WEBVTT

00:00.000 --> 00:12.920
I ask everybody to either silence or turn off your cell phones and mobile devices.

00:12.920 --> 00:16.840
This is not an airplane, but it still could get a little bit embarrassing here.

00:16.840 --> 00:23.480
Let's start tonight's meeting with a Pledge of Allegiance, please.

00:23.480 --> 00:30.520
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

00:30.520 --> 00:39.960
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:39.960 --> 00:41.600
Thank you.

00:41.600 --> 00:50.160
Again, thank you for being here and welcome to tonight's special meeting of the Fortuna City Council this Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

00:50.160 --> 00:51.640
Could we have a roll call? Linda, please.

00:51.640 --> 00:52.520
Councilman Burdee?

00:52.520 --> 00:53.000
Yes.

00:53.000 --> 00:54.760
Councilman Glazer?

00:54.760 --> 00:55.320
Here.

00:55.320 --> 00:56.400
Councilman Zanzi?

00:56.400 --> 00:56.840
Here.

00:56.840 --> 00:57.880
Mayor Pro Tem Stroh?

00:57.880 --> 00:58.320
Here.

00:58.320 --> 00:59.240
Mayor Whitchurch?

00:59.240 --> 01:01.800
Here. Thank you, Linda.

01:01.800 --> 01:08.480
At tonight's meeting, we have one business item, but before we get into that one item,

01:08.480 --> 01:13.520
we need to open it up for oral comments of the public, from the public,

01:13.520 --> 01:20.000
where members of the public may be heard on any item of interest that is not on tonight's meeting agenda.

01:20.000 --> 01:24.440
When speakers addressing the Council are asked to limit their comments to three minutes per speaker,

01:24.440 --> 01:32.680
and please be advised that by law the City Council is not able to deliberate or take action on issues presented during oral comments if it's not on tonight's agenda.

01:32.680 --> 01:44.880
So anything that is not on tonight's agenda, now is the time to come up and make comment on anything you please.

01:44.880 --> 01:49.440
Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to close public comment period.

01:49.440 --> 01:50.440
Second.

01:50.440 --> 01:52.560
I move and second to close the public comment period.

01:52.560 --> 01:53.560
All in favor say aye.

01:53.560 --> 01:54.480
Aye.

01:54.480 --> 01:55.440
Any opposed?

01:55.440 --> 01:56.400
Okay.

01:56.400 --> 01:58.920
That's carried.

01:58.920 --> 02:01.560
And like I said, there's one item on tonight's agenda.

02:01.560 --> 02:09.680
It is a public hearing to consider certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Fortuna General Plan Update,

02:09.680 --> 02:13.280
and accompanying findings under the California Environmental Quality Act,

02:13.280 --> 02:23.760
and consider adoption of the Fortuna General Plan Update through adoption of Resolutions 2010-45 and 2010-46.

02:23.760 --> 02:32.360
And just to let everybody know, kind of the order how things are going to happen this evening, is we will be receiving a staff report,

02:32.360 --> 02:40.240
and then those of us on the Council may have some questions or direction or anything we might want to say in relation to the staff report,

02:40.240 --> 02:42.560
and then we will open the public hearing.

02:42.560 --> 02:50.640
And during the public hearing, and we will ask those who speak to limit their testimony to three minutes.

02:50.640 --> 02:55.800
Once we've taken testimony for the public hearing, we will close the public hearing.

02:55.800 --> 03:00.600
Council may have a couple of questions just for clarification, but then we will recess,

03:00.600 --> 03:06.840
and we will allow staff and legal counsel to consider what has been brought forward during the public comment period,

03:06.840 --> 03:14.160
during the public hearing, and also perhaps some comments or questions that Council members may have.

03:14.160 --> 03:22.160
We want staff and legal counsel time to kind of digest and to prepare responses where responses are appropriate.

03:22.160 --> 03:30.800
And then we will reconvene, and we will receive an oral report from the staff concerning the comments and questions received during the public hearing.

03:30.800 --> 03:37.400
And after that, we will take up deliberation and consider the two resolutions that are in front of us tonight.

03:37.400 --> 03:39.960
So, Dwayne, would you like to get us started with the staff report?

03:39.960 --> 03:45.760
I have a very brief introduction of your staff who have been, of course, working on this project for five years,

03:45.760 --> 03:50.040
and we're delighted to be here this evening for this event.

03:50.040 --> 03:56.120
Liz Shorry, our Deputy Director of Community Development, and of course, Stephen Avis, our Associate Planner.

03:56.120 --> 04:01.160
And then representing our primary consultant, Plan West, is Robert Hilden this evening,

04:01.160 --> 04:09.640
and of course, our consulting CEQA attorney, Larry Weiner, who you met in a previous meeting, and of course, your city attorney and myself.

04:09.640 --> 04:21.240
So that's our introduction to you. I'm going to turn it over to Stephen to start the presentation.

04:21.240 --> 04:25.920
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.

04:25.920 --> 04:33.960
In previous meetings, we've talked a lot about the importance of general plans, the legal requirements for general plans,

04:33.960 --> 04:39.800
what's included in general plans, their role in terms of shaping a community,

04:39.800 --> 04:47.400
projecting population growth and the development that we want to see happen as a result of that.

04:47.400 --> 04:52.280
We won't go over all those details now unless you would like a refinement on those,

04:52.280 --> 05:00.520
but suffice to say that it has been a long road that we have been traveling together to get to this point.

05:00.520 --> 05:09.120
This general plan, among other things, highlights five areas within the city where we expect development to occur in the next 20, 25, 30 years,

05:09.120 --> 05:20.120
where we would like it to occur, and makes provisions for allowing us to help shape that and define how that's going to be done and for the betterment of the city.

05:20.120 --> 05:30.120
It also projects four areas that are suitable for annexation of the city in the future to meet needs of the city and to benefit property owners in those areas as well.

05:30.120 --> 05:38.040
Those are the main thrusts of the plan itself.

05:38.040 --> 05:47.200
Of course, as we move forward on this, I'd like to thank the Council, the Planning Commission, the Community Advisory Group, and all of the people who showed up at the workshops early on in this process.

05:47.200 --> 05:55.480
Ironically, our first community workshop was on November 10th in 2005, which is just about five years ago.

05:55.480 --> 06:09.320
There was a lot of community interest in those workshops, as you know, and that kicked off a long chain of events that is culminating this evening's proceedings.

06:09.320 --> 06:16.720
Along the way, we've generated a lot of paperwork, much of which we've identified here on the front table.

06:16.720 --> 06:22.680
A lot of documents were prepared, a lot of reports written, many things considered.

06:22.680 --> 06:29.920
We have charts and diagrams in the back room that we're not bringing out this evening, people's notations, handwritten notes, green dots,

06:29.920 --> 06:42.480
all sorts of things that we were using to begin to figure out what it was that the community was looking for and how to develop that into a plan for the future.

06:42.480 --> 06:54.200
What you have tonight before you are two resolutions. On page 13 of your staff report, you will find a pretty lengthy resolution, 2010-45.

06:54.200 --> 07:01.360
This will be your first resolution that you will be looking at, which will be towards the certification of the EIR,

07:01.360 --> 07:09.720
and our CEQA attorney, Larry Weiner, will go over that with you in more detail a little bit later in the staff presentation.

07:09.720 --> 07:20.800
Following that one on page 79 is a resolution 2010-46, which will be the adoption of the general plan.

07:20.800 --> 07:26.560
And with those are a number of policies by reference.

07:26.560 --> 07:36.800
What I'd like to do now is to go over the changes to the policy language that appears in the document that you've now had in binder form for some time

07:36.800 --> 07:46.160
and walk you through some of those. So I'm beginning on page 101 of your staff report as attachment A.

07:46.160 --> 08:00.520
These are recommendations which were generated by the Planning Commission during 12 meetings that they held when they reviewed the document.

08:00.520 --> 08:09.040
These were introduced to you at the joint public session on the 11th of this month.

08:09.040 --> 08:17.760
We've made a change to one of those on page 104, item P at the bottom.

08:17.760 --> 08:26.720
And staff is recommending a replacement of the language on that, and we provided a copy on your dais to you for the language change.

08:26.720 --> 08:35.600
Staff is recommending that the language addressing loading zones that are near noise sensitive receptors,

08:35.600 --> 08:49.960
such as daycare centers, senior centers, senior retirement homes, residential areas and so forth, be modified to remove specific language requiring noise walls

08:49.960 --> 08:57.640
and restricting limitations of delivery and pickup by hour and day of the week.

08:57.640 --> 09:02.680
The new language that we're recommending for the loading dock section of it is as follows.

09:02.680 --> 09:17.240
Proposed new loading docks adjacent to noise sensitive land uses shall include noise attenuating features where required to ensure that associated noise does not exceed 60 dBA LDN

09:17.240 --> 09:21.160
at the exteriors of any existing or proposed residential use.

09:21.160 --> 09:34.640
This is the language that was proposed by the Planning Commission and staff agrees that it's appropriate in this location and is asking that you consider that to replace comment P in the staff report.

09:34.640 --> 09:37.760
The other items remain as they are in that.

09:37.760 --> 09:50.640
On page 107, attachment B, attachment B contains some language changes that was generated recently as a result of the preparation of the environmental impact report.

09:50.640 --> 10:07.560
The change language results from comments that we've received from resource agencies and has added some new language in about four policies and then is actually removing a couple of policies dealing with transportation.

10:07.560 --> 10:17.720
And those are being moved into the EIR document.

10:17.720 --> 10:24.240
On page 107, I'm sorry, 109, there are two items.

10:24.240 --> 10:33.000
The first one was language change requested by the City Council itself and that dealt with historic agricultural retention.

10:33.000 --> 10:53.720
It was felt by both the Planning Commission and the City Council that the language was too specific to one parcel and that it could be reworded to be more broad and so that recommended policy is listed there as NCR 7.12, historic agricultural retention.

10:53.720 --> 11:16.240
If requested by property owners, the city shall cooperate with the owners of established orchards or farms at least 50 years of age to explore options for retaining the historic nature of the land to the establishment of historic park and or cultural resource center as a private nonprofit entity by means of a conservation easement or as a donation of historic parkland to the city.

11:16.240 --> 11:33.160
And then the third item is a request by staff to modify the glossary of terms by adding a new definition defining public and quasi-public facilities as follows.

11:33.160 --> 11:50.880
The institutional, academic, governmental and community service uses such as parks, schools, libraries, governmental facilities, cemeteries, fire stations, airports, hospitals, sewage treatment plants, refuse transfer stations and recycling centers.

11:50.880 --> 11:54.720
Public and quasi-public uses are conditionally permitted.

11:54.720 --> 12:17.280
And that gives greater clarity as to what is intended by that definition and that was intended to respond to concerns that had been expressed at several meetings by Eel River Disposal among others.

12:17.280 --> 12:35.200
Also included in the staff report then is the final EIR which you have received separately as a comb-bound document and I apologize for the irregular reading that the first version of that had.

12:35.200 --> 12:54.200
And then finally is the mitigation monitoring and reporting program which is included in the packet as well and those explains the subsequent steps the city will take to ensure that the mitigations that are listed in the environmental impact report are adhered to and followed.

12:54.200 --> 13:04.880
Because of the way in which the city structured its policy document and environmental impact report our mitigation monitoring program is fairly limited.

13:04.880 --> 13:19.880
There were not a lot of mitigation measures needed for the city's general plan so that makes that process a little bit easier on the development community as well.

13:19.880 --> 13:24.680
The preparation of a general plan includes several components.

13:24.680 --> 13:48.480
The main thing obviously is the policy document that you've been, that you've had in your hands and more recently the actually larger body of work which is the environmental impact report which evaluates the effects that our desired growth in the city would have on the environment and what steps should be taken to minimize or eliminate negative environmental impacts.

13:48.480 --> 13:52.000
That's part of the requirements that we deal with with CEQA.

13:52.000 --> 14:10.880
And that portion of the staff will be provided by our CEQA attorney Larry Wiener and then by Robert Hillman who is primary author of the environmental impact report and helps staff then to respond to comments from the comment letters that we received as a result of circulating the document.

14:10.880 --> 14:15.400
So at that point I will turn it over to Mr. Wiener.

14:15.400 --> 14:17.440
Thank you.

14:17.440 --> 14:25.400
About two weeks ago when I was here we spoke a little bit about CEQA and so I will try not to retrace those steps again and repeat that discussion.

14:25.400 --> 14:34.600
So but I would like to just briefly note that the documents that are in front of you really embody two things.

14:34.600 --> 14:40.840
They embody both local desires and a response to state and in some cases federal mandates.

14:40.840 --> 14:57.000
And as a result of that I think as we all acknowledge there is probably some language in each of these documents that we have in there not as a result of local desires but really as a response to the need to comply with both state and federal law.

14:57.000 --> 15:16.480
That said I believe that there is a benefit to swallowing hard and incorporating this mandated language into these documents because believe it or not at the end of the day by incorporating that language into these documents I believe you will be streamlining development in the future.

15:16.480 --> 15:37.640
By addressing these issues now and in a comprehensive way it will allow development to move forward without having to address these issues on a case by case basis and sparing in some cases the developer either the time to well both the time and the expense of addressing these issues as any individual development moves forward.

15:37.640 --> 15:55.600
In my experience in fact there are some larger developers who wouldn't choose to develop in a community where the path has not been paved with a document such as this and I think you as I recall had some experience with that when you had someone looking at the former mill property.

15:55.600 --> 16:24.440
Rather though than spend a lot of time dwelling in generalities here and now let me if I may turn the matter over to Mr. Hillman who is going to review what specifically is provided for in the E.I.R. and I will of course be happy to answer any questions regarding the matters if you would like to ask any later on.

16:24.440 --> 16:26.120
Thanks Larry.

16:26.120 --> 16:27.520
Good evening.

16:27.520 --> 16:36.600
Tonight I will be presenting a short about 10 minute presentation on the findings of the program environmental impact report.

16:36.600 --> 16:49.480
I'll start with a short discussion of the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA including going over the history of the current process and the type of E.I.R. that was prepared.

16:49.480 --> 17:12.040
Next I'll cover the draft program E.I.R. that was prepared for the general plan including its contents and findings and finally I'll go over the list of commenters the contents and the findings of the final program environmental impact report.

17:12.040 --> 17:30.160
Starting with a history of the current process in 2007 a general plan background report was prepared basically to serve as a baseline of environmental information for both the general plan and the E.I.R.

17:30.160 --> 17:43.360
In 2007 there was also a citizens advisory group meetings and community workshops where input on general plan formulation was taken.

17:43.360 --> 17:56.080
In 2008 a general plan update policy document was prepared and also the first or the 2008 draft program E.I.R. was circulated.

17:56.080 --> 18:17.840
After the E.I.R. was circulated city council directed staff to revise the 2008 policy document and revise and recirculate the 2008 draft program E.I.R. based on city legal councils review of agency and public comments received on the 2008 E.I.R.

18:17.840 --> 18:21.400
and associated recommendations for revisions.

18:21.400 --> 18:32.760
Also the planning commission's request to have a greater role in general plan formulation and finally the addition of the Ronavel airport annexation area to the plan.

18:32.760 --> 18:50.040
In 2009 the planning commission held 12 general plan update public workshops a revised general plan update policy document was prepared and preparation of a revised draft program E.I.R. was initiated.

18:50.040 --> 19:13.560
Then finally in 2010 the draft program E.I.R. was circulated the final program E.I.R. was prepared a joint planning commission city council and separate planning commission hearing was held on the general plan and now we're at the current city council hearing to certify the E.I.R. and adopt the general plan.

19:20.040 --> 19:40.360
With respect to that type of E.I.R. that was prepared there are several types of E.I.R.s but the two most common are project E.I.R.s or just E.I.R. and program E.I.R.s or P.E.I.R.s.

19:40.360 --> 19:57.480
Project E.I.R.s and E.I.R. prepared for construction project or similar detailed type of project it is prepared at a detailed site specific or equivalent level of analysis and no subsequent CEQA review is assumed.

19:57.480 --> 20:22.280
For a program E.I.R. which is an E.I.R. prepared for a plan or program it is prepared at a lesser level of detail and a programmatic level of analysis with subsequent project by project CEQA review assumed as development projects are proposed under the proposed plan or program.

20:22.280 --> 20:34.600
The primary benefit of a program E.I.R. is as Larry indicated before it allows streamlining or tiering of subsequent project level CEQA review.

20:34.600 --> 20:49.800
So for example if a subdivision is proposed under the proposed plan or proposed general plan normally you would prepare an initial study and determine whether an E.I.R. was required.

20:49.800 --> 21:00.040
Under this tiering process of a program E.I.R. you would still prepare an initial study but you wouldn't necessarily have to prepare an E.I.R.

21:00.040 --> 21:15.000
You could conclude that the project is consistent with the general plan and consistent with the range of environmental impacts that were covered under the program E.I.R.

21:15.000 --> 21:25.560
So for many projects this would save a year worth of time and also the cost and effort of preparing an E.I.R.

21:25.560 --> 21:50.440
The Fortuna general plan update D.P.E.I.R. is a program E.I.R. and this is consistent with CEQA guidelines section 15146 which states that the degree of an E.I.R. specificity should correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity.

21:50.440 --> 22:12.360
Moving on to the contents of the draft program E.I.R. there was an executive summary a introductory chapter a chapter describing the proposed plan and then nine impact chapters evaluating the environmental effects of implementation of the proposed plan.

22:12.360 --> 22:26.760
Including chapters on land use transportation and circulation natural and cultural resources including biological resources cultural resources water quality farmland conversion etc.

22:26.760 --> 22:46.920
A chapter on parks recreation open space and visual resources chapters on public facilities and services and public health and safety a chapter evaluating or describing and evaluating a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed plan.

22:46.920 --> 22:54.280
And then chapters on cumulative impacts and other CEQA topics such as growth inducing impacts.

22:54.280 --> 23:17.120
The D.P.E.I.R. also includes a set of appendices including the original notice of preparation comments on the prior D.E.I.R. trip generation by traffic analysis zone Native American heritage commission sacred lands file check air pollution emission calculations a hazmat record search.

23:17.120 --> 23:25.040
The Fortuna general plan background report and the mill district area plan.

23:25.040 --> 23:39.520
With respect to the findings of the D.P.E.I.R. a total of one hundred and seven numbered impacts were evaluated covering each and every question in the CEQA environmental checklist.

23:39.520 --> 24:08.760
Of these eighty four impacts were concluded to be beneficial impact no impact or a less than significant impact six impacts were concluded to be significant before mitigation but less than significant after mitigation and 17 impacts were concluded to be significant unavoidable adverse impacts in other words impacts where no feasible mitigation is available to mitigate it completely to a level of less than significance.

24:08.760 --> 24:31.960
These impacts the significant unavoidable is included impact three point one dash two conflicting with Humboldt County general plan and zoning and this focused on the future annexation areas where city general plan land use designations and zoning would replace county zoning.

24:31.960 --> 25:01.920
And in multiple instances there would actually be an up zoning or up designation from the existing county land use designations and zoning impact three point one C is contributing to cumulative conflicts with the county general plan and zoning which is basically just the same inconsistency again but assuming that the projects in the general plans inconsistencies are added to other inconsistencies.

25:01.920 --> 25:13.000
That may be occurring in the county for instance recent Rio del annexations once again they replaced their general plan land use designations and zoning with county zoning.

25:13.000 --> 25:26.560
So there were obviously some conflicts so so forth and so on impact three point two dash one growth inducement the general plan would basically designate land for urban use.

25:26.560 --> 25:56.520
So that would be a growth inducing impact impact three point two C once again contributing the cumulative growth inducement the plan is basically getting dinged twice for a number of these for both resulting in a project or plan specific impact and also a cumulative impact for the same impact impact four point one dash one traffic level service impacts at Bryant and May.

25:56.520 --> 26:22.480
Main Street south bound approach impact five point two C contributing to cumulative loss of sensitive species habitat impact five three one converting prime farmland to urban use impact five three to converting timberland to urban use both of these both the farmland conversion and the timber conversion have to do with

26:22.480 --> 26:36.800
redesignating certain existing prime agricultural or farmland and existing timberland for urban use.

26:36.800 --> 27:06.360
Impact five three three conflicting with existing agricultural zoning five three C cumulative impact farmland and timberland conversion impact eight one one conflicting with North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District PM 10 attainment plan in that development permitted under the plan would generate PM 10 or small particulate emissions.

27:06.360 --> 27:31.320
At a time when the air district is trying to reduce PM 10 emissions and that's basically occurs with every new development impact eight point one dash to the emission of construction and operational emissions above air quality management district significance thresholds impact eight one three the emission of a substantial amount of.

27:31.320 --> 27:57.640
PM 10 in a air basin that is non attainment for that particular pollutant impact eight one four conflicting with the state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and once again that's similar to PM 10 where the state has adopted targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions but this plan would permit.

27:57.640 --> 28:19.240
New development that would generate additional greenhouse gas emissions impact eight one C contribute contributing to significant cumulative air quality impacts and then impacts eight two three and eight to see generating traffic noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors.

28:19.240 --> 28:37.640
With respect to these impacts it is important to note that the proposed plan would result in so many significant unavoidable as adverse impacts because of the large development potential under the proposed plan basically under the plan the.

28:37.640 --> 29:07.560
The plan would permit a net increase of roughly fifty eight hundred residential units over thirteen thousand new city residents and one point three seven million square feet of new commercial office and industrial uses so basically doubling the size of the city's residential units and resident population and quadrupling the size or the amount of commercial office in the city.

29:07.560 --> 29:22.680
And industrial use so just that that mere mass or increase in residential in development under the plan results in so many significant unavoidable adverse impacts.

29:22.680 --> 29:36.880
And it's because of that and not because of a lack of proposed environmental protections that so many significant unavoidables would occur.

29:36.880 --> 30:06.840
With respect to the findings of the D.P.I.R. concerning alternatives three alternatives were considered in the including a no project alternative which is basically implementing the city's existing nineteen ninety three general plan a reduced density alternative which included twenty percent less commercial industrial development and ten percent less residential development and a resource management alternative which designated certain certain outline.

30:06.840 --> 30:17.760
Forested and farmland areas as either natural resources or agriculture rather than some type of urban use.

30:17.760 --> 30:36.040
The E.I.R. concluded that the alternatives from least to most impacting were the reduced density alternative the resource management alternative the proposed general plan and finally the no project or nineteen ninety three general plan.

30:36.040 --> 30:48.880
The ninety three general plan was identified as the most impacting primarily because it lacks many of the environmental protections proposed in the current general plan document.

30:48.880 --> 31:01.000
Finally the E.I.R. concluded that because the reduced density alternative was the least impacting alternative it was the environmentally superior alternative.

31:01.000 --> 31:20.840
And it should be noted that while the E.I.R. identified the reduced density alternative as the environmentally superior alternative neither the reduced density alternative nor the resource management alternative would achieve all of the general plan objectives.

31:20.840 --> 31:42.280
And both of those plans or alternatives would also conflict with what was apparent during many of the public workshops and previous hearings which was that city residents do not want their their properties down zoned or down designated.

31:42.280 --> 32:01.160
And both of those alternatives would do that because of these reasons city staff is going to be recommending approval of the proposed general plan instead of either the reduced density or resource management alternative.

32:01.160 --> 32:12.320
Despite that the E.I.R. identifies the reduced density alternative as the environmentally superior alternative.

32:12.320 --> 32:28.000
Moving on to the contents of the final E.I.R. or final program E.I.R. a 45 day public review period on the D.P.E.I.R. was provided from July 21st to September 8th 2010.

32:28.000 --> 32:37.360
In addition a city sponsored public comment meeting on the D.P.E.I.R. was held on August 30th 2010.

32:37.360 --> 32:52.040
The city received 12 comment letters during the review process including letters from FEMA the Native Heritage American Heritage Commission Bear River Band of Rona Rol Rancheria.

32:52.040 --> 33:14.240
Two letters from California Department of Transportation Humboldt County Department of Public Works Craig Berry California Department of Fish and Game the Harlan law firm representing E.L. River disposal Dean Glaser friends of Rona Ville Park Redwood Forest and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

33:14.240 --> 33:34.960
During the public comment meeting the city also received comments from seven individuals at the meeting including Sylvia Jutila Sue Long Craig Berry Amber Jamison representing epic Dennis went Wally Wright and Mary Ash.

33:34.960 --> 33:56.640
The contents of the final E.I.R. are broken into four chapters chapter one includes an introduction that describes the content of the program final E.I.R. and also adopts adopts the draft program E.I.R. by reference.

33:56.640 --> 34:17.640
Comments received on the D.P.E.I.R. and responses D.P.E.I.R. corrections and additions in response to some of the comments received and a mitigation monitoring program that has been incorporated into the final P.E.I.R. by reference.

34:17.640 --> 34:35.520
Finally with respect to the findings of the final P.E.I.R. substantive comments were received from regulatory agencies focusing on water course buffers flooding cultural resources and traffic.

34:35.520 --> 34:53.800
These are not all the comments but were the focus of the comments in addition substantive comments from organizations and individuals focused on water course buffers nonconforming land uses and the potential for water tanks in Rona Ville Park.

34:53.800 --> 35:17.080
In addition several commenters expressed concern with the perceived restrictiveness of the proposed general plan policies and programs however I need to point out that these are not substantive comments on the D.P.E.I.R. under CEQA and are more appropriately addressed as part of the city council's deliberations on general plan adoption.

35:17.080 --> 35:37.760
The comments received required 19 corrections and additions to the D.P.E.I.R. including the addition of one new mitigation measure and revision to the language of several proposed general plan policies and programs and these are in your staff report I can also go over them if you wish.

35:37.760 --> 36:00.560
None of these changes represented new significant impacts or substantial new information and because of this and also because of the scope content and level of analysis contained in the D.P.E.I.R. the D.P.E.I.R. is considered by staff to be adequate under CEQA and no recirculation of the D.P.E.I.R. is required.

36:00.560 --> 36:12.400
Thank you.

36:12.400 --> 36:13.560
Thank you Robert.

36:13.560 --> 36:17.600
Thanks Debbie for the lights.

36:17.600 --> 36:29.600
That gives you an overview of the environmental document that is comprised in those three large volumes that you see on the table plus the document that you provided this week.

36:29.600 --> 36:47.040
And it is those collection of items then which leads you to the resolutions that are begin on page 13 and I'd like to ask Larry Wiener to review the language of the two resolutions that you will be considering this evening.

36:47.040 --> 37:05.800
So as you have no doubt noticed the CEQA findings resolution is likely the most hefty resolution you will see as a city council member it is by any measure unusually long for a resolution but I will try and be brief at least in comparison to the resolution and explaining the different aspects of it.

37:05.800 --> 37:22.080
The first three pages of the resolution are probably very familiar it looks a lot like any other resolution it recites to some extent the history of how we got to where we are today and certifies that the E.I.R. itself has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

37:22.080 --> 37:31.760
Subsequent to that you get to the exhibits of the resolution where you get some of the meat of the findings.

37:31.760 --> 37:32.840
What are the findings?

37:32.840 --> 37:51.080
Well there are a couple of findings that the city council is required to make as part of the general plan approval process that let me rephrase there are a couple of findings that the city council is required to make that CEQA requires the city council to make as part of the general plan adoption process as part of the process for adopting any project that is subject to CEQA.

37:51.080 --> 37:59.520
The first of those sets of findings is a finding with regard to each significant impact that is identified in the E.I.R.

37:59.520 --> 38:13.240
As you know part of the job of the E.I.R. the environmental impact report is to identify what significant environmental impacts might be created by the adoption of this project in our case the adoption of the general plan.

38:13.240 --> 38:43.000
With regard to each of those impacts the city council is asked to determine whether or not with regard to each impact the council will adopt a mitigation measure or measures to reduce or substantially lessen the impacts to a level of insignificance or whether mitigation measures might be within the purview of another agency so there might be mitigation measures available but they're not within the jurisdiction of the city council and so therefore they wouldn't be adopted by the city council.

38:43.000 --> 38:50.760
Or third whether there might be mitigation but that mitigation really isn't feasible for legal technical or social reasons.

38:50.760 --> 39:03.080
So as Mr. Hillman indicated the E.I.R. identified 107 potential impacts concluded that 23 of those impacts were potentially significant.

39:03.080 --> 39:32.200
And as you read through the exhibit A to the resolution you will see that with regard to each of those impacts each of those 23 impacts the resolution analyzes whether or not there is mitigation adopted which would reduce or substantially lessen the impact whether or not mitigation might be within the jurisdiction of another agency and whether or not mitigation might be infeasible and therefore not adopted even if it might be available.

39:32.200 --> 39:51.400
That's exhibit A. Then you will turn to exhibit B. And as you also know from having read the E.I.R. an E.I.R. doesn't simply analyze impacts but also presents the city council with information about alternatives to the proposed project that might reduce those impacts.

39:51.400 --> 40:06.280
And with regard to each alternative that's identified and Mr. Hillman was talking about them just a minute ago the city council must take a look at that impact and decide excuse me take a look at that alternative and decide whether or not it wishes to adopt that alternative.

40:06.280 --> 40:27.000
And in this case the E.I.R. analyzed three alternatives one adopting no project at all or in continuing forward with the 1993 general plan to a reduced density alternative and three a resource management alternative.

40:27.000 --> 40:38.120
Did I say this was exhibit B this is actually toward the end of exhibit A where the proposed resolution actually rejects each of those alternatives for three basic reasons.

40:38.120 --> 40:42.680
One each of those would be less effective in stimulating growth and development.

40:42.680 --> 40:51.400
Two each of those would not adequately accommodate diverse residential development to accommodate future growth in the community.

40:51.400 --> 41:07.480
And thirdly at least with regard to the resource management and reduced density alternative would require some down zoning which the resolution finds would be an unacceptable infringement on property rights in the community.

41:07.480 --> 41:28.360
So because the resolution does not determine that the city council should adopt an alternative that would have no environmental impact at least as no environmental impact under CEQA the city council is required to adopt what is referred to as a statement of overriding considerations.

41:28.360 --> 41:42.200
And what that is is it's a fancy name for a policy statement that the city council is making which is that we understand that this project this proposed general plan may have some significant impact on the environment.

41:42.200 --> 41:48.200
But we believe that despite that impact this plan has sufficient value that it should move forward.

41:48.200 --> 42:02.120
And what and so exhibit B if you take a look at exhibit B actually discusses what some of those benefits are that the city council would be finding justify moving forward with this plan despite the impact.

42:02.120 --> 42:11.560
And just to pick out a couple I won't I won't read all of them of course but some of the reasons for moving forward with the plan despite the impact it would encourage a range of housing types.

42:11.560 --> 42:16.760
It would encourage the development of a new of a new tourist based economic engine on Riverwalk Drive.

42:16.760 --> 42:23.160
It would provide employment opportunities during construction and additional job opportunities in areas designated for commercial use.

42:23.160 --> 42:37.520
It would facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized property and it would encourage appropriate development by providing public services and infrastructure required to serve this development while also in some cases protecting the natural environment and human health and safety.

42:37.520 --> 42:44.280
So those are some of the reasons that are outlined in exhibit B for moving forward with the project despite its environmental impacts.

42:44.280 --> 42:51.840
And then finally in the resolution is exhibit C which is what's known as the mitigation monitoring program.

42:51.840 --> 42:53.680
And this is a requirement of CEQA.

42:53.680 --> 43:01.320
It is a program to ensure that the mitigation measures that are adopted as part of this resolution are not forgotten in the future.

43:01.320 --> 43:11.000
So this outlines a program of how staff will continue to monitor whether or not the mitigation measures are being implemented and that set forth in exhibit C.

43:11.000 --> 43:18.120
And that perhaps not as briefly as I would have liked but that concludes the discussion of the CEQA findings resolution.

43:18.120 --> 43:23.720
You have a second resolution which is the resolution actually adopting the general plan should you choose to do so.

43:23.720 --> 43:37.440
That fortunately is a much briefer resolution and that resolution recommend or that resolution if you choose to adopt it would adopt the general plan with the revisions identified by Mr.

43:37.440 --> 43:47.000
Avis that arose out of the public process and the Planning Commission process and were reviewed earlier this evening.

43:47.000 --> 43:50.000
And if there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

43:50.000 --> 43:50.920
Do you have any questions?

43:50.920 --> 43:52.400
You want to start Doug?

43:52.400 --> 43:54.640
Okay Dean.

43:54.640 --> 43:55.240
Question?

43:55.240 --> 43:56.440
I have a couple of questions.

43:56.440 --> 43:57.120
All right.

43:57.120 --> 44:12.200
Mr. Hillman in your introductory remarks talking about the benefits of a programmatic EIR and the tiering aspects of that type of environmental document.

44:12.200 --> 44:27.440
You gave an example of a subdivision coming to Fortuna that we would still do the initial study but may or may not do any further environmental documentation.

44:27.440 --> 44:36.440
Where is that triggered that there would be no further environmental document other than an initial study?

44:36.440 --> 44:40.360
Well the initial study is the trigger document.

44:40.360 --> 44:48.720
The initial study you make determinations for those same 107 impacts that are covered in the EIR.

44:48.720 --> 44:56.640
And it's the initial study is basically a checklist where you check one of four columns.

44:56.640 --> 45:06.520
A no impact, a less than significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation and a potentially significant impact where you don't know whether there's many.

45:06.520 --> 45:12.400
You don't know really what the impact is and what available mitigations may be applied.

45:12.400 --> 45:24.480
And it's that last column that if you check any of the 107 questions in the CEQA checklist that pushes you to an EIR.

45:24.480 --> 45:39.160
Now if because the general plan policy document has been prepared to be a self mitigating document as much as possible.

45:39.160 --> 45:52.600
In other words a lot of mitigation measures that you would normally see applicable to a development project in an EIR instead appear as policies and programs in the policy document.

45:52.600 --> 46:03.320
Because it is a self mitigating document future development would need to be consistent with those policies and programs which basically can also be thought of as mitigation measures.

46:03.320 --> 46:18.480
So you would be much much more likely to trigger an EIR in the initial study if those policies, programs slash mitigation measures weren't in place.

46:18.480 --> 46:25.040
So if I may add to that then I think to hopefully help address your question.

46:25.040 --> 46:32.640
Once this document has been adopted, if the document is adopted this evening, an initial study can be performed looking at a future project.

46:32.640 --> 46:42.440
And if there's a determination that that project is consistent with the general plan and doesn't raise any new impacts that weren't contemplated by the general plan and by the CIR,

46:42.440 --> 46:48.800
it is possible that then you can avoid further environmental review for the later development project.

46:48.800 --> 46:59.480
And that's what we were talking about in terms of streamlining that the work that's done here we can use to allow future development to move forward hopefully with lesser environmental review.

46:59.480 --> 47:07.120
Now if it's not consistent with the general plan or if it raises issues that weren't contemplated by the general plan then there may be some additional environmental review required.

47:07.120 --> 47:13.040
But even then at least those issues that were covered by the general plan don't have to be addressed again.

47:13.040 --> 47:15.480
Thank you. All right.

47:15.480 --> 47:26.040
On the 17 unavoidable impacts, I know that the statement of overriding consideration is an appendix to the resolution.

47:26.040 --> 47:30.360
We don't have to make a separate resolution for a statement of overriding considerations.

47:30.360 --> 47:32.200
You don't need a separate resolution.

47:32.200 --> 47:40.240
Technically what we were able to do, the way we set up the resolution is that there is a section of the resolution which actually incorporates that exhibit by reference.

47:40.240 --> 47:48.360
So technically we have moved it into the resolution by referencing it.

47:48.360 --> 47:52.040
Thank you, Ken.

47:52.040 --> 47:53.280
No questions.

47:53.280 --> 47:58.280
Okay. Does staff have anything more to add before we open it up?

47:58.280 --> 48:06.360
No, we are complete with our present oral presentation. Of course, this is your opportunity to open your public hearing and we can go from there.

48:06.360 --> 48:08.240
Very good.

48:08.240 --> 48:10.800
Let's go ahead and do just that then.

48:10.800 --> 48:18.040
We will open this public hearing now for members of the public to come forward and provide testimony.

48:18.040 --> 48:23.760
And orally, you can also, if you have anything written, certainly submit that at this time.

48:23.760 --> 48:29.320
Please, I'll repeat your oral comments. We'd like you to limit those to three minutes per speaker.

48:29.320 --> 48:35.480
Thank you.

48:35.480 --> 48:37.200
Excuse me.

48:37.200 --> 48:40.080
I am Arden Henry, a member of the Planning Commission.

48:40.080 --> 48:46.080
Due to marginalization of that commission, I am speaking to you as a resident of Fortuna.

48:46.080 --> 48:53.160
I will address two things, mitigation measures in the PEIR and the process for approving the general plan.

48:53.160 --> 49:03.520
First, I will discuss the mitigation measures related to wildland fires described on pages 41 through 44 of the executive summary for the draft PEIR,

49:03.520 --> 49:10.920
which are on pages 36 to 7 and 75, 76 of tonight's staff report.

49:10.920 --> 49:22.760
To find justification for these mitigations, I conducted a page-by-page comparison of the old and new draft PEIR's sections on risk assessment for wildland fires.

49:22.760 --> 49:25.920
I determined there is no difference in those sections.

49:25.920 --> 49:31.000
I also found the previous version states no mitigation required.

49:31.000 --> 49:37.880
There is nothing in the new draft version of the PEIR that justifies the four pages of mitigation measures.

49:37.880 --> 49:44.760
Many of the proposed mitigations are the same as what exists in Southern California, where I lived for 16 years.

49:44.760 --> 49:54.680
Wildfires which have occurred there resulted in evacuation notices being posted on my door three times, the destruction of hundreds of homes, and the loss of life.

49:54.680 --> 50:00.280
This is certainly a different situation from Fortuna, where the PEIR states, and I quote,

50:00.280 --> 50:05.640
there has not been a major wildland fire in the last 100 years.

50:05.640 --> 50:15.240
I have had experience with wildfire on my property in Fortuna, where my house could not be built if the proposed regulations are approved.

50:15.240 --> 50:19.040
When that fire occurred, there were air drops on the burning grass.

50:19.040 --> 50:22.520
No structures or other things were affected.

50:22.520 --> 50:31.520
My experience in Fortuna's 100-year history without a major wildland fire indicates we do not need these mitigation measures.

50:31.520 --> 50:39.320
They should be deleted from the PEIR in order to meet the criteria for general plan documents stated by Councilman Burdee.

50:39.320 --> 50:43.240
We are writing a general plan for Fortuna.

50:43.240 --> 50:49.400
If the proposed mitigation measures are enacted, there will be severe limitations on development in the foothills.

50:49.400 --> 50:54.200
The City will effectively be taking private property without compensation.

50:54.200 --> 51:07.200
Council members who have expressed their support for free enterprise and concern about excessive regulation should support removing these mitigations from the PEIR.

51:07.200 --> 51:13.000
I recommend the Council replace the mitigation measures with a statement of orderizing considerations.

51:13.000 --> 51:22.920
This is a statement that any significant adverse project impacts are acceptable if expected benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse impacts.

51:22.920 --> 51:36.760
Certainly, the benefit of Fortuna residents not having restrictions on their property that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars outweigh the risk of a fire that has not occurred in 100 years.

51:36.760 --> 51:42.360
In its rush to approve the general plan before the election, the City has created a flawed process.

51:42.360 --> 51:47.320
I will now discuss several process problems and how to fix them.

51:47.320 --> 51:55.280
First, I want to make you aware that just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do.

51:55.280 --> 52:07.480
It may be legal to tell the Planning Commission to read the 661 pages of the PEIR and then tell them the Planning Commission is not required nor requested to make findings regarding the PEIR.

52:07.480 --> 52:11.520
However, this creates an obvious conflict for Commission members.

52:11.520 --> 52:22.680
As Commissioner Wells has pointed out, if no effort is made to convince Commission members of the need for the requirements in the PEIR, it will be difficult for them to do their job.

52:22.680 --> 52:28.400
Another point I want to make is how undemocratic the process has become in the past month.

52:28.400 --> 52:40.160
The fact that some members of the Planning Commission have not been able to state their concerns with respect to chapters five and eight of the policy document violates the principle that everyone has a right to be heard.

52:40.160 --> 52:50.520
If Council members are as patriotic as they have stated and believe in our country's values, they should make it possible for these Commissioners to state their opinion.

52:50.520 --> 52:53.120
I will present a way to do this.

52:53.120 --> 53:00.720
The final process issue that I want to discuss is what should be considered justification for policy statements in the general plan documents.

53:00.720 --> 53:05.360
This issue can best be understood by a specific example.

53:05.360 --> 53:11.520
When all seven Planning Commissioners stated they do not agree with HS 5.3, which states, and I quote,

53:11.520 --> 53:21.200
the City shall prohibit development on all slopes greater than 25 percent, they were told the lawyers have read and approved the document and the statement will not be changed.

53:21.200 --> 53:25.440
There was no discussion of what the lawyers' approval meant.

53:25.440 --> 53:31.120
Staff has stated there is a risk to the City of lawsuits which challenge policies in the general plan.

53:31.120 --> 53:41.440
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that what the lawyers' approval means is that the City is legally empowered to have the policies that are in the general plan.

53:41.440 --> 53:47.080
That is not the same thing as saying the policies are what they should be.

53:47.080 --> 53:49.160
Let me be specific.

53:49.160 --> 53:56.120
No lawyer is qualified to say whether it is possible to build on a slope greater than 25 percent.

53:56.120 --> 54:01.000
That question should be answered by a licensed engineer.

54:01.000 --> 54:09.160
What a lawyer is qualified to say is state law allows the City to put in place restrictions on building on slopes.

54:09.160 --> 54:22.640
The statements in Attachment A to July 28, 2009 staff report to the Planning Commission, which purports to be the legal justification for HS 5.3, certainly supports that point of view.

54:22.640 --> 54:28.920
The statements do not say building should be prohibited on slopes greater than 25 percent.

54:28.920 --> 54:40.960
If the City Council and the Planning Commission are to do their jobs, the staff has to provide sound justification for statements in the general plan documents or other documents we will be reviewing.

54:40.960 --> 54:47.520
A statement that lawyers have read and approved a document is not sufficient justification.

54:47.520 --> 54:52.000
Finally, I want to provide my recommendations for correcting the flawed process.

54:52.000 --> 55:00.960
The City Council should direct the staff to prepare for and hold meetings with the Planning Commission that will define how changes can be made to any approved documents.

55:00.960 --> 55:08.480
The City Council should direct the staff to hold meetings with the Planning Commission that will discuss Sections 5 and 8 of the policy document.

55:08.480 --> 55:16.920
The City Council should direct the staff to provide technical answers to technical questions about policy statements in the general plan documents.

55:16.920 --> 55:26.120
The City Council should direct staff that these things be done in a timely manner prior to working on the zoning code or other things related to the general plan.

55:26.120 --> 55:33.920
All of these recommendations result from the Planning Commission being told that staff takes its direction from the City Council.

55:33.920 --> 55:35.560
Thank you for listening to me.

55:35.560 --> 55:45.760
Thank you, Arden.

55:45.760 --> 55:52.520
My name is Darcy Gray. I'm a real property agent with the Land Use Division of the County of Humboldt Department of Public Works.

55:52.520 --> 55:58.320
Thank you for including the County of Humboldt Department of Public Works in the planning process for your general plan.

55:58.320 --> 56:04.920
City staff has done a great job of putting together the general plan and has considered many of the department's suggestions.

56:04.920 --> 56:12.120
However, it appears that the department has not clearly communicated our concerns to the City staff on two policies in the plan.

56:12.120 --> 56:23.120
We believe with minor adjustments as shown on the paper I handed out to you earlier to see, the plan will be equitable for both the City and the County.

56:23.120 --> 56:24.160
Thank you.

56:24.160 --> 56:25.120
Thank you.

56:25.120 --> 56:27.680
Did staff receive that document?

56:27.680 --> 56:38.360
Okay. Thank you.

56:38.360 --> 56:41.200
Paul Glennie, 2988 Rebecca Lane.

56:41.200 --> 56:45.480
Honorable Mayor, Council Members, staff, special guests.

56:45.480 --> 56:50.600
I'm here because I watched the meeting between the Planning Commission and staff on October 14th.

56:50.600 --> 56:57.600
What I saw and what is an obvious and complete disconnect in communication in regards to the general plan.

56:57.600 --> 57:02.320
That being said, Mr. Mayor, you should be commended for your leadership in this matter.

57:02.320 --> 57:10.800
In my opinion, your actions taken on the general plan were warranted, but the work on the general plan is obviously not done.

57:10.800 --> 57:20.360
So I ask that the Council correct any and all discrepancies and complete the general plan in its entirety so that it can move on to the next phase.

57:20.360 --> 57:30.200
I also ask that any and all breakdowns in communication be corrected so that everyone can do the work for the people fairly and successfully.

57:30.200 --> 57:31.840
Thank you.

57:31.840 --> 57:43.480
Thank you, Paul.

57:43.480 --> 57:46.160
About the policy document and the EIR, right?

57:46.160 --> 57:49.600
Make sure the mic's on, Sue, if you would, please.

57:49.600 --> 57:50.880
Yeah.

57:50.880 --> 57:51.240
There you go.

57:51.240 --> 57:53.600
Are we just talking about the EIR or both?

57:53.600 --> 57:55.080
Both. Both resolutions here tonight.

57:55.080 --> 57:56.400
Thank you.

57:56.400 --> 57:58.880
Sue Long.

57:58.880 --> 58:06.960
So we still have a lot of issues that the Planning Commission brought up that haven't been changed.

58:06.960 --> 58:09.760
So we'll just go by my pages, I guess.

58:09.760 --> 58:15.840
So on page one six, we still talk about the mill district and what we want there, and we don't include any industrial.

58:15.840 --> 58:21.480
And I'm still concerned that we need industrial somewhere besides areas that are going to be annexed.

58:21.480 --> 58:33.760
I'm still concerned on page 117 with the square footage that's allowed in each type of development, commercial, mill district, Fortuna Boulevard, et cetera.

58:33.760 --> 58:44.400
I did some research on what types of businesses take up how much square footage, and we can only get one or two businesses in these square footages in these sections.

58:44.400 --> 58:48.480
That concerns me.

58:48.480 --> 58:51.520
I submitted comments to Stephen and I didn't get answers.

58:51.520 --> 58:54.800
I don't know if you guys got copies of that or not.

58:54.800 --> 58:58.560
So I'm asking a lot of the same things that I've asked him.

58:58.560 --> 59:02.520
I'm still trying to figure out where industrial south of Main Street in the city is.

59:02.520 --> 59:11.080
That's page 118.

59:11.080 --> 59:20.280
I was it was interesting to read all the new stuff that has been inserted on starting on page 126 about Renerville and the historical value and blah, blah, blah.

59:20.280 --> 59:22.200
Is anybody driven by Renerville besides me?

59:22.200 --> 59:23.200
It's falling down.

59:23.200 --> 59:29.560
I'm not sure what we're talking about or what we're supposed to do there.

59:29.560 --> 59:35.360
Page 127, we talked about changing the 40 percent open space in the middle district.

59:35.360 --> 59:37.920
Oh, you know what? I think that's been changed.

59:37.920 --> 59:40.880
Stephen, I think you got that one, didn't you?

59:40.880 --> 59:43.720
Sorry.

59:43.720 --> 59:49.200
There's a table on page four, three that we discussed three years ago that was supposed to be deleted because it doesn't meet city standards.

59:49.200 --> 59:50.480
It's still there.

59:50.480 --> 59:51.480
I brought it up before.

59:51.480 --> 59:55.680
We just keep glossing over it and keeping it in there.

59:55.680 --> 59:58.680
Form based codes are mentioned about five or six times in here.

59:58.680 --> 01:00:02.680
If you want the page numbers, I'll tell you we didn't.

01:00:02.680 --> 01:00:04.600
I don't know that we ever adopted form based codes.

01:00:04.600 --> 01:00:11.120
I never heard you guys do that, but as throughout the document.

01:00:11.120 --> 01:00:17.840
Page 411, there's some new blueprint talking about parking lots and having buffers if you have 10 parking spaces.

01:00:17.840 --> 01:00:26.400
That seems excessive and costly and another way to stop businesses from coming to town.

01:00:26.400 --> 01:00:33.360
And then there's a lot in five, six where we talk about the 50 feet setbacks for creeks, wetlands, all that.

01:00:33.360 --> 01:00:39.800
And I'll just say that one time and not refer to every single page.

01:00:39.800 --> 01:00:44.960
We still have the question of what happens to the existing homes if they burn down with these new setbacks.

01:00:44.960 --> 01:00:48.720
We've asked and asked and no one wants to answer that question.

01:00:48.720 --> 01:00:55.600
I shouldn't say no one wants to, no one has.

01:00:55.600 --> 01:01:00.800
There was much discussion at the Planning Commission, page 528 on the archaeology requirements.

01:01:00.800 --> 01:01:13.840
If you're doing a project of over five acres, we wondered where the five acre number came from and if that could be changed.

01:01:13.840 --> 01:01:23.200
Page 717, there's some new blue that requires all proposed development projects provide dedicated solid waste recycling, green waste bins.

01:01:23.200 --> 01:01:29.480
Does that just during the project construction or is that the homeowners in the new development?

01:01:29.480 --> 01:01:35.120
Are you requiring them all to have that or is that just during construction?

01:01:35.120 --> 01:01:40.800
719, the city shall require new construction be oriented and designed to take advantage of solar heating.

01:01:40.800 --> 01:01:46.360
Does that mean the city is going to start designing people's houses now or how is that going to work?

01:01:46.360 --> 01:01:51.440
A much discussion in the Planning Commission, page 8, 7 about open burning.

01:01:51.440 --> 01:02:00.640
And my one that I'm very concerned about is increased energy efficiency and proposed buildings by 20 percent beyond Title 24 requirements.

01:02:00.640 --> 01:02:09.000
Title 24 is very stringent and my concern not only is that we are increasing it 20 percent beyond.

01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:10.360
I don't know why we would do that.

01:02:10.360 --> 01:02:19.840
But at what point does someone who's going to get a building permit know that they take all of their stuff to City Hall based on Title 24 and current building codes.

01:02:19.840 --> 01:02:30.240
They turn their plans in and at what point are they told this doesn't meet for to this criteria and do they have to go back to the drawing board?

01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:35.520
We're still concerned about the commercial office and mixed use projects,

01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:42.440
initiating volunteer share writing and providing employees with transit incentives to minimize driving to work.

01:02:42.440 --> 01:02:50.080
That should be up to each individual business. We should not mandate that.

01:02:50.080 --> 01:02:55.480
On the noise, 811 HS 10 shall not exceed blah, blah, blah, blah.

01:02:55.480 --> 01:02:57.920
Does high school fall under that or are they over?

01:02:57.920 --> 01:03:03.760
Are they too loud when we have football games and all that?

01:03:03.760 --> 01:03:13.320
We're still the steep slopes as Arden brought up. That's still a contentious point.

01:03:13.320 --> 01:03:18.000
And that's both of those.

01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:21.360
And I think all the rest of these pages marked are form based codes.

01:03:21.360 --> 01:03:27.640
So those are my comments so far, and I agree with Arden's letter and I'm glad you let him finish it.

01:03:27.640 --> 01:03:31.600
He had some really good things to say, and I hope you guys consider those in your deliberations.

01:03:31.600 --> 01:03:54.720
Thanks. Thank you, Sue.

01:03:54.720 --> 01:04:02.040
Make sure everybody has their opportunity before we close it, close the public hearing.

01:04:02.040 --> 01:04:07.280
Mr. Mayor, make a motion to close the public hearing.

01:04:07.280 --> 01:04:08.480
A second.

01:04:08.480 --> 01:04:12.760
Okay, there's been a motion and a second to close the public hearing.

01:04:12.760 --> 01:04:14.040
All in favor say aye.

01:04:14.040 --> 01:04:15.040
Aye.

01:04:15.040 --> 01:04:15.800
Opposed.

01:04:15.800 --> 01:04:29.200
Okay, the public hearing is now closed before we send staff and legal counsel off to prepare responses to what's been brought forth during oral testimony.

01:04:29.200 --> 01:04:39.880
Do we have any direction or anything specific that we'd like highlighted in staff's response?

01:04:39.880 --> 01:04:51.280
With all the suggestions and stuff that have been talked about this evening that you guys are going to go back and think about, are any of these things at the point

01:04:51.280 --> 01:05:01.360
that we couldn't correct as we go on the next few weeks without causing the environmental report to be thrown out the window?

01:05:01.360 --> 01:05:09.160
In other words, are these impacts that they're talking about like a little industrial word added to the Mill District and some of these other areas

01:05:09.160 --> 01:05:19.840
on the hillside slopes and all of that, because this EIR is written from what I'm understanding is very vague in the aspect that we're going to encompass the whole city.

01:05:19.840 --> 01:05:25.080
And everybody was looking at things at pretty large numbers in some of these areas.

01:05:25.080 --> 01:05:37.240
So are any of these impacts, if we change any of this stuff that we're talking about tonight, is that going to affect the main general, the main EIR?

01:05:37.240 --> 01:05:39.880
I'll assume that question is being directed at me.

01:05:39.880 --> 01:05:46.200
I think listening to the comments and of course I would want to consult with Mr. Hillman who is the author of the EIR.

01:05:46.200 --> 01:05:50.680
But I think that some of them could be addressed without impacting the EIR.

01:05:50.680 --> 01:05:52.200
Others, I'm not sure.

01:05:52.200 --> 01:05:57.860
I think we'd have to really determine what changes would be made in order to address the concerns.

01:05:57.860 --> 01:06:00.480
You could make changes that wouldn't have an environmental impact.

01:06:00.480 --> 01:06:02.480
Some changes might have an environmental impact.

01:06:02.480 --> 01:06:07.240
And we can try and address those when we come back, whether there's a, which ones would fall into which category.

01:06:07.240 --> 01:06:08.920
Okay. Because that makes a big difference.

01:06:08.920 --> 01:06:13.360
Because right now we're trying to make a picture of what Fortuna is going to look like.

01:06:13.360 --> 01:06:20.720
And we've got an environmental report that's about ten times bigger than the one we wrote years ago.

01:06:20.720 --> 01:06:21.680
There's a lot more in it.

01:06:21.680 --> 01:06:28.960
But we also have a land usage plan that doesn't necessarily follow our zoning.

01:06:28.960 --> 01:06:33.400
And we've been told that our land usage doesn't have to match our zoning.

01:06:33.400 --> 01:06:36.720
In the past, our land usage map matched our zoning pretty close.

01:06:36.720 --> 01:06:42.920
So it made it really simple for a developer to come to town, get the land usage map, say, okay, I fit in this category.

01:06:42.920 --> 01:06:46.720
Then you go look at the zoning to find out finer stuff.

01:06:46.720 --> 01:06:50.960
But if we approve everything we got tonight, we're going to have a land usage plan.

01:06:50.960 --> 01:06:54.280
And then we're told we're going to come back and write a zoning.

01:06:54.280 --> 01:07:00.520
So how much is that land usage plan going to dictate what we can zone?

01:07:00.520 --> 01:07:08.960
I.e. the mill district, if we want a little, that land usage doesn't mention the word industrial, a light industrial or anything.

01:07:08.960 --> 01:07:17.120
So if during the zoning hearings, everybody decides that out of that 75 acres, we'd like at least a portion of it to be industrial.

01:07:17.120 --> 01:07:22.440
Is the land usage that we approved going to trump it and say, well, you already approved the land usage.

01:07:22.440 --> 01:07:25.200
You can't zone that that way.

01:07:25.200 --> 01:07:31.360
Those are the kind of concerns I have if we haven't got all this stuff nailed down the way we want it.

01:07:31.360 --> 01:07:37.320
Because I was on the Planning Commission for six years and it was really nice to have a land usage plan telling people, nope, it wasn't in our plan.

01:07:37.320 --> 01:07:39.760
You can't do it.

01:07:39.760 --> 01:07:46.000
You know, it's a it's a it's a concern if we're going to pass this thing.

01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:51.320
I understand the concern of a general plan is not immutable.

01:07:51.320 --> 01:07:57.080
So I think there are two potential responses to your questions and we can come back and be more specific.

01:07:57.080 --> 01:08:05.840
But in general, before we take a recess, you can always change your general plan.

01:08:05.840 --> 01:08:10.800
You can amend the general plan, any one element of the general plan up to four times in any year.

01:08:10.800 --> 01:08:12.600
And that doesn't just mean one amendment.

01:08:12.600 --> 01:08:13.600
It means four occasions.

01:08:13.600 --> 01:08:17.560
So you could have 17 amendments on one occasion to the general plan.

01:08:17.560 --> 01:08:21.680
So but on four different occasions during the year, you can amend any particular element of the general plan.

01:08:21.680 --> 01:08:31.520
So if you did decide after going through the zoning hearings that you wanted to incorporate industrial use into your land use diagram, yes, you could amend the general plan to accommodate that.

01:08:31.520 --> 01:08:42.000
You may decide that the type of light industrial use that you're thinking about in the zoning code does fall within the land use designation because it's ancillary to a commercial use.

01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:47.720
So maybe you can incorporate some types of industrial use without amending the land use diagram.

01:08:47.720 --> 01:08:53.400
But I guess to answer what I'm hearing as the bottom line concern, it's not immutable.

01:08:53.400 --> 01:08:56.040
You can make changes.

01:08:56.040 --> 01:08:57.320
You can make adjustments.

01:08:57.320 --> 01:08:58.960
It is a living document.

01:08:58.960 --> 01:08:59.720
I understand that.

01:08:59.720 --> 01:09:07.200
But we're here tonight five years later because we had a developer come in that wanted to change his own.

01:09:07.200 --> 01:09:10.200
And we could have just changed the zone.

01:09:10.200 --> 01:09:13.320
But it's taken us five years to get to this point.

01:09:13.320 --> 01:09:21.960
And we could have just had an update and did a policy change to one little section of town, one project.

01:09:21.960 --> 01:09:25.660
But instead, it forced us to do this full process.

01:09:25.660 --> 01:09:31.080
So that's why I want to make sure we write this, that we don't end up when it's done, everybody wanting to do this.

01:09:31.080 --> 01:09:35.800
And it's going to force us to do it.

01:09:35.800 --> 01:09:38.200
I hope you understand it.

01:09:38.200 --> 01:09:39.660
I do understand the concern.

01:09:39.660 --> 01:09:45.040
I'm not as familiar with that particular experience, that particular development experience.

01:09:45.040 --> 01:09:45.480
Thank you, Doug.

01:09:45.480 --> 01:09:48.600
Good points.

01:09:48.600 --> 01:09:55.800
Anybody else before we head off to direct staff to take a recess?

01:09:55.800 --> 01:10:02.120
Time wise, you know, if you don't know until you get in there and start talking about some of these things.

01:10:02.120 --> 01:10:03.320
Fifteen minutes.

01:10:03.320 --> 01:10:04.640
Why don't we start with 15.

01:10:04.640 --> 01:10:10.560
And if indeed we feel we need a few more, I will come out and ask and inform you that we will have a few more.

01:10:10.560 --> 01:10:12.080
We're trying to be as brief as we can.

01:10:12.080 --> 01:10:16.600
And we appreciate the tolerance you'll have of us staff working on this.

01:10:16.600 --> 01:10:18.280
This is a very important thing, obviously.

01:10:18.280 --> 01:10:24.560
And even though there's relatively relative to the number of people in our community, there's relatively few people here tonight.

01:10:24.560 --> 01:10:26.200
I'm sure there are many listening.

01:10:26.200 --> 01:10:34.600
But, you know, we want to make sure that we're clear on just what it is that we do this evening and that we're also clear on the types of

01:10:34.600 --> 01:10:41.320
flexibilities that are available to us, hopefully without having to go through this entire process all over again.

01:10:41.320 --> 01:10:45.120
Because what some of the people in the public have brought forward are very valid points.

01:10:45.120 --> 01:10:48.200
And, you know, we'd like to hear some of those responses.

01:10:48.200 --> 01:10:54.120
So with that, let's take a 15 minute recess and we will come back.

01:10:54.120 --> 01:10:57.400
If staff needs a little bit more time, I will let you know.

01:10:57.400 --> 01:11:05.400
Thank you.

01:11:27.400 --> 01:11:35.400
Thank you.

01:11:57.400 --> 01:12:05.400
Thank you.

01:12:27.400 --> 01:12:35.400
Thank you.

01:12:57.400 --> 01:13:05.400
Thank you.

01:13:27.400 --> 01:13:35.400
Thank you.

01:13:57.400 --> 01:14:05.400
Thank you.

01:14:27.400 --> 01:14:35.400
Thank you.

01:14:57.400 --> 01:15:05.400
Thank you.

01:15:27.400 --> 01:15:37.400
Thank you.

01:15:57.400 --> 01:16:07.400
Thank you.

01:16:27.400 --> 01:16:37.400
Thank you.

01:16:57.400 --> 01:17:01.400
I texted a couple things.

01:17:01.400 --> 01:17:05.400
You know, please silence your cell phones if you would.

01:17:05.400 --> 01:17:09.400
And we will reconvene the meeting at this moment.

01:17:09.400 --> 01:17:14.400
And, Dwayne, go ahead and lead off the discussion as far as the staff report.

01:17:14.400 --> 01:17:18.400
My job is to turn it over to Larry.

01:17:18.400 --> 01:17:24.400
Well, I think that we will have a couple of us speaking in response to some of the comments that were raised.

01:17:24.400 --> 01:17:40.400
I was designated to start and I would like to start by responding to Councilmember Strell because we did go back and take a look at some of the comments and try to parse through them individually to see if there were comments that might, we might,

01:17:40.400 --> 01:17:47.400
comments that if we made changes to the document might require delay and further environmental review.

01:17:47.400 --> 01:17:52.400
We really only heard one comment that gave us concern in that regard.

01:17:52.400 --> 01:17:59.400
And that was a change to the policy requiring the 50-foot buffer, 50-foot setback from streams.

01:17:59.400 --> 01:18:10.400
That policy is integral to the analysis of biological impacts in the EIR and the analysis of water quality impacts.

01:18:10.400 --> 01:18:23.400
So that if we go, if we want to make significant changes to that policy, we would need to give Mr. Hillman an opportunity to really revisit what those changes, what impacts those changes might have.

01:18:23.400 --> 01:18:34.400
However, with regard to the other comments that were made during the comment period, we think that there were some comments, we don't think that it would require delay in order to address those comments.

01:18:34.400 --> 01:18:40.400
And in fact, we have a couple of suggestions for the Council if the Council wishes to address some of those comments this evening.

01:18:40.400 --> 01:18:43.400
And I'll actually start with the first one of those.

01:18:43.400 --> 01:18:51.400
And that dealt with comments made by Planning Commissioner Henry regarding the 25-foot slope setback.

01:18:51.400 --> 01:19:03.400
I think Ms. Long also made a comment regarding that currently in the general plan, there is a prohibition on development of slopes greater than 25%.

01:19:03.400 --> 01:19:11.400
I think that the comments that were made this evening were correct, that certainly it is possible to develop on slopes greater than 25%.

01:19:11.400 --> 01:19:14.400
It is possible to engineer that type of development.

01:19:14.400 --> 01:19:29.400
Also, I think that everyone would acknowledge that development on slopes greater than 25% does create different challenges than development on flat land, on an otherwise flat parcel or mostly flat parcel.

01:19:29.400 --> 01:19:40.400
And so staff would suggest that in order to respond to some of the comments that have been made and some of the concerns that have been expressed that perhaps a more appropriate policy if the Council wishes to consider it,

01:19:40.400 --> 01:19:52.400
and one that wouldn't require any recirculation of the EIR, would be rather than have a flat prohibition to have a policy in the general plan that says the city shall develop standards for development on slopes greater than 25%.

01:19:52.400 --> 01:20:06.400
And then it would be as part of the implementation of the general plan over the next period of time to go back to the Planning Commission and determine with the Planning Commission and ultimately with the City Council what the appropriate standards are for development on those types of slopes.

01:20:06.400 --> 01:20:12.400
So that would be the first suggested change to the policies in response to the comments tonight.

01:20:12.400 --> 01:20:25.400
And that would be a change to that particular policy that would provide that instead of a prohibition on development on slopes more than 25%, that the city shall develop standards for development on slopes greater than 25%.

01:20:25.400 --> 01:20:32.400
Do we need to make reference to the chapter and the policy?

01:20:32.400 --> 01:20:46.400
If someone, I don't have the document open so that if someone has the policy number, we can do that, but I believe that that's already in the record so I don't, I feel comfortable without making that reference, but if the Council would feel more comfortable we can look that up.

01:20:46.400 --> 01:20:54.400
As long as we're comfortable and the reference is very clear because that is one suggested change that personally I like.

01:20:54.400 --> 01:21:00.400
That's policy HS-5.3.

01:21:00.400 --> 01:21:06.400
There you are. So that would be the change to policy HS-5.3.

01:21:06.400 --> 01:21:19.400
And I believe that there is, Mr. Avis I think has a suggestion for potential change to another element in response to some of the comments that were made this evening.

01:21:19.400 --> 01:21:27.400
Thank you. There was a comment regarding the lack of light of industrial uses in the middle district.

01:21:27.400 --> 01:21:38.400
And part of that stemmed from the Council's decision early on in the process to remove the industrial use from the middle district.

01:21:38.400 --> 01:21:44.400
It's possible that the Council could reconsider its decision on how it wants to proceed.

01:21:44.400 --> 01:21:57.400
But the definition of the middle district as it's outlined in the general plan is designed to be a broad sweeping statement that defines sort of what the intent of the middle district is.

01:21:57.400 --> 01:22:03.400
It is not intended to be an industrial site and so industrial uses were not particularly spelled out.

01:22:03.400 --> 01:22:13.400
But it does deal with horizontal and vertical mixed use, a variety of venues and things that can be used, compatible uses.

01:22:13.400 --> 01:22:23.400
So for example, we did not consider when we get to the zoning code, we can identify particular uses that are appropriate.

01:22:23.400 --> 01:22:32.400
So for example, we thought about a commercial area on there that perhaps you had a candy store and in the back of the candy store you had making candy.

01:22:32.400 --> 01:22:39.400
And the candy was being shipped out to all over the world because it was the greatest candy ever.

01:22:39.400 --> 01:22:50.400
So that's a lot of industrial use that's compatible with a commercial venture that is going on in an area that might be suitable for the middle district development.

01:22:50.400 --> 01:22:52.400
And we would not see that as being incompatible.

01:22:52.400 --> 01:22:58.400
The fact that it doesn't list industrial in the definition does not preclude that kind of use.

01:22:58.400 --> 01:23:04.400
And when the zoning code is developed, we can certainly include appropriate uses that are conditionally permitted.

01:23:04.400 --> 01:23:15.400
So that you can determine at that time whether or not the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plan or not.

01:23:15.400 --> 01:23:33.400
And if so, then what would be the specific details that would allow that?

01:23:33.400 --> 01:23:36.400
And Liz has a couple of comments next.

01:23:36.400 --> 01:23:50.400
Yeah, I'm addressing the comment from the public regarding the county public works department and their letter dated October 22nd, 2010, which I believe you have a copy was provided to you on the dais.

01:23:50.400 --> 01:23:59.400
And there was a comment from a representative who it looked like no longer here.

01:23:59.400 --> 01:24:04.400
Yeah, we were and we understand and appreciate their comments.

01:24:04.400 --> 01:24:12.400
And we did address some of the comments in their earlier letter with regard to the couple that are in this October 22nd letter.

01:24:12.400 --> 01:24:17.400
We don't feel that they're warranted mainly because we this is a process.

01:24:17.400 --> 01:24:32.400
What they're asking for is that the city consider impacts to county roads and drainage facilities where they border, you know, city, city limits when the city has development projects.

01:24:32.400 --> 01:24:36.400
And this is something that's already incorporated into our process.

01:24:36.400 --> 01:24:41.400
So we don't feel it's warranted to, you know, create a new policy just for this.

01:24:41.400 --> 01:24:51.400
For example, we do when we have development projects, we do send referrals to the county on building permits and especially on larger projects like subdivisions.

01:24:51.400 --> 01:24:57.400
And we do get their comments in writing and we work with the county to address those on development projects.

01:24:57.400 --> 01:25:09.400
We do have two active ones on Newburgh Road right now where we're, you know, there's a lot of cooperation with the county and we're addressing their issues in the project requirements.

01:25:09.400 --> 01:25:15.400
So we don't feel that it's warranted to incorporate these specifically into the general plan policies.

01:25:15.400 --> 01:25:18.400
Is that TC 1.13?

01:25:18.400 --> 01:25:26.400
Yes. And PFS-516.

01:25:26.400 --> 01:25:30.400
The first one is on regarding roads and the second is on drainage facilities.

01:25:30.400 --> 01:25:37.400
So it's something that I think we've had a lot of cooperation with the county and in addressing their concerns on development projects.

01:25:37.400 --> 01:25:43.400
And it goes both ways. They send us referrals too.

01:25:43.400 --> 01:25:46.400
Are you accepting the other recommended changes?

01:25:46.400 --> 01:25:56.400
Yeah, those have already been incorporated into the document you have tonight.

01:25:56.400 --> 01:26:00.400
And Mr. Hillman has a couple of comments to make.

01:26:00.400 --> 01:26:04.400
Yes, I've been tasked with two different comments.

01:26:04.400 --> 01:26:12.400
The first is from Mr. Henry with respect to wildland fire mitigation.

01:26:12.400 --> 01:26:25.400
He had indicated that there were multiple pages of fire mitigation despite the fact that the 2008 EIR did not have that mitigation.

01:26:25.400 --> 01:26:39.400
And despite the fact that it's indicated somewhere and I'm not quite sure where that there has not been a large fire in the city of Fortuna or whatever.

01:26:39.400 --> 01:26:50.400
I'm sorry, I don't. I'm not sure whether Mr. Henry was referring to the policy document or the EIR.

01:26:50.400 --> 01:26:55.400
I do know though. Would you like to clarify Mr. Henry which one he's referring to?

01:26:55.400 --> 01:27:04.400
Because the EIR chapter or section 8.6 is wildfire.

01:27:04.400 --> 01:27:14.400
And in the section there's three relevant policies identified from the policy document as each EIR chapter does.

01:27:14.400 --> 01:27:23.400
It identifies the relevant policies and then it does include a one page mitigation measure.

01:27:23.400 --> 01:27:42.400
The mitigation measure requires what amounts to required city adoption of a fire safe ordinance or fire safe regulations more or less modeled on the county's fire safe requirements.

01:27:42.400 --> 01:28:07.400
And the reason that that mitigation measure is identified is because impact 8.6-1 on page 8.6-6 of the EIR concludes that plan implementation could result in a significant wildland fire hazard impact.

01:28:07.400 --> 01:28:15.400
Why does the impact make this conclusion?

01:28:15.400 --> 01:28:28.400
If I can refer you to a figure in the EIR, figure 8-9 on page 8.6-3.

01:28:28.400 --> 01:28:34.400
It's entitled fire hazard severity within state responsibility area.

01:28:34.400 --> 01:28:44.400
It's a Cal fire generated database that we've exerted to cover the proposed planning area.

01:28:44.400 --> 01:28:55.400
Including the city's existing incorporated boundaries and the larger planning area that includes the city sphere of influence and the annexation areas.

01:28:55.400 --> 01:29:15.400
As you can see in the figure, Cal fire identifies roughly 95% of the area outside of the incorporated city boundaries, in other words the urban core of the city, but within the planning area as either a moderate or a high fire risk.

01:29:15.400 --> 01:29:18.400
Moderate high fire severity.

01:29:18.400 --> 01:29:30.400
So we concluded that based on this determination from Cal fire, there is a substantial wildland fire hazard in the slopes surrounding the city.

01:29:30.400 --> 01:29:49.400
And that implementation of the proposed general plan would allow new commercial and other uses, residential uses in particular, to be developed in those areas and hence create a wildland fire hazard impact.

01:29:49.400 --> 01:29:53.400
So that's why that mitigation measure is there.

01:29:53.400 --> 01:30:22.400
I can't answer as to why the 2008 EIR may not have included that mitigation, but I can say that Plan West as the city's CEQA consultant as well as the city's legal counsel and specific commenting agencies on the 2008 draft EIR.

01:30:22.400 --> 01:30:26.400
Did identify the need for mitigation.

01:30:26.400 --> 01:30:29.400
So that's why that mitigation is in place.

01:30:29.400 --> 01:30:31.400
Can I ask you a question on that?

01:30:31.400 --> 01:30:32.400
Sure.

01:30:32.400 --> 01:30:53.400
So, 8.6 wildland fire mitigation 8.6-1 increased exposure to wildland fires and the mitigation measures to add a new ordinance requirement in the city, the Fortuna City Code as follows.

01:30:53.400 --> 01:31:05.400
The responsibility areas of the city shall comply with emergency access, so on and so forth, and then it talks about standards and then it gives a whole litany or a whole list of these particular standards.

01:31:05.400 --> 01:31:19.400
And for those of us who are still confused by this alphabet soup of acronyms and so forth, this one, the SRA, this state responsibility area, that is not inclusive of all parcels in Fortuna.

01:31:19.400 --> 01:31:20.400
Is that correct?

01:31:20.400 --> 01:31:28.400
That's exactly correct if you'll look at figure 8-9, the gray area is the area outside of SRA.

01:31:28.400 --> 01:31:29.400
And where is figure 8-9?

01:31:29.400 --> 01:31:30.400
I'm sorry.

01:31:30.400 --> 01:31:32.400
It's on page 8.6-3.

01:31:32.400 --> 01:31:33.400
8.6-3.

01:31:33.400 --> 01:31:37.400
So I'm a little bit...

01:31:37.400 --> 01:31:38.400
On the environmental...

01:31:38.400 --> 01:31:39.400
In the environmental...

01:31:39.400 --> 01:31:42.400
In the EIR, draft EIR.

01:31:42.400 --> 01:31:45.400
It's in the draft EIR, so it's in one of these documents.

01:31:45.400 --> 01:31:56.400
And that's okay, Stephen, I just wanted to be clear, this isn't a blanket for all parcels in Fortuna, it's the ones that follow under the state responsibility areas.

01:31:56.400 --> 01:31:57.400
That's right.

01:31:57.400 --> 01:32:04.400
And the state responsibility area portion of the planning area is basically, although I don't want to say 100%.

01:32:04.400 --> 01:32:08.400
Do we have any control over what is in the state responsibility area?

01:32:08.400 --> 01:32:10.400
Do we as the city of Fortuna?

01:32:10.400 --> 01:32:18.400
We will or you will or would once you annex those areas.

01:32:18.400 --> 01:32:19.400
How do I say it?

01:32:19.400 --> 01:32:23.400
Do we control what areas are designated as state responsibility areas?

01:32:23.400 --> 01:32:24.400
I think you do.

01:32:24.400 --> 01:32:25.400
Who controls that?

01:32:25.400 --> 01:32:34.400
Well, I think CAL FIRE controls that, but based on this map, it looks like the whole incorporated city is outside of SRA.

01:32:34.400 --> 01:32:45.400
So I would imagine that once an area is annexed to the city, the CAL FIRE would remove the SRA designation for that area and it becomes a city responsibility.

01:32:45.400 --> 01:32:52.400
So once the SRA is removed, then these requirements would not apply then.

01:32:52.400 --> 01:32:53.400
Is that right?

01:32:53.400 --> 01:33:05.400
Once the areas are next to the city, mitigation measure 8.6-1A would start applying.

01:33:05.400 --> 01:33:13.400
8.6-1A.

01:33:13.400 --> 01:33:14.400
Okay.

01:33:14.400 --> 01:33:15.400
Add a new ordinance.

01:33:15.400 --> 01:33:16.400
New subdivision.

01:33:16.400 --> 01:33:25.400
I don't think I'm asking the questions correctly, and so I'm not doing well in that area.

01:33:25.400 --> 01:33:26.400
Let's see.

01:33:26.400 --> 01:33:31.400
New subdivisions proposed within the state responsibility areas of the city.

01:33:31.400 --> 01:33:39.400
The current, maybe it should say current SRA areas of the city, because once those areas are annexed, they won't be SRA anymore.

01:33:39.400 --> 01:33:43.400
It becomes the city's responsibility.

01:33:43.400 --> 01:33:47.400
Okay.

01:33:47.400 --> 01:33:52.400
To make, maybe, let me throw two cents in here.

01:33:52.400 --> 01:34:05.400
A state responsibility area is generally a wildland area, because CDF doesn't respond to structure fires within the city limits unless they're called.

01:34:05.400 --> 01:34:18.400
State responsibility areas are areas outside the current city limits that are generally uninhabited, grasslands, timberlands.

01:34:18.400 --> 01:34:21.400
That are within CAL fires responsibility to respond.

01:34:21.400 --> 01:34:22.400
To respond.

01:34:22.400 --> 01:34:24.400
To wildland fires.

01:34:24.400 --> 01:34:40.400
Okay. So once we annex any of those lands outside the city, and we have a couple, then they become jurisdiction of our volunteer fire department.

01:34:40.400 --> 01:34:41.400
That's correct.

01:34:41.400 --> 01:34:44.400
No, not necessarily so.

01:34:44.400 --> 01:34:46.400
Right. Not necessarily so.

01:34:46.400 --> 01:35:03.400
Since the city does not provide fire services, it is a negotiable issue on annexation of who's going to provide fire protection in the annexed areas that are currently provided by the state.

01:35:03.400 --> 01:35:06.400
An issue that we haven't dealt with yet.

01:35:06.400 --> 01:35:15.400
And the fire, the volunteer fire district, the Fortuna Fire, are concerned that, you know, that's something that's going to have to be dealt with.

01:35:15.400 --> 01:35:22.400
And I want to let you know that's at least at a staff level has been broached, certainly hasn't been resolved.

01:35:22.400 --> 01:35:28.400
So from our perspective, this is an appropriate mitigation at this time.

01:35:28.400 --> 01:35:33.400
And I understand if the mitigation is necessary, I mean, I understand and I get that.

01:35:33.400 --> 01:35:41.400
But I'm just wondering in the future when, say, some of these places that are now under the state responsibility area,

01:35:41.400 --> 01:35:53.400
if there is growth that basically encroaches onto these areas and now they're urban areas and they're really no longer considered areas of risk as far as wildland fires,

01:35:53.400 --> 01:35:58.400
you know, at what point in time, you know, would some of these onerous requirements go away?

01:35:58.400 --> 01:36:05.400
Well, I would imagine at such point in time as the city makes an amendment to the general plan.

01:36:05.400 --> 01:36:17.400
So, you know, I can't venture to guess, you know, when the unincorporated portion of the planning area is going to be filled up with development.

01:36:17.400 --> 01:36:19.400
This is a 20 year plan.

01:36:19.400 --> 01:36:21.400
So let me just ask something real simple then.

01:36:21.400 --> 01:36:29.400
Are there areas in the inside the city limits of Fortuna right now that are in these that are considered state responsibility areas?

01:36:29.400 --> 01:36:31.400
I don't believe so.

01:36:31.400 --> 01:36:41.400
I believe the figure that I'm looking at is showing the incorporated boundary of the city is gray.

01:36:41.400 --> 01:36:44.400
OK. And so that's not in. That's correct. OK.

01:36:44.400 --> 01:36:49.400
So really the mitigation measure has come forth because we're looking at future areas of annexation. That's right.

01:36:49.400 --> 01:36:55.400
OK. And so it only applies to wildland fire areas, not urban areas.

01:36:55.400 --> 01:37:02.400
And it only applies to large subdivisions with the thought being that this mitigation may be too.

01:37:02.400 --> 01:37:09.400
Oppressing on a resident on a one by one residential development.

01:37:09.400 --> 01:37:14.400
If a person comes in and has a piece of property and wants to.

01:37:14.400 --> 01:37:19.400
But I just want to maybe simplify and shorten the discussion a little bit.

01:37:19.400 --> 01:37:32.400
If there are no parcels within our existing city boundaries right now that really are going to follow under these owners requirements, they're probably going to be taken up again when we look at annexing different areas and then specific elements of those sites.

01:37:32.400 --> 01:37:40.400
But right now, as you see it and as our environmental attorney sees it, it sounds like this is a necessary mitigation because we're looking at that's right.

01:37:40.400 --> 01:37:50.400
And in the future, it when an annexation comes up and some type of environmental doc, a CEQA document is prepared for that annexation, hopefully just an initial study MND.

01:37:50.400 --> 01:38:00.400
But who knows for sure? Wildland fires is no longer an issue because the city has a protective policy that mitigates wildland fire impact.

01:38:00.400 --> 01:38:10.400
And it gives one of the things that Mr. Henry brought up that did raise concern for me is that, you know, a suggestion that if he had to follow these requirements, he wouldn't have been able to build his home.

01:38:10.400 --> 01:38:15.400
But it sounds to me like where his home rests wouldn't have been included in this particular.

01:38:15.400 --> 01:38:18.400
It's only applicable to subdivisions.

01:38:18.400 --> 01:38:28.400
This this mitigation measure is subdivision subdivision or no, I just Mr. Henry's if Mr. Henry's inside the city limits and there's no place inside the city limits that is underneath.

01:38:28.400 --> 01:38:32.400
That is that is an SRA, then we would have been good to go.

01:38:32.400 --> 01:38:33.400
That's correct. Okay.

01:38:33.400 --> 01:38:34.400
Thank you. Thank you.

01:38:34.400 --> 01:38:39.400
I'm sorry. Sometimes sometimes I know we really want to get in the details because you know your stuff.

01:38:39.400 --> 01:38:42.400
But okay, thank you.

01:38:42.400 --> 01:38:56.400
With respect to the other issue, I believe Miss Long was concerned about the proposed noise compatibility standards and how they may be applied to existing schools.

01:38:56.400 --> 01:39:08.400
As we know, schools are a good size noise source and I need to make clear that the proposed noise compatibility standards only apply to new uses are not retroactive to existing uses.

01:39:08.400 --> 01:39:16.400
So any existing school would not be subject to the noise compatibility standards.

01:39:16.400 --> 01:39:20.400
And I take this back to Mr. Wiener for a couple more comments.

01:39:20.400 --> 01:39:24.400
So I believe can we go back to that statement he just made?

01:39:24.400 --> 01:39:31.400
Absolutely. Schools would not be required to meet noise compatibility standards.

01:39:31.400 --> 01:39:36.400
Existing schools. If you do have a new school, it would be a new school proposed.

01:39:36.400 --> 01:39:41.400
It would be subject to the noise compatibility standards.

01:39:41.400 --> 01:39:49.400
That's a little hard to take because schools are state business and states generally don't do what the city asks.

01:39:49.400 --> 01:39:56.400
The city has the option to comment on any state project as part of the CEQA process.

01:39:56.400 --> 01:40:06.400
So that would be a comment you would make, which is you're concerned about the noise impact to the existing adjacent noise sensitive use, whether it's a residential use, a hospital, what have you.

01:40:06.400 --> 01:40:15.400
Okay. And I believe the example was simply coming from the example that was made during the comment period, which was what would this apply to an existing school.

01:40:15.400 --> 01:40:33.400
But you are right that with regard to zoning standards, as far as classroom facilities go, while the zoning would apply, a school board could, by a two-thirds vote, override the zoning with regard to classroom facilities, academic facilities, not with regard to non-classroom facilities.

01:40:33.400 --> 01:40:38.400
That may be more detailed than we need this evening.

01:40:38.400 --> 01:40:53.400
With regard to other comments that were made this evening, there were a number of comments made that seemed to address policy issues for the council rather than issues that staff could answer questions, rather than comments that were questions that staff could answer.

01:40:53.400 --> 01:40:57.400
There was one other question, however, that was raised that I did want to address.

01:40:57.400 --> 01:41:08.400
I believe it also came from Ms. Long, according to my notes, and that would be what happens to an existing home that might burn down and might not conform to the standards that are being proposed for the general plan.

01:41:08.400 --> 01:41:25.400
The general plan doesn't address how the city wishes to treat non-conforming uses that are destroyed by act of God, but that would be something that you could take up in your zoning ordinance, and you could choose to say those structures must conform with the zoning,

01:41:25.400 --> 01:41:38.400
or those structures could be non-conforming structures that are destroyed, could be exempt from the zoning if they are reconstructed in the exact same manner that they were built before the destruction.

01:41:38.400 --> 01:41:41.400
That's not something that's dealt with at the general plan level.

01:41:41.400 --> 01:41:49.400
It's something that can be dealt with, probably is currently dealt with in your zoning ordinance and can certainly be changed at any time in your zoning ordinance.

01:41:49.400 --> 01:42:05.400
As a last matter, I think Mr. Avis dealt a little bit with the issue of industrial zoning, or excuse me, I made that mistake too, the industrial land use designation for the mill district.

01:42:05.400 --> 01:42:25.400
And I believe he explained that as staff interprets it, as staff interprets the land use diagram, that certain types of light industrial uses would be permitted within the mill district, and that could be addressed at the time that the Planning Commission and later the City Council takes up the zoning ordinance.

01:42:25.400 --> 01:42:48.400
In addition, staff would place before the council for consideration this evening a potential amendment to the land use diagram, which could be accomplished this evening, which would provide that the land use diagram would be amended for the mill district to provide that in addition to the uses that are currently permitted, that compatible light industrial uses would also be permitted.

01:42:48.400 --> 01:43:06.400
I understand that at one time there was a discussion about this, maybe it was two years ago, and there was direction not to include that, but if the council, based on the testimony that it's heard since that time, wishes to change that direction, we could make that amendment this evening.

01:43:06.400 --> 01:43:11.400
So that's another area where we could make that amendment without changing the environmental impact report.

01:43:11.400 --> 01:43:24.400
Let's kind of get a little consensus here on that. You know, would it, as far as the wording on that, adding the words compatible light industrial uses for the mill district, is that something that's appealing to?

01:43:24.400 --> 01:43:25.400
Yes.

01:43:25.400 --> 01:43:26.400
Okay.

01:43:26.400 --> 01:43:36.400
Yes, when I think of a mixed use development, I see light industrial as one of the components of a mixed use development.

01:43:36.400 --> 01:43:43.400
I like the word compatible. I do like the phraseology of compatible being in there as well.

01:43:43.400 --> 01:43:54.400
And that probably helps the future planning commission and future councils as far as developing the specific zoning ordinance to understand what our intent is.

01:43:54.400 --> 01:44:18.400
One thing our policies have not done is made a distinction between heavy industrial and light industrial, and the Palco site used to be a heavy industrial site, and I'm not advocating that it return to heavy industrial, but I think we need to allow light industrial uses in the mixed use development.

01:44:18.400 --> 01:44:25.400
Okay, and I agree with that. I would like to insert the word compatible though, if that's okay.

01:44:25.400 --> 01:44:36.400
So, if we do get to the point where we make a motion this evening, can staff actually assist us because there's two items now that need to be added to the motion, I would believe.

01:44:36.400 --> 01:44:37.400
Yes.

01:44:37.400 --> 01:44:43.400
Okay, very good. Anything else from staff?

01:44:43.400 --> 01:44:45.400
I think we have covered it all.

01:44:45.400 --> 01:44:50.400
Okay. Then it is on our court for deliberation. I'm just going to make a couple of comments.

01:44:50.400 --> 01:45:03.400
I know that it's been a long process, and we've agonized. We've gone through some very contentious meetings that have created some angst and gnashing of teeth and all of this.

01:45:03.400 --> 01:45:13.400
I do think that everyone who has spoken, everybody who's been involved in the process, has shown up with good intentions and wanting to do a good job.

01:45:13.400 --> 01:45:25.400
Having said that, if we, this is my opinion, I'm one councilman up here talking, having said that, if we continue to wait for community consensus, we will never get the job done.

01:45:25.400 --> 01:45:32.400
We were ultimately elected to make decisions, and we're here to make one tonight.

01:45:32.400 --> 01:45:46.400
We're really here to, you know, I know there's some things as far as smoothing things over and some things that need to be addressed in the future, things that when the Planning Commission and the council have another, either an amendment or a major update,

01:45:46.400 --> 01:46:01.400
there are some things that can probably be done better along the way, and I'm hoping that some of these things can be documented so that 10 years down the road, another council, another Planning Commission does not have to go through the same type of angst that we have experienced over the last month or so.

01:46:01.400 --> 01:46:06.400
We're really here to consider two issues tonight.

01:46:06.400 --> 01:46:10.400
We're really not here to debate how we got here or all that kind of stuff.

01:46:10.400 --> 01:46:15.400
I believe we're here to consider two resolutions.

01:46:15.400 --> 01:46:23.400
The first being, do we believe we can make the appropriate findings and certify the environmental document?

01:46:23.400 --> 01:46:35.400
That's number one, and if we do believe that by a vote of at least a majority of that, then the next step is, do we believe that this policy document is ready to adopt?

01:46:35.400 --> 01:46:43.400
And I think in our deliberation, I'm hoping that we can address the resolutions that we have before us.

01:46:43.400 --> 01:46:44.400
I'm sorry for the long-winded speech.

01:46:44.400 --> 01:46:49.400
I actually asked somebody not to give a long-winded speech, and then here I just gave one.

01:46:49.400 --> 01:46:53.400
So we can start in our deliberations. I don't know who wants to start.

01:46:53.400 --> 01:46:56.400
Ken, do you go ahead.

01:46:56.400 --> 01:47:00.400
You seem to be the one who has an eye for a lot of detail.

01:47:00.400 --> 01:47:06.400
Well, I don't want to go through all the individual findings word by word.

01:47:06.400 --> 01:47:26.400
We talked a little bit about ag land earlier, and that was the only place that I really had a little review because it didn't match up with the specific language in the policy document.

01:47:26.400 --> 01:47:41.400
But I was given enough explanation that the use of the terms prime farmland, prime ag land, all goes back to the meaning of providing some protection for prime ag soils.

01:47:41.400 --> 01:47:52.400
And that terminology is used in this findings document later on.

01:47:52.400 --> 01:48:04.400
I'm comfortable with making the findings that the environmental document is certifiable with the statement of overriding considerations.

01:48:04.400 --> 01:48:06.400
Mel, do you have any?

01:48:06.400 --> 01:48:07.400
No, I'm comfortable.

01:48:07.400 --> 01:48:08.400
Dean?

01:48:08.400 --> 01:48:09.400
I'm ready to make a motion.

01:48:09.400 --> 01:48:13.400
Okay. Well, we'll wait for everyone to say their piece here. Doug?

01:48:13.400 --> 01:48:18.400
On the environmental document, I believe it's probably exactly what we need.

01:48:18.400 --> 01:48:33.400
It seems to be prepared with a large enough scope to cover what we want to do in the next 20 years without any major problems, hopefully.

01:48:33.400 --> 01:48:47.400
It's just hard to live in a small town like this and have to do some of these things because we see what the environment around us and how it's been acting over the years and some of these things that we don't think we need.

01:48:47.400 --> 01:48:50.400
But I guess we got to do it.

01:48:50.400 --> 01:48:55.400
And so, go ahead.

01:48:55.400 --> 01:49:02.400
I'll add my two cents worth and when we first started this we we attempted to have an identity for our city.

01:49:02.400 --> 01:49:04.400
And we definitely are a unique city.

01:49:04.400 --> 01:49:05.400
We look at things differently.

01:49:05.400 --> 01:49:07.400
We look at things differently environmentally.

01:49:07.400 --> 01:49:19.400
We are environmentally friendly, but to have a state organization, a federal organization shove wordage down our throats against our will, it sort of grinds us the wrong way.

01:49:19.400 --> 01:49:24.400
And that's, I think, been the problem for us to have to put up with that.

01:49:24.400 --> 01:49:26.400
Be proactive, to be protecting ourselves.

01:49:26.400 --> 01:49:38.400
Yes, there's wordage that has to be put into this PIR so that we eliminate as many potential contests in court to make it as correct as possible.

01:49:38.400 --> 01:49:43.400
It's not a perfect document, but it's as good as we can possibly get by human factor.

01:49:43.400 --> 01:49:47.400
And I'm very, very proud of what the finished product is.

01:49:47.400 --> 01:49:59.400
I also appreciate what efforts gone into it from all the people that have represented the city, the planning commission, and the staff, and us having to put through this.

01:49:59.400 --> 01:50:05.400
Sometimes grumbling and going, oh my god, another 300 pages to have to look through.

01:50:05.400 --> 01:50:09.400
But we're here tonight to be able to get to the culmination of this.

01:50:09.400 --> 01:50:18.400
So I'd be honored to make a motion to adopt resolution 2010-45 and read it by title only.

01:50:18.400 --> 01:50:21.400
I'll second the motion.

01:50:21.400 --> 01:50:27.400
There's been a motion and a second to adopt resolution 2010-45.

01:50:27.400 --> 01:50:49.400
And it reads, a resolution of the city council of the city of Fortuna certifying the final program environmental impact report for the 2030 general plan update, adopting findings, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

01:50:49.400 --> 01:50:51.400
Are there any further deliberations?

01:50:51.400 --> 01:50:53.400
So roll call vote.

01:50:53.400 --> 01:50:55.400
Councilman Burde?

01:50:55.400 --> 01:50:56.400
Yes.

01:50:56.400 --> 01:50:57.400
Councilman Glazer?

01:50:57.400 --> 01:50:58.400
Yes ma'am.

01:50:58.400 --> 01:50:59.400
Councilman Zanzi?

01:50:59.400 --> 01:51:00.400
Yes.

01:51:00.400 --> 01:51:01.400
Mayor Pro Temstrell?

01:51:01.400 --> 01:51:02.400
Yes.

01:51:02.400 --> 01:51:03.400
Mayor Whitchurch?

01:51:03.400 --> 01:51:07.400
Yes.

01:51:07.400 --> 01:51:11.400
And now on to the policy document itself.

01:51:11.400 --> 01:51:16.400
And by the way, I think there was some excellent dialogue and some productive, some productive work even done tonight.

01:51:16.400 --> 01:51:23.400
So thank you.

01:51:23.400 --> 01:51:36.400
Well if you're looking for a motion, I'll move to adopt resolution 2010-46 with two.

01:51:36.400 --> 01:52:00.400
I would suggest that the motion be to adopt, as you indicated, adopt resolution 2010-46 to approve the general plan with two changes. One to policy HS-5.3 as previously noted in the record. And then secondly to revise the land use diagram to permit compatible light industrial uses in the mill district area.

01:52:00.400 --> 01:52:01.400
Mill district.

01:52:01.400 --> 01:52:03.400
So moved Mr. Mayor.

01:52:03.400 --> 01:52:10.400
Second the motion.

01:52:10.400 --> 01:52:15.400
If I wasn't the mayor you'd have taken the words right out of my mouth.

01:52:15.400 --> 01:52:17.400
Okay.

01:52:17.400 --> 01:52:23.400
There's a motion to adopt resolution 2010-46.

01:52:23.400 --> 01:52:36.400
It is a resolution, excuse me, let me get to the right one. It is a resolution of the Council of the City of Fortuna adopting the 2030 Fortuna general plan update with the two changes as noted.

01:52:36.400 --> 01:52:39.400
Any further deliberation?

01:52:39.400 --> 01:52:40.400
And that too is a roll call vote.

01:52:40.400 --> 01:52:41.400
Councilman Verdy?

01:52:41.400 --> 01:52:42.400
Yes.

01:52:42.400 --> 01:52:43.400
Councilman Glazer?

01:52:43.400 --> 01:52:44.400
Yes ma'am.

01:52:44.400 --> 01:52:45.400
Councilman Zanzi?

01:52:45.400 --> 01:52:46.400
Yes.

01:52:46.400 --> 01:52:48.400
Mayor Pro Temstrell?

01:52:48.400 --> 01:52:58.400
Before I vote I'd like to say that this is just a general plan and we are going to work very hard to get it the way we like it as we go on because plans can be updated.

01:52:58.400 --> 01:53:06.400
My definition of success from years ago when I took classes was the progressive realization of worthwhile personal goals.

01:53:06.400 --> 01:53:10.400
So it has to be a progressive progress, a process that we're going to go through.

01:53:10.400 --> 01:53:13.400
So with that I'm going to vote yes.

01:53:13.400 --> 01:53:14.400
Mayor Whitchurch?

01:53:14.400 --> 01:53:15.400
Yes.

01:53:15.400 --> 01:53:18.400
And that motion is carried.

01:53:18.400 --> 01:53:26.400
I want to personally congratulate and thank, I can't express my appreciation enough of everybody who's been involved in this process.

01:53:26.400 --> 01:53:29.400
And there are a lot of good things to come to this.

01:53:29.400 --> 01:53:42.400
I want to challenge the future Planning Commission and challenge the future City Council that when you get into zoning and other city ordinances in dealing with this general plan, don't hesitate.

01:53:42.400 --> 01:53:49.400
You find weaknesses, point them out because this thing can be refined and I think it's probably going to be in the next 18 months.

01:53:49.400 --> 01:53:51.400
This has been an arduous process though.

01:53:51.400 --> 01:53:55.400
Congratulations and this is a big deal for the City of Fortuna.

01:53:55.400 --> 01:53:57.400
Thank you.

01:53:57.400 --> 01:53:58.400
With that, no other business.

01:53:58.400 --> 01:54:13.400
We are adjourned.

01:54:28.400 --> 01:54:55.400
Thank you.