WEBVTT

00:00.000 --> 00:07.000
October 14, 2010. Please stand for the flag salute.

00:07.000 --> 00:14.000
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

00:14.000 --> 00:27.000
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:27.000 --> 00:30.000
Okay, Linda, roll call.

00:30.000 --> 00:31.000
Commissioner Henry.

00:31.000 --> 00:32.000
Yes, sir.

00:32.000 --> 00:44.000
Commissioner Lowe.

00:44.000 --> 00:45.000
Yes, sir.

00:45.000 --> 00:46.000
Commissioner Gillum.

00:46.000 --> 00:47.000
Yes, sir.

00:47.000 --> 00:48.000
Chair Tomasini.

00:48.000 --> 00:49.000
Yes, sir.

00:49.000 --> 00:50.000
Commissioner Wells.

00:50.000 --> 00:51.000
Yes, sir.

00:51.000 --> 00:52.000
Commissioner Albin.

00:52.000 --> 00:53.000
Yes, sir.

00:53.000 --> 00:57.000
All right, the first thing we're going to do are oral comments from the public.

00:57.000 --> 01:02.000
Members of the public may be heard on any item of interest not on the agenda.

01:02.000 --> 01:06.000
Speakers addressing the commission will be limited to three minutes per speaker.

01:06.000 --> 01:11.000
Be advised that by law the commission is not able to deliberate or take action on issues

01:11.000 --> 01:13.000
presented during oral comments.

01:13.000 --> 01:17.000
Is there anyone in the crowd that would like to speak on something that's not on tonight's

01:17.000 --> 01:20.000
agenda?

01:20.000 --> 01:21.000
No?

01:21.000 --> 01:26.000
All right, so we're going to move to the first and only order of business, which is the

01:26.000 --> 01:30.000
Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council concerning the adoption of the

01:30.000 --> 01:45.000
General Plan update, adoption of resolution number P-1117A or P-1117B-2010.

01:45.000 --> 01:48.000
Liz.

01:48.000 --> 01:50.000
Do you have something to say?

01:50.000 --> 01:54.000
Yes, I'd like to just start the preamble.

01:54.000 --> 02:00.000
The history is stated in the staff report, but what we have provided to you tonight on

02:00.000 --> 02:04.000
your dais is the action of the City Council last night.

02:04.000 --> 02:09.000
This is the resolution that the City Council adopted last night.

02:09.000 --> 02:16.000
We did not, I noticed the date hasn't been inserted, but as you can see, the last paragraph

02:16.000 --> 02:21.000
is, and I believe, I wasn't sure if all of you had an opportunity to see this, so I thought

02:21.000 --> 02:26.000
it was important to bring this forward before we started the conversation from staff, that

02:26.000 --> 02:31.000
the City Council has set a deadline for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation

02:31.000 --> 02:35.000
on the proposed General Plan update submitted to the Planning Commission at a joint Planning

02:35.000 --> 02:38.000
Commission and City Council meeting on October 11th.

02:38.000 --> 02:46.000
The deadline that they have provided you is October 14th, 2010, which is today.

02:46.000 --> 02:52.000
The point of that resolution, which goes up in the former element, that if no action is

02:52.000 --> 02:58.000
taken by the Planning Commission, the action shall be deemed as a recommendation of approval

02:58.000 --> 03:01.000
of the proposed General Plan amendment.

03:01.000 --> 03:06.000
The Council deliberated that last night, and you can see the vote was a 4-1 vote by the

03:06.000 --> 03:08.000
City Council.

03:08.000 --> 03:13.000
The point of doing that particular start-up on this was to indicate to you as a Planning

03:13.000 --> 03:22.000
Commission that indeed the City Council has set an exact deadline for you to provide some

03:22.000 --> 03:25.000
action to them so they can take up the General Plan.

03:25.000 --> 03:32.000
So at this time, I'll turn it over to Liz to provide the staff report to you.

03:32.000 --> 03:34.000
Thank you, Dwayne.

03:34.000 --> 03:39.000
And I'm actually going to turn it over to Stephen, who has the majority of the comments

03:39.000 --> 03:41.000
as an introduction.

03:41.000 --> 03:43.000
Thanks, Stephen.

03:43.000 --> 03:45.000
Thank you, Liz.

03:45.000 --> 03:48.000
Thank you, members of the Planning Commission.

03:48.000 --> 03:52.000
This is sort of a continuation from the meeting that we held a couple of nights ago, so I

03:52.000 --> 03:55.000
won't repeat the language.

03:55.000 --> 04:18.000
This has been a difficult meeting, and I want to tell you that the object, I think, that

04:18.000 --> 04:24.000
we all have is to provide the City with what is first and foremost a legal document.

04:24.000 --> 04:31.000
The General Plan is required by the State of California for us to prepare.

04:31.000 --> 04:37.000
The General Plan by its nature contains two types of policy.

04:37.000 --> 04:41.000
There are those policies that were developed from the community meetings where we got together

04:41.000 --> 04:45.000
and talked about what is it we want to see in our community, how do we want it to grow,

04:45.000 --> 04:50.000
what kind of housing do we want to have, what kind of parks do we want to have, what kind

04:50.000 --> 04:56.000
of recreational amenities do we want to have, how do we want the city to develop.

04:56.000 --> 05:01.000
And that's the part that people think about that they like generally.

05:01.000 --> 05:07.000
But hand in hand with that, the State has said that with that development comes a responsibility

05:07.000 --> 05:13.000
to make sure that we don't create impacts to the environment.

05:13.000 --> 05:19.000
And they've established a series of standards and guidelines that get passed down that we

05:19.000 --> 05:22.000
have to deal with.

05:22.000 --> 05:26.000
And I think that that is where the rub has been.

05:26.000 --> 05:33.000
None of us like to feel that we have our lives that are regulated through policies that

05:33.000 --> 05:38.000
we have not promulgated ourselves.

05:38.000 --> 05:44.000
Those of us who own property out in rural areas are incensed at a lot of the regulations

05:44.000 --> 05:49.000
and requirements that may be appropriate for Manteca or Southern California but that

05:49.000 --> 05:53.000
somehow don't seem to apply up here.

05:53.000 --> 05:59.000
But as a professional, it's my obligation to provide you and the residents of the

05:59.000 --> 06:04.000
city with a document that is legally defensible and that meets the standards of

06:04.000 --> 06:07.000
the state.

06:07.000 --> 06:14.000
One of the things that really drove the development of having a general plan was the

06:14.000 --> 06:21.000
desire to reuse the mill site or to use the mill site.

06:21.000 --> 06:25.000
There was a proposal for a large retail development to go out there.

06:25.000 --> 06:31.000
There's also been expressed desire to bring back industry.

06:31.000 --> 06:37.000
In either of those cases, there are people outside the city who would just as soon not

06:37.000 --> 06:39.000
see fortune to develop.

06:39.000 --> 06:44.000
They would prefer that we not be the ones who garner tax dollars or prefer that we

06:44.000 --> 06:50.000
not be the ones who are able to provide job sites for people.

06:50.000 --> 06:56.000
When a project comes forward on that or other large projects, we're not going to see

06:56.000 --> 07:01.000
people climbing trees. We're not going to see people chaining themselves to a fence.

07:01.000 --> 07:06.000
They will ring their lawyers with a lawsuit and charge the general plan as

07:06.000 --> 07:13.000
inadequate and the cold up development in the long run.

07:13.000 --> 07:18.000
So, my sense, my obligation is to provide you with a document that allows the city

07:18.000 --> 07:25.000
to develop as unfettered as possible and to include enough safeguards so that when

07:25.000 --> 07:30.000
local developers or outside developers come into the city, that a lot of the

07:30.000 --> 07:35.000
environmental review has been taken care of and reduce and minimize how much

07:35.000 --> 07:41.000
further they have to go through to take care of that.

07:41.000 --> 07:45.000
And I see that as an obligation that we have been trying to fulfill.

07:45.000 --> 07:53.000
That has meant that we have added language to the document that some of us find

07:53.000 --> 08:00.000
unpalatable or distasteful, but it's all there for a particular reason.

08:00.000 --> 08:05.000
It's not because we want to see things, but it's because without some of that

08:05.000 --> 08:12.000
language, we become vulnerable. How the city applies the general plan is

08:12.000 --> 08:16.000
done through the zoning code. That's the law.

08:16.000 --> 08:21.000
The policies in the general plan set the framework for the city.

08:21.000 --> 08:24.000
It's the document that we can hold up and say these are the things that we take

08:24.000 --> 08:26.000
into consideration when we develop our city.

08:26.000 --> 08:29.000
But it's the application of the zoning code and the development of the zoning

08:29.000 --> 08:34.000
code that becomes the codified law that implements what we're going to do.

08:34.000 --> 08:39.000
And those, those decisions have yet to be made.

08:39.000 --> 08:46.000
There was a lot of discussion about some of the things in the new blue ink, and I

08:46.000 --> 08:51.000
can assure you that these are there for a purpose.

08:51.000 --> 09:00.000
And I think that, as I said, I think that's really been the real bone of

09:00.000 --> 09:04.000
contention that there was frustration at not understanding how and why some of

09:04.000 --> 09:10.000
those things were put into place.

09:10.000 --> 09:16.000
At this point, we've, we have a document which we feel meets the legal standard

09:16.000 --> 09:21.000
for the state. That's what we have provided to you and are asking you to

09:21.000 --> 09:28.000
then pass on to the city council. It is intended not to disable the city's

09:28.000 --> 09:32.000
ability to develop, but rather to allow it to develop.

09:32.000 --> 09:36.000
It's new. It contains policy language that is different, but it is not intended

09:36.000 --> 09:44.000
to hobble. It is intended to be a proactive document that allows development

09:44.000 --> 09:50.000
to occur in the future. It's for the long term benefit of the city.

09:50.000 --> 09:59.000
And so with that, I will finish my comments and just encourage you to take

09:59.000 --> 10:04.000
whatever action you feel is appropriate. We have provided you with two

10:04.000 --> 10:09.000
resolutions to give you some choice in the matter.

10:09.000 --> 10:12.000
The first resolution, one of the resolutions that you have is the same one

10:12.000 --> 10:16.000
that you saw the other evening, which contains a series of recommendations to

10:16.000 --> 10:22.000
the city council for policy language changes that you would like to see and

10:22.000 --> 10:26.000
that staff has carried forward with comments.

10:26.000 --> 10:31.000
And the second resolution is a resolution in which you decide that based upon your

10:31.000 --> 10:38.000
interpretations of the policy document or your feelings of the policy language

10:38.000 --> 10:43.000
that this general plan is not appropriate for the city of Fortuna and that you

10:43.000 --> 10:48.000
would recommend that it not be adopted. And that choice becomes yours.

10:48.000 --> 10:54.000
So with that, I will conclude my remarks. Thank you very much.

10:54.000 --> 11:00.000
That's it? Okay. Do any commissioners have any questions or comments for city

11:00.000 --> 11:06.000
staff before we open up the public hearing? Yeah, I do.

11:06.000 --> 11:11.000
First of all, I've lived in Fortuna about 33 years. I'm very proud to live in such

11:11.000 --> 11:15.000
a good town and I'm very proud to be on such a good commission.

11:15.000 --> 11:19.000
I think that we did a lot of hard work working on this general plan.

11:19.000 --> 11:23.000
I'm proud of the work that we did get done. I am disappointed that we weren't

11:23.000 --> 11:29.000
able to finish our job. I don't think everything that we worked on is going

11:29.000 --> 11:33.000
forward. So I am a little bit disappointed at that. I would have liked to have had

11:33.000 --> 11:39.000
another meeting to move this on, but don't always get what I want, I guess.

11:39.000 --> 11:44.000
Hopefully, the next thing we work on, we can have better communication, you know,

11:44.000 --> 11:49.000
so there isn't things like this that happen. But I do want to thank my fellow

11:49.000 --> 11:54.000
commissioners because I think we worked very hard on this and I think we did a

11:54.000 --> 11:59.000
very good job for what is going forward. Also, I have two questions on the

11:59.000 --> 12:05.000
resolution. It says that the planning commission reviewed and considered the

12:05.000 --> 12:12.000
EIR. I've never seen the EIR. So I, I don't know why this is in here. I haven't

12:12.000 --> 12:18.000
reviewed it. I don't think we've ever had a meeting on the EIR or reviewed it. And

12:18.000 --> 12:26.000
my next one is it says that we held a public hearing for this, which is required

12:26.000 --> 12:34.000
and when did we have a public hearing? Thank you for your questions. First of

12:34.000 --> 12:38.000
all, I'd like to concur with you. I agree that the planning commission did spend a

12:38.000 --> 12:45.000
lot of time and did a lot of hard work in reviewing the document. And that is

12:45.000 --> 12:53.000
appreciated. Secondly, the EIR was delivered, I think, by Compact Disc with a

12:53.000 --> 12:58.000
copy of the executive summary. There was a memo that went with that that indicated

12:58.000 --> 13:04.000
that you would not be required to review it from a, for a standpoint to

13:04.000 --> 13:07.000
recommending it to the city council, but it was given to you as information so

13:07.000 --> 13:11.000
that you could at least see that the document was there and see how it affects

13:11.000 --> 13:18.000
the, just how it's worded. You can certainly, since you did not look at it

13:18.000 --> 13:23.000
as a commission officially, you can certainly remove that as a, as one of the

13:23.000 --> 13:29.000
findings. There's no problem doing that. And the public hearing that was held was

13:29.000 --> 13:33.000
the public hearing that was held on Monday, the 11th, was the public hearing

13:33.000 --> 13:38.000
for the, for the general plan. Kind of the way I see that public hearing, that

13:38.000 --> 13:43.000
was at our public hearing. The city council opened it, everything was, all

13:43.000 --> 13:46.000
the questions and everything were addressed to the mayor and the city

13:46.000 --> 13:51.000
council closed it. So how could that be a planning commission hearing?

13:51.000 --> 13:56.000
It was noted, noticed as a, as a joint session, joint public hearing between the

13:56.000 --> 14:02.000
two, between the two bodies. That was how, that was done.

14:02.000 --> 14:06.000
Okay, but we still haven't had our own public hearing. Aren't we required to have

14:06.000 --> 14:11.000
a public hearing? That was the public hearing. It was sort of the same process

14:11.000 --> 14:16.000
that you used when you evaluated and then made a recommendation on the housing

14:16.000 --> 14:29.000
element. Okay. Anybody else? I attended the meeting last night with city council

14:29.000 --> 14:34.000
and looked up the California government code that was referenced by the city

14:34.000 --> 14:41.000
attorney and it's pretty vague. But it appears to me that only items referred

14:41.000 --> 14:45.000
back to the planning commission are subject to the 45 day deadline and or

14:45.000 --> 14:52.000
whatever time limit is set by the city council. I'll just read it here with this,

14:52.000 --> 14:59.000
what code 65356 of the California, California code says it's the legislative

14:59.000 --> 15:03.000
body shall adopt or amend a general plan by resolution, resolution which

15:03.000 --> 15:06.000
resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a

15:06.000 --> 15:11.000
majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The body may approve,

15:11.000 --> 15:16.000
modify or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission, if any.

15:16.000 --> 15:20.000
However, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not

15:20.000 --> 15:23.000
previously considered by the commission during its hearings shall first be

15:23.000 --> 15:27.000
referred to the planning commission for its recommendation. The failure of the

15:27.000 --> 15:32.000
commission to report within 45 calendar days after the reference or within the

15:32.000 --> 15:36.000
time set by the legislative body shall be deemed a recommendation for approval.

15:36.000 --> 15:43.000
To me this clearly says that anything they refer back to us has that 45 day

15:43.000 --> 15:50.000
limit or the time limit they set, not the general plan as we stand today. And I

15:50.000 --> 15:56.000
can, if anybody wants to read this, have at it. So I don't think we're forced to

15:56.000 --> 16:01.000
make a decision tonight. I think if, I think we can go back and discuss this

16:01.000 --> 16:06.000
more if we wish to. And I'll leave it at that for now.

16:06.000 --> 16:11.000
Thank you. Anybody else?

16:11.000 --> 16:15.000
Thank you for doing that, Andy. That's been one of my concerns throughout this

16:15.000 --> 16:19.000
process is that there's a difference between what we're being told and what is

16:19.000 --> 16:24.000
in fact occurring. Okay, that's number one. Number two, we were given this pack of

16:24.000 --> 16:28.000
papers which I've never seen before. I don't know whether anybody else has. And

16:28.000 --> 16:32.000
they weren't even discussed in the opening remarks. I'd like to know what

16:32.000 --> 16:37.000
we're supposed to do with these.

16:37.000 --> 16:46.000
Thank you very much. The code section that Mr. Elbin referred to is in the

16:46.000 --> 16:51.000
government code. And if an action was referred to you under those

16:51.000 --> 16:56.000
circumstances, then that government code would apply. I believe what happened last

16:56.000 --> 17:02.000
night was that the city council proposed or took its own, prepared an ordinance

17:02.000 --> 17:07.000
for the city's action. So it's not the government code that is strictly being,

17:07.000 --> 17:12.000
being applied, but rather the, the city council's action of last night that is,

17:12.000 --> 17:22.000
that is in effect. The items on the dais were actually items which were provided

17:22.000 --> 17:30.000
to you last year. During the course of your discussions of chapters five and eight,

17:30.000 --> 17:34.000
there were questions about why they were in there and what, and the commission

17:34.000 --> 17:40.000
asked for the legal justification for putting a blue ink policy in that appeared

17:40.000 --> 17:46.000
in those two chapters. And that was sort of the, the issue that, that, that

17:46.000 --> 17:50.000
disappeared to be the over regulation type of policy that people were concerned

17:50.000 --> 17:59.000
about. That handout was provided to you at that time at your request to assist you

17:59.000 --> 18:03.000
in understanding how and why that language was there. And we simply are

18:03.000 --> 18:08.000
providing it to you this evening as, as reference. If that, if that matter came

18:08.000 --> 18:13.000
up, we wanted to have that available for you.

18:13.000 --> 18:19.000
Thank you. You're welcome. Excuse me for just a minute. The city council was

18:19.000 --> 18:24.000
directed by the attorney last night and when he spoke, he specifically referenced

18:24.000 --> 18:28.000
three government codes. The one I read and two other ones that would just say

18:28.000 --> 18:36.000
nothing about a deadline. I just want to make that clear.

18:36.000 --> 18:43.000
Anybody else have any comments? Okay. At this time we're going to open the public

18:43.000 --> 18:48.000
hearing for public comment. So anybody would like to come forward, please state

18:48.000 --> 19:04.000
your name, where you live, try and keep it at three minutes if you can.

19:04.000 --> 19:11.000
Richard Smith, 954 Main Street. I'm here representing Eel River Disposal. You have

19:11.000 --> 19:17.000
very weighty things before you tonight and I feel badly to bring something like

19:17.000 --> 19:20.000
this before you that is not of the significance of the other issues you're

19:20.000 --> 19:25.000
dealing with, but it's very important to my client and this is the forum that we

19:25.000 --> 19:32.000
have. Eel River Disposal's transfer station is located in the city right now

19:32.000 --> 19:38.000
and it's in a light industrial zone. On the other side of the road in the county

19:38.000 --> 19:44.000
is where the C&D yard and other activities are conducted and that's also

19:44.000 --> 19:51.000
light industrial. The amendments to the general plan are going to give a new land

19:51.000 --> 19:58.000
use designation to these areas of River Walk Drive. There's a tremendous concern

19:58.000 --> 20:05.000
that this will instantly turn these sites into nonconforming uses and capable of

20:05.000 --> 20:14.000
being expanded, changed or modified as needs require. Because of that concern,

20:14.000 --> 20:20.000
I've been in the process of discussing it with staff for about two years. And

20:20.000 --> 20:27.000
about six months ago in a series of emails with the city manager, we came up

20:27.000 --> 20:35.000
with a modification that I was told staff was considering. The issue is that

20:35.000 --> 20:42.000
the River Walk Drive district made something called quasi-public uses a

20:42.000 --> 20:49.000
permitted use, principally permitted use, but it doesn't define what that means.

20:49.000 --> 20:53.000
What I have sought to do is what's shown in red on the page that you have in front

20:53.000 --> 20:59.000
of you and that is to insert a meaning that will give my client comfort. Now the

20:59.000 --> 21:06.000
problem is that the position that staff has taken is to not insert this and let

21:06.000 --> 21:11.000
this all be handled in the zoning process with the idea being that a zone

21:11.000 --> 21:18.000
will then be assigned to it that allows this activity. But when I was a young man,

21:18.000 --> 21:24.000
Ronald Reagan said, trust but verify. And that's what I'm here trying to do.

21:24.000 --> 21:29.000
Everybody is saying that this is not a problem, don't worry about it. But there is

21:29.000 --> 21:35.000
a problem. And the problem is that staff is saying that this term quasi-public

21:35.000 --> 21:42.000
use will include my client's activities. There are two problems with that. The

21:42.000 --> 21:46.000
first is that staff's opinion and what it means is not relevant. What's important

21:46.000 --> 21:51.000
and what's relevant is what the legislative bodies think it means to take

21:51.000 --> 21:57.000
action on it. And I have no guarantee without the legislative body taking action

21:57.000 --> 22:01.000
on something that includes a definition that they're looking at this the same

22:01.000 --> 22:06.000
way. The second thing, which is an even bigger problem, is that this would leave

22:06.000 --> 22:12.000
without this definition, it would leave the issue open and unresolved until a

22:12.000 --> 22:17.000
year from now, two years from now, the city gets around to having new

22:17.000 --> 22:22.000
conforming zoning ordinances. Well, the thing that worries me about that is a

22:22.000 --> 22:25.000
year from now, two years from now, three years from now, how do I know who's going

22:25.000 --> 22:30.000
to be here? How do I know that the people who are providing assurances now are

22:30.000 --> 22:36.000
going to be here to provide assurances then? So what I'm trying to do is I'm

22:36.000 --> 22:40.000
trying to trust the city, I'm trying to trust staff. But at the same time I have

22:40.000 --> 22:46.000
to verify that there is not a problem. And there is no good reason that I can

22:46.000 --> 22:53.000
think of not to insert this meaning into the definition of the land use

22:53.000 --> 22:59.000
description. There is no good reason not to do that. If this is what everybody

22:59.000 --> 23:05.000
agrees they want to have happen. And I call upon you to do that tonight or to

23:05.000 --> 23:10.000
recommend it tonight. Thank you. Are there any questions that I can answer? Thank

23:10.000 --> 23:21.000
you. Thank you. Anybody else?

23:24.000 --> 23:31.000
You're right 1660 Newburgh Road. I just had a couple comments. You know, I really

23:31.000 --> 23:37.000
appreciate it when government uses the fear of lawsuits as an excuse to force

23:37.000 --> 23:43.000
compliance to, you know, some regulations in this case that people don't agree

23:43.000 --> 23:48.000
with. You know, when you really get into looking at lawsuits you need to ask one

23:48.000 --> 23:53.000
of the questions, well how many lawsuits have there been? And then you need to go

23:53.000 --> 23:56.000
further and say, well let's look at some of these lawsuits and see what they

23:56.000 --> 24:01.000
actually involved. And I think what you would find that many of them would never

24:01.000 --> 24:07.000
occur here in Humboldt County or in Fortuna. They are some bizarre case where

24:07.000 --> 24:12.000
somebody did really something stupid and should have been sued and was. And that's

24:12.000 --> 24:17.000
the case for most of those. So I just, it just bothers me when people use the

24:17.000 --> 24:25.000
fear of lawsuits as a hammer to get things, get their way. You know, I think

24:25.000 --> 24:30.000
this is probably a kind of a done deal, but what's going to happen next in this

24:30.000 --> 24:36.000
process is we're going to have to modify and go over our municipal codes and make

24:36.000 --> 24:41.000
sure that they're compliant and consistent with the general plan. And there

24:41.000 --> 24:47.000
are 14 of them. The ones that are probably be most contentious are 15, which

24:47.000 --> 24:52.000
is the building and construction section, and then 16 is subdivisions, and then

24:52.000 --> 24:58.000
17 is going to be really fun. That's the zoning. And once we get to zoning, I

24:58.000 --> 25:03.000
don't know what staff's going to do. I could see them going out and spending

25:03.000 --> 25:08.000
taxpayer monies and hiring consultants to go over these codes so you guys don't

25:08.000 --> 25:13.000
have to worry about it and then have a meeting like this and get it approved.

25:13.000 --> 25:18.000
Well I'm hoping that we can sit down like we were supposed to do with the

25:18.000 --> 25:24.000
public and have discussions and workshops and come to some agreement on

25:24.000 --> 25:30.000
what these zoning codes should say. And I'm sure staff's going to tell us that,

25:30.000 --> 25:34.000
oh, you can't write that zoning code like that because that isn't consistent with

25:34.000 --> 25:39.000
the general plan that we've adopted. Well I hope you guys are strong enough that

25:39.000 --> 25:45.000
you ignore that because and stick to your guns and write the zoning codes the

25:45.000 --> 25:49.000
way you want them. And if we have to revise the general plan, that's what

25:49.000 --> 25:53.000
staff has said. Don't worry. We can revise this general plan four times a

25:53.000 --> 26:03.000
year. It should be easy. Should be. Oh, let's see. What else? I guess that's

26:03.000 --> 26:08.000
my, really my only comment. I know you guys can figure these codes out, these

26:08.000 --> 26:15.000
zoning codes, and the staff may try to pit, you know, the poor city against us,

26:15.000 --> 26:21.000
I don't know, evil developers I guess for lack of a better term. I know you can

26:21.000 --> 26:26.000
see through that and you can pick out what's reasonable and what's fair and

26:26.000 --> 26:38.000
what the city really needs. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

26:46.000 --> 26:52.000
Resident of Fortuna. So four council members have put you in an awkward

26:52.000 --> 26:57.000
position tonight. They have sent you a message that says it does not matter

26:57.000 --> 27:01.000
whether or not you are satisfied with the general plan update that will affect

27:01.000 --> 27:05.000
the citizens of Fortuna for the next 20 years or if you still have some

27:05.000 --> 27:10.000
questions or would like clarifications, you will right now tonight either

27:10.000 --> 27:15.000
recommend or not recommend approval of this policy document. By doing this, they

27:15.000 --> 27:21.000
have taken away your voice. You need to let them know that this is wrong. Why do

27:21.000 --> 27:26.000
we have a planning commission to review planning issues, which to me would

27:26.000 --> 27:31.000
include the general plan, if the council is not listening and not letting you

27:31.000 --> 27:36.000
follow through with your job. Everything stopped when the planning commission

27:36.000 --> 27:39.000
and the public asked for legal justifications for items that staff

27:39.000 --> 27:43.000
continues to insist must be in the plan. You still have not received the

27:43.000 --> 27:49.000
information that was requested 15 months ago. The last planning commission

27:49.000 --> 27:54.000
meeting was on July 28, 2009. Commissioner Lowe was not in attendance. At that

27:54.000 --> 27:59.000
meeting, the rest of you, all of you, expressed concerns regarding the tone of

27:59.000 --> 28:03.000
the content and the implication that items were set by state law but are

28:03.000 --> 28:07.000
actually someone's opinion. I watched the entire meeting on Access Humble

28:07.000 --> 28:13.000
today and none of you felt comfortable with the document. Dwayne, Ricky, and

28:13.000 --> 28:17.000
Stephen Avis both promised to come back with the justifications for the items

28:17.000 --> 28:21.000
you're concerned with and have another meeting. After much discussion, Chairman

28:21.000 --> 28:26.000
Tomasini finally changed his vote to move forward with the draft EIR. That was

28:26.000 --> 28:31.000
the motion that was made, to move forward with the draft EIR. Staff was to

28:31.000 --> 28:34.000
bring back more information and justification for all items you had

28:34.000 --> 28:39.000
concerns about. Chairman Tomasini ended the meeting saying that you have said

28:39.000 --> 28:43.000
it's going to come back and I know it will. There are things in here we don't

28:43.000 --> 28:49.000
like and if it continues to be in here, then there will be a big problem. Dwayne

28:49.000 --> 28:54.000
and Stephen promised that it would come back to you in a month to give you the

28:54.000 --> 28:58.000
answers that you were looking for. Staff is not being held accountable for the

28:58.000 --> 29:03.000
promises that they made or the process they committed to. I think that the

29:03.000 --> 29:07.000
council has made a huge mistake. If I were on the council, I would not want a

29:07.000 --> 29:12.000
general plan that the planning commission was not comfortable with. The

29:12.000 --> 29:16.000
planning commission was doing an outstanding job. I'm asking you not to

29:16.000 --> 29:20.000
give in now. Being tired of the whole thing is not a reason to give up or

29:20.000 --> 29:24.000
recommend it. I think you need to stand your ground until you get the

29:24.000 --> 29:27.000
information you have asked for, understand it and are satisfied that you

29:27.000 --> 29:31.000
are doing the right thing for the citizens of Fortuna. If you are not

29:31.000 --> 29:34.000
going to get that information because the council has now placed you in a

29:34.000 --> 29:39.000
position that tonight you have to decide, then you should not recommend the

29:39.000 --> 29:44.000
adoption of the general plan. I hope that each of you has actually read the

29:44.000 --> 29:47.000
entire document, noted all the new changes, deletions and additions compared

29:47.000 --> 29:52.000
to what was asked for. It took me hours to do this and I am certain you did not

29:52.000 --> 29:57.000
get what you asked for. After 15 months without any meetings, suddenly this

29:57.000 --> 30:04.000
update has to be approved now. Why? Some of the council members said they weren't

30:04.000 --> 30:08.000
rushing it. After all, it's been five years. Well, what's five years and two

30:08.000 --> 30:13.000
more months or five years and three more months? No, it has to be done now. It

30:13.000 --> 30:16.000
has to be done before the election because they are concerned that

30:16.000 --> 30:20.000
someone is going to get on the council that doesn't approve of what they have

30:20.000 --> 30:24.000
done or the general plan policy. That is wrong and I am asking you guys not to

30:24.000 --> 30:28.000
recommend it. Thanks. Thank you.

30:28.000 --> 30:39.000
I am a citizen of Fortuna. As fate would have it, I locked my keys in the car and

30:39.000 --> 30:44.000
it's up at a house I was showing with all the stuff I wanted to say. So you guys

30:44.000 --> 30:50.000
are really lucky tonight. I would also like to say that last night, Stephen

30:50.000 --> 30:57.000
Avis took a bullet for the team. He said that you guys did not, he felt that you

30:57.000 --> 31:02.000
had adequate time and that at the last meeting you didn't really ask to have it

31:02.000 --> 31:08.000
brought back and you did. And Dwayne Riggie said you would have it within two

31:08.000 --> 31:11.000
months, that there would be another meeting and that you needed to send the

31:11.000 --> 31:20.000
EIR on and if you didn't, he would. Now, I want to, and I am sure Stephen said

31:20.000 --> 31:24.000
that because he didn't listen to the tape. I know that Liz listened to the tape. I

31:24.000 --> 31:27.000
don't know if Dwayne listened to it again, but I was told that Liz listened to

31:27.000 --> 31:40.000
it. 15, three years ago, three years ago, Patwood Church and John Campbell came to

31:40.000 --> 31:44.000
my office and they told me, along with several other people and some of those

31:44.000 --> 31:50.000
people are in this room tonight, that the general plan that you have in front of

31:50.000 --> 31:54.000
you today, which has not changed, Doug Strull, Chairman, or Councilman Doug

31:54.000 --> 31:59.000
Strull said that last night, you have the same policy that you had three years ago.

31:59.000 --> 32:04.000
Only we're probably another 800,000 into it, or I mean, I have no clue how much it

32:04.000 --> 32:11.000
costs. I take that back. I don't know how much it costs, but I know it's cost a lot.

32:11.000 --> 32:16.000
But Doug Strull, he adequately said, it didn't feel right. Patwood Church and

32:16.000 --> 32:21.000
John Campbell told me and several other people that they didn't like the policy

32:21.000 --> 32:26.000
and that it did not represent the people of Fortuna. And the policy that you are

32:26.000 --> 32:31.000
going to recommend, I'm sure, and send on, does not represent the citizens of

32:31.000 --> 32:40.000
Fortuna. It represents Fish and Game. It defends and recommends and protects every

32:40.000 --> 32:44.000
legislative body in the state of California and the federal government and

32:44.000 --> 32:49.000
does nothing for the citizens of this community. You asked to have it brought

32:49.000 --> 32:54.000
back. It was never brought back. Whatever you guys are going to do, you're going to

32:54.000 --> 33:02.000
do. But in my opinion, you haven't finished. And the reason why we've spent all

33:02.000 --> 33:07.000
those months, all those meetings, all those hours, I was in here with you, was

33:07.000 --> 33:12.000
because it was sent back to you to better define and better change and make it

33:12.000 --> 33:18.000
feel more like a policy that was fit for this city. And I'm telling you that the

33:18.000 --> 33:24.000
policy that Patwood Church, the mayor of this city, is willing to accept right now

33:24.000 --> 33:29.000
is not one bit different than the document that he didn't like three years

33:29.000 --> 33:32.000
ago. Thank you.

33:32.000 --> 33:42.000
Thank you. Anybody else?

33:42.000 --> 33:53.000
I would ask that, Janelle Eger, Angel Heights, I would ask that you consider

33:53.000 --> 34:00.000
two separate things. One is the process that happened. And I also looked at the

34:00.000 --> 34:05.000
tape. And the process that has happened to you is not acceptable. And then I want

34:05.000 --> 34:14.000
you to look at the policy. And whatever Mr. Whitchurch said before or now, there

34:14.000 --> 34:20.000
are people in this community that feel comfortable with this plan. So the policy

34:20.000 --> 34:29.000
itself is perhaps up for grabs here. So I just ask you to separate the process

34:29.000 --> 34:36.000
from the policy. And at the tape, from the tape, I thought that I heard that

34:36.000 --> 34:42.000
there was only two chapters that you were still uncomfortable with. Now I don't

34:42.000 --> 34:47.000
know what happened in terms of the EIR to the other chapters. But in the tape, I

34:47.000 --> 34:52.000
thought I heard that you were comfortable with all of it, that you had been through

34:52.000 --> 34:56.000
everything except for, I think it was five and eight. And so if you are

34:56.000 --> 35:02.000
comfortable with that, I would ask you to confirm that. Although you've obviously

35:02.000 --> 35:06.000
said you haven't seen the EIR. So I don't know if it's changed from that. But

35:06.000 --> 35:09.000
that's all I'd like to say. Thanks.

35:09.000 --> 35:20.000
Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. At this time, we're going to close the public

35:20.000 --> 35:25.000
comment. We're going to turn it over to the commission. So if the commission would

35:25.000 --> 35:29.000
like to ask any further questions of staff, if they would like to make a

35:29.000 --> 35:36.000
statement, a comment, I certainly have something to say. But I'll wait. We've

35:36.000 --> 35:42.000
been working on this for five years. So I think it is imperative that we all at

35:42.000 --> 35:47.000
least state what we're thinking right now, one way or the other. So anyone can

35:47.000 --> 36:04.000
start whenever they want.

36:04.000 --> 36:08.000
I came into Monday night's meeting thinking I had studied the policy

36:08.000 --> 36:13.000
document and would vote for recommending the city council adopt it. After

36:13.000 --> 36:17.000
listening to Commissioner Albans and Commissioner Gillum's comments, I

36:17.000 --> 36:23.000
concluded additional analysis should be done. That was my reason for moving to

36:23.000 --> 36:30.000
adjourn. After Monday's meeting, I reviewed the video of the July 28, 2009

36:30.000 --> 36:34.000
Planning Commission meeting and gave additional thought to the contents of

36:34.000 --> 36:41.000
Chapters 5 and 8. On July 28, we were told approval of the policy document was

36:41.000 --> 36:46.000
desired before staff could begin work on or was desired before staff began work

36:46.000 --> 36:52.000
on the PIR and that meetings on Chapters 5 and 8 would take place before making a

36:52.000 --> 36:57.000
recommendation to the council. Those meetings have not occurred. I fully

36:57.000 --> 37:02.000
concur with what Sue Long said. Since there are serious policy issues in

37:02.000 --> 37:06.000
Chapters 5 and 8 to be discussed, I think we should not recommend the city

37:06.000 --> 37:13.000
council adopt the policy document until the meetings are held in those chapters.

37:13.000 --> 37:19.000
There is an additional point I would like to make. The decision we make tonight

37:19.000 --> 37:24.000
is not just a recommendation to the council. It is also an indication of how

37:24.000 --> 37:31.000
we expect the Planning Commission to operate. If you believe, as I do, that

37:31.000 --> 37:35.000
when decisions of this commission are made with an understanding that certain

37:35.000 --> 37:41.000
events will occur, then those events should take place.

37:41.000 --> 38:01.000
Thank you. Anybody else? Oh, come on. I know you all want to say something. Andy?

38:01.000 --> 38:19.000
I'm going to go last.

38:19.000 --> 38:28.000
Before Monday night's meeting, I reviewed the tape from the July 2009 meeting, and

38:28.000 --> 38:32.000
I was pretty sure what I saw and what I heard. This afternoon I did the same

38:32.000 --> 38:39.000
thing again. It was very clear that we were not finished with Chapters 5 and 8.

38:39.000 --> 38:44.000
To quote Chairman Tomasini, sorry Darren, but that I would like it in the public

38:44.000 --> 38:49.000
record. I'm not comfortable because we haven't finished Chapters 5 and 8, and I

38:49.000 --> 38:53.000
know you said it's going to come back, and I know it will. That was at three

38:53.000 --> 39:00.000
hours and six minutes into the meeting. It never came back, and I have a big

39:00.000 --> 39:05.000
problem with that. We didn't finish reviewing the document. The document

39:05.000 --> 39:13.000
isn't, it's not complete. And how can we as the Planning Commission do our job

39:13.000 --> 39:22.000
and send this on to the city council if it's not complete? That's, I just can't

39:22.000 --> 39:29.000
understand that. And then last night to be told we have to do this today, that

39:29.000 --> 39:37.000
stinks. Something stinks. I'm not sure what or why. The big rush all of a

39:37.000 --> 39:44.000
sudden. But based on the codes that the attorney spouted off last night, that,

39:44.000 --> 39:50.000
they can't even do that. And so I'm tempted to make no recommendation at all

39:50.000 --> 39:56.000
to the city council tonight, and instead suggest that we finish working on this

39:56.000 --> 40:00.000
document. Because right now this document isn't the city of Fortuna that I know,

40:00.000 --> 40:04.000
and that I grew up in, and I chose to come back and live in and raise my family

40:04.000 --> 40:15.000
in. Thank you. Can someone answer how, how this went on for 15 months? We had no

40:15.000 --> 40:21.000
meetings and then all of a sudden we have to get this passed right now. I don't

40:21.000 --> 40:27.000
understand what would have been the big deal of one more meeting. Why we couldn't

40:27.000 --> 40:33.000
have had one more meeting to finish this? It has to be done now. I don't understand

40:33.000 --> 40:39.000
that. This is so important to our city. It just makes absolutely no sense to me.

40:39.000 --> 40:57.000
Can someone please explain that to me? Ideally, it should have come back to you. I

40:57.000 --> 41:02.000
will say that. It should have come back to you. And we've all talked about that,

41:02.000 --> 41:08.000
and we do feel like, we all agree that it should have come back to you. One of the

41:08.000 --> 41:13.000
reasons that we created this packet that we gave to the council last night, that's

41:13.000 --> 41:18.000
why you hadn't seen it, it's the one that starts with the schedule, and then it

41:18.000 --> 41:22.000
includes the minutes of some of the meetings that we've been talking about in

41:22.000 --> 41:28.000
the staff reports. After the Monday night council meeting, I did go back and look

41:28.000 --> 41:33.000
at the general, this schedule of where we've been, and every single meeting that

41:33.000 --> 41:38.000
we've had is listed on this table. And I'd been keeping this up. Anyway, I just

41:38.000 --> 41:43.000
happened to have it, and I pulled it out again to remind myself. And I do believe,

41:43.000 --> 41:48.000
even though we should have come back to Chapter 5 and 8 and wrapped it up with

41:48.000 --> 41:53.000
the Planning Commission, I do believe that we've had a good process from the

41:53.000 --> 41:58.000
very beginning. We had the five community workshops where we got a lot of

41:58.000 --> 42:04.000
information, reams of information from the public, and that is what Menteer

42:04.000 --> 42:10.000
based the original policy document on. That policy document was, as you can see,

42:10.000 --> 42:13.000
there were numerous meetings with the Planning Commission and with the council,

42:13.000 --> 42:19.000
and that went on for two years through 2007. And we had a policy document that

42:19.000 --> 42:26.000
ended up going to, we prepared an EIR on that. So, you know, even though people

42:26.000 --> 42:30.000
weren't satisfied with it, it was still something that the council sort of blessed

42:30.000 --> 42:37.000
and, you know, sort of with hesitation. And I can tell you that staff wasn't

42:37.000 --> 42:42.000
satisfied with it either, but I think that's a reflection of the fact that, you

42:42.000 --> 42:46.000
know, General Plan isn't going to please everybody because it's not written by one

42:46.000 --> 42:51.000
person. It's written by the public and staff and the Planning Commission and the

42:51.000 --> 42:56.000
council. So, no one is happy with the General Plan, and that's probably true in

42:56.000 --> 43:01.000
every community, not just this one. And one of the reasons that we updated General

43:01.000 --> 43:06.000
Plan is because not only values change, but the regulatory framework changes. And

43:06.000 --> 43:10.000
staff doesn't make the regulations, but unfortunately our job is that we have to

43:10.000 --> 43:18.000
implement them, so we do get looked at as, you know, anti-development, anti, you

43:18.000 --> 43:23.000
know, property rights, but we're not. So then, as you can see, there were

43:23.000 --> 43:27.000
additional meetings with the council and then the 12 meetings with the Planning

43:27.000 --> 43:33.000
Commission last year. One of the things that is in this packet are the, you know,

43:33.000 --> 43:39.000
the justifications for the changes. Oh, I wanted to go back. At the end of 2007,

43:39.000 --> 43:44.000
after the EIR was circulated, we had the EIR and the comments and the policy

43:44.000 --> 43:50.000
document reviewed by this CEQA attorney. He's very well qualified. If you look at

43:50.000 --> 43:55.000
his qualifications, he's a trainer, you know, he's got 20-plus years of

43:55.000 --> 44:00.000
experience just in this area where we don't. It's not something that a normal

44:00.000 --> 44:05.000
staff person works on very often. So he is the one who said, this is where your

44:05.000 --> 44:11.000
document is weak. These are the things that will fix it and make it so, you know,

44:11.000 --> 44:15.000
so it's not challenged. And, you know, we're sensitive to the fact that the

44:15.000 --> 44:20.000
Mill District, you know, one of the city's policies or values is that that gets

44:20.000 --> 44:27.000
developed and we wanted to support that. So those are the, I mean, that's the,

44:27.000 --> 44:34.000
sort of the, you know, what we took from those 12 meetings. Chapters five and

44:34.000 --> 44:39.000
eight were, if you look at the minutes and the staff report, were reviewed on

44:39.000 --> 44:45.000
July 2nd at that meeting, July 14th and July 28th. So those chapters were looked

44:45.000 --> 44:50.000
at. Your comments are in the packet that Stephen, you know, that we gave to the

44:50.000 --> 44:56.000
council on Monday night. I know they weren't complete, but legally we looked

44:56.000 --> 45:00.000
at what was, what your comments were and what the recommendations of the attorney

45:00.000 --> 45:06.000
were and felt that those things, you know, the things that were in there needed

45:06.000 --> 45:10.000
to stay. So in that, in that regard we felt like, you know, there really wasn't

45:10.000 --> 45:17.000
any more room for changes. So that's why we sort of just moved on and we should

45:17.000 --> 45:21.000
have come back and wrapped things up with you guys.

45:24.000 --> 45:31.000
That still didn't answer my question. Why the big rush to have the, it passed now?

45:31.000 --> 45:39.000
That's the council's direction. The council is the one that chose to, you know,

45:39.000 --> 45:45.000
working with the attorney. The council is the one who chose to give it the short

45:45.000 --> 45:49.000
deadline. So the council can come in before we're finished with the project

45:49.000 --> 45:54.000
and just take it from us? The council is the legislative body. The planning

45:54.000 --> 45:58.000
commission is the appointed body and we're just staff. Okay.

45:58.000 --> 46:08.000
Thank you. Liz, I agree we did have a good process, but it wasn't complete. And

46:08.000 --> 46:15.000
what's the point of doing anything good if we don't complete the job? You're right,

46:15.000 --> 46:19.000
we did briefly discuss chapters five and eight, but we got bogged down and we

46:19.000 --> 46:25.000
decided to go back to them. And my last point, if everybody's unsatisfied with

46:25.000 --> 46:29.000
this general plan, maybe there's something wrong with it. Maybe we do need to go

46:29.000 --> 46:37.000
back and look at it again. If there's this much contention over it, maybe, maybe

46:37.000 --> 46:40.000
it's not right. Maybe it's not the right thing.

46:46.000 --> 46:52.000
I got a question for the commissioners. Five and eight, what is it that you don't

46:52.000 --> 46:56.000
like about five and eight? Is there anything in particular that you're

46:56.000 --> 47:04.000
unsatisfied with or just the process of not being able to go over it a little

47:04.000 --> 47:08.000
closer than we did? I'll start. It's number, the process, yes. We started them,

47:08.000 --> 47:13.000
we never finished them. But we got bogged down in those chapters big time. I

47:13.000 --> 47:19.000
thought, and I, if anybody else would agree or disagree, and we didn't finish

47:19.000 --> 47:24.000
it. But is there anything in particular? It's been several months since I really

47:24.000 --> 47:28.000
studied chapters five and eight. But I know what I did. There was a lot of things

47:28.000 --> 47:40.000
in there. In answer to Commissioner Lowe's question, I, I, I get bothered that

47:40.000 --> 47:44.000
we're holding the commission to a different standard than we're holding the

47:44.000 --> 47:50.000
staff to. Okay? We're, you're asking for specifics from commission members and we

47:50.000 --> 47:56.000
have not gotten the specifics from the staff yet. I heard again from Liz tonight

47:56.000 --> 48:05.000
the general term legal requirements. I have not heard in 15 months the specific

48:05.000 --> 48:11.000
relationship of the legal requirements to lines in the policy document. And until

48:11.000 --> 48:18.000
I hear that, I will not be satisfied. I cannot take generalities. One of the

48:18.000 --> 48:22.000
things I tried to point out earlier is there is a credibility issue when you

48:22.000 --> 48:27.000
tell us that we're going to meet again and for 15 months we don't meet. It is

48:27.000 --> 48:34.000
time to talk specifics and not generalities.

48:34.000 --> 48:39.000
Speaking of legality, I brought this up three or four times already tonight, but

48:39.000 --> 48:43.000
is there any legal precedence as to what the City Council is asking us to do as

48:43.000 --> 48:48.000
far as deciding tonight what our recommendation is?

48:48.000 --> 48:53.000
I don't think staff has to answer that, Andy, tonight. They have an attorney on

48:53.000 --> 48:58.000
staff. He's advised them this is what's in front of us. We can't keep asking this

48:58.000 --> 49:07.000
question. We have to, as a commission, at some point believe what they have told

49:07.000 --> 49:12.000
us from their attorney is accurate. We're not the jury of that. I have

49:12.000 --> 49:18.000
something to say here in a minute, but we can't ask them that. They have told us

49:18.000 --> 49:24.000
this is what's before us, not the legality of it. We're not attorneys, we're

49:24.000 --> 49:28.000
not judges, we don't understand legislative law. The City has an attorney

49:28.000 --> 49:33.000
on staff. We're told that this is what we have to do. Now I'm saying we have to

49:33.000 --> 49:39.000
do it. They're not going to answer that question.

49:39.000 --> 49:44.000
I don't expect them to with the City attorney not here, but I wish he was here.

49:44.000 --> 49:59.000
Okay. Anyone else? Mike?

49:59.000 --> 50:05.000
So thank you for the comments. You were very articulate. And thank you also for

50:05.000 --> 50:14.000
reminding me of that meeting that I was at and I've forgotten about. I do recall

50:14.000 --> 50:24.000
now very clearly my very serious concerns over the document. And the

50:24.000 --> 50:31.000
dilemma that I'm facing here as I listen to everybody and evaluate it, I've come

50:31.000 --> 50:36.000
to a place where I am now, because I have been in public service for so long and

50:36.000 --> 50:44.000
I know how these things can go, I'm now weighing very carefully what the outcome

50:44.000 --> 50:51.000
may be should we not approve the plan and what the ramifications of that may be

50:51.000 --> 50:58.000
versus approving the plan and retaining some level of control over the process

50:58.000 --> 51:06.000
that's following. Your comment, two years, three years, if it takes that long, we

51:06.000 --> 51:11.000
may not be here. It may be the wrong people. I'm convinced that this commission

51:11.000 --> 51:18.000
would take the next task very seriously and hold the council and the staff

51:18.000 --> 51:22.000
accountable for the promises that have been made about the next step in the

51:22.000 --> 51:31.000
process. So that's what I'm weighing at this point.

51:31.000 --> 51:37.000
I have a question for you, Darren. I'm not quite clear on what you meant by the

51:37.000 --> 51:42.000
earlier statement that we have to take the generalization that the lawyer says

51:42.000 --> 51:47.000
we take the whole document without having any specifics. Can you speak to

51:47.000 --> 51:51.000
that again? Sure. I'll go ahead and give my statement now and I'll try and answer

51:51.000 --> 51:57.000
that in my statement and if not, you can re-ask the question. Five years ago we

51:57.000 --> 52:02.000
started this general plan update. Some of the members that are on here, I think,

52:02.000 --> 52:06.000
were on here when we started it five years ago. Some came on as commissions do.

52:06.000 --> 52:10.000
They come and go. Some have not been on the whole time. I know when we started

52:10.000 --> 52:17.000
that, about a year in, I remember telling my family that I was going to leave the

52:17.000 --> 52:20.000
planning commission as soon as the general plan was updated and I thought it

52:20.000 --> 52:26.000
would honestly take about one more year. So it's been five years. That's how long

52:26.000 --> 52:31.000
we've been working on this. I think what we're looking at here, for me, it's two

52:31.000 --> 52:36.000
things. The process versus the document. We went through a process that's taken

52:36.000 --> 52:42.000
five years and we have a document that's in front of us. The members of the

52:42.000 --> 52:47.000
commission and city staff know myself, I have been so uncomfortable with this

52:47.000 --> 52:51.000
process. Now, like Andy said, there were a lot of good things with the process.

52:51.000 --> 52:55.000
Early on we had great input from the community. We had great community

52:55.000 --> 53:02.000
workshops. We did a lot of good work. I have had many problems and Duane can

53:02.000 --> 53:06.000
attest that these meetings right here back and forth, almost yelling at each

53:06.000 --> 53:11.000
other about the process and the role of the planning commission. I have always

53:11.000 --> 53:16.000
felt concerned. I've felt that the planning commission has been

53:16.000 --> 53:23.000
marginalized. You know, the joint meetings with the city council I've always

53:23.000 --> 53:28.000
been opposed to because I feel that marginalizes a planning commission when

53:28.000 --> 53:32.000
it's a joint meeting of the city council and the planning commission. The city

53:32.000 --> 53:36.000
council sits up here. The planning commission is down there. Although it's

53:36.000 --> 53:39.000
your meeting too, it's really not. Because people know who the decision

53:39.000 --> 53:44.000
makers are. It's the city council. I just have never felt those meetings lead to

53:44.000 --> 53:50.000
us doing what we have been tasked to do. So the process has been, to me, at times

53:50.000 --> 53:56.000
very ugly. I don't want to sit up here and try and be cute, but they say a bill

53:56.000 --> 54:00.000
being made in Congress is kind of like sausage being made. And that's kind of

54:00.000 --> 54:04.000
what we've watched here. But I make sausage every year and it's a lot cleaner

54:04.000 --> 54:11.000
than this has been. 15 months ago we had our last meeting on the general plan

54:11.000 --> 54:19.000
update. And Sue quoting me, Andy, those are all true. And I can also tell you

54:19.000 --> 54:26.000
that in the last 15 months myself have asked different members of staff, hey,

54:26.000 --> 54:29.000
what's going on with the general plan update? You know, every couple months,

54:29.000 --> 54:33.000
what's going on? What's going on? Oh, we're working on it. And I know other

54:33.000 --> 54:38.000
members of the commission, I'm sure, have asked also what's going on. And then you

54:38.000 --> 54:42.000
tend to forget about it. You know, we all have our busy lives. We're just up here,

54:42.000 --> 54:46.000
you know, we're not politicians. We all have families and lives and we're just

54:46.000 --> 54:50.000
up here trying to do what we think is best for this city. And so, you know, I

54:50.000 --> 54:54.000
was shocked when I was told it was 15 months. I couldn't believe that much time

54:54.000 --> 55:01.000
had went by. I thought it was six. But that's how much time went by. And I'll

55:01.000 --> 55:06.000
just throw it out there. Tammy, I mean, we might as well say it. About three

55:06.000 --> 55:11.000
weeks ago, and I haven't talked to Tammy about this per se, but three weeks ago I

55:11.000 --> 55:15.000
knew there was going to be a meeting on the general plan update. And at first I'm

55:15.000 --> 55:19.000
like, wow, we're finally going to have a meeting. And I was driving home from work

55:19.000 --> 55:23.000
and about three seconds later I just went, wait a minute, there's an election

55:23.000 --> 55:29.000
very soon. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why we're

55:29.000 --> 55:35.000
here, why there's a meeting, why they want us here. Okay? There could be a brand

55:35.000 --> 55:43.000
new council. And that council may or may not say, I don't like anything about this

55:43.000 --> 55:48.000
general plan, we're starting over. And I think there's maybe a fear of that. I'm

55:48.000 --> 55:53.000
not, I'm just assuming. I'm just trying to read between the lines. I think they're

55:53.000 --> 55:57.000
saying, well, we're, I don't know how, we've got to be over a million dollars into

55:57.000 --> 56:02.000
this thing. I don't know. We're five years into it. And I think there's a fear

56:02.000 --> 56:08.000
possibly of do we really want to start all over? Because I think in my view, if

56:08.000 --> 56:14.000
it doesn't get done, we are starting over. Yep, depending on the makeup of a new

56:14.000 --> 56:19.000
city council. I think that the majority of this document would be trashed and we

56:19.000 --> 56:25.000
are starting over. That's my opinion. So yeah, the process has been not well

56:25.000 --> 56:29.000
handled. Maybe some of that's our fault as a commission for not being more

56:29.000 --> 56:34.000
forceful and saying, we want answers now, I want, you know, we, we could have

56:34.000 --> 56:38.000
called, I could have called a special meeting, other chairmen at the time. We

56:38.000 --> 56:45.000
could have done more to be more proactive ourselves. Okay. City council could have

56:45.000 --> 56:49.000
been more proactive. But that's water under the bridge. This is where we're at.

56:49.000 --> 56:55.000
So now we have to look at the document that's in front of us. We have worked on

56:55.000 --> 57:01.000
this for five years. Now, at our last meeting, there were a lot of things that I

57:01.000 --> 57:06.000
didn't care for, that none of us cared for. But really, for the most part, most

57:06.000 --> 57:12.000
of those were specific things. For example, I know one that keeps coming up.

57:12.000 --> 57:17.000
Building on a 25% slope or, or whatever. We all said, you know, hey, if you can

57:17.000 --> 57:21.000
pay the engineer a million dollars and he can engineer that more power to you, man,

57:21.000 --> 57:27.000
go ahead and build on a 90 degree slope. We don't care. We did get, albeit late,

57:27.000 --> 57:33.000
the process, a list of all, the majority that I saw, the recommendations we wanted

57:33.000 --> 57:37.000
made. And, you know, and then they would, they said, you know, they would say, hey,

57:37.000 --> 57:41.000
this is what the commission recommends to the city council. And then the staff

57:41.000 --> 57:46.000
comment would say, staff concurs with the recommendation. Or it would say, staff

57:46.000 --> 57:52.000
doesn't concur and this is why. Okay. So, so for example, the 20 or 25% staff

57:52.000 --> 57:57.000
didn't concur and they didn't want to change it. Now, they say there's a reason

57:57.000 --> 58:04.000
they have to do that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's, that's what is

58:04.000 --> 58:15.000
there. The document in front of us is not perfect and it will never be perfect. And

58:15.000 --> 58:20.000
I, you know, the people that are here speaking tonight are, are citizens, since

58:20.000 --> 58:25.000
I've been on the commission for many, many years, they go to almost every meeting.

58:25.000 --> 58:29.000
And they care about the city. And, you know, I have made the comment before, we

58:29.000 --> 58:34.000
have 12,000 people in the town and it's always the same six or seven people there

58:34.000 --> 58:37.000
that, that are coming to us. Well, you know, that's the six or seven people and I

58:37.000 --> 58:41.000
know they have people they talk to. They have the time just like we do to care. So

58:41.000 --> 58:46.000
I know they care. And I agree with a lot of what they say. But this is not my

58:46.000 --> 58:53.000
general plan. It's not Dwayne's, Pat's. It, it's a general plan for the city of

58:53.000 --> 58:57.000
Fortuna. And we will never, and we all know that, we're never going to get a

58:57.000 --> 59:02.000
perfect general plan. We're never going to get that. I, I mean, we can start all

59:02.000 --> 59:06.000
over and something somebody else is going to like, I'm not going to like, vice

59:06.000 --> 59:13.000
versa. I'm overall proud of the work that this commission has done. If nothing

59:13.000 --> 59:18.000
else for the time that we have spent up here hours and hours and hours and hours

59:18.000 --> 59:23.000
away from our family and friends. I mean, it's not like this is overly fun and

59:23.000 --> 59:27.000
there's nothing really in it for you other than trying to do your, your civic

59:27.000 --> 59:33.000
duty. And, you know, I, I am proud of the work we did. And the majority of this

59:33.000 --> 59:40.000
plan, I support. Now, again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a CEQA lawyer. I'm not an

59:40.000 --> 59:43.000
experimental lawyer. I don't understand why some of these things can or can't

59:43.000 --> 59:47.000
not be in there. But I'm not supposed to be a lawyer. I'm not supposed to make

59:47.000 --> 59:51.000
sure, and I don't think we're supposed to make sure, that every single thing in

59:51.000 --> 59:56.000
there is just perfect with the law and this and that. That's not our charge. We're

59:56.000 --> 01:00:02.000
a planning commission, citizens of this community with different backgrounds. And

01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:08.000
we're supposed, our, our charge to me here is to look at, to hold the process,

01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:15.000
hold the meetings, get the input, give our input. And then we say, we either

01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:21.000
approve of this or we disapprove of it. It's not our job to write this general

01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:26.000
plan. It's the city council's job. That's where it finally rests. Our job is to

01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:33.000
look at this and either approve it or disapprove it and move it on. Now, Arden,

01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:42.000
I, I, was your question, why do I think it has to be done tonight? No. What? No,

01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:53.000
my, my question concerns what we should expect relative to the statements about

01:00:53.000 --> 01:01:00.000
the legality of certain items in the, in the policy document. Because I have in

01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:05.000
previous meetings pointed out statements that are subjective by nature. And yet,

01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:11.000
all I get back is the statement that, well, it's, it's required for legal

01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:15.000
authority. I cannot accept that. There's no way I can accept that. That's, that's,

01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:21.000
I understand that and I, I can sympathize with that. I can accept it because I'm

01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:27.000
not the attorney. If, if the city staff is telling me that that is legally

01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:34.000
acceptable, I've got to believe them. I'm just, I, I think I do, Sue. You can

01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:38.000
shake your head at me, that's just fine. I didn't shake my head at you when you

01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:49.000
were talking. I listened very nicely. Okay. So, the, the point is, is we are not

01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:53.000
attorneys. If they have told us that that is legally acceptable, that's good enough

01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:57.000
for me. That's all. And I understand that you don't feel that way. It's, it's not a

01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:02.000
matter of having to be legal attorney. It's a matter of logic. That's where I'm

01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:07.000
coming from. Okay. A statement is either logically defensible or it's not

01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:11.000
logically defensible. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're a

01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:16.000
lawyer or not. There are statements in this policy document that are not

01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:23.000
logically defensible. Okay. That's good. Okay. And, and, and to, to, to use a

01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000
generalization that, that it's legally required is not good enough. That's what's,

01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:33.000
we're getting a smoke screen here. Okay. That's what's bothering me. Okay. If, if

01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:37.000
I can point out one, that's all it takes. In other words, it's like a mathematical

01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:41.000
proof. I can prove it by negating it. And that's what I'm trying to do here. Okay.

01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:46.000
I have put on the table in the past specific examples where this is true. But

01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:50.000
I still get the same statement because it's an easy statement to make. That's

01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:55.000
what's not right here. Then why did you vote yes for it at the last meeting? Okay.

01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:01.000
I felt like you coming into the last meeting that the general policy document

01:03:01.000 --> 01:03:07.000
was, we had spent a lot of time on. Okay. And I thought it, it should go forward.

01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:14.000
But I realized in listening to Andy and, and Tammy that I had been too quick. Okay.

01:03:14.000 --> 01:03:18.000
Okay. I made a mistake. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have done what I

01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:23.000
did on Monday night. I think personally that we're letting emotions get involved

01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:28.000
and we're letting the process get in the way of the document. I think everyone's

01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:33.000
upset about the process and upset that we are told to have to make a decision

01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:40.000
tonight. If we do nothing, no matter, you know, we can do nothing. That's fine.

01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:44.000
Doesn't matter to me. We can vote it up. We can vote it down. We can adjourn and

01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:50.000
walk out of here. It is going to the city council at their next meeting. Now, I

01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:55.000
feel it's an obligation of this, of this commission to at least have a vote up or

01:03:55.000 --> 01:04:02.000
down. One way or the other. I don't want to adjourn. And that, I feel that's our

01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:07.000
job. After five long years of work, regardless if we think it should be

01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:12.000
another two months or three months, it's not. Here we are tonight and we're being

01:04:12.000 --> 01:04:18.000
asked to make a decision. So that's all I have to say. Public comment's been

01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:41.000
closed. Sorry. It will be on an agenda. It's on October 26th. Yeah.

01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:46.000
So here we are. People can continue to speak and give their opinions. We can

01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:56.000
make a motion. Before I before we make a motion, I want to say that I have

01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:02.000
participated many years ago in a planning process in Humboldt County where

01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:11.000
we did five neighborhoods. It was a three month process that took five years. And

01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:19.000
that one, it was the same kind of issue. And representatives from Fish and Game,

01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:24.000
it differed in that we did have representatives come forward and explain

01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:33.000
aspects of the law that were troubling to us. That said, I and I also understand

01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:41.000
that a document such as this, I do accept that if there are areas there that can

01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:48.000
be challenged legally and successfully, that it will be challenged. I don't

01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:52.000
accept the fact that it won't. I work in an environment where it is and I've

01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:00.000
seen it happen too many times. So I'm of the opinion that if we if we choose to

01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:09.000
vote this down, my biggest concern is we will cease to be active participants in

01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:38.000
the rest of this process. Anybody want to make a motion? Anybody want to say

01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:44.000
anything else? I have another question. So what Mike was saying, if this is voted

01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:49.000
down, that we won't be able to participate in this process anymore, does

01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:58.000
that mean that we can't work on the zoning or? No, we'll still get it. I don't

01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:03.000
think he, one minute literally, because certainly if you're still in the planning

01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:10.000
commission, you would still be making decisions. I think it would be difficult

01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:15.000
for me to, I mean I would fully participate, but it would be difficult for

01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:22.000
me to go forward with a plan that I had not supported and do the next step in

01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:34.000
the work is all. I would take a little different tack on that. I would say we

01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:39.000
should vote it down to send a loud and clear message that we don't want to

01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:44.000
continue the process forward like we've had in the past. We're sitting here

01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:50.000
talking about going forward with zoning documents and other things, okay? If we

01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:54.000
vote in favor of this tonight, we'll continue the same process into the future.

01:07:54.000 --> 01:07:59.000
I don't want to be a participant in that type of charade. It's time to send a

01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:03.000
message loud and clear that if you want the votes of this commission, then you

01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:19.000
need to earn them. Anyone else like to say anything? Well, hopefully someone's

01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:25.000
going to make some type of motion in a minute here. Again, I implore the

01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:33.000
commission to not get caught up in we feel that we've been treated wrongly or

01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:40.000
badly or the process hasn't gone correct because it hasn't. We know that. And I

01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:46.000
say part of it's our fault. We've been sitting up here for 15 months without a

01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:51.000
meeting. We should have called for some action and we didn't. And I will take

01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:56.000
responsibility for part of that. Not all of it, but a little teeny bit. I mean. I

01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:01.000
kind of a little bit disagree with that because many times we asked, you know,

01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:06.000
when is this coming back? What's going on? And there was always a reason. It

01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:11.000
wasn't quite ready yet. It wasn't. I could have called a special meeting just like

01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:17.000
we have tonight. Okay, it's all your fault then. A little bit. I'm just saying

01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:21.000
please let's let's look at the document. You know what? If we don't if people

01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:26.000
aren't happy with the document, I have no problem with that. But let's not vote.

01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:32.000
No, just because we don't like the process. I think we vote on the document.

01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:39.000
We all have sent a message. We do not like this process. We know that. But that

01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:48.000
doesn't get us anywhere. Vote no if you don't like the document. Vote yes if you

01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:54.000
still don't like it. But think that's the work that we've done and as good as it

01:09:54.000 --> 01:10:08.000
may get. Let's see if we can take those emotions out. I mean you're probably

01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:18.000
right, Andy, but that will come up if you are. It's hard for me to vote yes on a

01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:26.000
document that I didn't get to finish and I don't like what's in there. I'm not

01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:33.000
criticizing for you that. But what I don't like is in there. Well, the parts

01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:39.000
that we did and you know that are in there, I mean there's that was good. We

01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:46.000
did good work, I think. We made good suggestions. But I don't I just if it was

01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:50.000
completely done, I would totally support it. But it's not and I can't totally

01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:54.000
support. I understand that but I'm not completely happy with. I totally agree

01:10:54.000 --> 01:10:59.000
with Tammy. If it was done, I could support this. But it's not. We didn't

01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:04.000
finish. There were changes made to this document that we just found out about

01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:10.000
in one of these recent packets we got about. Just to point one out, the

01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:19.000
square footages on the type of use per zone or per zone per district. We

01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:24.000
talked for a long time about it's good, it's bad, it's this and we decided to get

01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:28.000
rid of it. Staff decided to put it back in. We just found out after the EIR is

01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:34.000
already done. We decided that the community that the market would

01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:40.000
determine how it grew. I agree with you. And it's back and we spent a lot of time

01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:46.000
on that. There's no legal precedent for that. But we are not the policy drafters.

01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:51.000
You're right. We gave our input knowing very well that they may change it or not

01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:58.000
accept it or not accept it. And the City Council can then again change everything

01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:04.000
we've done. I mean so. It's our job. And we did our job. I looked in our planning

01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:07.000
commission, commissioners handbook that we all got when we started on the

01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:12.000
commission. And I didn't bring it with me. I wish I would have. But it basically

01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:16.000
says our job for the general plan is to help facilitate the creation of the

01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:20.000
general plan. It's not to approve it or disapprove it. It's our job to help

01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:25.000
create it. To facilitate the creation of it. It's the City Council's job to adopt

01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:31.000
it or not adopt it. I don't feel that we're done with that document. I understand.

01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:36.000
I send it on. You don't have to. But I think we did help facilitate it. We have.

01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:42.000
We're not done. But you're going back to we all said this should be in there and

01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:46.000
it's not. They ended up not putting it in there. That doesn't matter. Our

01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:50.000
suggestion should be in there the way we suggested. Not if, not if city staff

01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:54.000
doesn't want it in there. Darren, I don't, it's okay. So it's not in there. The fact

01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:59.000
that we find out two weeks. I agree. We're supposed to send it on. That's the

01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:05.000
process. That's not the process. No, I said that is the process being inadequate.

01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:10.000
I agree. It's the process versus the document. And that's just one example.

01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:17.000
I know the process as maybe Arden said or somebody or you said stinks. I

01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:22.000
understand that. I'm just trying to look at the document. I didn't say the process

01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:26.000
stinks. The fact that it's so close to the election stinks. Well, that's part of

01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:49.000
the process. I mean. I don't, well, I'm not going to say that. So somebody needs

01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:55.000
to make a recommendation. Or we can keep discussing it. What happens if nobody

01:13:55.000 --> 01:13:59.000
makes a recommendation? I don't think we have to. Well, I will if no one does.

01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:04.000
Can the chair? I'll make a motion. I can make a motion. I'll make the motion. I've

01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:10.000
sat here and listened to this. I've listened to Andy, Tammy. I obviously know

01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:21.000
what I think. So. Okay. Do we have to make a motion that's suggested? Yes. One of

01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:33.000
those two. We can't make a substitute motion? No. No. Okay. It's my

01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:49.000
understanding that the motion. Okay. Let's see. Motion number resolution P1117A201.

01:14:49.000 --> 01:15:01.000
On section 14 states that. And I'll just say the important words that we not adopt

01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:09.000
the 2010 update. Okay. I move we accept that resolution with the following

01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:14.000
amendment to it. Which goes back to Monday night. Which once again people

01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:26.000
aren't listening to. Okay. In resolution P1117A2010. Delete section 10 which

01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:32.000
states the planning commission reviewed and considered the 2010 draft P.E.I.R.

01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:42.000
consistent with CEQA guideline section 15025C. End of quote. I might go on to

01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:47.000
say that at Monday's meeting Mr. Wieler, a lawyer hired by the city for his

01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:51.000
expertise on CEQA stated he agreed with the comment in the staff report that

01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:55.000
commission is not required to make recommendations or findings regarding the

01:15:55.000 --> 01:16:01.000
D.P.I.R. Since Monday's staff report also states the commission has not requested

01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:05.000
to make recommendations or findings regarding the D.P.I.R. And I think there

01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:09.000
are serious problems with the D.P.I.R. The resolution should be amended as I've

01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:16.000
just stated. This is a specific example of what I've been talking about tonight.

01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:23.000
End of motion.

01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:34.000
You have a motion. Do we have a second?

01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:44.000
I'll second. Okay. We have a first and a second to approve resolution number P-1117A-2010

01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:48.000
a resolution of the city of Fortuna planning commission recommending that the

01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:54.000
Fortuna City Council not adopt the 2030 general plan update. Roll call vote.

01:16:54.000 --> 01:17:02.000
Commissioner Henry. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. No. Commissioner Gilliam. Yes. Chair

01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:19.000
Tomasini. No. Commissioner Wells. Yes. Commissioner Alvin. No. Okay. So that was

01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:29.000
a 3-3 vote. Before we have possibly another resolution or we sit here along

01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:33.000
the board, I want to make a point of this. I probably shouldn't even say this, but

01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:37.000
I have to say it. I'm going to point the finger at Dwayne a little bit. We were

01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:42.000
told at our and it wasn't Dwayne's fault. It was the attorney we hired apparently.

01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:47.000
We were told not Monday night but our joint meeting that the next meeting we

01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:52.000
would have would be at our next regularly scheduled planning commission meeting.

01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:57.000
Well, I always know our meetings are on Tuesday. And so the reason I wasn't here

01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:02.000
was because I knew in my head making my plans I got to be back by Tuesday night.

01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:08.000
And I canceled a very important meeting Monday to travel back here thinking maybe

01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:12.000
they're going to call a meeting on Tuesday. And then I lo and behold find out

01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:16.000
the meeting's Monday. And I'm like, Dwayne, I won't be there. I'm flying back.

01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:20.000
So I was kind of bummed about that because I take pride in the fact I make

01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:26.000
almost every single meeting and have for many, many years. The ironic thing is,

01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:31.000
maybe it's just this way for a reason. We wouldn't even be sitting here if I would

01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:36.000
have been at that meeting. It had been four to two and it had been done. I just

01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:47.000
want to point that little piece of irony out. So we had a resolution that was not

01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:52.000
passed. Does someone want to make another resolution? Again from our planning

01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:56.000
commissioners handbook. It says a substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion

01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:00.000
and substitute a new and different motion for it. Say that again. Slow down. A

01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:04.000
substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion and substitute a new and

01:19:04.000 --> 01:19:11.000
different motion for it. So where are you going with that? So with that I move

01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:15.000
that we make a substitute motion that we table this item until our next regularly

01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:19.000
scheduled planning commission meeting at which time we continue our review of the

01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:25.000
policy document. Okay, Dwayne, is that allowable? I don't believe you have a

01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:30.000
substitute motion issue here. You have made a motion and you took a vote and you

01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:36.000
are tied on that. So it would warrant a new motion, not a substitute motion. A

01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:40.000
substitute motion comes into play if there's a motion on the floor that hasn't

01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:47.000
been voted on. So if I take substitute out of that then... So indeed you have made a

01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:53.000
motion and it was second and a vote was taken and it's in tie. A new motion could

01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:58.000
be made at any time. So I make a motion that we table this item until our next

01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:02.000
regularly scheduled planning commission meeting at which time we continue our

01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:11.000
review of the policy document. Can we do that? Or is it just going to go forward

01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:18.000
without... What I would tell you is yes you can do that, but in reality what it

01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:22.000
will happen is that mean you did not make any decision. It's the same as a tie

01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:28.000
vote. No decision was made and therefore by the City Council's resolution you

01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:39.000
have by definition passed on this as a recommendation. We don't have a second

01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:47.000
yet for Andy's. Let's do this. We did have two resolutions in front of us. The

01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:54.000
first one was three to three. So just to move forward I'll make a motion that we

01:20:54.000 --> 01:21:01.000
adopt resolution number P-111-7B-2010, a resolution of the City of Fortuna

01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:06.000
Planning Commission recommending to the Fortuna City Council adopt the 2010

01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:15.000
General Plan update with the change of taking out section 10 that the Planning

01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:19.000
Commission reviewed and considered the 2010 draft PEIR consistent with CEQA

01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:28.000
Guidelines section 15025C. As a matter of note if I can, that's I believe is in

01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:33.000
that resolution it shows up as a different section. Oh. Section 9. Okay I'm

01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:43.000
sorry. Section 9. So we delete section 9. Why don't I have section 10? It's the

01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:52.000
next page. So does anyone want to second that? I'll second that. Okay we have a

01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:57.000
first and a second to approve resolution number P-111-7B-2010, a resolution of the

01:21:57.000 --> 01:22:01.000
City of Fortuna Planning Commission recommending to the Fortuna City Council

01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:07.000
adopt the 2010 General Plan update. Roll call vote. Commissioner Henry? No.

01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:14.000
Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner Gilliam? No. Chair Tomasini? Yes.

01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:26.000
Commissioner Wells? Yes. Commissioner Albin? No. All right so the resolution

01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:35.000
passes 4 to 2. No it's 3-3. Oh was it 3-3? Oh I'm sorry. Block. He said yes. No he

01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:44.000
said no. Oh okay. It's 3-3. So it's 3-3. I almost pulled it off. So we can't make a

01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:50.000
decision after five long years. I understand why. So it's 3-3. It moves on

01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:55.000
to the City Council. Anything else Dwayne? That's your business tonight.

01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:58.000
Okay we're adjourned.