a couplet. I think, as we’ve discussed, they’re pretty separated in time.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:49:40
I would like to I still think we need to address the couplet issue first. Because even if we do reach consensus on the couplet, it’s going to be a very long time before anything happens actually on L Street. [Editor: By  “a very long time before anything happens actually on L Street” he seems to mean anything happening to configure the L Street roadway. In terms of *development* happening on L Street, that could happen immediately, at the ArmeriGas site, perhaps.] And so at that point we can certainly look at what the best short-term options are for making K Street safe. I think we’re we all feel that changes could be made fairly inexpensively with paint to make K Street safer. But answering that question doesn’t address the bigger question, which is: Are we in favor as a Commission or not of the L and K Street couplet? So?

Dan Tangney (Commissioner)  1:50:20
Yeah, just for clarity. It’s really are we choosing to remove the K and L st couplet from the plan, or leave it in as an option that may or may not get flushed out in the future? Removing it, to me seems like that would be a big statement on our part. And if we’re all there, then that would be one choice. Leaving it at least as an option, whatever we do with K Street for now is, I agree, a separate and subordinate point. But it’s either it stays in here as an option in the future — and we all know Foster Avenue took 15 years from … 30 [years]. You know, these take a long time. So at least leaving it in there is one consideration. Taking it out is another.  [Editor’s note:  There is leaving it in as an option, and there is leaving it in as a recommendation for direction — those are two different options within the “leaving it in” as a consideration.]

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:51:19
The way the K/L couplet appears in the Gateway Plan now and also in the General — not so much in the General Plan Transportation element — is that’s the option the Gateway Plan is presenting. In the transportation element that the language has been changed to address it more as we will consider this and staff certainly recommends it. I think that addressing the Gateway presentation as one of several options for the future would allow it to remain on the table is one of several options, but it would not present it as “This is the plan, This is what we’re adopting, This is what it’s going to happen.” And in the language of Plannerville, oftentimes we differentiate between this shall happen and the City shall consider developing something? I think I would agree to keeping it in as the City shall consider. But adopting it as a “Yes, we’re going for the couplet” — I would not support that at this time, especially with no timeframe in mind, for L Street. [Interrupted by the Chair.]

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:52:48
Can staff give some direction as to whether the recommendation for the Planning Commission is an affirmative yea or nay, or whether we’re really just agreeing to leave it in as as an option.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:53:03
It’s really up to you how you want to approach this. If you leave it the way that it is now, it is a goal. And as Netra said, we had the Foster Avenue as a goal in our General Plan 2020 [from the year 2000]. We had it in the prior General Plan; worked on it for 30 years before it became reality. If you want to shift it into an implementation measure, you know, consider evaluating this in the future? That’s an option for you as well. Or if you want to say that you’re recommending that K and L be removed entirely and that we not consider the couplet, you know, that’s that’s basically your third option. [NOTE: David Loya has listed 3 options. But there are at least 4 or perhaps 5 options to choose from here. He is completely ignoring what Commissioner Mayer spoke of as an option, and what to a great degree what Commissioners Figueroa and Lehman said.]

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:53:46
So it really, I think it really just depends on, you know, where you want to come down as a Commission on your recommendation. All of those are valid. I will say, as to the motion on the table [Commissioner Lehman: “I move that we recommend that K Street be reconfigured as a two-way street, with no parking, with bike lanes, and perhaps wider sidewalks, if possible.” at ~1:48]  we don’t really have the authority to enact that at this time. We’ll take that as a recommendation to start the legwork. Even just the recent into ninth 8th & 9th Street improvements that we did required a considerable investments in both time and money to do the public outreach and engagement necessary to make, you know, that kind of dramatic change. And so, it seems like a simple solution cognitively. In practice, there’s a lot of legwork that we’d have to go through and we’d probably want to bring that forward as an agendized item for your review. Tonight the reason we’re showing you these options is so you have an idea for the kinds of the range of options that would be available to us in the future.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:53:48
So could we — are you looking for a motion, could we? Because I feel like….

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:54:08
Yeah, a motion would be great.

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:54:54
I’m not understanding why you need natural motion for this because ….

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:55:00
Well, not necessarily a formal notion. Pick the thing that you’re doing, and straw-poll vote on it. If you want to pick to leave the K Street in K/L straight couplet in; if you want to vote on moving it to more of an implementation, consider in the future; or if you want to remove it entirely. So that takes an affirmative statement of what let’s leave voting on. [NOTE:  The question is:  Is it left in as a OPTION for the future, or as a RECOMMENDATION. Again, Commissioner Mayer’s earlier comment is disregarded as an option.]

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:55:25
Let’s try and take a straw poll here. And I think 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.

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  1:55:43
Can you be more specific about what you mean about leave it in?

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:55:55
It sounds like it’s an option that’s currently written in for the future. I am saying that we agree to leave that option on the table for the couplet. And knowing that the timeline is very, very long as Netra just said, 30 years for Foster. That in the short term we look at solutions to making K Street safer, knowing that it’s going to be a long time before any sort of traffic change on L Street impacts K Street.

Matt Simmons  1:56:31
I’m ready — I know it’s not a motion, but I’m ready to second what you said.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:56:36
Other Commissioners — sorry, Netra?

Netra Khatri – City Engineer  1:56:39
I just wanted to make a comment maybe on this one. You know, as I said, it takes time to finance a project and do a project, especially the long-range project takes 25 to 30 years. I heard when I started at the city to foster Avenue was Inception started in 1970s. And we constructed in 2016. So took like more than 30 years just from the inception. So right now we are inception of a Gateway Plan with the couplet. So it will take definitely time. If it’s not on the table, we will not be even able to get the financing for the project. So when you want to apply for funding for the project, it has to be on your General Plan or somewhere at least stated that that’s a planned project. If it’s not in the table, we will not even able to get the funding. So that’s critical to at least be on the table that, yes, it’s there, it’s a plan so we can ask for funding. Thank you.

Dan Tangney (Commissioner)  1:57:25
I would suggest that what is probably holding us back from wanting to push it towards an Implementation Measure is that we need more, we need another meeting on this topic specifically to look at graphics like that. Would it go all the way through to Samoa Boulevard?  How confident are we that it will always be a 10 foot wide Class One trail as it is today? And allow planting strips and you know — I think we need to be fleshed out a little bit more before we can say, yeah, we’ve hung our hat on this one, we’re we’re ready to call it an Implement Measure. I also, though, I’m hearing that we’d like to keep it in. So I don’t know if we did a straw poll on the Implementation Measure, [if then] we get closer.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:58:21
I have to apologize. I mean, we kind of jumped in where we left off. We’ve done several, you know, lengthy staff reports on this topic in the past. It’s been a while, I want to recognize that. So you know, if you’re feeling that, that’s where you’re at, that you need more time to review, I would say we cut the discussion. Get on to the next topic and get there, instead of having more time spent on this –That we’re not going to come to a conclusion.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:58:51
I mean, my understanding is even if we agreed to keep it in the plan, that’s just the inception phase. As Netra said, there’s a ton of work to do to flesh out what it will be or look like. So we’re not in a position now where “We can say we would like to see the finished product before we decide on it.” That’s just not something that we’re going to get right now. [In my opinion, the Chair is severely misrepresenting what many Commissioners have commented on and asked for.]

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:59:10
And the plan does call for retaining trails with the current widths, separated as it is in the existing condition. There’d have to be minor realignments to, you know, address the fact that, you know, the trail has a chicane where it crosses the railroad track at what is that Ninth Street, Tenth Street, I think. And so, you know, there’s, you know, there are design modifications, but it would be back into its original condition, all the way — the length of it. The other thing to point out just before we move on from this is the fact that the vegetative buffer — and Netra probably has more more details on this — but the buffer, this plan between L Street and the trail, the buffer that’s there now, and the buffer that’s between Highway 101 and the trail, the Bay Trail on the south portion of the City’s segment of it — you know, are relatively the same. The the main points of contact, the thing that will distract — I mean, I would offer that the southern portion of our trail is some of the most beautiful part of that trail, you know, going along the bay there.[NOTE:  This is superfluous to the discussion. We are talking about the L Street pathway.]  The piece that’s going to, you know, have an impact is really the cross-traffic on eighth, ninth and 10th streets, [on] 11 street. You know those conditions exist now. And we’re going to continue to see those conditions exacerbate in the future as we have more traffic, regardless of whether you have all of the traffic on K Street or whether you split that out between K and L. So that’s that’s an important concept to consider as well.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:59:21
I think a straw poll now would be the right thing to do.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:00:44
Oh, I heard Matt is in favor — Are you expressing an opinion one way or the other on leaving that couplet item in, and…?

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  2:00:53
Yeah, I would vote with it to — I don’t know — what, other? Yes. I’m in favor of recommending…. [Chair interrupts: “Judith, do you…?”]

Judith Mayer (Commissioner)  2:01:02
I think leaving it in as the option [i.e. the only option, the single option] that we’re going to pursue — which is the way it appears in the Gateway Plan now — versus leaving it in as “consider this option for the future” are two very, very different things. And so if before we do any straw polling or go further, it would be good to resolve which of those we’re talking about.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:01:28
I think staff clarified that is that it is written as the option to be pursued in the Gateway Area Plan. Am I getting, characterizing that correctly?

David Loya – Community Development Director  2:01:41
Yeah, so just to be perfectly clear. The difference between an Implementation Measure — and maybe this addresses one of the questions earlier — in this General Planning process is that an Implementation Measure is something that you’re basically putting off until a later date to either, you know, complete or study depending on how it’s written. When it’s in the document as defined goals, policies, objectives, plans — then it’s a statement that this is the desired future outcome. As Netra said, we can put it in as a desired future outcome. It probably won’t be, you know, 20-30 years before it’s actually built. And that would be what I’m interpreting the motion of “Leave the L & K couplet in, leaving it in as it’s currently envisioned in the Gateway Area Plan.” The alternative motion, which I took Commissioner Mayer to propose, is to move that instead, soften that language and move it into more of an Implementation Measure — “Consider this in the future.”  [Note: David Loya now recognizes what Commissioner Mayer said — closer to what she said.] 

And so I think, you know, with that clarification, if you could you agree, Scott, is that’s what you were referring to, that you wanted to leave it in as it’s currently envisioned — as a goal policy objective map that we’re seeking our future to look like.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:02:55
That’s, that’s what I’m saying. Yes, I’m suggesting that we leave it in and my understanding is that Peter and Matt have given affirmative to that. [Note:  Except that Commissioners Lehman and Simmons did not, in their speaking, say this.]

David Loya – Community Development Director  2:03:04
Great.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:03:05
Christian? Christian, as well. Yeah. Dan? Okay, so that’s….

Matt Simmons  2:03:14
I’ll just, I was more on “Consider.” And so I’ll say that I was [words not clear, but he is rescinding his vote.]

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:03:21
Thank you. Okay. So that’s four to two to leave it in.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:03:33
Now, given our change, before we move on, is now when we want to take additional public comment on this item?

David Loya – Community Development Director  2:03:46
I would recommend that you take public comment on the entire agenda item before we close the meeting. I would also offer that now might be a good time to take a quick five minute break.

Scott Davies (Chair)  2:03:59
Sure, five minute break.