Loading...
8/31/1982• a� `MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA August 31, 1982 An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City Hills was called to order at.the Administration Building, Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Pernell at Tuesday, August 31, 1982. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: 259 of Rolling 2 Portuguese 7:40 P.M. Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock,. Mayor Pernell Councilwoman Swanson Ronald L. Smith Michael Jenkins June Cunningham William Kinley William Reichert William Smiland Sherman Silverman Elizabeth White Douglas McH.attie Randy Wood Harry Hansen James Collis Mr...& Mrs. C. E. Gregory Mrs. D: Kuhne Mrs. W*Lester Mrs. B. Raine Miss B. Raine Mr. & Pars .. S . Speranza City Manager City Attorney. Deputy City Clerk Attorney Attorney Attorney Attorney Attorney South Bay Engineering Corp. Palos Verdes Penin. News Court Reporter Subdivider Residents TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33871 - CHACKSFIELD MERIT HOMES 40 Mayor.Pernell stated that the purpose of .the adjourned meeting was for the Council to consider the findings of fact with regard to a pro- posal for creation of eight lots on twenty acres in Rolling Hills on a_ plateau located between Crenshaw Boulevard and Johns Canyon Road. The Mayor said testimony was taken at a public hearing on August 23, 1982, and the hearing was closed on that date. He said each finding in the findings of fact prepared in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act needs to be weighed against the evidence in the record and as -present ed at the public hearing.* The City Manager reported that the seven findings were prepared in compliance with Section 66474 of the Califor- nia Government Code, which.mandates that the maprriust be denied on the basis of failure to comply with any of the seven findings. The Mayor thereafter opened discussion of the findings (a) through (g). Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether the corrected version of the testimony taken at the August 23 meeting had been made available to everyone. The City Manager explained that the minutes were distribu- ted in rough draft form as soon as they were typed; subsequently the minutes were prepared in final form to be submitted for the record., with minor corrections of form and typographical errors; there was no substantive difference from the minutes which were distributed to the Council earlier. Councilman Heinsheimer said .that in reviewing the files it was his opinion that an important aspect is the agreements and conditions which were part of the approval of subdivision of the Shultz property, specifically a street dedication which'is recorded on the final map, for access to the proposed subdivision from both a northerly and a southerly access route. He said the dedication is shown on the final map of Tract 30605., which was recorded in 1973, and the two means of access were required and were dedicated as part of a master planning activity. Further, he said that when Tract 33871 was considered, the majority of the bodies considering the subdivision found that the northerly access was compatible and was preferable, but as a result of problems, the southerly access was ultimately approved. Council- man Heinsheimer said the map has been remanded to the City asa result of litigation in the matter, and Exhibit 1, which was submitted 26® August 31, 1982 to the Council, addresses only the southerly access, implying that this is the access to be considered. Councilman Heinsheimer asked that the Council not approve the map as submitted for the Tentative' Tract 33871, as Conditions -No. 7 and 8 pertain to modifications of lot width requirements and lot depth requirements. It was his recom- mendation that the subdivider be requested to submit a map which con- forms to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance or submit a map which shows the other access as well. Councilwoman Murdock said she thought Councilman Heinsheimer brought up a valid point, and she agreed that the tract should be considered from an overall planning point of view, with all options considered. Councilwoman Murdock said any sub- division submitted should be considered in this manner. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed. Mayor Pernell said any property owner has the right to develop his property as he sees fit, and if the proposed development is not unacceptable the Council should go along with it, without requiring alternatives. With regard to conditions, Mayor Pernell said that during his time on the Planning Commission and the City Council it was his recollection that all subdivisions required some modification of the Subdivision Ordinance for approval.,. because of the unique topography in the City. The Mayor said he wished to go through the staff findings, with the assistance of the City Attor- ney and the City Manager., to determine whether the map is consistent with the General Plan, as required. The City Attorney advised the . Council that the approach in the findings is in the negative, explain- ing that the Council is not required to approve the proposed.:map:-if .it is demonstrated that.the map isnot consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The City Attorney advised that the first finding, (a), is that the proposed map is consistent with the general and specific plans, saying that in this case there is no specific plan. Mayor Pernell said that the zoning for the proposed tract is RAS -2, which is in compliance with the City's General Plan. Councilman Heinsheimer said the zoning was changed from RAS -1 to RAS -2, and by elim-inating the northerly access the Council was precluded from considering that access, which is an inconsistency in the Council's planning option. He said the Council should consider not only the City's General Plan, which he said is vague, but should also consider the specific plan as contained.in the record of the Planning Commission and City Council and the maps of the area which have been recorded. The City Attorney said the map should be applicable to and consistent with the land use element of the General Plan. Mayor Pernell polled the Council regarding their opinion of whether the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she had no object- ion to finding (a) as stated. Councilwoman Murdock said it is her opinion that the proposed subdivision is not in conflict with the City's General Plan; Mayor Pernell agreed. Councilman Heinsheimer said the map is inconsistent with the General Plan, and he objects to the procedure, since he.doe.s not think the consideration by the. Council should be separated into segments. Mr. Jenkins read finding (b) into the record: "That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with appli- cable general and specific plans", and suggested that the Council refer to the staff's report which discusses some of the things which must be considered in making a finding of inconsistency. Mayor Pernell said he finds that there is no inconsistency. Councilwoman Murdock said she does not have a problem with the proposed density of the development, but does have a problem with the proposed access. as it relates to the General Plan, which addresses the overall.impact on individual properties; as well as the impact on the City itself. She said she finds it difficult to separate the two, and to deter- mine which the Council should consider as far as the General Plan is concerned. She asked the City Attorney whether the General Plan is meant to be a basic overall philosophy without specific application, or whether what is in the General Plan should be applied to each in- dividual property. The City Manager said General Plans differ from city to city, with some cities being more specific than others. -2- August 31, 1982 261 Mr. Smith said that unless the City Council can find that the first two findings are inconsistent with the City's General Plan, they should move on to the remaining findings. He said that the law is very clear; in California seven findings are required, and if any one finding cannot be made, the law mandates that the subdivision not be approved; using the wording "shall be denied".. Mayor Pernell said some members of the .Council are having a problem with t_he access, and he asked where that consideration comes in.. Mr. Smith said it could be considered under finding (c), "physically suitable for the type of development'.', or (d), "physically suitable for the proposed den- sity of development", (e) "substantial environmental damage", or (f) "serious public health problems". Mayor Pernell said the site was originally a possible 20 home site, and the fact that it is now be— fore the Council as a proposal for eight additional sites is of benefit.to both the City and the entire community, since it is only 40% of the original potential. Councilwoman Murdock said there is no basis, in her opinion, -of support for a finding that the proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan; Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed. Councilman Heinsheimer said that on page 4 of the staff report, section 1. c. indicates that the location and lengths of 00 proposed streets are appropriate; since the length and location of O one of the streets shown on Tract 30605 is not included,, the map is incompatible, and because it has been converted for personal use, it. is inconsistent with the General Plan. Mayor Pernell said.he consid- ers it consistent with the General Plan. m C[ The City Attorney explained that finding (.c), that the -site is physically suitable for the type of development addresses the single family residence type of development planned for the subdivision. All members of the Council agreed that this is consistent with the .General Plan. In discussing finding (d), t hat the site is physically suitable for the pro.posed density of'development, Mr.*Jenkins said it refers to a proposal for eight building sites in an area originally planned to accommodate 20 building sites. Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh and Murdock and Mayor Pernell agreed that it is consistent with the intent of..the General Plan. Councilman Heinsheimer said the Council is giving away lot width and lot depth requirements, which is usually used in the end of a subdivision process and is the key element the Council has in exercising its prerogatives, and is usually arrived at as a mutually agreeable settlement. Mayor Pernell said it is his understanding that accepting the findings does not necessarily mean that the Council must also accept all of the conditions.of approval as stated; the City Attorney said that is correct, and the Council will have an opportunity to impose conditions. Councilman Heins- heimer-said he thought density should include, in addition to the square footage of each lot, other aspects of density including.lot separation, width and depth requirements and residence separation. Mayor Pernell suggested that the Council proceed with the rest of the review and return to density at a later time if it seems desire - able. Councilman Heinsheimer agreed. In discussing finding (e), that the design .of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial envir- onmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wild= life, the City Attorney said he wished to address the use of the term "substantial environmental damage", stating that it is, in his opinion, synonymous with "significant environmental impact", or very close thereto. Councilman Heinsheimer said he has no objection, since the Environmental Quality Board has reviewed the project. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she wished to comment, stating that she has researched the matter, and wished to state her opposition, based on a letter from the Road Department; the closeness of the proposed intersections, which would be only 180' apart; concern for the Hansen property which is 1.6 acres gross, the Munroe pro- perty which is 1.9 acres gross, and the Lester property which is 1.11 acres gross, surrounded by two acre development; closeness of the road to the Kuhne property and the Speranza guesthouse, which she said is unacceptable. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she is the only member of the Council who has not previously considered the matter, and she researched 00 separate.streets in the commu- nity. She said there are six p perties in the City of over 600 houses which arP..bordered by thr separate streets, including: hree (CC 9/13/82) -3- 262 August 31, 1982 the Leake property, 2 Crest Road East, which consists of 1.219 acres, was subdivided in August 1946, and is bounded by Portuguese Bend and Cinchring Roads; the Marano property, 2. Southfield Drive,. developed in April 1950, which is bounded by Crest Road and Flying Mane Road; the Kazarian property, 14 Blackwater Canyon Road, consists of 8.448 acres, was developed in 1936 and is bounded by Blackwater Canyon Rd.,, Pine Tree Lane and Portuguese. -Bend Road; the Okada property, 2 Acacia Lane consists of 1.95 acres, was developed in June 1937 and is bound- ed by Acacia Road, Acacia Lane and Portuguese Bend Road; the Ormsby property, 2 Eucalyptus Lane, bounded by Eucalyptus Lane,_ Saddleback Road and Portuguese Bend Road, consisting of 1.59 acres, and devel- oped in January 1937. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said the Zuehlke property has a six -sided lot,.with roads on four sides, is located - at 1 Acacia Lane and -consists of 2.40 acres. She said her research indicates that there has been no modern development similar to that proposed; the most recent subdivision done in this manner was in 1950. Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether any of the -roads were added after the land was subdivided; Mayor. Pernell said the Marano property, the most recently developed in 1950, was created with three boundary roads when Flying Mane Road was put•in.,'Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said it is her opinion that the proposed tentative map is likely to cause substantial environmental damage to the Hansen, Munroe, Lester, Speranza, and Kuhne properties because of the proximity of the pro- posed access road. Mayor Pernell asked the.City Attorney whether that would be environmental damage. Mr..:Jenkins said the resulting noise and traffic could be considered environmental impact. There is a stop sign on Chestnut Lane, Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said, and there would be a need for an additional stop sign. Councilwoman Murdock and Mayor.Pernell agreed with the concerns expressed by Coun- cilwoman Leeuwenburgh, and the Mayor noted that the Council is still 3/1 in their opinions, since Councilman Heinsheimer said he did not have any objection to finding (0. Councilman Heinsheimer said he thought Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh made some very_ good points, but he would not have included them under environmental impact, but would have discussed them under finding (f), or as a general comment. Mr. Jenkins read finding (f), that the .design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health. problems. The Mayor said that'in considering noise and traffic in connection with this finding, a noise study has been submitted, and a letter from the Los Angeles County Road Department has indicated that the proposed southerly access is not unacceptable, providing there are provisions made for sight distance and safe equestrian crossing. The City Manager reported that in the General Plan decibel ratings of 43-55 were established; according to the noise level study it was determined that the average ambient noise level of 45-50 is within that range.. Councilwoman beeuwenburgh said it is her opinion that -the amount of traffic and the resulting noise from two stop signs would have an unfavorable impact on the Lester, Munroe and Kuhne properties and would be unacceptable.: Council- woman Murdock said she shares Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh's concern in connection with the traffic and noise, but has difficulty with the concept of "serious public health problems", and she. does not find it inconsistent on this basis. Mayor Pernell agreed. Council- man Heinsheimer said. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh's concerns about finding (e), could be applied to this section, stating that many people have testified about the adverse impact of the proposed access. Councilman Heinsheimer said he agreed that an additional stop sign would be needed, and would result in added noise; he suggested that general traffic'study.would be needed when the Storm property is developed, but he said that in this instance the subdi- vider has not indicated any precedent for surrounding an existing property on three sides with roads, which would increase traffic and noise to a point which appears to be unprecedented in the City, and which would put a burden on the property owners involved, and would result in two blind exits very close to each other. He said the-. County statement that the proposed access is not unacceptable is an indication that another access would be preferable, and he considers it a clear signal to the City Council that the County might suggest that the Council use its discretion with regard to the access. Councilman Heinsheimer said he agrees with Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh in her concerns. -4- r'TyK'Z^.�Jny3J� August 31, 1982 263 Mr. Jenkins read finding (g) that the design of the subdivision of the type of improvements will conflict with.easements acquired by the.public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Mr. Jenkins said staff has advised that in this connection the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for_use will be provided, and that these will be essentially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. The City Attorney said that staff also indicates that an easement for public sewers, has been obtained through the proposed subdivision and all roadway and equestrian trail development will be private, and not publicly owned. The Mayor said the finding applies to easements for drainage and sewers, and he asked for comment. Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh and Murdock said they thought there was no conflict; Councilman Heinsheimer said there is a conflict regarding easmenis acquired by the public at large. He said the easements being discussed for access are not on the property itself, but were given to.the City and its residents as a condition.of a previous subdivision. William Kinley, attorney for the Rolling Hills Community Association, stated that incorrect information was being given, and he asked that the meeting be opened . and that he be permitted to comment on the matter of easements. 0 The City Attorney advised that since the public, hearing was closed on August 23.it would not be possible to open the meeting without m giving the required notice. The Mayor said.that'the Council had heard the objections expressed by Mr. Kinley, and the discussion CO was resumed. Mr. Jenkins said the finding addresses actual conflict Q with easements acquired by the public, and it is his opinion.that there is no such conflict. The City Manager explained"that the finding pertains to easements of public ownership, including ease- ments for sewers and storm drains, and does not pertain to private access ways. Councilman Heinsheimer said the map shows a 60 foot wide future street leading to the proposed tract, but not actually on the property. In this context, public is interpreted as the residents of the City of Rolling Hills, he said, and if the Council accepts this and abandons the easement which the citizens have had rights to until this time, it is his opinion that there would be a conflict. Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether there is a difference in interpretation regarding an easement outside of the property which is intended to give access to the property and an easement which is actually on the property. The City Attorney explained that the finding pertains to easements on the property--for-improvements' such as sewers and storm drains, and in this case there is no conflict.- Mayor onflict. Mayor Pernell said there is an impasse on finding (f) with regard to noise and traffic,. and he asked the City Attorney to advise the Council on the latitude and discretion they have with regard to the testimony on the record and the adequacy of the findings.. He said the Council has expert testimony, and he asked whether they could vote on the basis of their opinions, if they are inconsistent. with the testimony of experts. Mr. Jenkins said there must be evi- dence to support the findings. He said the role of the Council is to consider all of the evidence, weigh it,;and make a determination about which evidence is most persuasive where there is a conflict of evidence. In this particular matter there is conflicting evidence which the Council must evaluate. Mayor-Pernell asked Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh to explain her opinion that finding (f) is inconsis- tent, in view of the evidence which has been presented to the Council. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she has researched earlier subdivisions in the area, as well as properties which are bounded by three different streets, and based on her. -research it is her opinion that creation of a third street would work a hardship on certain properties. Mayor .Pernell said the Council is not.considering hardship, but must con- sider traffic safety, noise impact and consistency with use. Council- woman Leeuwenburgh said it is her opinion that the impact of noise and increased traffic on the Kuhne, Munroe, Iiansen,..'Speranza and Lester properties would not be consistent with Rolling Hills de-, velopment. Mayor Pernell asked the City Attorney whether the Council has the discretion to make a decision based on feeling as well as on evidence. Mr. Jenkins said each Council member should make their decision based on their evaluation of the evidence presented. Coun-. Gilman Heinsheimer said his concern has a different thrust, stating that his concern is traffic safety, since there is evidence in the record that there is an alternative which may be safer, and the =5- 264 August 31, 1982 County's acceptance was marginal in his opinion; he said it is incumbent on the.Council to explore the safest possible access to the area, and there is no evidence that the access being proposed is that, but there is evidence that there is a viable alternative. He said he would agree with Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh that the finding is inconsistent, but for different reasons. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she gave five reasons for her objections, and the. first was the letter from the Road Department. Mayor Pernell said the Council has reviewed seven findings. No inconsistencies have been revealed in six of the findings, and the Council has reached an impasse on one of the findings; he asked the City Attorney about the next step with regard to the application. Mr. Jenkins said the Council should consider any other matters before them in connection with the application, and after all matters have been discussed, a motion should be made. The Mayor then opened a discussion of the proposed conditions of approval, inviting comment on any exceptions. The City Manager explained that the conditions were placed on the original tentative map when it was approved by the City Council, with the addition of Condition 19 which covers contemporary practice on solar energy requirements for subdivisions. Councilman Heinsheimer said he has objected to con- ditions 7 and 8, since they were included without giving the Council an opportunity to discuss modifications of lot width and depth, and he suggested that condition 16 which pertains to lot footages along street easement line be. included. The City Manager explained that standards for lot design are contained in the Municipal Code, and it appears that because of the topography and terrain in the City there has been a precedent for modification of .the requirements by the Council. Mr. Smith said this is strictly a discretionary matter, and is not mandated. Councilman Heinsheimer agreed, explaining that historically, at the end of the process of review of a subdivision, when it is obvious that the proposal before the Council is the best proposal for development of the land and will be of benefit to the citizens, some modifications are granted. He said -that in so doing there has been a tendency to minimize the number of modifications as well as negotiate to minimize the number of lots developed, create riding rings, based on discussions of the modifications. He said the process should be in the final stage, and it was his opinion that the modifications should not be included in the list of con- ditions of approval, stating that it is inappropriate for the Council to give away the modifications contained in items 7 and 8, since there is still considerable question about whether the proposal before the Council is the best subdivision of the property. On the recommendation of the City Attorney, Mayor Pernell opened discussion of the Environmental Impact Assessment Negative Declaration which was prepared by Planning staff and approved and adopted by the City's Environmental Quality Board. Councilwoman Murdock notedithat the assessment addressed only the southerly access.. Councilman Heins- heimer said he objected to statements that "----the project will not have a significant effect on the physical environment since it will not: 1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; p) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; v) Create a potential public health or safety hazard; or involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animals or plant populations in the area affected; Mayor Pernell,said the Council must either accept or reject the report, and if the report is not accepted, there must be convincing evidence as a basis for disagreement. Councilman Heinsheimer said it is important to note on the last page, near the date of approval on August 11, 1980, identification of the map used for the report, to assure that it is the same map now being considered by the Council. The City Manager reported that he discussed the matter with Richard Anderson, the City's Planning Advisor, and he indicated that he had • a• [1 August 31, 1982 265 walked the site with the staff member who prepared the Negative Dec- laration, they discussed a number of items including an alternative access, and it was their opinion that overall there was not a substan- tial environmental impact. Based on that, the Negative Declaration was prepared and submitted. Councilman Heinsheimer said mitigation measures have been recommended to avoid potential significant environ- mental effects, but do not include items p) and v). The City Attorney explained that when an Environmental Impact Assessment is prepared, mitigation measures are recommended for items which may have an impact. In reviewing the assessment, the Council has the discretion to find a significant environmental impact other than that found by staff, but the Council's finding must be based on factual evidence. He agreed with Councilman Heinsheimer that if the Council finds that there is a potential for a significant environmental impact, a focused report can be requested, addressing the specific items of concern, providing that there is a basis for doubting the original findings by staff. Mayor Pernell said that in recommending mitigation measures, staff did not indicate a concern about traffic, noise, public health or safety hazard. Commissioner Murdock said that in a letter dated August 3, 1982 from the County Road Department recommendations to make Proposal B acceptable were outlined, and she asked whether those recommendations. had been incorporated into the map before the Council. Mayor Pernell said compliance with the recommendations could be made a condition.of approval. Councilman Heinsheimer said it should be made incumbent on the subdivider to submit evidence to the Council, since mitigation measures in the environmental assessment did not include traffic or ambient noise, which were issues raised at the public hearing. The City Manager recommended that if the Council wishes to direct that documentary evidence be submitted in the form of a focused environ- mental report, preparation of the document should be done by an independent.professional firm, with the contract initiated by the City and paid for by the applicant. Councilman Heinsheimer said the report should be a focused document, and should address only those items which are of concern to the Council. Mr. Smith said that could be done. The City Attorney said that if the Council has any doubts about the correctness or completeness of the Environmental Impact Report the document should not be approved and further envi- ronmental information should be requested. Mr. Jenkins said it is necessary to determine whether the report is to address the map as submitted, or whether it should address the map and alternatives. Mayor Pernell said it appears that the Council would be receptive to a proposal of an alternative '.in addition to the map submitted. The City Manager said one of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act is that alternatives be considered in the event that there appears to be a substantial impact. Mr. Jenkins said that based on what is being discussed by the Council it is apparent that additional.information is needed, and an analysis of an alternative access should be presented.so the -Coun- cil can consider the impact of both routes of access. Councilman Heinsheimer said the Council is not predisposed, but since there is a.potential for an effect on the environment, a report which focuses on the issues should.be submitted for Council's consider- ation. He agreed that the report should be done in coordination with the applicant, with the work being done by an independent party . under contract with the City, with all charges being paid by the applicant. The City Manager suggested that the report also be re- viewed by the Environmental Quality Board. Mayor Pernell said the applicant has a right to a decision at this time, and he said he wished to recess the meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to confer with his attorney. The City Manager suggested that the Council have a scoping meeting to determine what issues should be covered in the focused environmental impact.report. Councilman Heinsheimer said the concerns of the Council will be reflected in the minutes of the meeting, and it should not be necessary for the Council to have another meeting on the areas of concern. RECESS The meeting was recessed at 9:20 P.M. and was reconvened at 9.:35 P.M. -7- 266 August 31, 1982 The City Attorney reported that he had discussed with the appli- cant and his attorney their wishes with regard to having a decision at this meeting. It was agreed that there is a paucity of evidence in certain areas and as a result the Council has some questions about the completeness of the Environmental Impact Review. Mr. Jenkins said the attorney for the applicant has indicated that if the Council wishes to have a focused impact report on questions which have been raised pertaining to access, the impact of the access as proposed, and alternatives to it, such a study will be prepared at the appli- cant's expense, subject to a dollar limitation and limitation of the scope of the study, which is meant to address only specific items. Mr. Jenkins said the applicant and his attorney have requested an opportunity to review the document prior to discussion, and he said a public hearing should be held within a definite time after prepar- ation of the document. finally, the applicant asked that he be given the opportunity to object to the selection of the person hired to do the environmental study, should that person be objectionable for some reason. Mayor Pernell asked staff and a subcommittee of the Council to work with the applicant in the matter, and he asked Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh and Murdock and Mr. Smith, the City Manager, to work with the developer or his representative on what should.be presented to the Council. Mr. Collis, the developer, agreed to do so. ADJOURNMENT 1380 The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M., to the next regular meeting at 7:30 P.M. Monday, September 13, 1982. W -M City Clerk