October fourteenth two thousand and ten Please D.M.
For the like salute
.
His
.
OK When the roll call Commissioner Henri. Commissioner along their mission to go on
here Thomas Simi Air National wells here Michelle been there all right the
first thing we're going to do are all comments from the public members of the
public may be heard on any item of interest not on the gender speakers addressing
the commission will be limited to three minutes per speaker be advised that by law
the commission is not able to deliberate or take action on issues presented during
oral comments is there anyone in the crowd that would like to speak on something
that's not on tonight's agenda No All right so we're going to move to the first and
only order of business which is the Planning Commission recommendation of the city
council concerning the adoption of the denial plan the general plan update adoption
of Resolution number P.
Dash one one one seven A or P dash one one one
seven B.
Dash twenty Tim lez. But you have something to say
Yes I'd like to just start the preamble. The history is stated in
a staff report but I what we have provided to you tonight on your diocese is the
action of the city council last night this is the resolution that the city council
adopted last night we did not I noticed the date hasn't sorted but as you can see
the last paragraph is and I believe I wasn't sure of all of you had an opportunity
to see this so I thought it was important to bring this forward before we started
the conversation from staff that the City Council has set
a deadline for the Planning Commission to make
a recommendation on the proposed general plan update submitted to the planning
commission of
a joint planning commission city council meeting on October eleventh the deadline
that they have provided you is October fourteenth two thousand and ten which is
today. And the point of that resolution which it goes up in the form or element
that if no action is taken by the Planning Commission action or shall be deemed as
a recommendation or approval of the proposed general plan amendment. And the
council deliberated that last night and you can see the vote was a was
a four one vote the city council and so the point of doing that particular start up
on this was to indicate to us
a planning commission that indeed the city council. Has set some has set
a thank Zack deadline for you to provide some action to them so they can take up
the general plan so at this time I'll turn it over to Liz to provide the staff
report to you. Thank you plain and I'm actually going to turn it over to Stephen
who has. The majority of the comments as an introduction
. Thank you Thank you members of the. Planning Commission
this is sort of a continuation from the meeting that we held
a couple of nights ago so I won't repeat the language
.
This is pain
a difficult meeting and I want to tell you that the
object I think that we all have is to provide the city with what is first and
foremost
a legal document the general plan is required by the state of California for us to
prepare. The general plan by its nature contains two types of
policy there are those policies that were developed from the community meetings
where we got together and talked about what if we want to see in our community how
do we want to grow what kind of housing do we want to have what kind of parks to
want to have what kind of recreational amenities we want to have how do we want the
city to develop. And that's the part that people think about that they like
generally. But hand in hand with that and the state has said that with that
development comes
a responsibility to make sure that we don't create impacts to the environment and
they've established
a series of standards and guidelines that get passed down that we have to deal with
. And I think that that is where the the rub has been none of us like to
feel that we have. Our lives that are regulated through policies that we have not
promulgated ourselves those of us who own property and world areas are incensed at
a lot of the regulations the requirements that may be appropriate for men TECO or
southern California but that somehow don't seem to apply here. But as
a professional it's my obligation to provide you and the residents of the city
with
a document that is legally defensible and that meets the standards of the state.
One of the things that really drove the development of having
a general plan was the desire to reuse the mill site or to
use the mill site. There was a proposal for
a large retail development to go out there there's also been expressed desire to
bring back industry in either of those cases there were
people outside the city who would just as soon not see Fortuna develop they would
prefer that we not be the ones who garner tax dollars or prefer that we not be the
ones who are able to provide job sites for people when
a project comes forward on that we're there are large projects we're not going to
see people climbing trees we're not going to see people changing themselves to
a fence they will ring their lawyers with
a lawsuit and charge the general plan is inadequate and the cold up
development in the long run. So my sense my obligation is to
provide you with
a document that allows the city to develop as unfettered as possible and to include
enough safeguards so that when local developers or outside developers come into the
city but
a lot of the environmental review has been taken care of and reduce and minimize
how much furthers they have to go through to take care of that. And I see that as
an obligation that we have been trying to fulfill that has meant that we have added
language to the document that some of us find unpalatable for distasteful.
But it's all there for
a particular reason and it's not because we want to see things but it's because
without some of that language we become vulnerable how the city applies
to general plan is done through the zoning code that's the law but policies in the
general plan set the framework for the city it's
a document that we can hold up and say these are the things that we take into
consideration when we develop our city but it's the application of the zoning code
in the developer of the zoning code that becomes the codified law that implements
what we're going to do when those those decisions have yet to be made. There was
a lot of discussion about. Some of the things in the new blue ink and I can assure
you that these are are there is for it for
a purpose. And I think that.
They said I think that's really been the real bone of contention that there was
frustration at not understanding how and why some of those things were put into
place. At this point
we've we have
a document which we feel meets the legal standard for the state best we have
provided to you and are asking you to then pass on to the city council it is
intended not to disable the city's ability to develop but rather to allow it to
develop. Its new it contains policy language that is different but it is not
intended to hobble it is and it's intended to be
a proactive document that allows development took to occur in the future
it's for the long term benefit of the city and. So with that I
will finish my comments and just encourage you to take whatever action you feel is
appropriate. We have provided you with two resolutions to give you some choice in
the matter. The first resolution or one of the resolutions that you have is the
same one that you saw the other evening which contains
a series of recommendations. To the city council for policy language changes that
you would like to see and that staff has carried forward with comments. And
a second resolution is
a resolution in which you decide that based upon your interpretations of the policy
document or your feelings of of the policy language that this general play is not
appropriate for the city of Fortuna and that you would recommend that it not be
adopted and that choice becomes yours so with that I'll conclude my remarks thank
you very much. That's OK and
to any commissioners have any questions or comments for city staff before we open
up the public hearing I do. First of all I've lived in
Fortuna about thirty three years I'm very proud to live in such
a good town and I'm very proud to be on such
a good commission I'm think that we did
a lot of hard work working on this general plan and I'm proud of the work that we
did get done and I am disappointed that we weren't able to finish our job I don't
think everything that we worked on is going forward so I am
a little bit disappointed at that I would have liked to have had another meeting to
move this on but I. Don't always get what I wanted yes. Hopefully the next
next thing we work on one can have better communication you know so there isn't
things like this that happened but I do want to thank my fellow commissioners
because I think we worked very hard on this and I think we did
a very good job for what is going forward. Also I have two questions on the
resolution. It says that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the E I R
I've never seen the E.R.
So I I don't know why this is in here I haven't reviewed it I don't think we've
ever had
a meeting on the E I R or reviewed it and my next one is. It
says that we held a public hearing for this which is required and when did we have
a public hearing. Thank you for your questions
first Bob like to concur with you I agree that the Planning Commission did spend
a lot of time and did
a lot of hard work in reviewing the document. And that is appreciated
Secondly the E.R.
Was delivered I think by compact disc with
a copy of the executive summary there was
a memo that went with that that indicated that you would not be required to our
reviewer from my first damn point to recommending it to the city council but it was
given to us information so that you could at least see but the document was there
and see how it affects the. Just how it's worded. You can certainly since
you did not look at it as a commission officially you can simply remove that as
a as one of the findings there's no problem doing that. And the public hearing that
was held was the public hearing that was held on Monday the eleventh is was the
public hearing for the you know for the general plan kind of the way I see that
public hearing that was on our public hearing the City Council opened it everything
was all the questions and everything were dressed to the mayor and city council
closed it so how could that be
a party commission hearing it was noted noticed as a as
a joint session joint public hearing between the two between the two bodies. That
was how it was done. OK but we still haven't had our own public carrier aren't we
required to have
a public hearing that was the public carry It was sort of the same process that you
used when you evaluated and then made
a recommendation on the housing element OK.
Anybody else. I attended
a meeting last night city council and looked up the California government code that
was referenced by the city attorney and. It's pretty big but it
appears to me that only items referred back to the Planning Commission are subject
to the forty five day deadline and or whatever time limit is set by the city
council. I'll just read it here what does what Code six five three five six The
California California Code says it's the legislative body sole adopt or amend
a general plan by resolution resolution which resolutions will be adopted by the
affirmative vote of not less than
a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The body may approve
modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission if any However
any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously
considered by the commission during its hearings so first be referred to the
Planning Commission for its recommendation the failure of the commission to report
within forty five calendar days after the reference or within the time set by the
legislative body shall be deemed
a recommendation for approval to be this clearly says that anything they refer back
to us has that forty five day limit or the time limit they said not the general
plan as we stand today. And I can if anybody wants to read this how
about it. So I don't think we're forced to make
a decision tonight I think if I think we can go back and discuss this more if we
wish to I'll leave it at that for now. You.
Else thank you for doing that Andy that's been one of my concerns throughout this
process is that there's
a difference between what we're being told and what is in fact occurring OK That's
number one number two we were given this package papers which I've never seen
before I don't know whether anybody else has and they weren't even discussed in the
opening remarks I'd like to know what we're supposed to do at least.
Thank you very much. The code section that Mr
Elving referred to is in the government code and if an action was referred to you
under those circumstances then that government code would apply I believe what
happened last night was that the City Council proposed or took its own person or
ordinance for the city's action. So it's not the government code that is strictly
being being applied but rather the the City Council's action of last night that is
that is in effect the items on the diocese. Were actually items
which were provided to you last year during the course of
your discussions of chapters five and eight there were questions about why they
were in there and one and the Commission asked for the legal justification for
putting
a blue ink policy in the dip in those two chapters and that was sort of them the
issue the the this appeared to be the over regulation type of policy that people
were concerned about. That handout was provided to you at that time at your
request. To assist you in understanding how and why that language was there and we
simply are providing to you this evening as
a reference if that if that matter came up we wanted to have that available for you
. Thank you to welcome. Excuse me for just
a minute. The city council was directed by the attorney last night and when he
spoke he specifically referenced three government codes what I read and two other
one thing to say nothing about it at night as well make that clear but.
Anybody else have any comments OK at this time we're going to open the public
hearing for public comment so anybody would like to come forward please state your
name where you live try and keep it at three minutes if you can.
Smith nine fifty four main street I'm here representing you are disposal.
You have very weighty things before you tonight and I feel badly to bring something
like this before that is not of the significance of the other issues you're dealing
with but it's very important to my client and this is the form that we have you
will disposal screens for station it is located in the city right now and it's in
a light industrial zone of the other side of the road in the county is where the
. Sea indeed yard and other activities are conducted that's also light industrial
The I'm in this in the general plan are going to re going to give
a new land use designation to these areas of the river walk drive there's
a tremendous concern that this will instantly turn these sites into
nonconforming uses and keep
a will be mixed banded changed or modified as needs require.
Because of that concern I have been in the process of discussing it with staff for
about two years in about six months ago. In
a series of e-mails with the city manager we came up with
a modification that this I was told staff was considering. The issue
is that the river walk ride district district makes something called Crazy public
uses
a permitted use Prince we permitted use but it doesn't define what that means but
I have sought to do is what's shown in red on the page that you have in front of
you and that is to insert
a meaning that will give my client comfort now the problem is that the position of
staff has taken is to not insert this and let this all be handled
in the zoning process with the idea being that as Zone
a zone will then be assigned to it that allows us activity. But when I was
a young man Ronald Reagan said trust but verify and as I'm here trying to do
everybody is saying that this is not a problem don't worry about it but there is
a problem and the problem is that staff are saying that this term quasar
a public use will include my clients activities there are two problems that the
first is that staffs opinion will it be is not relevant what's important and what's
relevant is with the legislative bodies think it means to take action on it and I
have no guarantee without a legislative body taking action on something that clues
a definition that they're looking at this the same way the second thing which is an
even bigger problem is that this would leave without this definition of leave the
issue open and on resolved until
a year from now two years from now the city gets around to having new conforming
zoning ordinances Well look the thing that worries me about that is
a year from now two years from now three years now how do I know who's going to be
here. How do I know that the people who are providing assurances now are going to
be here to provide assurances then. So I'm trying to do is I'm trying to trust the
city I'm trying to trust staff but the same time I have to verify that there is not
a problem and there is no good reason that I can think of not to insert this
meaning into the definition of the land use description there
is no good reason not to do that if this is what everybody agrees they want to have
happen and I call upon you to do that tonight or to recommend it tonight thank you
there's any questions I can answer thank you
.
Anybody else. All right
sixteen sixteen Newberg road. Is that
a couple comments you know. I really hate it when government uses the fear of
lawsuits as an excuse to force
a compliance to you know some regulations in this case that people don't agree with
you know when you really get into looking at lawsuits you need to ask one of the
questions well how many lawsuits have there been. And then you need to go further
and say well let's look at some of these lawsuits and see what they actually
involved and I think what you would find that many of them would never occur here
in humble County or in Fortuna they are some bizarre case where somebody did really
something stupid and should have been sued and was and that's the case for most of
those so I just it just bothers me when people use this fear lawsuits as a as
a. As
a hammer to get things get their way. You know I think this is probably a kind of
a done deal but what's going to happen next in this process is we're going to have
to modify and go over our midst of all codes and make sure that they're compliant
and consistent with the general plan and there are fourteen of them are. The ones
that are probably be most contentious AR fifteen which is the building and
construction section and sixteen is subdivisions and seventeen is going to be
really fun that's designing. And once we get to zoning I don't know what staff is
going to do I could see them going out and spending taxpayer monies and hiring
consultants to go over these code so you guys don't have to worry about it and then
have
a meeting like this and get it approved Well I'm hoping that we can sit down like
we were supposed to do with the public and have discussions and workshops and come
to some agreement on what the zoning codes should say and I'm sure staff going to
tell us that oh you can't write that zoning code like that because that isn't
consistent with the general plan that we've adopted Well I hope you guys are strong
enough that you ignore that because and stick to your guns and right as
a winning coach the way you want them and if we have to revise
a general plan that's what staff has said don't worry we can revise this general
plan four times
a year it should be easy should be Oh let's see what
else. I guess that's why I'm really my only comment I know you guys can figure
these codes out the zoning codes and. The staff me try to pit you
know the poor city against us I don't know evil developers I guess for a lack of
a better term. I know you can see through that and you can. Pick out what's
reasonable and what's fair and what just did you really need Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody out
.
Resident of Fortuna. So four council members have put you in an awkward position
and they have sent you
a message that says it does not matter whether or not you are satisfied with the
general plan update that will fell will affect the citizens of Fortuna for the next
twenty years or if you still have some questions or would like clarifications you
will right now tonight in the recommend are not recommend approval of this policy
document. By doing this they have taken away your voice and you need to let them
know that this is wrong why do we have
a planning commission to review planning issues which to me would include the
general plan if the council is not listening and not letting you follow through
with your job. Everything stopped when the Planning Commission and the public asked
for legal justifications for items that staff continues to insist must be in the
plan you still have not received the information that was requested fifteen months
ago. The last Planning Commission meeting was on July twenty eighth two thousand
and nine commissioner was not in attendance at that meeting the rest of you all of
you expressed concerns regarding the tone of the content and the implication that
items were set by state law but are actually someone's opinion I watched the entire
meeting on access humble today and none of you felt comfortable with the document.
Duane Rinky and Stephen Davis both promised to come back with the justifications
for the items you were concerned with and have another meeting after much
discussion Chairman Thomas E.
And you finally changed his vote to move forward with the draft yaar. That was the
motion that was made to move forward with the draft Yar staff was to bring back
more information
a justification for all items you had concerns about. Chairman Thomas Kean the end
of the meeting saying that you have said it's going to come back and I know it will
there are things in here we don't like and if it can in turn used to be in here
then there will be
a big problem doing in Stephen promised. That it would come back to you in
a month to give you the answers that you were looking for staff is not being held
accountable for the promises that they made or the process they committed to I
think that the council has made
a huge mistake if I were on the council I would not want
a general plan that the Planning Commission was not comfortable with the Planning
Commission was doing an outstanding job I'm asking you not to give in now being
tired of the whole thing is not
a reason to give up or recommended I think you need to stand your ground until you
get the information you have asked for understand it and are satisfied that you are
doing the right thing for the citizens of Fortuna if you are not going to get that
information because the council has now placed you in
a position that tonight you have to decide then you should not recommend the
adoption of the general plan. I hope that each of you have actually read the entire
document noted all the new changes the lesions and additions compared to what was
asked for it took me hours to do this and I am certain you did not get what you
asked for after fifteen months without any meetings suddenly this update has to be
approved now why some of the council members said they won't rushing it after all
it's been five years well that's five years and two more months or five years and
three more months you know it has to be done now it has to be done before the
election because they are concerned that someone's going to get on the council that
doesn't approve of what they've done or the general plan policy that is wrong and
I'm asking you guys not to recommend it thanks. Thank you
.
Every August seventh citizen of fourteen A As fate would have it I locked my keys
in the car and it's up at
a house I was showing with all the stuff I wanted to say so you guys are really
lucky tonight but. I'd also like to say that last night Stephen Davis took
a bullet for the team he said that. You guys did not he felt that you had
adequate time and that at the last meeting you didn't really ask to have
a proper back. And you did and when Reg You said you would have it within two
months that there would be another meaning and that you needed to send the I.R.
On and if you didn't he would now I want to and I'm
sure Stephen said that because he didn't listen to the tape I know that was listen
to the tape I don't know if doing this into it again but I was told that was listen
to it.
Fifteen three years ago three years ago where church and John Campbell came to my
office and they told me along with several other people and some of those people
are in this room tonight that the general plan that you have in front of you today
which has not changed dogs or councilman Doug Stroud said that last night you have
the same policy you had three years ago only were probably another eight hundred
thousand into it or I mean I have no clue how much because I take that back I don't
know how much it cost but I know it's cost
a lot. But Doc's relative he adequately said it didn't feel right Pat what
church and John Campbell told me and several other people that they didn't like the
policy and that it did not represent the people of Fortuna and the policy that you
are going to recommend I'm sure and send on does not represent the citizens of
Fortuna it represents fishing game if it records to fans and
recommends and protects every legislative body in the state of California and the
federal government and does nothing for the citizens of this community you asked to
have
a brought back it was never brought back whatever you guys are going to do you're
going to do it but. In my opinion you haven't finished
and the reason why we spent all those months all those meetings all those hours I
was in here with you was because it was sent back to you to better define and
better change and make it feel more like
a policy that was fit for this city and I'm telling you that the policy that we're
church the mayor of this city is well into except right now is not one bit
different than the document that he didn't like three years ago THANK YOU
THANK YOU Hiba yelps
.
I would ask that you know like her and you might I would ask that you consider two
separate things one is the process would have and I also looked at the tape
and the process that has happened to you is not acceptable and then I went to look
at the policy and. Whatever Mr Richards said
before now there are people in this community that feel comfortable with this plan
so it's the policy itself his is perhaps up for grabs here
. So I just ask you to separate the process from the policy
and at the tape for the tape I thought that I heard that there was only two
chapters that you were still uncomfortable with now I don't know what happened in
terms of the E.R.
To the other chapters but in the tape I thought I heard that you were comfortable
with all of it that you had been through everything except for that he was five and
eight so if you are come to with that I would I would ask you to confirm that
although you've you know obviously said you had seen me so I don't know if it's
change that but that's all I'd like to say thank you thank you
. But he felt
OK this time we're going to close the public comment we're going to turn it over
the Commission so if the commission would like to ask any further questions the
staff if they would like to make a statement
a comment. I certainly have some to say but I'll wait we've been working
on this for five years so I think it is imperative that we all at least state what
we're thinking right now one way or the other so anyone can start whenever they
want.
And. I came into Monday night's meeting thinking I had studied the policy
document and would vote for recommending the City Council adopt it after listening
to Commissioner albums and Commissioner golems comments I concluded additional
analysis should be done that was my reason for moving to
a chair. After Monday's meeting I reviewed the video of the July twenty eighth two
thousand and nine Planning Commission meeting and gave additional thought to the
contents of chapters five an A. M July twenty eighth we were told approval of the
policy document was desired before staff could begin work on earth was desired
before staff began work on. It and that meetings on chapters five and eight would
take place before making
a recommendation to the council those meetings have not occurred I fully concur
with what Sue long said. Since there are serious policy issues in Chapters five and
need to be discussed I think we should not recommend the City Council adopt
a policy document until meetings of the meetings are held in those chapters there
is an additional point I would like to make. The decision we made tonight is not
just
a recommendation to the council it is also an indication of how we expect the Planning
Commission to operate if you believe as I do that when decisions of this commission
are made with an understanding that event certain amounts will occur then those
events should take place. Thank you.
Anybody else.
Come on I know you all want to say something and the
I'm going to go last.
Before Monday night's meeting I reviewed the tape from July two thousand I mean.
And. I was present what I saw what I heard and same thing again
and it was very clear. That we were not going to switch up or saliva eight to
cool German Thomas in any order but so I would like the public record I'm not
comfortable because we haven't finished chapters five and eight and I know you said
it's going to come back and I know it will that was it three hours six minutes into
the meeting. They never came back and I have
a big problem with that we didn't finish reviewing the document the document isn't
. Now complete and how can we as the Planning Commission do our job
and soon this on to the plate to the city council if it's not complete That's
. Just can't understand that and then. Last night
to be told we have to do this today that stinks something stinks.
I'm not sure what or why the big rush all of
a sudden but based on the codes that the attorneys bought it off last night
that they can't even do that and so I'm tempted to make no recommendation of all
the city council night. And instead suggest that we finish working on this document
because right now this document is in the city for two another I know and that I
grew up in and I chose to come back and live in and raise my family in.
Thank you. Can someone answer how how this went on for
fifteen months we had no meetings and then all of the sudden we have to get this
passed right now I don't understand what would have been the big deal one more
meeting. Why we couldn't have had one more meeting to finish this that has to be
done now I don't understand that this is so important to our city it just
makes absolutely no sense to me Can someone please explain that to me.
Ideally it should have come back to you say that it should have come back to you
and we've all talked about that and we do feel like if we all agree that it should
have come back to you. One of the reasons that we created this package that we gave
to the council last night that's why you hadn't seen it it's the one that starts
with the schedule. And then it includes the minutes of some of the meetings that
we've been talking about and the staff reports. After the Monday night council
meeting I did go back and look at the general point is this schedule of where we've
been in every single meaning that we've had is listed on this table and I had been
keeping this up anyway I just happen to have it and I pulled it out again to remind
myself. And I do believe even though we should have come back to chapter five and
eight and wrapped it up with the Planning Commission. I do believe that we've had
a good process from the very beginning and we had the the five community workshops
where we got
a lot of information reams of information from the public and that is what it meant
to your base their original policy document on that policy document was as you can
see there were numerous meetings with the Planning Commission and with the council
and that went on for two years through two thousand and seven and we had
a policy document that ended up going to we prepared and here you are on that so
you know even though people weren't satisfied with it it was still something that
the council sort of blast and you know I'm sort of you know with hesitation and I
can tell you that. Staff wasn't satisfied with it either but I think that's
a reflection of the fact that you know the general plan isn't going to please
everybody because it's not written by one person it's written by the public and
staff and the Planning Commission and the council so no one is happy with the
general plan and I that's probably true in every community not just this one and
one of the reasons that we updated general plan is because not only values change
but the regulatory framework changes and staff doesn't make the regulations but
unfortunately our job is that we have to implement them so we do get looked at as
you know anti development anti. You know property rights but we're not.
So then as you can see there were additional meetings with the council and then the
twelve meetings with the Planning Commission last year and one of the things that
is in this packet are the you know the justifications for the changes I wanted to
go back at the end of two thousand and seven. After that you know I was circulated
we had a R.
And the comments and the policy document reviewed by this sequel attorney he's very
well qualified if you look at is qualifications he's
a trainer you know he's got twenty plus years of experience just in this area where
we we don't it's not something that the normal stuff person works on very often so
he is the one who said this is where your document is
a week these are the things that will fix it and make it so you know so it's not
challenge and you know it's the worst censors in fact that the mill district you
know one of the city's policies or values is that that gets developed and we want
to support that So those are the I mean that's that's sort of
the you know what we took from those twelve meetings. Chapters five and eight
were if you look at the minutes and the staff report were reviewed. On July second
at that meeting July fourteenth and July twenty eighth so those chapters were
looked at your comments are in the packet Stephen you know we gave to the Council
on Monday night I know they weren't complete but legally we looked at what was what
your comments were and what the recommendations of attorney were and and felt that
those things that you know the things that were in there needed to stay so in that
in that regard we felt like you know there really wasn't any more room for changes
so that's why we sort of just moved on and we should have come back and wrap things
up guys. That still didn't answer my
question why the big rush to have it passed now that the Council's
direction the councils the one that chose to you know working
with the attorney. Councils on who chose to give it the short deadline
so the council can come in before we're finished with the project and just take it
from us so is the legislative body the point commission is the point body and we're
just now. Thank you.
Liz I agree we did have
a good process but it wasn't complete and what's the point of doing anything good
if we don't complete the job. You're right we did briefly discuss Japers five and
eight when we got bogged down we decided to go back to him. And my last point if
everybody's unsatisfied with this general plan maybe there's something wrong with
it maybe we do need to go back and look at it again if there's this much contention
over it. Maybe maybe it's not right maybe it's not the right thing
.
I've got
a question for the commissioners five in an eight What is it that you don't like
about Feyerick is there anything in particular that you're on south side with or
just the process of not being able to. Go all route
a little closer than we did start its number the process yes we started and we
never finished them but we got bogged down was jackers big time I thought and I
think if anybody else would be or disagree. And we didn't finish it but is there
anything in particular it's been several months and so I really studied Japanese
five and eight but I know what I did there was
a lot of things in that. Well the answer to
COMMISSIONER Well this question. I get bothered that we're holding the commission
to
a different standard than we're holding the staff to OK we're you're asking for specifics
from commission of members and we have not gotten the specifics from the staff yet
I heard again from
a list tonight the general term. Requirements I have not heard
in fifteen months the specific relationship of the legal requirements to lines
in the policy document until I hear that I will not be satisfied I cannot take
generalities one of the things I try to point out earlier is there is
a credibility issue when you tell us that we're going to meet again and for fifteen
months we don't meet it is time to talk specifics and not generalities.
Speaking of the legality brought this up through four times already but is there
any legal precedence as to what the city council's asking us to do as far as
deciding tonight what our recommendation is but. I don't think staff has to answer
that N.D.
Tonight they have an attorney on staff he's advised them this is what's in front of
us we can't keep asking this question we have to as
a commission at some point believe what they have told us from their
attorney is accurate we're not that we're not the jury of that but I have something
to say here in
a minute but let's we can ask them that they have told us this is what's before us
not the legality of it we're not attorneys we're not judges we don't understand
legislative law the city has an attorney on staff we're told that this is what we
have to do now saying we have to do it they're not going to answer that question.
I don't expect him to with the city tonight here but I that's I was he was here.
When else.
So thank you for the comments you were very articulate and thank you also for
reminding me of that meeting that that I was at and I had forgotten about
. I do recall now very clearly my
. Very serious concerns over the document and
the dilemma that I'm facing here as I listen to everybody and evaluate it I've come
to
a place where I am now because I have been in public service for so long and I know
how these things can go I am now wearing weighing very carefully. What
the outcome may be should we not approve the plan and what the ramifications of
that may be versus approving the plan and retaining some level of of
control over with the process that's following. Your comment
two years three years if it takes that long we may not be here maybe the wrong
people. I am convinced that this commission would take that next task very
seriously and holding the Kelso and the staff accountable for the promises that
have been made about the next step in the process so that's what I'm that's what
I'm weighing at this point. So Martin I have
a question for you and I'm not quite clear on what you meant by the earlier
statement that we have to take. The generalization that the lawyer says we take the
whole document without having any specifics can you speak to that again sure I'll
go ahead and give my statement now and I'll try and answer that in my statement if
not you can react to the question five years ago we started this general plan
update some of the members that are on here I think were on your own we started
five years ago some came on as commissions do they come and go some of not been on
the whole time I know when we started that about
a year in I remember telling my family that I was going to leave the Planning
Commission is soon as the general plan was updated and I thought it would honestly
take about one more year so it's been five years that's how long we've been working
on this I think what we're looking at here for me it's two things the process
versus the document we went through a process that's taken five years and we have
a document that's in front of us the members of the commission and city staff know
myself I have been so uncomfortable with this process now I like Andy said there
were
a lot of good things with the process early on we had great input from the community
we had great community workshops we did
a lot of good work I had have had many problems and when can attest at these
meetings right here back and forth almost yelling at each other about the process
and the role of the Planning Commission I've always felt concerned I've felt that
the Planning Commission has been marginalized.
You know the joint meetings with the city council I've always been opposed to
because I feel that marginalizes a planning commission when it's
a joint meeting of the city council and the Planning Commission the city council
sets up here the planning commissions down there and although it's your meeting too
it's really not because people know who the decision makers are it's the city
council and I just have never felt those meetings lead to us doing what we have
been tasked to do. So the process has been to me at times very ugly and I don't
want to sit up here and try and be cute but you know they say
a bill being made in Congress is kind of like sausage being made and that's kind of
what we've watched year but I make sausage every year and it's
a lot cleaner than this has been fifteen months ago we had our last meeting on on
the general plan update and the Sue quoting me. Andy those
are those are all true and I can also tell you that in the last fifteen months
myself. Have asked different members of staff hey what's going on with the general
plan update you know every couple months what's going on what's going on oh we're
working on it and I know other members of the commission I'm sure have asked also
what's going on and then you tend to forget about it you know we all have our busy
lives we're just up here you know we're not politicians we all have families and
lives and we're to stop here trying to do what we think is best for this city and
so you know I was shocked when I was told it was fifteen months I couldn't believe
that much time it went by I thought it was six. But that's how much time went by
and I'll just throw it out there I mean I mean we might as well say it about three
weeks ago and I haven't talked to Tammy about this per se but three weeks ago I
knew there was going to be
a meeting on the general plan update and at first I'm like wow we're finally going
to have
a meaning. And I was driving home from work and about three seconds later I just
went wait a minute there is an election very soon and you don't have to be
a rocket scientist to understand why we're here why there's
a meeting why they want to hear OK There could be
a brand new council and that council may or may not
say I don't like anything about this general plan we're starting over and I think
there's of maybe
a fear of that I'm not I'm just assuming I'm just try and read between the lines I
think they're saying well we're I don't know how we got to be over
a million dollars into this thing I don't know we're five years into it and I think
there's
a fear possibly do we really want to start all over because I think in my view
if it doesn't get done we are starting over yet depending on that the makeup of
a new city council I think that the majority of this document would be trashed and
we are starting over that's my opinion so yeah the process has been not well
handled maybe some of that's our fault as
a commission for not being more forceful in saying we want answers now I want to
you know we we could have caught I could have called
a special meeting other chairman's at the time we could have done more to be more
proactive ourselves OK. City council could have been more proactive but
that's water under the bridge This is where we're at so now we have to look at the
document that's in front of us we have worked on this for five years
now at our last meeting there were
a lot of things that I didn't care for that none of us cared for but really for the
most part most of those were specific things for example I know one that keeps
coming up. Building on
a twenty five percent slope or or whatever we all said you know hey if you can pay
the engineer
a million dollars and he can engineer that more power to you man go ahead and build
on
a ninety degree slope we don't care we did get albeit late the process list of
all the majority that I saw the recommendations we wanted made and you know and
then they would date said you know they would say hey this is what the commission
recommends to the city council and then the staff comment would say staff concurs
with the recommendation or I would say staff doesn't concur and this is why Ok so
so for example the twenty or twenty five percent staff didn't concur and they
didn't want to change it and now they say there's
a reason they have to do that I don't necessarily agree with it but that's
that's what is there.
The document front of us is not perfect and it will never be perfect and I you know
the people that are here speaking tonight are our citizens that since I've been on
the commission for many many years they go to almost every meeting and they care
about the city and you know I've made the comment before we have twelve thousand
people in the town and it's always the same six or seven people there that are
coming to us Well you know that's
a six or seven people and I know they have people they talk to they have the time
just like we do to care so I know they care and I agree with
a lot of what they say but this is not my general plan it's not two wings
paths it's
a general plan for the city of Fortuna and we will never and we all know that we're
never going to get
a perfect general plan we're never going to get that I mean we can start all over
and something somebody else is going to like I'm not going to like vice versa I'm
over all. Proud of the work that this commission has done if nothing else for the
time that we have spent up here hours and hours and hours and hours away from our
family and friends I mean it's not like this is overly fun and there's nothing
really in it for you other than trying to do your side your civic duty and you know
I am proud of the work we did and the majority of this plan I support Now again I'm
not a lawyer I'm not
a sequel lawyer I'm not an environmental lawyer I don't understand why some of
these things can or cannot be in there but I'm not supposed to be
a lawyer I'm not supposed to make sure and I don't think we're supposed to make
sure that every single thing in there is just perfect with the law on this and that
that's not our charge we're planning commission citizens of this community with
different backgrounds and we're supposed our charge to me here is to
look at the whole the process hold the meetings get the input give our employees
and then we say we either approve of this or we disapprove of it it's not our job
to write this general plan it's the city council's job that's where it finally Rast
our job is to look at this and either approve it or disapprove it moving on
now Arden I I think was your question why do I think it has to be done tonight
. What. My question concerns what we should
expect relative to the. Statements
about. The legality of certain items in the in the policy document
because I have been previous meetings pointed out statements that are just object
of by nature and yet all I get back is the statement that well it's it's required
for legal authority I cannot accept that in
a way I can accept that that's I understand that and I can sympathize with that I
can accept it because I'm not the attorney if the city staff is telling me that
that is legally acceptable I've got to believe them I'm just I think
I do sue you shake your head at me that's just fine I didn't shake my head at you
when you were talking I listened very nicely OK. So the
point is is. We are not attorneys if they have told us that that
is legally acceptable that's good enough for me that's all and I understand that
you don't feel that way it's not a matter of having to be legal tourney it's
a matter of logic that's where I'm coming from OK A statement is either logically
defensible or it's not logically dispensable it doesn't have anything to do with
whether you're
a lawyer or not there are statements in this policy document that are not logically
defense and that's OK And and to use
a generalization that it's legally required is not good enough that's what we're
getting
a smokescreen here OK respond to me OK if I can point out one that's all it takes
and there was it's like
a mathematical proof I can prove it by negating it and that's what I'm trying to do
here OK I have put on the table in the past Pacific examples where this is true but
I still get the same statement because it's an easy statement to make That's what's
not right here then why did you vote yes for it at the last meeting OK I felt like
you coming into the last meeting that the general policy document was we had found
a lot of time on OK and I thought it should go forward but I realized in listening
to and and and Tammy that I had been too quick OK OK I made
a mistake if I had to do over again I would have done what I did on Monday I think
personally that we're letting the motions get involved and were let in the process
get in the way of the documents I think everyone's upset about the process and
upset that we are told to have to make
a decision tonight. If we do nothing no matter you know we can do nothing that's
fine doesn't matter to me we can vote it up we can vote it down we can adjourn and
walk out of here it is going to the city council at their next meeting now. I feel
it's an obligation of this commission to at least have
a vote up or down. One way or the other I don't want to adjourn and that I
feel that's our job after five long years
a work regardless if we think it should be another two months or three months it's
not here we are tonight and we're being asked to make
a decision so. That's all I have to say the public comments been closed sorry
. It will it will be on an agenda.
It's on October twenty sixth Yeah.
So here we are people can continue to speak and give their opinions we can make
a motion for
for we make
a motion I want to say that I have participated many years ago and I'm in the
planning process you know I'm OK where we did five neighborhoods it was
a three month process that took five years. And. That one
and it was the same kind of issue and representatives from Fish and
Game. Differed in that we did have representatives come forward and explain aspects
of the law that were troubling to us that said I
And I also understand that. A document such as this I do accept
that if there are areas there that can be challenged legally and successfully that
it will be challenged I don't accept the fact that while I work in an environment
where it is and I've seen it happen too many times so I'm of the opinion that if
we if we choose to vote to stand on.
My biggest concern is we will cease to be active participants in the rest of this
process.
Anybody want to make
a motion anybody want to say anything else have another question
so what Mike was saying if this is voted down that we won't be able to participate
in this process and more does that mean that we can't work on the zoning or
. Still I don't think
. Literally because certainly if you're still in the planning commission you would
still be making decisions I think it would be difficult for me
to I mean I would fully participate but it would be difficult for me to go forward
with
a plan that I had not supported and do the next step in the work as
well. I would take
a little different tack on that. I would say we should vote it down to send
a loud and clear message that we don't want to continue the process forward like
we've had in the past we're sitting here talking about going forward with zoning
documents and other things OK if we vote in favor of this tonight we'll continue
the same process in the future I don't want to be
a participant in that type of charade it's time to send
a message loud and clear that if you want to vote for this commission then you need
to earn.
It When else like to say anything hopefully someone's
going to make some type of motion in it in a in
a minute here again I employ the commission to not get caught up in we are
we fill that we you know we've been treated wrongly or badly or the process hasn't
gone crack is it hasn't we know that and I say part of it's our fault.
We've been sitting up here for fifteen months without
a meaning we should have called for some action and we did it and I will take
responsibility for part of that not all of it but
a little teeny bit I mean I kind of
a little bit disagreeing with that because many times we asked you know when is
this coming back what's going on and there was always
a reason it wasn't quite ready yet it wasn't I could've called
a national meeting just like we have tonight OK it's all your fault that it
a little bit. I'm just saying please let's let's look at the document and you know
if we don't if people aren't happy with the document I have no problem with that
but let's not vote no just because we don't like the process I think we vote on
the document we all of sent
a message we do not like this process we know that but that doesn't get us anywhere
vote no if you don't like that vote document vote yes if you still don't like it
but think that's the work that we've done and the as good as it may get
.
Let's if we can take those emotions out I mean you're probably right handy but that
will come up if you are
it's hard for me to vote yes on
a document that I didn't get to finish and I don't like what's in there. I'm not
. Criticizing for you that all the but what I don't like is in there as well
the parts that we did and you know that are in there I mean there's that was good
we did good work I think we made good suggestions but. I don't I just if it was
completely done I would totally support it but it's not and I can't totally support
I understand that but I'd completely happy when I told you agree with Sammy if it
was done I could support this but it's not we didn't finish. There were changes
made to this document that we just found out to go about in one of these recent
packets we got about just just to point out that the square footage is on the type
of use purge zone or. Verizon produced great we talked for
a long time about it's good it's bad it's this and we decided to get rid of IT
staff decided to put it back again and we just found out after the UARS already
done we decided that the community that the market would determine how it
grew I agree with you and it's back and we spent
a lot of time on that there's no legal precedent for that but we are not the policy
grafters you're right we get our input no we very well they may change it or not
accept it or not accept it and the City Council. Can then again change everything
we've done I mean so it's our job if you and I did our job I looked in that our
planning commission commissioners handbook that we got all got we started on this
these are sort of the commission and I didn't bring with me I wish I would have but
it basically says our job for the plan for the general plan is to help facilitate
the creation of general plan it's not to approve or disapprove it it's our job to
help create it feels to facilitate the creation of it it's the city councils job to
adopt it or not adopt it I don't feel that we are we're done with that document I
understand I sent it on you don't have to but I think we did help facilitate it we
have and we're not done and but you're going back to we all said this should be in
there and it's not they ended up not putting it in there that doesn't matter our
suggestion should be in there the way we suggest you know not of not of city staff
doesn't want it in there there I don't know it's OK so it's not in there the fact
that we find out two weeks I agree posed to send it on that's the process
that's not the process no I said that is the process being inadequate I agree it's
the process versus the document and that's just one example that I know the process
. Has maybe ardent some but you said stinks I understand that
I'm just trying to look at the document I don't see the process stinks the fact
that it's so close to the election saying well that's part of the process I mean
.
I don't know well it's. It's so
somebody needs to make
a recommendation. Well we keep discussing it all happens if nobody makes record I
don't I don't think we have to well I well if no one was in the chair I'll make
motion I can make
a motion and I'll make the make the motion I've sat here and listened to this what
I've listened to and damn I obviously know what I think so
. OK Do we have to make
a motion that suggested. Yes one of those two we can't make
a substitute motion now oh.
I K It's my understanding that the motion
OK let's see. Motion number
resolution P one one one seven eight two zero one
. Section fourteen
states. And I'll just say those important words that we not adopt the two thousand
and ten update OK. I move we except that resolution with the
following amendment to it which goes back to Monday night which once again people
are listening to OK in resolution P
one seven one one seven eight S two zero one zero delete section ten which states
the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the two thousand and ten draft
P.E.I. Consistent with C. Quick write line Section fifty one five zero two five C.
And of quote. I might go on to say that in Monday's meeting Mr was
a lawyer hired by the city for his expertise and secret stated he agreed with the
comment in the staff report the commission was not required to make recommendations
or findings regarding the D.P. R.
. Since Monday's staff report also states The commission has not requested to make
recommendations or findings regarding to be P.R.
And I think there are serious problems with the D.P.I.
The resolution should be amended as I've just stated this is
a specific example of what I've been talking about tonight. And of motion
you have a motion do we have
a second. OK
We have a first and a second to approve a resolution number P.
Dash one one one seven eight ass two thousand and ten
a resolution of the city of Fortuna planning commission recommending that the
Fortuna city council not adopt the two thousand and thirty general plan update roll
call vote commissioner Henry Yes Commissioner No Commissioner Gillum
Yes chair Thomas to me now Commissioner
Wells Yes Commissioner Albon. Right no
. OK So that was
a three three vote. Four We have possibly
another resolution or we sit here along you know I probably shouldn't even say this
but I have to say I want to point the finger at Duane
a little bit we were told that our and it wasn't Wayne's fault it was the attorney
we hired apparently we were told not Monday night but our joint meeting that the
next meeting we would have would be at our next ragin regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting Well I always know what meetings are on Tuesday. And so the
reason I wasn't here Monday I was back east on business and I knew in my head
making my plans I got to be back by Tuesday night and I cancelled
a very important meeting Monday. To travel back here thinking maybe they're going
to call
a meeting on Tuesday and then I lo and behold point out the meetings Monday and I'm
like wait I won't be there I'm flying back so I was kind of bummed about that I
take pride in the fact I make almost every single meeting and have for many many
years the ironic thing is and maybe it's just this way for
a reason we wouldn't be sitting here if I would have been at that meeting it had
been forty two and it had been done as want to point that little piece of irony out
so we had. A resolution. That was not
passed to someone want to make another resolution. Again from our planet
commissioners handbook so the substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic
motions of new and different motions for it say that again slow down
a substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion and substitute
a new and different motion for it so are you going with that So with that
I move that we make
a substitute motion that we table this side and tell our next regular schedule
Planning Commission meeting at which time we continue our review of the policy
document OK Duane is that allowable you I don't believe you have
a substitute motion issue here you have made a motion and you took
a vote and you are tight on that. So it would warrant a new motion not
a substitute motion the substitution comes into play if there is
a motion on the floor that has been voted on so if I take substitute out of that
and so so indeed you have made
a motion and it was second and vote was taken in its entirety
a new motion could be made at any time so I make
a motion that we table the side until our next regular schedule Planning Commission
meeting at which time we continue our review of the policy document.
Can we do that or you just going to go for it without the. What I would tell you
is yes you can do that but in reality what it will happen is that mean you did not
make any decisions the same as
a tie vote no decision was made and therefore by the City Council's resolution you
have by definition passed on this as
a recommendation we
don't have
a second yet for Randi's let's let's do this we did have two resolutions
in front of us the first one was three to three so does to move forward
. I'll make a motion that we adopt resolution number P.
Dash one one one one one one seven B.
Twenty ten
a resolution the city of Fortuna Planning Commission recommended the force for two
city council adopt the two thousand and ten general plan update with the change of
taking out Section ten that the Planning Commission reviewed and consider the two
thousand and ten draft P.E.I.
Are consistent with sequel guidelines Section fifteen or twenty five C.
. As
a matter of note if I can that I believe is in that resolution it shows up in
a different section oh of section nine OK I'm sorry section nine so we delete
section nine. It the
next it's the next page. So does anyone want to sack another
second that OK we have a first and second to approve
a resolution number Pete as one one one seven B.
Dash twenty ten
a resolution of the city of Fortuna Planning Commission recommended for to the City
Council adopt one and ten general plan update roll call vote commissioner HENRY No
Commissioner LOWE Yes Commissioner no chair Thomas.
Commissioner wells. Commissioner Albon no. All right
so. The. Resolution passes forty
two. Nos three Oh was it three The OP Sorry he said yes
now he said no oh OK it's three so it's three three I almost pulled it off
. So we can make
a decision after five long years I understand why so it's three three moves on to
the city council anything else going that's your business tonight OK we're
a journey. But
. It's.