HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2000-10-09
9-25-00 / 10-9-00
to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.
()
clerk
I
APproved:~CJAi~b ()~1dI
Mayorl
MC.", 9~~)!h( UA
City Clerkl
Seal Beach, California
October 9, 2000
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling
the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Campbell
Councilmembers Doane, Yost
I
Councilmembers Boyd and Larson were present in the Conference
Room pending the Closed Session.
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. McIntyre, Interim City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
The City Attorney advised that the public should be afforded
the opportunity to speak at this time to any item listed on
the agenda. There were no public comments.
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet
in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the
agenda, an update on labor negotiations relating to the
Police Officers Association and the Orange County Fire
Authority pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, and a
conference with the City's real property negotiator, pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.8, with regard to 201 - 8th
Street, California Historic Properties, and lots 76, 77, and
78 of Lot A, Tract 15797, the easterly side of Seal Beach
Boulevard from the intersection of Rossmoor Center way, Bixby
Land Company. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at
6:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Campbell
calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the
Council had discussed the items shown on the agenda, gave
direction with regard to Item A-I and B, no other action was
taken.
I
I
I
I
10-9-00
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
Approved:
~0Ju~~~~
Mayot
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
October 9, 2000
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:12 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting
to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Campbell
Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. McIntyre, Interim City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Captain Schaefer, Police Department
Captain Cushman, Lifeguard Department
Mr. Cummins, Assistant Planner
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilman Doane reported having received requests from
members of the business community to continue Item "N", the
public hearing to consider the merchant parking permit fee,
until the next meeting. Councilman Boyd requested that Item
"E" be removed from the Consent Calendar for the purpose of
clarification, and noted he would abstain from voting on Item
"L", Resolution 4846 pertaining to proposition 37. As to
Item "N", the City Attorney pointed out that if that item is
continued at this time it will require renoticing, however if
the hearing is opened, then continued, it will not require
further noticing, to which the Council concurred.
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the order of the
agenda as revised.
lO-9-00
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilman Boyd announced again the Coyote Creek riverbed
cleanup to take place on November 4th, and that anyone
interested should contact the Chamber office. Councilman
Yost noted that the staging area for the cleanup is 7002 East
Willow, and reported that other organizations will be
participating in the effort as well. Councilman Yost
announced the upcoming California Paralyzed Veterans 5 and
10K run on November 11th at the Naval Weapons Station, also,
the Bayers and Barkers Dog walk-A-Thon, November 11th, 9:00
a.m. at Eisenhower Park, a fundraiser for the Animal Care
Center. Mayor Campbell announced Clean Up Week from Monday,
October 23rd through Sunday, October 29th, dumpsters located
in the area of the Public works Yard, and offered phone
numbers and addresses of hazardous waste disposal sites for
anyone interested.
I
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Campbell declared Public Comments open. Ms. Jane
McCloud, Balboa Drive, District Three resident, said she
wished to share her opinion with regard to Council
representation as it relates to development in District
Three. Ms. McCloud offered that it is public knowledge that
there is some type of development proposed by Boeing, her
understanding too is that a meeting was held with Boeing
without her representative being informed, in fact when he
learned of the meeting was asked to not attend, and she would
think that a meeting such as that would not be acceptable,
ethical, or even what the legal ramifications might be, this
may be a matter for closed session discussion. Ms. McCloud
said when it comes to matters of development in District
Three, as a resident she would like her representative to be
the one involved in meetings and discussions in order to
inform the constituents, she would not like to see a
community division as was the case with the Bixby project.
Mayor Campbell responded that she attended the meeting as the
Mayor, and advised that Boeing will be doing an exact same
presentation to each member of the Council, also, said she
found it interesting that Ms. McCloud wanted her Council
representative to be present however as a councilperson she
had not been afforded the opportunity to talk to Bixby about
anything and that project is in her district. Mr. Doug
Brown, Seal Beach, displayed a box and bag filled with
various forms of debris from the beach. .Mr. Brown asked what
it takes to get large rakes for use between the jetties, nets
across the River, there is no filtering of the waters, this
City is years behind, he will continue to bring the debris to
Council in an effort to make the public aware of what is
coming onto the beaches, he wants to help, what can he do.
To Mr. Brown, Councilman Boyd noted this as the second
appearance before Council, the efforts are appreciated, as to
what it takes he advised that it takes an Act of Congress and
authorization from the U. S. Coast Guard to no longer allow
the San Gabriel River to be a navigable waterway, nothing can
be placed across that waterway, members of the Council have
worked on this problem for the past two years, there is a
million dollars from the State in an account that could be
used, every means possible is being sought to stop the flow
of debris from up-stream, this is not a problem specific to
Seal Beach, it can be seen in any coastal community in the
world, every effort thus far to try a boom or net has been
met with opposition because it is a navigable waterway, any
I
I
I
I
I
10-9-00
other means is being looked at and there are people from all
walks of life trying to help solve this problem. Councilman
Yost mentioned again the River cleanup scheduled for November
4th with the intent of cleaning up the riverbed before the
debris gets to the beach. Mayor Campbell mentioned too that
the City worked diligently to have a seat on the Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy, the effort again to stop the debris
before it washes onto Seal Beach. To the upcoming
consideration of agenda item "E" and comments from the
public, no member of the audience indicated an intention to
speak. There being no further comments, Mayor Campbell
declared Public Comments to be closed.
PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Campbell read in full the Proclamation designating
October 8th through October 14th, 2000 as "Fire Prevention
Week." Boyd moved, second by Larson, to so proclaim.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
COUNCIL ITEMS
APPOINTMENT - CITIZENS PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE
Councilman Doane moved to appoint Dr. Ted Harris as the
District Five representative to the Citizens participation
Committee for the unexpired term ending July, 2002.
Councilman Larson seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "c" thru "L"
Councilman Boyd noted that Item "F" relates to the acceptance
of $250,000 Housing/Community Development Block Grant funds
for improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard south of Pacific
Coast Highway. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the
recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as
presented, except Items "E" and "L", removed for separate
consideration.
C. Approved the waiver of reading in full of
all ordinances and resolutions and that
consent to the waiver of reading shall be
deemed to be given by all Councilmembers
after reading of the title unless specific
request is made at that time for the
reading of such ordinance or resolution.
D. Approved the minutes of the special/adjourned
and regular meetings of September 25, 2000.
F.
Approved the program contracts with the County
of Orange Housing and Community Development
Department for funding under the Community
Development Block Grant Program in the amount
of $250,000 for the Seal Beach Boulevard
Reconstruction Project, contract number KC00035,
and authorized the Interim City Manager to
execute the contract on behalf of the City and
to undertake all appropriate actions to comply
with the terms and provisions of said contract.
10-9-00
G. Approved the declaration of surplus property
and authorized staff to dispose of the vehicles
through sale and/or auction.
H.
Adopted Resolution Number 4842 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.
LL-00-03 FOR PARCEL 3, ALSO KNOWN AS A-47
SURFSIDE." By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4842 was waived.
I
1. Adopted Resolution Number 4843 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.
LL-00-04 FOR PARCEL 3, ALSO KNOWN AS B-ll
SURFSIDE." By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4843 was waived.
J. Adopted Resolution Number 4844 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.
LL-00-05 FOR PARCEL 3, ALSO KNOWN AS A-IS
SURFSIDE." By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4844 was waived.
K.
Adopted Resolution Number 4845 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.
LL-00-06 FOR PARCEL 3, ALSO KNOWN AS A-59
SURFSIDE." By unanimous consent, full reading
of Resolution Number 4845 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM "E" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4840 - APPEAL - CUP 00-2 - 770
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - COFFEE HOUSE USE (STARBUCKS)
The City Attorney explained that pursuant to direction of the
Council a draft resolution relating to this matter has been
prepared for consideration. He mentioned that there have
been questions as to the implications of the resolution,
which, upon approval of the resolution, will issue a
Conditional Use Permit to Starbucks to operate a coffee house
however with no drive-through, also, with adoption of the
resolution it gives Starbucks an option, if they accept the
terms and conditions of the resolution they can operate the
coffee house with no drive-through, a new set of conditions
and no play area, in turn, should they not accept the new
conditions and choose to keep the existing drive-through
window they can still operate a coffee house under the
existing CUP provided they comply with all of the conditions
of that CUP, including the play area, the same seating
capacity, same parking spaces, and other conditions,
Starbucks has that option regardless of what action the
Council takes. He noted that should this resolution be
adopted and Starbucks accepts these conditions the prior,
existing CUP will be null and void. Councilman Boyd inquired
if the existing CUP defines what a childrens play area is.
The City Attorney responded that he believed the original CUP
approving resolution made reference to the area as consistent
with the plans submitted at that time, the new conditions do
not replace the play area with seating, rather a display
area, if it were to be used for seating Starbucks would need
I
I
I
I
10-9-00
to provide additional parking however they do not have the
space to do so. with that Councilman Boyd surmised then that
the play area is not defined in specific terms. Councilman
Yost said he believed that it is defined fairly specifically
in the existing CUP. Should this resolution be approved and
Starbucks chooses to not accept the terms of the new CUP and
operate under the existing CUP, Councilman Boyd inquired if
Starbucks could seek modifications to the existing CUP. The
City Attorney advised that to be so, that would require going
through the entire process including a public hearing before
the Planning Commission. To that the comment was made then
that adoption of the proposed resolution does not make the
existing CUP null and void, the response was that it would be
null and void if the proposed conditions are accepted, the
City does not have the power to take away the existing CUP
unless it receives something in return. To the inquiry if it
would not be difficult for Starbucks to operate a drive-
through under the existing CUP, the response was that they
would need to comply with the conditions of the existing cUP,
that would include the play area, that would not be what
Starbucks wants, they wanted interior modifications and
relocation of the drive-through window. It was again noted
however that Starbucks does have the right to operate under
the existing CUP if they choose, unless there were to be an
appeal of that CUP due to non-compliance with the conditions,
something that would cause harm to the public, create a
nuisance, or whatever, the response was that that would
require a revocation process based upon a threat to public
health, safety or welfare, or non-compliance with the
conditions, that basically the only way their rights can be
taken away. Question was raised if that could consist of
evidence of more accidents, disfunctional parking area,
circulation problems. The response was that it would need to
be based on evidence, typically a revocation is based on non-
compliance with the conditions. To the question as to
whether Starbucks will accept the terms of the new CUP, the
City Attorney reported that upon the last contact with
Starbucks they wanted to delay any decisions until the final
action of the Council was known, then a meeting with them
will likely be held. With regard to the description of the
childrens play area in the existing CUP, the Director of
Development Services reported it to be defined as '1,450
square feet of the interior of the restaurant shall be
permanently maintained as a childrens play area and
playground management office, the management office may not
be used in any way in conjunction with the operation of the
restaurant, including the storage of restaurant related
supplies,' noting that there is nothing in the condition that
specifies the type of play equipment or whatever, confirming
that would be the only allowable use within the 1,450 square
foot area pursuant to the existing condition, the language of
the condition in the proposed resolution somewhat different.
Councilman Boyd mentioned his concern in that the intent is
to limit the impact however it appears that they could come
in under the existing conditions if they choose to do so,
have a drive-through that would accommodate fewer cars in the
queue, and substantially comply with the childrens play area
condition, the question is how is the childrens play area
defined. The Director mentioned that as the conditions have
been interpreted that would be a decision that lies with the
Planning Department to verify that the use meets the intent
of the Council, the Council would always have authority under
the resolution to require whatever use is proposed for that
area to receive final review by either the Planning
Commission or Council. Councilman Boyd predicted that
10-9-00
Starbucks will come in under the existing CUP with the
existing drive-through. It was pointed out again that
Starbucks has always had the option to come in under the
existing CUP. Councilman Yost said there is no means of
revoking the existing CUP without evidence, however his
feeling is that the evidence presented by the pub~~c was
clear, showing that the addition of a drive-through was a
threat to public safety, especially with the submittal of
additional traffic information, in his opinion the intent of
the Planning Commission at the time was quite clear, it was
to be a fast food playground not some intent to skirt that,
his intent would be to hold Starbucks to that condition,
should they choose to come back to the City in the future
that condition could be dealt with then, in his opinion
proposed Resolution Number 4840 should be acted upon.
Councilman Boyd noted it was he who made the motion to deny
the CUP as approved by the Planning Commission, that was
based on the criteria that it was a threat to public safety
related to traffic circulation, etc., if that is the case
then the action should be revocation, that is a reason for
revoking Conditional Use Permits, his confusion is that the
proposed resolution denies a drive-through due to safety
concerns relating to traffic, children, etc., yet they can
still operate a drive-through, one a longer drive-through
than the other, so which is safer. Councilman Yost noted
that evidence was presented where the Starbucks data claimed
that they would do less business than if there was a drive-
through, he has a problem believing that claim, it is
believed that the issue was that the increased traffic as a
result of a Starbucks would be a threat to public safety,
and, there can not be an action to revoke a CUP where the
related operation does not as yet exist and the traffic has
not yet been produced, once operational and the traffic
volume is produced as predicted then revocation could be
considered. Question was raised as to whether it is easier
to revoke a CUP now or once granted, the response was that it
is necessary to have evidence to support a revocation.
Councilman Yost voiced his opinion that the City has been put
on notice that this operation and the resulting traffic
issues are a public safety concern, again suggesting approval
of the Resolution and then with the hope that Starbucks will
operate without a drive-through. Councilman Boyd mentioned
that if the Resolution is approved then the City is left with
only a revocation proceeding to deal with the problem, if the
action is to concur with the Planning Commission then there
is a four month review period at which time the Commission
could revoke their CUP for a drive-through. A counter
comment was that that would also require revocation hearings,
the problem is that CUP's run with the land, Hennessy's is an
example, if Starbucks wants to corne in under the existing
CUP, let them, it would interesting to see them do a
playground in their operation and how much traffic they
generate. It was pointed out that the CUP of Hennessey's had
been modified substantially. Councilman Boyd concurred that
Starbucks could come in with a drive-through, then should the
City choose to revoke the CUP it could be exposed to
significant legal issues. The City Attorney mentioned again
that the Resolution was designed to reflect the action taken
at the last meeting, it was recognized then that Starbucks
had the option of the existing CUP. Councilman Yost read an
excerpt from the finding set forth in the proposed Resolution
relating to the issue of public safety. Councilman Boyd
again mentioned that it appears that the intent of the
Council is to deny the relocation of the drive-through
window, and again voiced his opinion that Starbucks will open
I
I
I
10-9-00
I
with a drive-through window no matter, what is the City going
to do then. Councilman Larson noted his vote at the last
meeting in opposition to denial of the appeal as he felt the
Commission had thoughtfully determined the best way to handle
the issue, the Council disagreed with their action, the
hearings of the Commission and Council were different, and no
matter, Starbucks will have a window, his feeling is that
given the opportunity the Council would likely eliminate all
drive-throughs. In relooking at the adjacent intersection
and traffic flow Councilman Larson said he now agrees that
there is a safety concern, and with regard to the play area
his feeling is that the interest was not so much with
children as it was with the space not being used for seating,
if the Resolution is adopted Starbucks will be encouraged by
not having to maintain the play area, which is not
particularly appealing to coffee houses, also, staff can
encourage Starbucks to operate under this Resolution which
would at least eliminate the extra traffic generated by a
drive-through, and should a problem continue to be realized
there is then the ability to go through the revocation
process, his preference however would be that Starbucks
operate without a drive-through. Councilman Doane inquired
as to the review period for all CUP's, to that the Director
responded that the Resolution proposed has a six month
review, thereafter the Commission has the right to grant an
indefinite extension where the CUP would not come back for
review unless there is a non-compliance issue or problem.
I
Councilman Yost moved to approve Resolution Number 4840
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CUP NO. 00-2, ALLOWING THE
CHANGE IN USE FROM A DRIVE-THROUGH FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TO A
COFFEE HOUSE WITH INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AT 770 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH" which in turn denies the requested
drive-through window relocation. Councilman Doane seconded
the motion.
The City Attorney advised of minor changes to Resolution
Number 4840, the language of Condition 20 should end with
"...returned to the Planning Department", the following words
to be deleted as this is the final action, and the second
line of Section 9 should read "...pursuant to Condition
20..." instead of Condition 14.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
I
ITEM "L" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4846 - OPPOSING PROPOSITION 37
Councilman Boyd stated again that he would abstain from this
item as he has no opinion relating to it. At the request of
Council, the City Attorney explained that Proposition 37 was
proposed by Sinclair Paints and other companies due to fees
being imposed as a result of harmful effects of lead paint,
Sinclair sued the City of Los Angeles because the City had
imposed such fee to promote public awareness of the affects
of lead paint, Sinclair took the position that it was a tax
and that the City should have had a two-thirds vote before
imposing the tax pursuant to Proposition 13 and others.
Sinclair lost in court, circulated this initiative, qualified
for the ballot, the League of Cities and other organizations
are opposed to this Proposition, an example being used is
should the City impose a fee on alcohol for the purpose of
public awareness, educational forums, etc., and under
Proposition 37 that would be deemed a tax and the City would
not be able to impose the fee, the Proposition is promoted as
10-9-00
an anti-tax measure however is supported by Sinclair and
others that are trying to avoid the fee, it is also unclear
as to how far Proposition 37 could go. The Interim City
Manager noted that there has been a number of fees imposed by
cities and school districts since Proposition l3, the concern
with Proposition 37 is not necessarily the direct case but a
precedent making all fees subject to this decision as a tax
requiring a two-thirds vote as opposed to current practice
where a fee can be imposed by a City Council. Doane moved,
second by Larson, to adopt Resolution Number 4846 as
presented.
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None
Boyd Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4847 - HOUSING/COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION - 2001/2003
Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open. The City
Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been
advertised as required by law, and reported no communications
received relating to this item. The Director of Development
Services introduced his Assistant, Mr. Cummins, who has been
designated as the staff person to work with the Citizens
Participation Committee. Mr. Cummins presented the staff
report, explained that each year the City makes application
to the County Housing/Community Development Department for
H/CD funding, the County in turn makes application to HUD, a
certain amount is allotted to the County and then all non-
entitlement cities, of which Seal Beach is one, the
unincorporated areas, and non-profits, apply to the County
fora share of that funding. He noted the City has
designated the Citizens Participation Committee to make
recommendations to the City Council for project funding,
their meeting was held on September 27th. Mr. Cummins
explained that funds are allocated to urban areas to target
very low, low and moderate income persons, the target areas
usually distinguished by census tract, since the 1990 census
Seal Beach has had an increasingly difficult time receiving
funding based on the median incomes for Seal Beach.. in fact
there are currently no census tracts in the City that qualify
for CDBG funding, however there are certain public facility
improvements that do qualify. He mentioned that there is a
new county policy whereby they are accepting applications for
multi-year funding, that in lieu of single year applications,
it is now a two year cycle rather than each year; that policy
reflected by the current application. Mr. Cummins reported
that the Citizens Participation Committee has recommended two
projects for funding, the first is improvements to public
facilities to make them ADA compliant. He noted that three
years ago the City was granted $20,000 for ramp improvements
to the curbs at intersections, when the ramps were looked at
as to how many could be done it was determined that the
project was not feasible therefore the City requested that
that funding be allowed to be applied to ADA compliant doors
for City Hall and Council Chambers, the County approved the
request yet when the City requested bids none were received
as the project was not large enough. Mr. Cummins stated it
is felt that by making application for funding of a
significant amount the County will grant the funding and
contractors will bid the project which will consist of
changing out the doors, hearing impaired improvements,
possibly the lowering of counters, door handles, windows,
etc. He explained that application will be made for $300,000
the first year, during the first year a survey will be made
I
I
I
I
I
10-9-00
of all public facilities in the City the cost of which is
approximately $25,000, that amount already budgeted in the
five year plan, that survey will show what needs to be done
throughout the City to be ADA compliant, year two funding
will be applied for based on the result of the survey with a
maximum cap of around $300,000, the intent is also to
leverage about a third of whatever the survey indicates,
somewhere between $75,000 to $100,000, this may be more
acceptable to the County. Mr. Cummins mentioned that the
second program being requested is Youth Aftercare/Day Care of
$50,000, $25,000 for each of the two years, for recreation
supervisors and day care assistance. There being no comments
from the audience, Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing
closed.
Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt Resolution Number 4847
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY's PARTICIPATION IN
THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE (YEARS 2001 - 2003)." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4847 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - MERCHANT PARKING PERMIT FEE
Mayor Campbell declared the public hearing open to consider
the annual fee for the Merchant Parking Program and permit
options. NO member of the audience indicated an interest in
speaking to this item at this time. Yost moved, second by
Boyd, to continue the public hearing until Monday, October
23rd at 7:00 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to declare a recess at 8:12 p.m. The Council reconvened at
8:25 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling the meeting to order.
BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT EIR/EIS -
RESPONSE LETTER
Councilman Yost mentioned that one of the major issues of
Bolsa Chica has to do with the potential inlet and the effect
that might have on the ocean water quality, it is understood
it would improve the water quality of the wetlands however
what that would do to what is one of the cleanest beaches
continues to be an issue with a number of people, stated he
did not notice that issue in the letter, questioning if he
missed the comment or if it is not intended to be addressed.
Councilman Doane pointed out that years ago there was a
natural inlet in the vicinity of the bluff, then someone was
paid to fill in the inlet, an inlet is very much needed to
flush the lowland wetlands, at present the wetlands are being
fed through Anaheim Bay. The Director of Development
Services noted that the proposed response letter has
suggested language to support a sub-alternative, the letter
was presented to the Environmental Quality Control Board,
however they felt they were not in a position to recommend to
Council any particular alternative for support, based upon
concerns of the EQCB staff took another look at the
alternative that was initially recommended and the two the
EQCB felt were worthy of looking at further, alternative 5
does not provide for a direct ocean connection, in looking at
the impacts of that alternative it obviously does not deal
10-9-00
with the concern mentioned by Councilman Yost or impacts to
surfing, however that alternative does not do nearly as much
for habitat restoration for both fish and fowl species that
would use the wetland area, staff felt that those benefits
outweighed the potential negative impacts to the surfing
area. To the issue of water quality staff did not see it as
being much greater by a direct tidal inlet because the
alternative that had been suggested initially continues to
have the storm drain facilities come down through the channel
and it bypasses the major wetland area where the tidal
connection still flows to Anaheim Bay, it really does not
change the water quality issues at the inlet as is understood
by the proposals within the document. He offered that if the
Council is uncomfortable supporting any of the alternatives
that particular language could be deleted then submit the
response letter based upon the more technical issues. In
response to Council, the Director reported the comment period
on the document ends October 16th, once all comments are
received the lead agency prepares a response to comments for
the Final EIR/EIS, and depending on the number of comments
and time to respond, it may be three to four months to
complete the Final EIR document which will then be subject to
hearings before the State Lands Commission and Army Corps of
Engineers. Councilman Yost stated his preference that the
response letter address only the technical issues rather than
recommending an alternative at this time. Mr. Mario Voce,
EQCB, stated that when the EQCB looked at this issue there
was confusion as to the effects of the alternatives in that
they only had the executive summary, the actual text was
looked at further during the meeting, also, two maps that
should be looked at are alternatives 1 and 5, 1 has a tidal
inlet, 5 does not, the length of jetties would have an impact
on the engineering of the beach, could cause sand erosion in
one area, deposits in another, jetties also collect trash and
debris, with no jetties an oil spill could make its way into
the inlet, jetties also have an effect on the waves, the
natural flow of water onto the beach, not just for sports but
the issue of sand deposition and erosion as well, it is now
learned that the jetty will be a mean low tide jetty, this is
the draft EIR/EIS, the final will not be out for months. Mr.
Voce suggested in the meantime that a copy of the Errata be
obtained, possibly mistitled and should have been called
Addendum, information in that volume may be pertinent to
eventual comments to the Coastal Commission. As to whether
or not the response letter was approved by the EQCB, Mr. Voce
stated that the EQCB made insertions, it is up to Mr. Porter
to review the letter before signing, and as to whether or not
it is premature to support the second sub-alternative over
the first, he expressed his belief that it is, especially
given the absence of the last volume of alternatives, his
preference was to not support an alternative at this point,
possibly with the Final document. Mayor Campbell mentioned
that the second alternative offers more leeway, her thought
was to support one over the other before others declare
support for one that is not desirable to this City.
Councilman Boyd asked what the impact is on Seal Beach and
its residents, if there is not comfort with commenting on a
draft environmental document for a project at least five
miles away then it should be postponed, it should not be
belabored. Mr. Voce stated there is an impact on local
residents, they do use that beach, swim and surf, that is why
the alternative 5 stood out, also, the request is to comment
on things of a very technical nature. It was suggested that
the language to which Councilman Yost asked to be deleted be
done in. that it is believed there will be a second
I:
I
I
I
I
I
10-9-00
opportunity to address this issue. The Director explained
that at the time the Final EIR is distributed the only
comments that the city would have is when the implementing
agency is ready to approve a project, there is no other
opportunity to comment on the ErR document, rather through a
public hearing process of the State Lands Commission.
Councilman Yost noted language in the letter reiterating the
City's strong opposition to residential development on the
Bolsa Chic a lowlands, indicating his desire to retain that
language in the communication, merely strike support of the
particular type of alternative at this time. Boyd moved,
second by Yost, to authorize the Mayor to sign the response
letter as modified, deleting the paragraph in support of the
sub-alternative.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
HELLMAN PROPERTIES - COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - PERMIT
AMENDMENT 5-97-367-Al - COMMENT LETTER
Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the comment letter
relating to Hellman Properties Permit Amendment, Coastal
Commission staff report with regard to application number 5-
97-367-Al, authorize the Mayor to sign said letter, and
receive and file the staff report. Councilman Yost said he
wished to pose some issues and questions, this issue is to be
heard before the Coastal Commission on Wednesday and he
wanted the people to know what is transpiring. The Director
of Development Services mentioned that the Coastal Commission
hearing will be held in Oceanside on Wednesday, this is
coming back to the Commission based upon a settlement
agreement that has been reached among a number of parties
litigating against the Coastal Commission approval of the
Hellman Ranch project. He noted that at the time of the City
approval of the Hellman project in 1997, the project
consisted of seventy homes along Seal Beach Boulevard and in
general conformity with the plan that is on display, that
plan also included a golf course with salt water wetland
restoration and the creation of fresh water wetlands as part
of the reconfiguration of the existing severely degraded
wetlands on the property in conjunction with the golf course
plan, the City approved that project after a number of
hearings before the Commission and Council, the project then
before the Coastal Commission and ultimately approved,
basically the same project approved by the City however with
the addition of a couple of conditions with which the City
had concerns, one of which is addressed in the letter under
consideration. He noted that once the Coastal Commission
took their action several parties filed a legal action to
their approval of the project claiming violation of
provisions of the Coastal Act, a settlement agreement was
then reached which resulted in the Hellman's agreeing to drop
the golf course from the project and have a deed restricted
area of one hundred acres for future wetland restoration. He
mentioned that the homes remain basically as they were
approved by the City, the acreage for the homes is 14.9 acres
on the bluff along Seal Beach Boulevard, the Specific Plan
allows that area to be increased by twenty-five percent
provided certain criteria is met, Hellman approached the City
in that regard in April, a determination was made, and a
memorandum was provided Council and the Planning Commission
indicating that Hellman had met that criteria, and
administratively an increase of acreage to 18.4 acres was
allowed for the same number of homes. With the increase of
acreage the lots became a little larger, the initial plan had
10-9-00
rear yards abutting rear yards with some fairly steep grade
differentials at the rear yard lines, the new plan provides a
greenbelt area between the rear yards with a slope easement,
the result is less density on a lot per acre basis, this
project now coming before the Coastal Commission. The
Director made reference to the comment letter prepared on
certain issues that Coastal Commission raised upon their
review of the project based on their interpretation of the
settlement agreement, that agreement required a deed
restriction for one hundred acres for future wetlands, the
project itself does not impact any portion of the wetlands as
required by the agreement, and that the development of the
upland area with seventy homes could proceed, the City, the
litigating parties, and the Coastal Commission all
signatories to that agreement. He noted that the staff
report of the Commission has been reviewed, there are three
to four basic issues that are felt should be raised with the
Commission regarding the project, the Commission staff is
saying that a water quality system proposed by Hellman which
creates ponds and bio-swale areas on the property should not
be counted as part of the wetland restoration area, yet as
City staff reads the proposal of Hellman to the Coastal
Commission the purposes of those areas are to treat runoff
from storm and dry weather events, collecting the water and
allowing it to settle in those areas for the purpose of
purification before it reaches the Los Alamitos Retarding
Basin, with the understanding of that system and a wetlands
system the belief is that they are the same, therefore it is
not clear why Coastal Commission is not considering that to
be part of the one hundred acre deed restriction for wetland
restoration and other purposes. The second issue is the
Commission requirement for approximately 9.2 acres of raptor
foraging area that is to be separate from the one hundred
acre deed restricted area, however the deed restricted area
consists of about twenty-seven acres of wetlands and about
seventy-three acres of ruderal upland area, those basically
serve the same function as a raptor foraging area, which is
primarily where ground animals such as squirrels and mice
live and the raptors use it for food purposes, again, it is
unclear why the 9.2 acres that are already set aside as an
upland in conjunction with the lowland wetland area can not
serve both functions, staff feels they do as do a number of
biologists. The other issue is the Coastal Commission
requirement for a public parking lot to accommodate ten
vehicles along Seal Beach Boulevard for public access to Gum
Grove Park and the newly created extension of the Park by
this revised plan, the acreage of Gum Grove was also
increased as part of the increase of residential acreage set
forth in a May memorandum to Council. The Director noted
that the City objected to that condition in 1998 and
continues to do so, also pointed out that a suggestion set
forth in the comment letter is an alternative whereby that
location could be used by bicyclists to park and lock their
bicycles then utilize the trails to access Gum Grove park,
the issue of the Police Department is someone parking in that
location, walking into the Park, access the homes on the Hill
or the Hellman project, perform an act of burglary and then
retreat from the area quickly by means of their vehicle.
I
I
I
Councilman Yost mentioned that the Development Agreement with
Hellman provided for a golf course, wetland restoration, and
homes as the economic factor, and given the substantial
difference of this project, inquired if that Agreement needs
to come back before the Council. The City Attorney responded
that assuming the Hellmans get approval from the Coastal
I
I
I
10-9-00
Commission, that approval would be of a plan that is somewhat
different from what is reflected in the City approved
Specific Plan, different from the project that was subject of
the Development Agreement, the subdivision map for the
residential, will need to come before the planning Commission
and City Council under public hearing for reapproval. Mr.
Mario Voce, Seal Beach, noted that given the time restraints
the EQCB did not have an opportunity to review this item. He
offered that in terms of rationale with regard to the Seal
Beach Boulevard entry the concern is identified as crime
however there are environmental concerns as well, this Grove
has been insect infested and even with the single entrance
there are problems with vandalism and destruction, and given
that the Park is currently undergoing some restoration which
will continue into the future, the concern is with allowing
an additional entry that will disrupt the restoration
efforts, he pointed to an example of El Dorado Park Nature
Center, a much larger area where there is only one entry and
exit to that Center, his feeling is that the Coastal
Commission would take into consideration the environmental
restoration of the Park. To the suggestion that this
location be utilized for bicycles rather than vehicles, Mr.
Voce indicated that to be an improvement, however mentioned
the damage that is currently being caused by bicycles in Gum
Grove, the additional access may compound the existing
bicycle problem, and what if the Park needs to be closed to
bicycles at some point because of damage and the on-going
restoration effort. Councilman Boyd inquired as to what
restoration is taking place in Gum Grove that has been
authorized by the City Council. Mr. Voce stated that nothing
has been authorized to date as restoration plans have not
been brought to the City, however there is a restoration
effort in that about a hundred dead trees have been removed,
foresters were brought in to do an inventory and care plan,
it is just the beginning, in the future there will be things
like a irrigation system to accommodate plantings, etc.,
again, a formal restoration plan has not as yet been brought
forth. Councilman Boyd expressed concern in that Gum Grove
is a public park therefore if there is an on-going effort to
improve or change a public park landscape it should be
proposed to the Council and Recreation and Parks Commission,
suggesting that this discussion focus on the comment letter.
Councilman Doane said his understanding was that the parking
area was a requirement for approval by the Coastal
Commission. The Development Services Director confirmed that
was a condition imposed as part of the initial approval of
the project over the objection of the City, it continues to
be a condition recommended by Coastal staff, the letter
proposes an alternative to the parking lot. To a question of
Councilman Yost, Mr. Voce indicated that vandalism in the
Park continues to be a problem that requires repair. Given
the on-going requirement of the Coastal Commission for this
parking lot area, the alternative for a bicycle and
~edestrian area may be acceptable to them, part of their
Lntent is coastal access yet there is no access to the beach
through the Park. Councilman Yost suggested possible
language to the effect that by limiting access it is hoped
that vandalism to the Park will not be made worse, he would
like to keep it pristine, use El Dorado Park as an example of
a nature park and having only one entry and exit, also that
there is currently more than adequate parking. Mr. Voce
suggested language under the term 'rational' on page three of
the letter to direct attention to environmental protection of
the sensitive grove used by raptors for roosting purposes and
other things, this is called environmental security. Ms.
10-9-00
Jane McCloud, Balboa Drive, stated that there needs to be a
way to convince the Coastal Commission of the one entrance
that exists and that directional signage could be provided
from Seal Beach Boulevard into the Park therefore eliminating
the Boulevard access. Councilman Boyd commended that
suggestion, and noted that if the City had an adopted Coastal
Plan that would likely be a requirement. The Director
advised that the signage is a condition of the Coastal
Commission, that is not being questioned. Councilman Yost
noted the mention of the twenty-five year cap on the deed
restriction for wetlands, and requested an explanation of
where the twenty-five years came from and what would happen
if it is not purchased in that time period, also questioned
the meaning of the language 'the director determines may
affect the enforceability of this restriction.' with regard
to the twenty-five year restriction, Mr. Dave Bartlett,
representing the Hellman Estate, explained that the prior
approval required that the golf course area be conditioned to
provide for purchase at fair market value for wetlands
restoration, that part of mitigation that the Commission was
requiring, and although the golf course is unfortunately no
longer part of the project Hellman has agreed to the deed
restriction so that the one hundred acres can be acquired for
open space and restoration and ultimately become a major
asset to the community, the twenty-five years was somewhat of
an arbitrary number agreed to as part of the settlement
process, however from Hellman properties standpoint the
public agencies and non-profit agencies have twenty-five
years to acquire that property, the signatories to the
settlement agreement concluded that that was a long enough
period of time for that to occur, and presumably at the end
of the twenty-five years should nothing happen the deed
restriction would likely expire as well, however they have
been actively pursuing acquisition and restoration with the
Trust for Public Land, Coastal Conservancy, State parks, the
San Gabriel River Conservancy, wildlife Conservation Board,
and Department of Fish and Game involvement, it is felt that
possibly as soon as two years the acquisition could take
place. Councilman Yost asked if the statement that wetlands
restoration is being actively pursued could be put in
writing, his concern is that with the development of houses
on the bluff, without a firm commitment wetlands restoration
may not occur. Mr. Bartlett responded that the firm
commitment is the one hundred acre deed restriction for a
period of twenty-five years, also the discussions that have
occurred with the agencies previously mentioned. Councilman
Yost mentioned a meeting in recent weeks with various
agencies and individuals where the intent was to have all of
the wetlands, including Bryant and Bixby, restored as. a
single entity yet that was a considerable way off, his
preference would be to see restoration in the short term.
Mr. Bartlett said he too attended that meeting where he heard
the Wetlands Clearing House Project Manager state that the
Los Cerritos wetlands, including Hellman, were the highest
priority in Southern California. He noted that the first
step for restoration to occur is acquisition which has been a
top priority of Hellman, they have had active discussions and
detailed analysis with Fish and Game, providing them with the
facts they need to complete their appraisal, this is being
actively pursued. Councilman Larson noted that documents
relating to this issue will be recorded, .if Hellman had not
agreed to the terms it would likely be declared
unconstitutional. Councilman Boyd offered that if the issue
is to tie the development of the homes to the wetlands alone,
that is not good pOlicy, if homes are going to be built it is
1
I
I
I
I
I
10-9-00
simply because it is a good land use of that portion of the
property, the one hundred acres is deed restricted and it
makes sense to try to acquire it, if the Trust For Public
Lands does not do so then the County of Orange will and make
it a nature preserve like the Back Bay, this has been a
discussion of the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission for
the past three months, they are awaiting an appraisal, there
is a one hundred twenty acre opportunity to do wetland
restoration as part of a larger complex, everyone sees that,
no one is going to let it go away, to hold the houses as an
assurance is not appropriate. Mr. Bartlett added that there
is a meeting scheduled with the Port of Long Beach in two
weeks, they expressed an interest in doing the restoration
but not the acquisition, their plans are a bit suspect
because they have requirements for deep water habitat to
mitigate for the fill of the Port, it does not seem this site
is conducive to deep water habitat, however the Port will be
an alternative also.
The City Attorney recalled an addition to Section 2 on page
three of the response letter, the Development Services
Director has that language, also, language will be added with
regard to keeping the pristine condition of Gum Grove Park to
avoid damage to the Park, paraphrased, the City doubts that
there is a real nexus between the addition of a parking lot
and the proposed development.
Vote on the motion to approve the comment letter as amended:
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
LEASE AGREEMENT- VERIZON WIRELESS - CELLULAR FACILITY _
ZOETER FIELD
The Assistant to the City Manager presented the staff report,
explained that the proposed lease agreement would allow
Verizon Wireless to install a monopole tower with cellular
antennas and related equipment at Zoeter Field. He 'noted
that the Council had authorized staff to meet with Verizon
representatives to negotiate a potential cellular site
agreement, there was a subsequent agreement on the proposed
Zoeter Field site, also, the lease has been reviewed by the
City Attorney and the Engineering and Planning Departments.
The Assistant described the leased area as approximately one
hundred seventy square feet of foul ball territory in left
field, an existing trash container will be relocated south of
the Verizon leased area, both areas will have a concrete
foundation, bordered by a fifteen foot chainlink fence
covered by a tightly woven mesh material to be selected by
the City to screen the equipment from public view. Mr.
Corbin of the City Manager's office assisted with a visual
presentation showing an overview of Zoeter Field, the current
and proposed location of the refuse facility, the proposed
site plan and equipment cabinets, the fifty foot high
monopole, the same height as the existing light poles, a
diagram of the vertical mount of the cellular antennas, noted
that additional field lighting could be installed either now
or later on the monopole at the request of the City and
solely at the expense of Verizon. The Assistant explained
that this is a five year lease with the possibility of two
five year extensions, Verizon will immediately pay the City a
$20,000 administrative fee, an annual lease payment of
$36,000 per year with an annual CPI adjustment, the lease
also requires Verizon to test its equipment for levels of
radio frequency energy at any time upon request, and to take
10-9-00
appropriate steps to prevent interference with communication
frequencies used by public safety departments of the City.
Councilman Yost noted that they will be required to correct
any problems relating to Police or Fire communications, and
inquired if there has been any documentation of problems as a
result of this particular type of equipment. The Assistant
responded that to this point staff has received only
anecdotal evidence, the Police Chief reported there have been
some incidents in other Orange County cities where there has
been interference with safety department communications
systems, he wanted to make sure that any monopole
communication pole installed would be pre-tested. The Mayor
asked if they might be cities that are not yet on the 800 MHz
system, to that the Assistant advised that they are not. The
Assistant noted also that the Police Chief did sign off on
this installation provided that the testing provision was in
the contract. Councilman Boyd mentioned that this
installation will be in his District, the installation was
looked at for some time, and is likely a good financial
opportunity. Boyd moved, second by Larson, to approve the
lease agreement between Verizon Wireless and the City of Seal
Beach, and authorized staff to execute the contract on behalf
of the City.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
UPDATE - SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The Director of Public Works, on behalf of the Recreation and
Parks Director, reported that the concrete work on the
Boulevard was completed about a month ago, there have been
some conflicts with the sewer project that has caused delays,
however the Parks Department is well underway with the soil
amendment process, it is felt that considerable progress will
be seen soon, and even with the limited City staff it is felt
the planting process will likely occur rather quickly. The
Mayor mentioned that with the sewer project the regular six
lane roadway is now down to four and there is the median, so
her concern is primarily with the safety of those working on
that restricted roadway. The Director stated that traffic
volumes are considerably reduced during mid-day, he is
confident that it is a safe working environment, the work for
the median will basically take place from the southbound
lanes, the northbound lanes for the sewer project.
Councilman Larson suggested that blowing dirt be watched, at
one time it slowed traffic to about five miles an hour, his
understanding was that it was supposed to be watered down.
The Director mentioned that the sewer contractor is required
to maintain dust control and he would pass that message along
to the City crews as well. Councilman Boyd said he requested
that this subject be agendized, it is a sizeable project,
there will be other similar projects, a project of this size
is a challenge for the 'very limited Public Works and Parks
staff, therefore as a policy decision would it not be better
for their time to be spent on activities that maintain the
City and beautify the resident and visitor serving areas in
lieu of projects such as this. He indicated belief that
there has been discussion with the Interim Manager of ways to
push this project along without going to bid, which likely
should have been done to begin with, and to address public
comments to the effect that public works and engineering
projects are never completed in a timely manner. The Interim
Manager offered that the suggestion was made that an
additional $5,000 expenditure could speed up the project by
I
I
... , ~ ;
10-9-00
possibly two weeks, this for the purpose of overtime for
current staff. It was clarified the overtime hours would
occur as a fifth work day per week and possibly some weekend
work. The Manager noted also that he was informed there is a
soft match consideration related to the grant monies
received, that is why City staff was used.
I
Councilman Boyd moved to authorize the expenditure of an
additional $5,000. Councilman Larson seconded the motion and
made the comment that all too often the public and even the
Council do not understand how much staff time is spent on
projects that do not necessarily go through the City's Public
works Department therefore whatever can be done to give staff
more time to do what they need to do is important.
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
The City Attorney made reference to the discussion relating
to the Hellman project comment letter, the letter will be the
official position of the City, and relayed a question from
Attorney Kaufman from his firm if the Council were desirous
of his attendance at the Coastal Commission hearing to
present the City's position. The Council indicated a
consensus in support of the attendance of Mr. Kaufman. It
was also noted that Councilman Yost would be attending as
well as Mayor Campbell if she did not have a meeting
conflict.
I
CITY MANAGER REPORT
No report was presented.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Yost reported the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
met this past week at wilson High School, at that meeting two
consulting firms were retained, one to do a GIS survey of the
watershed of the San Gabriel and lower Los Angeles Rivers,
the other to survey what is known, what plans have been in
existence for those watersheds, that to be put together as an
overall plan of the watershed to be presented.to the full
board at a later time. He noted also that there are two
draft papers that he will be presenting to the League of
Cities on Thursday, one is a property acquisition nomination
form, the other relates to the nomination and criteria that
would be used to evaluate properties, the intent is to
provide that information to all interested cities.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting until Monday, October 23rd at 6:00
p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
I
C't Clerk and
the City of
Approved:
'/J~gf~
Mayot
10-9-00 / 10-23-00
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
October 23, 2000
I
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
adjourned session at 6:03 p.m. with Mayor Campbell calling
the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Campbell
Councilmembers Boyd, Doane, Larson, Yost
Absent:
None
Also present:
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Ms. Yeo, City Clerk
The Interim City Manager, Mr. McIntyre, joined the Council in
Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION
The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in
Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, 54956.9(a), (b),
and (c), and 54957.6, noted that there should be four items
rather than one relating to anticipated litigation, and that
the agenda may be amended to make a finding to include same.
I
Boyd moved,
inasmuch as
agenda.
second by Larson, to add three additional items
they came to attention after the posting of the
AYES:
NOES:
Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session
at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:14 p.m. with Mayor Campbell
calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported
that the Council had discussed the items identified on the
agenda as well as the three items added to the agenda, the
City Council gave directions, there was no other reportable
action.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair,
to adjourn the meeting at 7:15
consent of the Council,
I
Approved:
-JJ1IlJila:.u!f ~
Ma or