Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1997-09-16 '. ~ . City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of September 16, 1997 Roll Call Present: Chairman Voce Members Hurley, McGuire Member Christ, Rosenman Absent: Also Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Associate Planner Member Rosenman was absent due to a death in his family. Member Christ was absent due to a similar situation. Aaenda Aooroval MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by McGuire to approve the agenda as presented. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3-0-2 Hurley, McGuire, Voce Rosenman, Christ Oral Communications There were no oral communications. Consent Calendar There was no Consent Calendar. Scheduled Matters 1. Receipt of Public Comments and Board Review of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The Chair reviewed that he had had to leave the last Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting for child care reasons and noted the Board continued its deliberations. , Member Hurley said he had procedural questions in the draft minutes of September _' 1997, on page 12, it said: . Mr. Whittenberg suggested EQCB formulate a recommendation to the Council. They scheduled their meeting to September 22"d. If the EQCB wants to make comments to them, the EQCB needs to make sure it has gone through that process prior to that meeting date. Member Hurley asked why can't the EQCB give the City Council its recommendation after September 22nd? Mr. Whittenberg said the EQCB could do that. He said the EQCB should not make the assumption that the City Council will not make a decision. "We went through that same scenario with the Planning Commission and indicated we would be surprised if the Commission made a decision the first night. And it ended up they did. Our concern is it's hard to predict what the Council mayor may not do. To be sure that you have a recommendation to them we would suggest that you try to do that tonight." Member Hurley asked if the EQCB's recommendation to the Council had to be in a Resolution format on whether or not the FEIR is adequate? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. . Chairman Voce asked for clarification on the Council's "second reading" and asked if they had to have a second reading on the EIR? Mr. Whittenberg said a second reading only occurs when an ordinance is being adopted. An ordinance is a law which the City is adopting. In this application, a number of ordinances would have to be adopted; it doesn't relate to the EIR. The EIR itself is approved by a resolution. Once that resolution is approved, that's the last action that's taken on the resolution. Chairman Voce indicated the Board would have to have its business concluded this evening or have any subsequent concerns, questions or comments delivered to staff to forward to the Council. He said he was asking this question because two Board members are absent tonight. He wanted to know if those Board members would have an opportunity to insert comments for the Council. . Mr. Whittenberg said the staff reports to the City Council were delivered late this afternoon, September 16th. The packet includes three EQCB staff reports and the draft minutes from September _' It doesn't, of course, include anything from this evening. On Monday, staff will provide the Council with a supplemental staff report, providing them with whatever information comes out of this meeting. As far as individual members providing information to the Council there are two choices: (1) to provide something in writing to the Council at the time of their Public Hearing or (2) to go to the Council's meeting and speak. . Mr. Whittenberg said staff went back through the minutes of the last meeting and summarized what staff felt were the Board's major concerns regarding the EIR. If the Board feels the summary is not correct or additional items need to be added to make the Board's recommendations to the Council more complete that's the purpose of this evening's meeting. Member Hurley said that in the Supplemental Staff Report provided last week, the Board was provided with draft Resolution No. 97-1. The resolution indicated that the EQCB recommends that the City Council find the FEIR adequate under CEQA. He moved that this is not a resolution the Board wants to vote on tonight. MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by McGuire that Resolution NO. 97-1 is not a resolution the Board wants to vote on tonight. Before the vote, Mr. Whittenberg said staff is not proposing Resolution No. 97-1 is not being proposed to the Board tonight. The staff report for tonight included another resolution that staff feels the Board should consider. This resolution says the FEIR needs additional information in it to be adequate. . Member Hurley said he wanted to offer a resolution and have the Board vote on it before it takes up Resolution No. 97-1. He asked if he could do that without a resolution number? He explained his resolution was a proposed resolution which recommended to the City Council the inadequacy of the FEIR. He had six copies which he distributed. He asked if the Board would like him to read the entire resolution or just those sections of importance? Chairman Voce asked for further clarification. Member Hurley said he wants the Board to recommend to the City Council the inadequacy of the FEIR. The important section is section 7, which gives the reasons for his recommendation. He read: The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The FEIR fails the test that an EIR show an agency has made an object, good faith attempt at disclosure. Chairman Voce said no break was needed for reading, the EQCB could discuss this matter openly at this time. Member McGuire indicated she would Second the motion so that it could be discussed. . Chairman Voce said the Motion was set aside for discussion. He said the had Volumes I, IV and V but no II or III. He said that puts him in the position of having to abstain from a vote on the adequacy of the EIR because he didn't see . two volumes of it. He could not comment on something he had not seen. I could still give a couple of recommendations and vote to had this to the Council. Mr. Whittenberg addressed the issue of what makes up the EIR. Volumes II and III are technical appendixes to the document. They are the background reports that the environmental consulting firms used to write the EIR. Those documents are not necessary to be reviewed to determine the adequacy of the EIR because the EIR are the documents you have -- Volumes I, IV and V are the EIR itself. The technical appendices don't change anything in the EIR. They are the foundation on which the EIR is based. When staff circulated the DEIR, staff gave the Board a cover memo which indicated there were two volumes of technical appendices and listed the reports in those appendices. And further indicated that if the Board wanted copies of any of those reports staff would have made those available to the Board. He wanted the Board to be clear that it is not missing a document that is the EIR. . Chairman Voce said the reason he thought that was when he looked at number three, it had the golf course management plan in it. And that answered a couple of questions he had brought up having not seen the reports. It raised a question that the City Council is actually voting on the adequacy and the EQCB can make a recommendation or not. It's a superfluous thing. It was possible for the EQCB to send the document to the Council and made recommendations without actually stating one way or another about adequacy or inadequacy. Short of declaring adequacy the Board can send the Council on. He asked if CEQA had provisions specifically mandating the EQCB to make that specific decision or that decision plus something else? Mr. Whittenberg said CEQA has no mandate that the EQCB review an EIR at all. The EQCB's review of an EIR is a City policy, which has evolved over some years. The Council is the body that makes the decision on EIR adequacy. If the decide an EIR is adequate they then certify it. In the past the Council has asked the EQCB to make a recommendation regarding adequacy of EIRs. Technically and/or legally, there is no mandate to do that. The EQCB could simply say this is the document, we've looked at it and we think the following items still need attention. Member Hurley quibbled that it seemed to him that those appendices are definitely a part of the EIR. It seemed to him that the whole thing, including the appendices, is the EIR. He asked Mr. Steele if he was wrong? . Mr. Steele explained the EIR includes, as a bound document, all of the technical studies that go into it. But the volumes that were given to the EQCB and to the other boards that review EIRs are the EIR, which is a summary of the technical studies. The EIR incorporates, by reference, all the various technical studies. It is also required to summarize for the lay reader the contents of those studies. The EIR is required to be a document that is understandable by the average . reader so you don't have to be an engineer or a biologist to understand the document. The concept under CEQA is that the environmental consultant will write a summary of the more detailed, technical studies. The Chairman indicated there is a Motion and a Second on the floor. He asked if Member Hurley wanted to withdraw his Motion? Member Hurley said no. Chairman Voce asked that if he had two other areas of concern, are those asked after the Board votes on adequacy/inadequacy? Mr. Steele said if the Chair has additional information he thinks the EQCB wants to pass to the Council he should seek to amend this Motion. You have a resolution in front of you that has been Moved and Seconded. If you want to add to that you should seek to amend the Motion. Chairman Voce put forth his concerns so that if Member Hurley wants to modify his Motion he can do so. Member Hurley asked if the Board has to vote on each of these items or as a whole? . Mr. Steele said if there's more than one amendment, the easiest way to do things would be for the Chair to propose one item and ask it be accepted or rejected and vote on it. Chairman Voce said Member Hurley could withdraw his Motion and re-create it at that time. Member McGuire said Chairman Voce was the only Board member who did not get a complete set of facts or books. She agreed with Member Hurley that the Board needs the appendices. The thing that can be learned from this is that staff needs to give the EQCB everything. She said it would have eliminated a lot of talking if they would have had all the information. As she got the information --- in bits and pieces -- it eliminated her questions. She did not get all of the technical appendices. Some of her questions were answered and some weren't. It might be difficult for the EQCB to vote on adequacy of the EIR when Members Voce and Christ didn't have all the information. Some of Member Christ's questions from last week were directly related to his not having any of the technical appendices. She asked Member Hurley if he got the technical appendices. Member Hurley said he had to go to the library to read the technical appendices. . Member McGuire said the Board members need to have all the documents to take home to review. She said she has always been in favor of voting for adequacy but there are only three members present tonight. She liked what staff . wrote in its paperwork. She said she was not sure if a referral of staffs memorandum plus the Board's comments would be adequate for this document. She said that since the EQCB was not forced by law to make a judgement of adequacy, she would like to refer what they've got to the City Council and testify in front of the Council to let them know what happened. She was not really sure how Members Rosenman and Christ would vote. Even when she doesn't agree with people she really likes to hear what they would say because perhaps it would change her mind. She remembered Members Christ and Rosenman's testimony. She questioned their absences tonight, noting they both had unexplained deaths in their families on the same night. She was not sure if this resolution was passed without Chairman Voce, when you need three for a quorum. There are other parts of the document that are very well written and thorough. She said "I'm a little aggravated because we --- in our FEIR --- we could have had a very good, not a perfect, but a very good document". She felt the Council should look at the Board's memorandum and comments. Member Hurley said the resolution's major basis is the requirement for a bona fide, good faith effort at disclosure. If you think they've made a good faith effort at disclosure then you'd vote the motion down. If you agree that they didn't, then you'd vote in favor of the motion. . Chairman Voce said the Motion and the Second currently is to vote on the inadequacy of the EIR? Member Hurley said his Motion is a motion recommending to the Council that the FEIR is inadequate under CEQA. If you vote "yes" you're voting for this resolution. Mr. Whittenberg said the reasons for the inadequacy are item 1 on page 2 and item 2 on page 3. Chairman Voce presented his two concerns. First, the practice of spraying light oil for mosquito abatement, he thought the City Council should ascertain from the biological consultants or Vector Control consultants whether there are other methods to perform mosquito abatement. A light oil treatment would evaporate after six or eight hours and would smother then the larva. Secondly, the questioned herbicide uses on the golf course. The discussion on herbicide use was weak and has the potential for more impact that the use of pesticides. He asked if his concerns should be included in the Hurley motion? Member Hurley said any additional factors as to why this EIR is adequate is welcomed as amendments in his Motion. . Chairman Voce said it was not that the EIR was inadequate. It was that when read it raised other questions. . Member Hurley called for a vote on his Motion. Chairman Voce asked if he wanted to amend/modify his Motion to include the Chairs two concerns? Member Hurley said no. Director Whittenberg called for clarification, asking if the motion for inadequacy included the Chairs two concerns? Member Hurley said the Motion would include the Chair's concerns when the Board votes on the two items. He has no objections to any additions any Member wants to make. MOTION AMENDED: Member Hurley has accepted the Chairs two concerns and agreed the be added to his original Motion. Member McGuire withdrew her SECOND, stating she originally thought she was seconding discussion. While Member McGuire was thinking, the Chair asked if the Board could accept comments from the audience? Mr. Steele said it was acceptable. . Dave Bartlett, representing Hellman Properties, said he was confused by the information handed to them by Member Hurley. He pointed out that regarding the water quality of the San Gabriel River, that information is in the EIR on page 6-38. Secondly, item #2 must be preserved by law. He asked the City Attorney to comment on this. Mr. Whittenberg asked for the comment numbers to be included in the discussion. Chris Webb * Moffat & Nichols Mr. Webb said the draft EIR and the revised EIR both contain the concept of wetland restoration reports as an appendix. In that concept report there is a discussion of water temperature effects of the river on the marsh. There is a reference to water quality study done by MDC Co. which discusses water quality parameters in the San Gabriel River such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH. These were their biologist's concerns for water quality in this marsh. It has been established that these facts were incorporated by reference. Chairman Voce agreed, recalling this discussion. . Member Hurley asked if Mr. Webb was saying this was covered in the Appendix? He didn't find it when he looked through Appendix D. . Mr. Webb said Appendix D has a discussion on water temperature. Mr. Hurley asked to find his place in the document. Mr. Webb continued, saying their primary water quality parameter concern for marsh restoration was temperature. In addition to that discussion in the document, there was reference to a water quality study done by MPC. There was additional water quality data in that study. Moffat & Nichol's decision was based on this information. Member Hurley asked why that information was not included in the EIR? Mr. Webb said it was included as Appendix D. Member Hurley said he looked all through Appendix D and didn't see it. He asked if all the findings, which Mr. Webb was now discussing orally, were included in the EIR in Appendix D? . Mr. Webb said no, there is a reference to a study that addresses that information. The conclusions are summarized in Appendix D with regard to water temperature alone -- not oxygen, salinity. That's because they weren't shown in that study as being a concern. Water temperature was elevated above the ocean temperature. Moffat & Nichol considered that fact further and consulted another biologist. Member Hurley said Moffat & Nichol left out the information about the oxygen, salinity and the third factor -- other than temperature. Mr. Webb said no, all the information was incorporated in their document by reference. Member Hurley said II If you don't tell us what's in that document, how are we going to find it out?" Mr. Webb said he loaned the document to Board Member McGuire. Member Hurley said incorporating things by reference was no way to communicate. Chairman Voce said to Mr. Webb that the Board also talked about the Cooling Channel. A decision was made that that was more saline than the river water. . Mr. Webb asked to clarify that information after noting the discussion in the minutes. He said the channel water is not more saline. It's salt water 100% of the time where the water is salt water 99% of the time - except when there's a flush of fresh water from a storm drain. More frequently it's salt water but the . levels of salinity are not higher. They are the same as Alamitos Bay in Long Beach because that's where it's drawn from. Chairman Voce said it would have to rain hard before the river water is diluted. And being in a sub-tropical, thus dry, area is an infrequent occurrence. Referring back to his comment on the light oil being used for mosquito abatement, he said this was more of a concern on the fresh water wetland areas because the tidal flushing is at two days maximum. They may not have to apply anything for mosquito abatement and allow the tidal action to do the abatement. Bolsa Chica's flushing is several weeks longer. For the Record, any amendment made to the motion under consideration would be to fresh water wetlands. Mr. Webb .said seven days is an optimal target tidal frequency time. Member Hurley said the question is not whether he knows what the design is going to provide. The question is where in the FEIR is the concern covered? If the concern is covered in the EIR then there is no quarrel. If Mr. Webb has the answer but it's not in the EIR we still have to be concerned that it's not included. Chairman Voce asked if there was a spot in the FEIR that covered the fresh water wetlands regarding flushing etc. . Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Webb would look in the FEIR but he did not recall the information being there. This could be forwarded to the City Council as a mitigation measure. Chairman Voce said it would be in the Council's interest for him to point out that this is an area they should look at. Mr. said Appendix D of the DEIR, page 37, read the statement Seasonal flushing of the ponds is expected to occur during the late winter or early spring storms. This would remove whatever mosquito larvae are present. There is a provision to flush the fresh water wetlands. Member Hurley said the flushing would occur in the late winter or early spring and he wasn't aware that mosquitoes are active in the cold months. There would be no flushing in the warmer months while the mosquitoes are working. Mr. Webb said there could be flushing as determined necessary by the property management. It's possible to do that and it's set up so it could be flushed, drained and filled. Nothing is precluding flushing of these ponds when it's necessary . . Member Hurley asked if Orange County's Vector Control would have access to the private property to test the water? . Mr. Webb said he didn't know. The Chairman said he thought they would have access to the property because they currently have access to do mosquito abatement. Mr. Steele addressed Mr. Bartlett's concerns on item #2 of the resolution which says the Cultural Resources section lacks reference to the possibility that one or more of the important archaeological sites is related to religious activity and by law must be preserved in situ whether it is feasible or not. In response to that, he quoted from Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines 2A. Public agencies should seek to avoid damaging effects on an archaeological resource whenever feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated using the criteria outlined in Section 3. In situ preservation of a site is the preferred manner of avoiding damage to archaeological resources. Preserving the site is more important that preserving the artifacts alone because of the relationship of the artifacts to each other in the site provides valuable information that can be lost when the artifacts are removed. . The Guidelines continue to note the other mitigation methods that can be applied when in situ preservation is deemed to be infeasible. He knew of no legal requirement that in situ preservation be the only mitigation measure possible. His recollection of the Cultural Resources section of the EIR indicated a determination was made that there be no impact on existing religious uses of the site. Member Hurley said he was concerned about the investigation of site 4 has yet to be done. If the sites were found to have been religious sites then it would be a serious thing to not leave it in situ. Mr. Steele said the Board should understand the difference between an existing religious use of the site (meaning the site today has been used religious purposes) and a past use at some time in history for religious purposes. A past use determines it's an important archaeological resource and then you go thru this analysis. This is clearly spelled out in the EIR. What he just read applies to these sites. In situ preservation is the preferred method but not the required method of mitigation. Appendix K is very detailed in explaining the levels of mitigation required. Chairman Voce asked the Board for other discussion, noting there is a Motion and a Second on the table with two amendments. . Mr. Steele indicated Member McGuire has not accepted the amendments or determined if she was going to withdraw her Second. . Member McGuire withdrew her Second. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION by McGuire; SECOND by _ to recommend to the City Council that the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report is adequate with clarifications: Before the vote, Member McGuire said the many issues were addressed in the Scoping Session. But when you see the results in the newspaper, the clarifications and/or exceptions are never noted. She said this is a good document the way it's written and it's easy to understand. Although she didn't agree with the responses in the FEIR. For example, she felt the San Gabriel River has significant toxins. If this is declared adequate, she wants assurance they will agree on wording for the newspaper which will include "adequate but ...... She wants pre-determined language on how this board will declare this EIR adequate. . Member Hurley referenced a document and read subject to a comment set forth in Exhibit A. If passed, this board is saying it's adequate provided these concerns are adequately dealt with. Mr. Whittenberg said the board is making a recommendation to the Council for their consideration that in your mind the EIR would be adequate if these issues were further addressed. It would be up to the Council as to whether or not they agree with those issues. Mr. Steele suggested the following language: Section 6 of the resolution from the Staff Report dated September 16, 1997 -- at the end of the section prior to the period --- to read: Based upon its independent review of the above-mentioned reports the EQCB hereby finds the EIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to be adequate, provide the concerns in Exhibit A are addressed to the City Council's satisfaction prior to the certification of the Final EIR. Mr. Steele explained he included "to the City Council's satisfaction" so there would be a standard; it could be left out. Member McGuire said she liked that wording, noting it throws the ball in the City Council's court. . Mr. Steele noted the ball is in the City Council's court. . Member McGuire said she knew the Council made the final certification but she felUwondered if it would be better to keep it with the board that approve it with a provision or exception. Mr. Steele said he thought it would be most helpful to the Council for the EQCB to tell the Council what the issues are and be as specific as possible in describing them. Member McGuire agreed and suggested re-wording to be more specific. Mr. Steele gave the example of #5, in Exhibit A. It says that mitigation measure CRA should be under the purview of the City Council and not the Director of Development Services. That's easy for the Council to comprehend and to carry out. Member Hurley asked about the wording. When you say provided that the concerns set forth in Exhibit A are addressed to the City Council's satisfaction prior to the certification of the FEIR, what are the ways that they could be addressed? Mr. Steele went through each item: . 1. A question of whether or not there's enough information. If the Council feels there's not enough they won't take action until the next meeting and send staff back to provide more information or take testimony from the consultant and the biologists and complete the record they feel is necessary . Member Hurley said the is exactly what he needed, noting the Council would take care of it one way or another. Member McGuire said her problem with that is the wording that they're satisfied. She would like to see provided that the concern stated in Exhibit A are addressed by the Council. Not lito their satisfaction". The way that the board is writing this exhibit it would have to be addressed to our satisfaction. If the board says it's to their satisfaction we've now but the ball in their court. The board is being very explicit on how they want it addressed. If it worded lito their satisfaction" we've given the Council the ball. Mr. Steele said he had no problems with that. Practically the issues are going to be addressed to the Council's satisfaction. . Member McGuire said that as part of Exhibit A she would like to include the Chair's previous concerns -- as items #9 and #10. . Member Hurley wanted to revise #1, fourth line, after "San Gabriel River" add "and from the sea water at the mouth of the river, ... ". The concern then is not just with the river water but with the tidal flushing water also. The water at the end of the water is polluted even if it is seawater. The Chair agreed. Member McGuire said #1 repeatedly talks about the public not having access to the salt-water wetlands but her understanding is there will be a walkway around them. Mr. Whittenberg said there's a walkway but there's going to be a dense area to where you could not physically get into the wetlands. Member McGuire said her concern is that there was a person who jumped off the end of the pier even though there was a "NO DIVING" sign. He sued and he won. She wanted a further disclosure in regard to toxicity. Something that would say the water is toxic. Mr. Whittenberg said that was addressed in #1 at the end of the first sentence where it talks about the various bio-toxins. He suggested an additional phrase could be added about the effect of toxins on humans such as "Particular bio- toxins on humans who might enter into the wetland area..." . Member McGuire, referencing #2, said it should be made clearer that if it's not successful who will be responsible, not simply who will maintain the wetlands. She thought this would be in the Development Agreement. Members McGuire and Hurley suggested that after "maintained" we could add "if the wetlands restoration is not successful, "X" will be financially responsible for making it successful/fixing it/converting it to something else". Member McGuire suggested included the recommendations of the Archaeological Advisory Committee and she wanted that incorporated into the EQCB's recommendation -- that the EQCB agrees with the recommendations. She agreed these could be incorporated by referenced and not repeated. Chairman Voce mentioned that Vector Control would be the agency monitoring the fresh water wetlands for mosquito abatement. His first concern on the light oil was withdrawn because Vector Control already has a mosquito program. His other concern, that he wanted added, was the use of herbicides on the golf course be undertaken by the City Council to be informed on possible agents and methods of application and the least environmentally damaging application be chosen. . Chairman Voce said he was pleased to see the draft minutes will be forwarded to the Council because a lot of the discussion on September 6th will be available. Many concerns were verbalized. Mr. Whittenberg said he wanted to make the . board aware that he could not guarantee that staff would get a draft set of minutes from this meetings to the Council by Monday. Member McGuire said the board was approving Resolution No. 97-1 with incorporating Exhibit A, changes to item 1, 2, 9 (herbicides), 10 (concurrence to Cultural Resource mitigation measures) and the amendment to section 6 of the resolution itself. Member Hurley said item 6 could make reference to CR-7. Member McGuire said "The wording that we talked about wouldn't that be in top of the resolution? A Resolution of the EQCB of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council That The Adequacy of the FEIR Relating to the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Be Considered Adequate Provided That the Concerns Stated in Exhibit A Are Addressed By The City Council". Mr. Whittenberg suggested "Subject to the Concerns in Exhibit A Being Addressed". The Board agreed. The Chair indicated the following Motion is on the floor and called for a Second: . MOTION by McGuire; SECOND by Hurley to recommend to the City Council that the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report is adequate Subject to the concerns in Exhibit A being addressed. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 3-0-2 McGuire, Voce, Hurley Rosenman, Christ Mr. Whittenberg advised that tomorrow morning staff would prepare a resolution in the format approved by the EQCB. He asked the Chairman to come by City Hall for signature. The resolution will then be included in the Council packet. Chairman Voce thanked everyone who participated in the EIR process. He thanked the applicants for their patience. He said there were times the applicants had to squirm in their seats because people say things which are already clarified in the document. Staff Concerns Regarding staff not providing the EQCB with technical reports, as future EIRs come to the City, staff will provide the board with the technical reports. . Mr. Curtis suggested postponing next week's meeting since the only item on the agenda would be viewing videotape on leaf blowers. This would allow staff to catch up on several sets of minutes. . ,. . Chairman Voce said he would make that arrangement. Member McGuire asked if the leaf blowers were for commercial or for residential both? She said her husband got upset about this and felt the board should open it up for the public to come. This should be publicized. Board Concerns Member McGuire mentioned a paper drive in College Park East. She asked if the City had documents it no longer wanted she would pick them up and donate them to the drive. Chairman Voce asked if the City would be doing certain measures to deal with predicted storms. Mr. Whittenberg advised him on City measures including building sand berms, sand bags and storm drain cleaning. Chairman Voce asked if a citizen volunteer committee is needed? Mr. Whittenberg said one thing, which is helpful to the City, would be for residents to help keep the drains clear, He thought he might go to the City Council meeting and address this concern on camera. Adiournment Chairman Voce adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. This meeting is adjourned to October 29, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. The September 24th meeting is cancelled. . Respectfully Submitted, . I .- ro/L...-'.. Joan Fil ann Execu ve Secretary Planning Department