CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
Monday, April 28, 2008 - 7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Ryu, Deputy Mayor Scott, Councilmember Eggen, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember McConnell, Councilmember McGlashan, and Councilmember Way.
ABSENT: None.
|
1. |
At 7:30 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Ryu, who presided.
|
2. |
Mayor Ryu led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of Councilmember McConnell, who arrived at 7:35 p.m.
|
3. |
Bob Olander, City Manager, provided reports and updates on various City projects, meetings, and events. He noted that the Natural Yard Care event on April 19th at Central Market was a huge success with over 1,500 residents participating. He noted that the Hip-Hop Teen Program was recognized by the Washington Recreation and Parks Association (WRPA) as having the “best teen program.” He also noted that the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail Project received the 2020 Vision Award by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). He concluded by announcing upcoming City events.
|
4. |
Mayor Ryu highlighted that the Council had a retreat on Friday and Saturday.
|
5. |
a) Bob Lohmeyer, Director of the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center, thanked the City for its support of the Senior Center. He stated that a representative of the senior center will report to the Council more often about their programs. He communicated that there have been misconceptions about their budget and that the senior center pays a $43,000 annual lease. He noted that there are several cities that don’t charge their senior centers anything.
b) David Kresh, Shoreline, commended the Council for their goals and Sustainability Strategy. He agreed that the development moratorium should continue. He noted there is a leadership issue concerning the new City Hall project. He stated that the future of Shoreline is sustainability, but the Civic Center represents old thinking. He said the City should aim for a LEED gold rating for City Hall. He said Shoreline can lead the way in Washington’s movement toward a new energy economy.
c) Donna Eggen, Shoreline, commented that Shoreline should allow neighborhood electric vehicles on city streets. She said they are clean, quiet, energy efficient, and economical. She said she has been working with Representative Chase and other jurisdictions and invited Shoreline to come to the table. She suggested that Shoreline be a pilot project.
d) Stan Terry, Shoreline, commented that Planning Director Joe Tovar wrote a guest column in the Seattle Times, which discussed the need for sound policies to accommodate future growth. He said Ordinance No. 478 is one such policy and not adopting it is irresponsible. He said eventually Sound Transit is expanding light rail through Shoreline and into Snohomish County. He said Shoreline needs to examine the impacts now and not wait until it’s too late.
e) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, announced that Doris McConnell lost her mother who has spent many years volunteering on the PTA. She expressed her condolences.
f) Sue Melville, Shoreline, noted that the public hearing tonight affects 70 properties and she is concerned with the lack of public notice of meetings. She said Currents doesn’t list future meetings and public hearings. She said people don't know about the meetings.
Mr. Olander clarified that the Senior Center pays rent to the Shoreline School District, not to the City of Shoreline. Councilmember Way asked the City Manager if there was any problem about the timing of Currents. Mr. Olander stated that it is published every month and there was a week delay because of a number of meetings and hearings. He stated that “What's Happening in Shoreline” will be the major publication in the future, along with the City’s newly revised website.
|
6. |
Mr. Olander suggested removing item 7(g), Resolution 271, because it will be discussed at the Council Retreat and there will be revisions. He also pointed out that item 7(d), Ordinance 503 to extend the current Shoreline Water District franchise and item 7(e), Ordinance 501 to increase the number of library board positions are routine and the 2nd reading requirement should be waived. Councilmember Way also pulled item 7(j), Resolution 275 concerning the Echo Lake/Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Basin and Action Plan and moved it to item 8(a).
Councilmember McGlashan moved approval of the agenda as suggested by the City Manager. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and the agenda was approved as amended.
|
7. |
Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion, which carried 7-0 and the following items were approved:
|
|
(a) Minutes of Workshop Dinner Meeting of February 25, 2008 Minutes of Special Meeting of March 17, 2008 Minutes of Workshop Dinner Meeting of March 24, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
(b) Approval of expenses and payroll as of April 15, 2008 in the amount of $1,211,802.35 specified in the following detail:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(d) Ordinance No. 503 Extending the Shoreline Water District Franchise |
|
|
(e) Ordinance No. 501 Increasing the number of Shoreline Library Board positions from Five (5) to Seven (7) |
|
|
(i) Motion to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the State of Washington Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement |
|
|
|
|
8. |
ACTION ITEM: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS |
(a) Resolution No. 275 Expressing Support for and Development of a Greater Echo Lake/Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Basin and Action Plan
Councilmember Way moved to adopt Resolution No. 275 Expressing Support for and Development of a Greater Echo Lake/Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Basin and Action Plan. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. Councilmember Way suggested some minor editorial revisions to the Resolution and wanted to emphasize that the City is beginning this locally and not waiting for other cities. A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 275, as amended, Expressing Support for and Development of a Greater Echo Lake/Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Basin and Action Plan, which carried 7-0.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained the need for an extension of this moratorium.
Mayor Ryu opened the public hearing.
a) Tom Poitras, Shoreline, agreed that the moratorium should be extended. He said high density developments have a negative impact on neighborhoods. He commented that people still don't know about the Ridgecrest project and notification to all neighbors is needed. He felt high density housing has a dehumanizing effect and that there isn’t much thought put into planning. Additionally, he said the City is abandoning the concept of protecting existing citizens.
b) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, said that the job of the Council is to make policy, not micromanage land use issues. He said there is a Comprehensive Plan (CP) which was done with a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He said the EIS needs to be fixed. He also stated that public notice may or may not be an issue, but it is that the land use people are the only ones who understand it but most others don't. He said the planning process needs to address the future and he would embrace high density development if it was planned properly.
c) Les Nelson, Shoreline, also agreed with extending the moratorium. He highlighted that the findings of fact from Ordinance No. 484 and 488 are still valid. He asked for consideration of density and what is appropriate or compatible next to single family zones. He urged the Council to not only look at transition, but to take time to look at other issues. He said he still would like the City to deal with density, parking, regional business vs. community business, and green space preservation. He concluded that nothing above a density of R-48 was ever discussed in the EIS.
d) Joe Krause, Shoreline, urged the Council to extend the moratorium. He noted that impact fees, fire/police protection, and affordable housing will take time to work out and there is no reason to rush.
e) Gary Batch, Shoreline, said he hasn’t heard any comparisons with other cities on any of these issues. He said we are trying to solve all of these issues by ourselves. He suggested looking at Littleton, Colorado and the hundreds of cities who utilize very creative ideas to solve their problems. He said the City doesn’t need "boxes" or "warehouse-like" housing. He also expressed concerns about cheap asphalt sidewalks.
Councilmember Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion. Deputy Mayor Scott suggested postponing the closing of the public hearing. Mayor Ryu suggested leaving it open until item 9(b) was concluded to allow new testimony. Mr. Sievers explained that this just reserves action on the moratorium until later; the public hearing is the comment period on that item. A vote was taken on the motion to close the public hearing, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember Hansen voting in the affirmative.
|
9. |
Paul Cohen, Planner, provided a brief presentation which included a code amendment summary. He also discussed how the amendment affects the regional business (RB), community business (CB), or industrial (I) properties abutting or across street rights-of-way from R-4, R-6, and R-8 zones.
Councilmember Way asked how the Planning Commission arrived at the decision to have 50 linear feet between open space areas.
Mr. Olander responded that the idea is to have some architectural relief to commercial buildings.
Mr. Cohen noted that the 50-foot requirement enhances the building for those people who will live in the building. He stated that the code already has a finer picture and description of what the entire building would look like.
Mr. Olander addressed concerns raised by the speakers. He highlighted that this started with particular concerns on a project in the 152nd Street area. This isn’t a rezone and isn’t like Ridgecrest. He noted that this doesn’t increase the densities. As a matter of fact, he pointed out that the additional stepbacks and buffers actually have the practical effect of reducing densities. Another issue, he said, is the fear of unlimited density in RB and there is no such thing. Density is constrained in RB by heights, setbacks, buffering and stepbacks. He said the City staff predicted a growth of 120 residential units and 200,000 feet in commercial and they are on track with the projections. He said he shares some of the parking concerns and after discussions with the City Attorney, Planning Director and City staff, he issued an Administrative Order rescinding the previous Administrative Order regarding parking. He said additional research and public process will be done rather than rely on other projects in the region. He also suspended the Director's discretion concerning the reduction of parking based upon the proximity to transit so it can be reviewed publicly. This, he explained, has to do with the physical limitations of the site. He said the residents want the City to go further and look at reducing densities. He felt the moratorium is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing density issues because it addresses specific areas. He suggested the Council proceed with these and then move to the broader issues.
Mayor Ryu called for public comment.
a) Brian Derdowski, Issaquah, on behalf of Public Interest Associates, commented that this is a big issue that could undercut the Council visioning process. He said it isn’t advisable to fix a zoning issue with a development regulation. He felt the City should maximize its discretionary authority by directing the City staff to write a memorandum as to what a comprehensive plan amendment would look like to address these issues or retain the special use conditional use permit process. He proposed that the Council extend the moratorium, prepare an amendment, and retain the development code language approach.
b) Sue Melville, Shoreline, commented that she is an educated person, but she can't figure out what's going on with this legislation. She said if the Council passes the ordinance they are accepting no maximum densities and heights. She said the City used to require special use permit for heights of 60 feet. She felt this has the same effect as a rezone. She displayed a drawing representing her house and said there are privacy issues. She said this legislation hasn’t come very far since September when the developer had a pre-permit meeting and told the neighborhood that this was a “done deal.”
Councilmember Way asked for historical information concerning this site. Ms. Melville responded that her house was built in 1952. She commented that the home across the street was the site of a trailer park in 1964.
c) Ryan Spillsbury, Shoreline, stated that he lives 100 yards from the property affected by moratorium. He noted that he was present in September when the developer had his hearing and felt Ordinance No. 500 is some improvement, but it still looks like very large buildings next to single family homes. He suggested there be more time spent working on this.
d) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, noted that the courtyard is 800x20 square feet which would mean 1,600 square feet of cutouts going up three stories. She said she agreed with the courtyard cutouts. She felt the stepbacks should be 1:1, which she said would give back what was taken away. She also noted that the proposal is missing railings on the setbacks, which would be necessary for each level. She also stated that it is critical to allow for the mechanicals to be on the rooftop.
e) Les Nelson, Shoreline, discussed growth numbers and said between 2000 to 2007 there were 130 units per year and the number planned was 100. He said that number included the annexation of Pt. Wells. He said the City has done pretty good with development and the City staff only had two months on it. He said the City should spend more time on these regulations. Additionally, he said the setbacks and stepbacks don't look any different up close.
f) Tom Poitras, Shoreline, stated that the residents have trouble visualizing this and suggested people go to Lake City and Greenlake to see what is there.
Mr. Olander highlighted that this comes down to balancing interests. He said the City needs to balance economic development, walkability, transportation, etc. Additionally, these are policy decisions that will have to be made.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked Mr. Olander to address Mr. Derdowski's comments about the CP amendment. Mr. Olander summarized that some residents want to reduce densities in the RB zone, which may require a CP amendment.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, added that the City would have to attach other elements. He agreed that this would also have to start over with a new Planning Commission public hearing. He took Mr. Derdowski’s comment to mean that the City needs to examine densities in the whole city at a fundamental level and not just focusing on the ones covered by this moratorium.
Councilmember Eggen moved adoption of Ordinance No. 500, Amending the Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.50.020 and 20.50.230 to Establish Transition Area Requirements for Residential Development of Land in Residential Business (RB), Community Business (CB), and Industrial (I) Land Use Districts in Proximity to Residential Neighborhoods. Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion.
Councilmember Eggen expressed interest in what Mr. Derdowski was suggesting for the CP amendment. Mr. Derdowski explained that there is an issue of intense, tall development adjacent to single family neighborhoods which creates obvious conflicts. In addition, he said there is an issue as to whether the City’s transportation plan fully contemplated this density and whether there is new information to consider. He said there were also observations made concerning the use of a variety of tools to mitigate impacts. He said there are a number of creative ideas to be considered and the City staff hasn't gone far enough. He felt a possible CP amendment would be adopted this year. He stated that the areas that are specifically involved in this moratorium would be put on the table and other property owners would be included, so an area-wide CP amendment could be done with the CP update. He urged the Council to set general policies and instruct the City staff to write the development codes. He concluded that this ordinance has the potential to undercut the Council’s visioning.
Councilmember Way noted that the Council discussed the idea of a CP review/visioning process. She asked Mr. Derdowski for his opinion of that process. Mr. Derdowski responded that it could be a hardship to the property owners to wait for a visioning process, so the Council should address the issue this year.
Councilmember McGlashan asked Mr. Derdowski if he is a paid consultant. Mr. Derdowski responded that he is with Public Interest Associates and half of his work is with private sector. He said he is a management and public policy consultant. He said he identifies the public interest component of businesses and assists them with their work with cities and counties.
Councilmember McGlashan asked about stepbacks and what can be in that space. Mr. Cohen responded that a deck with a railing could be built, but the current wording won't allow anything above the 2:1 slope.
Mayor Ryu discussed a concern that Mr. Nelson submitted to the Planning Commission. She said Mr. Nelson wanted the Council to consider assigning the first 100 feet of lot depth a maximum density of R-24 as an alternative to the 2:1 slope.
Mr. Sievers cited court cases regarding moratoria, noting that some have been terminated because they weren’t justified. He added that cities use a moratorium where they find an error in the municipal code which will lead to circumstances and consequences. Mainly, he said, it doesn't allow cities to take due course; that normally goes to GMA regulatory amendments. He added that the City Manager saw something that looked like oversight and there were setback differences between CB, RB, and I. He noted that this moratorium is focused on the transition area. He concluded that if the City makes adjustments in the transition area there is no reason why amendments cannot be adopted in the future.
RECESS
At 9:41 p.m. Mayor Ryu called for a ten minute recess. Mayor Ryu reconvened the meeting at 9:53 p.m.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Way moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Hansen dissenting.
Mr. Olander clarified that Ordinance No. 500 involves the transitional area codes and Ordinance No. 502 extends the moratorium. He stated that Ordinance No. 502 is necessary if Ordinance No. 500 is adopted.
Mayor Ryu inquired if the recommendations for Ordinance No. 500 can be revised or omitted.
Mr. Cohen clarified the recommended deletions on page 77, item #8. He said the provision has never been used and it goes against the spirit of the moratorium. Mr. Olander further explained that removing this section removes the discretion to allow lots of these circumstances to be 50 or 60 feet high. He said it would keep the maximum at 35 feet.
Councilmember Eggen said maybe the City should consider R-48 developments in CB areas. He said it sounds as if R-48 is more restrictive than unlimited densities.
Mr. Cohen noted that R-48 can be built in CB and RB zones under the current code; on the bottom of page 77 no minimum density is mentioned.
Councilmember Way said she has a number of concerns about the current moratorium. She added that the CP amendment idea is intriguing and wanted to suggest a substitute for Ordinance No. 500. Councilmember Way moved to substitute for the motion on the table that the City staff to come back with a Comprehensive Plan amendment which encompasses the issue. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion.
Mayor Ryu asked Councilmember Way what would happen to the 70 lots that are in limbo while the process is being worked out.
Mr. Olander commented that this is not a simple CP amendment, but a major undertaking and effort. It would involve public hearings, Planning Commission review, SEPA research, and traffic analysis. It would require a broad study which is hard to execute in a few months.
Councilmember Eggen stated that Mr. Derdowski's idea was not to come back with an amendment in two weeks, but to come back with an approach to review this.
Mr. Olander replied that it needs to be a goal and work plan item to address the CP issue. He suggested that Mr. Derdowski's idea is as broad as what has been proposed.
Mayor Ryu discussed transition area codes and said there is a recommendation on the table concerning the bulk and setback side of the development. She pointed out that it doesn’t address density, parking, or traffic.
Councilmember Eggen added that Mr. Olander has presented a plan to cancel the Administrative Order on parking. He felt this is resolving the parking issue.
Councilmember McGlashan opposed the motion and said the Council should be protecting the neighborhoods. He said putting this off and doing code amendments will not work.
Councilmember Way stated that the idea was presented by a source she trusts. She said dealing with it as a CP amendment is more just.
Councilmember Eggen inquired how long it would take if the Council decided to look at a CP amendment. Mr. Olander responded that a year is a reasonable time frame but it would shift the work focus.
Councilmember Way commented that it might take a while, but there are other CP amendments coming along, including master plans. She felt it could be worked into the schedule.
Mr. Olander agreed and felt that the amendments are relatively routine “clean up” items; however, he reminded the Council that they need to involve the community as a whole, and that this will take lots of research.
Deputy Mayor Scott discussed the various options for this item.
Mayor Ryu stated she is against the motion because there is already commitment from staff that there would be a visioning process. She noted that Mr. Derdowski’s concerns have been addressed. She added that there needs to be some sort of interim development code and if Ordinance No. 500 isn’t adopted, ground will be lost.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:25 p.m., Councilmember McGlashan moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Hansen abstaining.
Mr. Olander stated that if this “patch” is passed the City staff will bring a proposed work plan and Council goals back. At that time, the Council can direct the City staff to move quickly with this item.
Mayor Ryu commented that if this item isn’t passed tonight it can be reintroduced on May 12 because it makes some sense to address Ordinance No. 478 and Ordinance No. 500 together.
Mr. Olander added that the moratorium could be extended for two to three weeks if it would help the Council. However, he isn’t sure it would clarify anything.
Deputy Mayor Scott said he cannot support Councilmember Way's amendment, but also cannot support extending the moratorium. He said he isn’t sure what to do because there are so many unknowns, but he said doesn’t want to hold the developer back because he has the right to develop.
Mr. Olander summarized that this is an issue of reduction in densities adjacent to RB, CB, and I zones. He felt that it is a separate issue and a “quantitative leap” to reduce RB densities with this package.
Mayor Ryu discussed clustering, green features, commercial retail space, retaining significant trees, and pervious surface and wondered if any of those aspects are going to be included.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to call the question, seconded by Councilmember Hansen. Motion carried 7-0.
A vote was taken on the motion to direct City staff to come back with a Comprehensive Plan amendment which encompasses the issue, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember Way voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Eggen moved to require a special use permit to build a 65 foot structure in residential business (RB) or community business (CB). Councilmember Way seconded the motion. Councilmember Eggen stated that this would ensure public process would be done for any large building.
Mr. Cohen elaborated that any project in the City over 4,000 square feet would have public notification. Mr. Olander speculated that Councilmember Eggen’s suggestion would be very difficult to manage. He noted that each project would have to go back for a special hearing before the Planning Commission and then come to the Council for a decision, which would take a great deal of time and can be very controversial. Mr. Cohen added that it would be a land use approval; then, the project would still have to go through the construction permit process. Mr. Olander noted that the City wants to have a predictable development process in the future.
Councilmember Way moved to restore conditional use and special use permit options in R-48 commercial business (CB), residential business (RB), and industrial (I) zones 55 feet and up. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion.
Mayor Ryu questioned if the amendment should be that anything over R-48 goes through the special use permitting process because of density. Mr. Cohen stated that the criteria for a special use permit are quite general.
Councilmember McGlashan inquired if the conditional use permit and the special use permit allow for higher buildings and an increase in density already. Mr. Cohen replied that those permits are weighted towards uses, not height or density. He said there are a few unique things that need to be done in the City, such as cellular towers that would need a special use permit.
Mr. Olander said some of the concern is about the "unlimited densities" in these zones. He inquired about a motion to direct the City staff to come up with a development code amendment to set something reasonable for maximum density in RB and I which would be somewhere between 96 – 110, unless a subarea plan has been approved that authorizes a higher density. He said this would at least establish a base.
Mr. Sievers commented that this presents a problem with moratorium coverage and a problem with the growth management act notice requirements. This would, he explained, need to go back to the Planning Commission and noticed because it involves density; the notice that was publicized only dealt with building heights and setbacks.
Mr. Olander said there needs to be time to convince Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), which is charged with administering the growth management act, and it might think the City is lowering densities and may send a letter of objection. He said it is important for the City to convince them of the goal. He said the regulations in Ordinance No. 500 are still good and this proposal may get the Council the rest of the way. He felt it could be fast-tracked with the Planning Commission, but it would require proper noticing.
Councilmember Eggen withdrew his amendment.
Councilmember Eggen moved to insert the text, “However, chain or bar type railing, safety railings, and whip antennas may extend five feet above the building envelope” to the end of page 78, Table 20.50.020(2)(a), Mayor Ryu seconded the motion.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4-2, with Councilmember McGlashan and Councilmember Way dissenting and Councilmember Hansen abstaining.
Councilmember Hansen asked what Type 1 landscaping was. Mr. Cohen provided a definition of both Type 1 and Type 2 landscaping as written in the Shoreline Municipal Code.
Deputy Mayor Scott moved that this item be tabled until May 12, 2008 and the moratorium be extended. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the motion to table Ordinance No. 500 Amending the Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.50.020 and 20.50.230 to Establish Transition Area Requirements for Residential Development of Land in Residential Business (RB), Community Business (CB), and Industrial (I) Land Use Districts in Proximity to Residential Neighborhoods, which carried 5-2, with Councilmember McGlashan and Councilmember McConnell dissenting.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:57 p.m., Councilmember Way moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Councilmember McGlashan and Councilmember Hansen abstaining.
Mr. Olander noted that the agenda planner for May 12 is full. Councilmember Eggen stated it would be better to have it on May 19, which is a special meeting.
Deputy Mayor Scott moved to reconsider Ordinance No. 500 on May 19, 2008 instead of May 12, 2008. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 6-1 with Councilmember McGlashan dissenting.
Councilmember Way moved to adopt Ordinance No. 502 extending the Moratorium on the filing or acceptance of any applications for mixed use or residential development projects on those lands zoned for Community Business (CB), Industrial (I) or Regional Business (RB) and which are in proximity to neighborhoods zoned for single family homes. Deputy Mayor Scott seconded the motion.
Councilmember Way moved to amend Ordinance No. 502 to establish a three-month extension. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion. Councilmember Way stated that the Council needs more time to consider this and to better address density and other unresolved issues.
A vote was taken on the motion to amend Ordinance No. 502 to establish a three-month extension, which failed 2-5, with Councilmember Way and Councilmember Eggen voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Eggen moved to amend Ordinance No. 502 to extend the Moratorium on the filing or acceptance of any applications for mixed use or residential development projects on those lands zoned for Community Business (CB), Industrial (I) or Regional Business (RB) and which are in proximity to neighborhoods zoned for single family homes until June 2, 2008. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
|
11. |
At 11:05 p.m. Mayor Ryu declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Scott Passey, City Clerk, CMC