October 14, 2010. Please stand for the flag salute.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, Linda, roll call.
Commissioner Henry.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Lowe.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gillum.
Yes, sir.
Chair Tomasini.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Wells.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Albin.
Yes, sir.
All right, the first thing we're going to do are oral comments from the public.
Members of the public may be heard on any item of interest not on the agenda.
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 to the City Council concerning the adoption of the
General Plan update, adoption of resolution number P-1117A or P-1117B-2010.
Liz.
Do you have something to say?
Yes, I'd like to just start the preamble.
The history is stated in the staff report, but what we have provided to you tonight on
your dais 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 been inserted, but as you can see, the last paragraph
is, and I believe, I wasn't sure if 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 at a joint Planning
Commission and City Council meeting on October 11th.
The deadline that they have provided you is October 14th, 2010, which is today.
The point of that resolution, which goes up in the former element, that if no action is
taken by the Planning Commission, the action shall be deemed as a recommendation of approval
of the proposed General Plan amendment.
The Council deliberated that last night, and you can see the vote was a 4-1 vote by the
City Council.
The point of doing that particular start-up on this was to indicate to you as a Planning
Commission that indeed the City Council has set an exact 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, Dwayne.
And I'm actually going to turn it over to Stephen, who has the majority of the comments
as an introduction.
Thanks, Stephen.
Thank you, Liz.
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 has been 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 is it we want to see in our community, how do we want it to grow,
what kind of housing do we want to have, what kind of parks do we want to have, what kind
of recreational amenities do 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, 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 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 out in rural areas are incensed at a lot of the regulations
and requirements that may be appropriate for Manteca or Southern California but that
somehow don't seem to apply up 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 are people outside the city who would just as soon not
see fortune to 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 or other large projects, we're not going to see
people climbing trees. We're not going to see people chaining themselves to a fence.
They will ring their lawyers with a lawsuit and charge the general plan as
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, that a lot of the
environmental review has been taken care of and reduce and minimize how much
further 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 or distasteful, but it's all there for a particular reason.
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 the general plan is
done through the zoning code. That's the law.
The policies in the general plan set the framework for the city.
It's the 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 and the development of the zoning
code that becomes the codified law that implements what we're going to do.
And 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 there for a purpose.
And I think that, as I 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. That's what 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.
It's new. It contains policy language that is different, but it is not intended
to hobble. It is intended to be a proactive document that allows development
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, 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 the second resolution is a resolution in which you decide that based upon your
interpretations of the policy document or your feelings of the policy language
that this general plan 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 will conclude my remarks. Thank you very much.
That's it? Okay. Do any commissioners have any questions or comments for city
staff before we open up the public hearing? Yeah, I do.
First of all, I've lived in Fortuna about 33 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 think that we did a lot of hard work working on this general plan.
I'm proud of the work that we did get done. 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 don't always get what I want, I guess.
Hopefully, the next thing we work on, we can have better communication, you know,
so there isn't things like this that happen. 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
EIR. I've never seen the EIR. 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 EIR 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 of
all, I'd 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 EIR 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 review it from a, for a standpoint to
recommending it to the city council, but it was given to you as information so
that you could at least see that 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 certainly 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 11th, was the public hearing
for the, for the general plan. Kind of the way I see that public hearing, that
was at our public hearing. The city council opened it, everything was, all
the questions and everything were addressed to the mayor and the city
council closed it. So how could that be a planning 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, that was done.
Okay, but we still haven't had our own public hearing. Aren't we required to have
a public hearing? That was the public hearing. It was sort of the same process
that you used when you evaluated and then made a recommendation on the housing
element. Okay. Anybody else? I attended the meeting last night with city council
and looked up the California government code that was referenced by the city
attorney and it's pretty vague. But it appears to me that only items referred
back to the planning commission are subject to the 45 day deadline and or
whatever time limit is set by the city council. I'll just read it here with this,
what code 65356 of the California, California code says it's the legislative
body shall adopt or amend a general plan by resolution, resolution which
resolution shall 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 shall first be
referred to the planning commission for its recommendation. The failure of the
commission to report within 45 calendar days after the reference or within the
time set by the legislative body shall be deemed a recommendation for approval.
To me this clearly says that anything they refer back to us has that 45 day
limit or the time limit they set, not the general plan as we stand today. And I
can, if anybody wants to read this, have at 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. And I'll leave it at that for now.
Thank you. Anybody 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. Okay, that's number one. Number two, we were given this pack of
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 with these.
Thank you very much. The code section that Mr. Elbin 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, prepared an 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 dais 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 what, and the commission
asked for the legal justification for putting a blue ink policy in that appeared
in those two chapters. And that was sort of the, the issue that, that, that
disappeared 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 it to you this evening as, as reference. If that, if that matter came
up, we wanted to have that available for you.
Thank you. You're 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. The one I read and two other ones that would just say
nothing about a deadline. I just want to make that clear.
Anybody else have any comments? Okay. 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.
Richard Smith, 954 Main Street. I'm here representing Eel River Disposal. You have
very weighty things before you tonight and I feel badly to bring something like
this before you 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 forum that we
have. Eel River Disposal's transfer station is located in the city right now
and it's in a light industrial zone. On the other side of the road in the county
is where the C&D yard and other activities are conducted and that's also
light industrial. The amendments to the general plan are going to give a new land
use designation to these areas of River Walk Drive. There's a tremendous concern
that this will instantly turn these sites into nonconforming uses and capable of
being expanded, changed or modified as needs require. Because of that concern,
I've been in the process of discussing it with staff for about two years. And
about six months ago in a series of emails with the city manager, we came up
with a modification that I was told staff was considering. The issue is that
the River Walk Drive district made something called quasi-public uses a
permitted use, principally permitted use, but it doesn't define what that means.
What 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 that staff has taken is to not insert this and let
this all be handled in the zoning process with the idea being that a zone
will then be assigned to it that allows this activity. But when I was a young man,
Ronald Reagan said, trust but verify. And that's what 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 is saying that this term quasi-public
use will include my client's activities. There are two problems with that. The
first is that staff's opinion and what it means is not relevant. What's important
and what's relevant is what the legislative bodies think it means to take
action on it. And I have no guarantee without the legislative body taking action
on something that includes 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, it would leave the issue open and unresolved until a
year from now, two years from now, the city gets around to having new
conforming zoning ordinances. Well, the thing that worries me about that is a
year from now, two years from now, three years from 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 what I'm trying to do is I'm
trying to trust the city, I'm trying to trust staff. But at 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. Are there any questions that I can answer? Thank
you. Thank you. Anybody else?
You're right 1660 Newburgh Road. I just had a couple comments. You know, I really
appreciate it when government uses the fear of lawsuits as an excuse to force
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 Humboldt 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 the
fear of lawsuits 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 municipal codes and make
sure that they're compliant and consistent with the general plan. And there
are 14 of them. The ones that are probably be most contentious are 15, which
is the building and construction section, and then 16 is subdivisions, and then
17 is going to be really fun. That's the zoning. And once we get to zoning, I
don't know what staff's going to do. I could see them going out and spending
taxpayer monies and hiring consultants to go over these codes 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 these zoning codes should say. And I'm sure staff's 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 write the zoning codes the
way you want them. And if we have to revise the 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
my, really my only comment. I know you guys can figure these codes out, these
zoning codes, and the staff may try to pit, you know, the poor city against us,
I don't know, evil developers I guess for 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 the city really needs. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?
Resident of Fortuna. So four council members have put you in an awkward
position tonight. 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 affect
the citizens of Fortuna for the next 20 years or if you still have some
questions or would like clarifications, you will right now tonight either
recommend or not recommend approval of this policy document. By doing this, they
have taken away your voice. 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 15 months ago. The last planning commission
meeting was on July 28, 2009. Commissioner Lowe 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. Dwayne, Ricky, and
Stephen Avis both promised to come back with the justifications for the items
you're concerned with and have another meeting. After much discussion, Chairman
Tomasini finally changed his vote to move forward with the draft EIR. That was
the motion that was made, to move forward with the draft EIR. Staff was to
bring back more information and justification for all items you had
concerns about. Chairman Tomasini ended 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 continues to be in here, then there will be a big problem. Dwayne
and 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
recommend it. 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 has actually read the
entire document, noted all the new changes, deletions 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 15 months without any meetings, suddenly this
update has to be approved now. Why? Some of the council members said they weren't
rushing it. After all, it's been five years. Well, what's five years and two
more months or five years and three more months? No, it has to be done now. It
has to be done before the election because they are concerned that
someone is going to get on the council that doesn't approve of what they have
done or the general plan policy. That is wrong and I am asking you guys not to
recommend it. Thanks. Thank you.
I am a citizen of Fortuna. 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. I would also like to say that last night, Stephen
Avis 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 it
brought back and you did. And Dwayne Riggie said you would have it within two
months, that there would be another meeting and that you needed to send the
EIR on and if you didn't, he would. Now, I want to, and I am sure Stephen said
that because he didn't listen to the tape. I know that Liz listened to the tape. I
don't know if Dwayne listened to it again, but I was told that Liz listened to
it. 15, three years ago, three years ago, Patwood 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, Doug Strull, Chairman, or Councilman Doug
Strull said that last night, you have the same policy that you had three years ago.
Only we're probably another 800,000 into it, or I mean, I have no clue how much it
costs. I take that back. I don't know how much it costs, but I know it's cost a lot.
But Doug Strull, he adequately said, it didn't feel right. Patwood 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 Fish and Game. It defends 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 it brought
back. It was never brought back. Whatever you guys are going to do, you're going to
do. But in my opinion, you haven't finished. And the reason why we've 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 Patwood Church, the mayor of this city, is willing to accept right now
is not one bit different than the document that he didn't like three years
ago. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else?
I would ask that, Janelle Eger, Angel Heights, I would ask that you consider
two separate things. One is the process that happened. And I also looked at the
tape. And the process that has happened to you is not acceptable. And then I want
you to look at the policy. And whatever Mr. Whitchurch said before or now, there
are people in this community that feel comfortable with this plan. So the policy
itself is perhaps up for grabs here. So I just ask you to separate the process
from the policy. And at the tape, from 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 EIR 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, I think it was five and eight. And so if you are
comfortable with that, I would ask you to confirm that. Although you've obviously
said you haven't seen the EIR. So I don't know if it's changed from that. But
that's all I'd like to say. Thanks.
Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. At this time, we're going to close the public
comment. We're going to turn it over to the commission. So if the commission would
like to ask any further questions of staff, if they would like to make a
statement, a comment, I certainly have something 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.
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 Albans and Commissioner Gillum's comments, I
concluded additional analysis should be done. That was my reason for moving to
adjourn. After Monday's meeting, I reviewed the video of the July 28, 2009
Planning Commission meeting and gave additional thought to the contents of
Chapters 5 and 8. On July 28, we were told approval of the policy document was
desired before staff could begin work on or was desired before staff began work
on the PIR and that meetings on Chapters 5 and 8 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 5 and 8 to be discussed, I think we should not recommend the city
council adopt the policy document until the meetings are held in those chapters.
There is an additional point I would like to make. The decision we make 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 certain
events will occur, then those events should take place.
Thank you. Anybody else? Oh, come on. I know you all want to say something. Andy?
I'm going to go last.
Before Monday night's meeting, I reviewed the tape from the July 2009 meeting, and
I was pretty sure what I saw and what I heard. This afternoon I did the same
thing again. It was very clear that we were not finished with Chapters 5 and 8.
To quote Chairman Tomasini, sorry Darren, but that I would like it in the public
record. I'm not comfortable because we haven't finished Chapters 5 and 8, and I
know you said it's going to come back, and I know it will. That was at three
hours and six minutes into the meeting. It never came back, and I have a big
problem with that. We didn't finish reviewing the document. The document
isn't, it's not complete. And how can we as the Planning Commission do our job
and send this on to the city council if it's not complete? That's, I 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 attorney spouted off last night, that,
they can't even do that. And so I'm tempted to make no recommendation at all
to the city council tonight, and instead suggest that we finish working on this
document. Because right now this document isn't the city of Fortuna that 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 15 months? We had no
meetings and then all of a sudden we have to get this passed right now. I don't
understand what would have been the big deal of one more meeting. Why we couldn't
have had one more meeting to finish this? It 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. I
will say that. It should have come back to you. And we've all talked about that,
and we do feel like, we all agree that it should have come back to you. One of the
reasons that we created this packet 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 in
the staff reports. After the Monday night council meeting, I did go back and look
at the general, this schedule of where we've been, and every single meeting that
we've had is listed on this table. And I'd been keeping this up. Anyway, I just
happened 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 5 and 8 and wrapped it up with
the Planning Commission, I do believe that we've had a good process from the
very beginning. We had the five community workshops where we got a lot of
information, reams of information from the public, and that is what Menteer
based the 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 2007. And we had a policy document that
ended up going to, we prepared an EIR on that. So, you know, even though people
weren't satisfied with it, it was still something that the council sort of blessed
and, you know, sort of 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, 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 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 12 meetings with the Planning
Commission last year. One of the things that is in this packet are the, you know,
the justifications for the changes. Oh, I wanted to go back. At the end of 2007,
after the EIR was circulated, we had the EIR and the comments and the policy
document reviewed by this CEQA attorney. He's very well qualified. If you look at
his qualifications, he's a trainer, you know, he's got 20-plus years of
experience just in this area where we don't. It's not something that a normal
staff person works on very often. So he is the one who said, this is where your
document is weak. These are the things that will fix it and make it so, you know,
so it's not challenged. And, you know, we're sensitive to the fact that the
Mill District, you know, one of the city's policies or values is that that gets
developed and we wanted to support that. So those are the, I mean, that's the,
sort of the, you know, what we took from those 12 meetings. Chapters five and
eight were, if you look at the minutes and the staff report, were reviewed on
July 2nd at that meeting, July 14th and July 28th. So those chapters were looked
at. Your comments are in the packet that Stephen, you know, that 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 the attorney
were and felt that those things, 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 wrapped things up with you guys.
That still didn't answer my question. Why the big rush to have the, it passed now?
That's the council's direction. The council is the one that chose to, you know,
working with the attorney. The council is the one 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? The council is the legislative body. The planning
commission is the appointed body and we're just staff. Okay.
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 chapters five and eight, but we got bogged down and we
decided to go back to them. 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 got a question for the commissioners. Five and eight, what is it that you don't
like about five and eight? Is there anything in particular that you're
unsatisfied with or just the process of not being able to go over it a little
closer than we did? I'll start. It's number, the process, yes. We started them,
we never finished them. But we got bogged down in those chapters big time. I
thought, and I, if anybody else would agree or disagree, and we didn't finish
it. But is there anything in particular? It's been several months since I really
studied chapters five and eight. But I know what I did. There was a lot of things
in there. In answer to Commissioner Lowe's question, I, I, I get bothered that
we're holding the commission to a different standard than we're holding the
staff to. Okay? We're, you're asking for specifics from commission members and we
have not gotten the specifics from the staff yet. I heard again from Liz tonight
the general term legal requirements. I have not heard in 15 months the specific
relationship of the legal requirements to lines in the policy document. And until
I hear that, I will not be satisfied. I cannot take generalities. One of the
things I tried to point out earlier is there is a credibility issue when you
tell us that we're going to meet again and for 15 months we don't meet. It is
time to talk specifics and not generalities.
Speaking of legality, I brought this up three or four times already tonight, but
is there any legal precedence as to what the City Council is asking us to do as
far as deciding tonight what our recommendation is?
I don't think staff has to answer that, Andy, 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 the jury of that. I have
something to say here in a minute, but we can't 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 I'm saying we have to
do it. They're not going to answer that question.
I don't expect them to with the City attorney not here, but I wish he was here.
Okay. Anyone else? Mike?
So thank you for the comments. You were very articulate. And thank you also for
reminding me of that meeting that I was at and I've 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'm now 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 control over the process
that's following. Your comment, two years, three years, if it takes that long, we
may not be here. It may be the wrong people. I'm convinced that this commission
would take the next task very seriously and hold the council and the staff
accountable for the promises that have been made about the next step in the
process. So that's what I'm weighing at this point.
I have a question for you, Darren. 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 and if not, you can re-ask the question. Five years ago we
started this general plan update. Some of the members that are on here, I think,
were on here when we started it five years ago. Some came on as commissions do.
They come and go. Some have 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 as 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, 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 have had many problems and Duane can
attest that these meetings right here back and forth, almost yelling at each
other about the process and the role of the planning commission. I have 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 sits up here. The planning commission is down there. Although it's
your meeting too, it's really not. Because people know who the decision
makers are. It's the city council. 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. I don't want to sit up here and try and be cute, but they say a bill
being made in Congress is kind of like sausage being made. And that's kind of
what we've watched here. But I make sausage every year and it's a lot cleaner
than this has been. 15 months ago we had our last meeting on the general plan
update. And Sue quoting me, Andy, those are all true. And I can also tell you
that in the last 15 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 just
up 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 15 months. I couldn't believe that much time
had went by. I thought it was six. But that's how much time went by. And I'll
just throw it out there. Tammy, 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 meeting. And I was driving home from work
and about three seconds later I just went, wait a minute, there's 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 us here. Okay? 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 maybe a fear of that. I'm
not, I'm just assuming. I'm just trying to read between the lines. I think they're
saying, well, we're, I don't know how, we've 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 of do we really want to start all over? Because I think in my view, if
it doesn't get done, we are starting over. Yep, depending on 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 and saying, we want answers now, I want, you know, we, we could have
called, I could have called a special meeting, other chairmen at the time. We
could have done more to be more proactive ourselves. Okay. 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 25% 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 90 degree slope. We don't care. We did get, albeit late,
the process, a list of all, the majority that I saw, the recommendations we wanted
made. And, you know, and then they would, they 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 it would say, staff
doesn't concur and this is why. Okay. So, so for example, the 20 or 25% staff
didn't concur and they didn't want to change it. 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 in front of us is not perfect and it will never be perfect. And
I, you know, the people that are here speaking tonight are, are citizens, 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 have made the comment before, we
have 12,000 people in the town and it's always the same six or seven people there
that, that are coming to us. Well, you know, that's the 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 Dwayne's, Pat's. It, 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, 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 overall 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, your civic
duty. And, you know, I, 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 CEQA lawyer. I'm not an
experimental lawyer. I don't understand why some of these things can or can't
not 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 and this and that. That's not our charge. We're
a planning commission, citizens of this community with different backgrounds. And
we're supposed, our, our charge to me here is to look at, to hold the process,
hold the meetings, get the input, give our input. 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 rests. Our job is to
look at this and either approve it or disapprove it and move it on. Now, Arden,
I, I, was your question, why do I think it has to be done tonight? No. What? No,
my, 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 in
previous meetings pointed out statements that are subjective 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. There's no way I can accept that. That's, that's,
I understand that and I, I can sympathize with that. I can accept it because I'm
not the attorney. If, if the city staff is telling me that that is legally
acceptable, I've got to believe them. I'm just, I, I think I do, Sue. You can
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. Okay. So, the, 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, it's not a
matter of having to be legal attorney. It's a matter of logic. That's where I'm
coming from. Okay. A statement is either logically defensible or it's not
logically defensible. 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 defensible. Okay. That's good. Okay. And, and, and to, to, to use a
generalization that, that it's legally required is not good enough. That's what's,
we're getting a smoke screen here. Okay. That's what's bothering me. Okay. If, if
I can point out one, that's all it takes. In other words, it's like a mathematical
proof. I can prove it by negating it. And that's what I'm trying to do here. Okay.
I have put on the table in the past specific 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? Okay.
I felt like you coming into the last meeting that the general policy document
was, we had spent a lot of time on. Okay. And I thought it, it should go forward.
But I realized in listening to Andy and, and Tammy that I had been too quick. Okay.
Okay. I made a mistake. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have done what I
did on Monday night. I think personally that we're letting emotions get involved
and we're letting the process get in the way of the document. 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, 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 of 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. Public comment's been
closed. Sorry. It will be on an agenda. It's on October 26th. Yeah.
So here we are. People can continue to speak and give their opinions. We can
make a motion. Before I before we make a motion, I want to say that I have
participated many years ago in a planning process in Humboldt County where
we did five neighborhoods. It was a three month process that took five years. And
that one, it was the same kind of issue. And representatives from Fish and Game,
it 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 it won't. 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 this down, 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? I have another question. So what Mike was saying, if this is voted
down, that we won't be able to participate in this process anymore, does
that mean that we can't work on the zoning or? No, we'll still get it. I don't
think he, one minute 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 is all. 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, okay? If we
vote in favor of this tonight, we'll continue the same process into 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 the votes of this commission, then you
need to earn them. Anyone else like to say anything? Well, hopefully someone's
going to make some type of motion in a minute here. Again, I implore the
commission to not get caught up in we feel that we've been treated wrongly or
badly or the process hasn't gone correct because it hasn't. We know that. And I
say part of it's our fault. We've been sitting up here for 15 months without a
meeting. We should have called for some action and we didn't. 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 disagree 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 have called a special meeting just like
we have tonight. Okay, it's all your fault then. A little bit. I'm just saying
please let's let's look at the document. You know what? 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 have 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 the document. Vote yes if you
still don't like it. But think that's the work that we've done and as good as it
may get. Let's see if we can take those emotions out. I mean you're probably
right, Andy, 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. But what I don't like is in there. 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'm not completely happy with. I totally agree
with Tammy. 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 about
in one of these recent packets we got about. Just to point one out, the
square footages on the type of use per zone or per zone per district. 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 in. We just found out after the EIR is
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 drafters.
You're right. We gave our input knowing very well that 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. And we did our job. I looked in our planning
commission, commissioners handbook that we all got when we started on the
commission. And I didn't bring it with me. I wish I would have. But it basically
says our job for the general plan is to help facilitate the creation of the
general plan. It's not to approve it or disapprove it. It's our job to help
create it. To facilitate the creation of it. It's the City Council's job to adopt
it or not adopt it. I don't feel that we're done with that document. I understand.
I send it on. You don't have to. But I think we did help facilitate it. We have.
We're not done. 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 suggested. Not if, not if city staff
doesn't want it in there. Darren, I don't, it's okay. So it's not in there. The fact
that we find out two weeks. I agree. We're supposed 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.
I know the process as maybe Arden said or somebody or you said stinks. I
understand that. I'm just trying to look at the document. I didn't say the process
stinks. The fact that it's so close to the election stinks. Well, that's part of
the process. I mean. I don't, well, I'm not going to say that. So somebody needs
to make a recommendation. Or we can keep discussing it. What happens if nobody
makes a recommendation? I don't think we have to. Well, I will if no one does.
Can the chair? I'll make a motion. I can make a motion. I'll make the motion. I've
sat here and listened to this. I've listened to Andy, Tammy. I obviously know
what I think. So. Okay. Do we have to make a motion that's suggested? Yes. One of
those two. We can't make a substitute motion? No. No. Okay. It's my
understanding that the motion. Okay. Let's see. Motion number resolution P1117A201.
On section 14 states that. And I'll just say the important words that we not adopt
the 2010 update. Okay. I move we accept that resolution with the following
amendment to it. Which goes back to Monday night. Which once again people
aren't listening to. Okay. In resolution P1117A2010. Delete section 10 which
states the planning commission reviewed and considered the 2010 draft P.E.I.R.
consistent with CEQA guideline section 15025C. End of quote. I might go on to
say that at Monday's meeting Mr. Wieler, a lawyer hired by the city for his
expertise on CEQA stated he agreed with the comment in the staff report that
commission is not required to make recommendations or findings regarding the
D.P.I.R. Since Monday's staff report also states the commission has not requested
to make recommendations or findings regarding the D.P.I.R. And I think there
are serious problems with the D.P.I.R. The resolution should be amended as I've
just stated. This is a specific example of what I've been talking about tonight.
End of motion.
You have a motion. Do we have a second?
I'll second. Okay. We have a first and a second to approve resolution number P-1117A-2010
a resolution of the city of Fortuna planning commission recommending that the
Fortuna City Council not adopt the 2030 general plan update. Roll call vote.
Commissioner Henry. Yes. Commissioner Lowe. No. Commissioner Gilliam. Yes. Chair
Tomasini. No. Commissioner Wells. Yes. Commissioner Alvin. No. Okay. So that was
a 3-3 vote. Before we have possibly another resolution or we sit here along
the board, I want to make a point of this. I probably shouldn't even say this, but
I have to say it. I'm going to point the finger at Dwayne a little bit. We were
told at our and it wasn't Dwayne'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 regularly scheduled planning commission meeting.
Well, I always know our meetings are on Tuesday. And so the reason I wasn't here
was because I knew in my head making my plans I got to be back by Tuesday night.
And I canceled 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 find out
the meeting's Monday. And I'm like, Dwayne, I won't be there. I'm flying back.
So I was kind of bummed about that because I take pride in the fact I make
almost every single meeting and have for many, many years. The ironic thing is,
maybe it's just this way for a reason. We wouldn't even be sitting here if I would
have been at that meeting. It had been four to two and it had been done. I just
want to point that little piece of irony out. So we had a resolution that was not
passed. Does someone want to make another resolution? Again from our planning
commissioners handbook. It says a substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion
and substitute a new and different motion 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 where are you going with that? So with that I move
that we make a substitute motion that we table this item until our next regularly
scheduled planning commission meeting at which time we continue our review of the
policy document. Okay, Dwayne, is that allowable? I don't believe you have a
substitute motion issue here. You have made a motion and you took a vote and you
are tied on that. So it would warrant a new motion, not a substitute motion. A
substitute motion comes into play if there's a motion on the floor that hasn't
been voted on. So if I take substitute out of that then... So indeed you have made a
motion and it was second and a vote was taken and it's in tie. A new motion could
be made at any time. So I make a motion that we table this item until our next
regularly scheduled planning commission meeting at which time we continue our
review of the policy document. Can we do that? Or is it just going to go forward
without... 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 decision. It's 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 Andy's. Let's do this. We did have two resolutions in front of us. The
first one was three to three. So just to move forward I'll make a motion that we
adopt resolution number P-111-7B-2010, a resolution of the City of Fortuna
Planning Commission recommending to the Fortuna City Council adopt the 2010
General Plan update with the change of taking out section 10 that the Planning
Commission reviewed and considered the 2010 draft PEIR consistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15025C. As a matter of note if I can, that's I believe is in
that resolution it shows up as a different section. Oh. Section 9. Okay I'm
sorry. Section 9. So we delete section 9. Why don't I have section 10? It's the
next page. So does anyone want to second that? I'll second that. Okay we have a
first and a second to approve resolution number P-111-7B-2010, a resolution of the
City of Fortuna Planning Commission recommending to the Fortuna City Council
adopt the 2010 General Plan update. Roll call vote. Commissioner Henry? No.
Commissioner Lowe? Yes. Commissioner Gilliam? No. Chair Tomasini? Yes.
Commissioner Wells? Yes. Commissioner Albin? No. All right so the resolution
passes 4 to 2. No it's 3-3. Oh was it 3-3? Oh I'm sorry. Block. He said yes. No he
said no. Oh okay. It's 3-3. So it's 3-3. I almost pulled it off. So we can't make a
decision after five long years. I understand why. So it's 3-3. It moves on
to the City Council. Anything else Dwayne? That's your business tonight.
Okay we're adjourned.