Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1984 07 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA JULY 16, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kennedy at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Edgar, and the Invocation was given by Councilman Saltarelli. II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Frank H. Greinke, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar Donald J. Saltarelli Councilpersons Absent: Ronald B. Hoesterey Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Eva A. Solis, Deputy City Clerk Donald D. Lamm, Com. Development Director Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Royleen A. White, Dir. of Admin. & Com. Srvcs. Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Approximately 25 in the audience III. PROCLAMATION 1. OLYMPIC TORCH BEARER - TUSTIN RESIDENT KATHERINE SHIVES Mayor Kennedy read and presented a proclamation to Katherine Jill Shives, Tustin resident, who will carry the Olympic Torch for one ~ kilometer in Southern California on July 27, 1984. Ms. Shives expressed her thanks to the Council and introduced family members. IV. PUBLIC INPUT None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF USE PERMIT 84-8 - GEORGETOWN MANOR APARTMENTS, 13181-13195 GWYNETH DRIVE The Community Development Di rector presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated July 11, 1984, prepared by the Community Development Department, and responded to Councilman Edgar that since the June 18 continuance of the matter, staff is not aware of any meetings held between the applicant and area residents. Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Gary Daugherty, project architect, noted increased landscape plant- ings in the revised plan to help maintain adjoining property owner privacy. James Beauchamp, project applicant, also noted plan revisions and stated that if Council definitely desires density reduction, the plans will be revised and 'financing for same reviewed. Mr. Beauchamp responded to Council questions. The following persons spoke in opposition to Use Permit 84-8: i. Howard Gotman, 1421Mauna Loa Kent Sorey, 1321Mauna Loa Alice Anderson, 1362 Olwyn Drive Marsha Sorey, 1321Mauna Loa CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 7-16-84 Michael Marchese, 1282 Olwyn Drive, spoke in favor of Use Permit No. 84-8. Nina Ondracek, 1342 Olwyn Drive, spoke in opposition to Use Permit No. 84-8. Gary Daugherty noted that fire lane access has been addressed as required by the Orange County Fi re Department, and the plans have been altered at considerable expense for landscaping and window screening issues proposed. Carmen McCully, 1381Mauna Loa, spoke in opposition to the project. James Beauchamp estimated the increased number of traffic trips on Woodlawn and Olwyn with the construction of 18 additional units. He acknowledged that some new lighting will have to be installed in the carport areas for added security. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Council discussion followed. Councilman Saltarelli stated his main concern that the proposed density is too high, but he is willing to consider other possibilities, i.e., refurbishment and conversion to condominiums for resale/homeownership, addition of recreation amenities and upgrading which would result in higher rents, removal of some units, and addition of open space. Councilman Edgar stated his concurrence with Councilman Saltarelli and expressed disappointment that the applicant has not met with surrounding neighbors in an attempt to resolve differences. Mayor Pro Tem Greinke agreed that there should be mere dialogue between the applicant and surrounding neighbors, and expressed con- cern with the project's density. Mayor Kennedy expressed regret that the developer did not feel Council's direction was clearly to reduce project density. It was then moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to continue Appeal of Use Permit 84-8 to the August 6, 1984, meeting to allow both parties involved an opportunity to meet in City Hall, overseen by staff, to try to resolve differences. A substitute motion was made by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to deny Use Permit 84-8 and authorize a waiver of fees upon submittal of a new project. Following discussion, the substitute motion died 2-2, Greinke and Edgar opposed, Hoesterey absent. The main motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 81 A sign-up sheet was circulated among area homeowners in the audi- ence for purposes of meeting notification. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3B - OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION ELE- MENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN The Community Development Di rector presented the staff report and recommendation to continue the matter to August 6, 1984, as con- tained in the inter-com dated July 11, 1984, prepared by the Com- munity Development Department. The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. There were no speakers on the matter. It was then moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to continue the open public hearing and consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 84-3b to August 6, 1984. Carried 4~0, Hoesterey absent. 56 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 7-16-84 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3C - RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN The Community Development Di rector presented the staff report and recommendation to continue the matter to August 6, 1984, as con- tained in the inter-com dated July 11, 1984, prepared by the Com- munity Development Department. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. There were no speakers on the matter. It was then moved by Greinke, seconded :~ Edgar, to continue the open public hearing and consideration General Plan Amendment No. 84-3c to August 6, 1984. Motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 56 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-3D - RESOLUTION NO. 84-52 The Community Development Di rector presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated July 11, 1984, prepared by the Community Development Department, and responded to Council questions. The City Attorney requested continuance of the matter to August 6, 1984, to allow further research of regulations to restrict development to a senior citizen board and care home. The Community Development Director responded to Council questions. Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Emanuel Aftergut, applicant representative, noted that~the property is still in escrow and he is not yet the record owner. Council responded to Mr. Aftergut's questions. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the zone change pro- cess. There were no other speakers on the matter. ~ It was then moved by E 'A sideration of General No. 84-3D and the following resolution to August 6, 1984: RESOLUTION NO. 84-52 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1262 BRYAN AVENUE After further discussion, the motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 56 5, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 84-2 - RESOLUTION NO. 84-55 The staff report and recommendation was presented by the Community Development Director as contained in the inter-com dated July 11, 1984, prepared by the Community Development Department. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Kennedy at 8:33 p.m. Rosemary Weichers, 1532 Copperfield, spoke in opposition to General Plan Amendment No. 84-2. Mayor Kennedy acknowledged receipt of Mrs. Weichers' letter. Steve Markl, 14902 Bridgeport Road, Tustin Meadows Homeowners' Association, expressed support of rezoning subject property to a planned unit development designation, and suggested that the two parcels be improved as one. Fred Ahnert, no address given, spoke in favor of free enterprise and progress (change). Matt Nisson, applicant, spoke in favor of General Plan Amendment No. 84-2, and responded to Council questions. Philip Costanzo, 14422 Grassmere, spoke in rebuttal to Mr. Ahnert's comments. There being no other speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 8:44 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 7-16-84 Following Council discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, to adopt the following: RESOLUTION NO. 84-55 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GEN- ERAL PLAN TO COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 14462 RED HILL AVENUE AND SHOWN AS EXHIBIT "A" ENCLOSED In response to Council concern that the property be zoned CG-PUD, the Community Development Director noted that Council could ini- tiate a zone change for Planning Commission consideration. The motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 56 It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to initiate the zone change process to C~-PUD for 14462 Red Hill Avenue. After further discussion, the motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 11U 6. EXTENSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE MORATORIUM - ORDINANCE NO. 915 The Community Development Di rector presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated July 11, 1984, prepared by the Community Development Department. The public hearing was opened at 8:59 p.m. by Mayor Kennedy. The following persons spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 915: Fred Ahnert, no address given Barry Watkins, 1914 Orangewood, Suite ~102, Orange There were no other speakers on the matter. The motion by Kennedy to continue consideration of Ordinance No. 915 to an adjourned regular meeting on July 19, 1984 (for the required four-fifths vote, with all Council members present), died for lack of a second. The motion by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 915 have ~irst reading by title only, was withdrawn until closure of the public hearing. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to close the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, that Ordinance No. 915 have first reading by title only. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. Following reading by title only of Ordinance No. 915 by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordi- nance No. 915 be introduced. Councilman Edgar stated he was prepared to vote in support of extending the moratorium, but he was not prepared to support an adjourned regular meeting solely for the purpose of extending the moratorium. Councilman Greinke expressed his opposition to Ordinance No. 915, and noted that there are presently sufficient methods of control. Mayor Kennedy stated that in view of Councilman Hoesterey's absence, the motion for continuance was a legal maneuver to keep an issue alive which has been under consideration for three months. The motion carried 3-1 for introduction of Ordinance No. 915, Greinke opposed, Hoesterey absent. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 915 have second reading by title only. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 915 by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 915 be passed and adopted. ORDIWANCE NO. 915 - AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM UPON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 7-16-84 AYES: Edgar, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: Grei nke ABSENT: Hoesterey 81 Motion failed 3-1, Greinke opposed, Hoesterey absent. (Four-fifths vote required for ordinance adoption.) It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to support con- tinuation of the study on off-sale liquor permits. Carried 4-0, ,-- Hoesterey absent. 81 7. FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 BUDGET & REVENUE SHARING APPROPRIATION - RESO- LLITION NOS. 84-57 & 84-58 The City Manager presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in his inter-com dated July 16, 1984. The public hearing was opened at 9:19 p.m. by Mayor Kennedy. There were no speakers on the matter, and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to adopt the follow- ing: RESOLUTION NO. 84-57 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING REVENUE OF THE CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 RESOLUTION NO. 84-58 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING THE REVENUE SHARING FUND BUDGET AND APPROPRI- ATING REVENUE OF THE FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 The motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 29 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded b~ Edgar, to approve the 4 0 absent. entire Consent Calendar. Motion carried - , oesterey 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JULY 2, 1984, REGULAR MEETING JULY 9, 1984, BUDGET WORKSHOP 2. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $277,196.03 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,095.20 50 3. REQUEST FOR RESTRICED PARKING DURING STREET SWEEPING OPERATIONS - MARSHALL LANE BETWEEN FAIRHAVEN & SANTA CLARA AVENUES Authorize the installation of signing to restrict on-street parking during street sweeping hours, 6:00 a.m. to noon on Wednesday on both sides of Marshall Lane between Fairhaven Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue and that warnings be issued in lieu of citations for the first 30 days after sign installa- tion, as recommended by the Director of Public Works. 75 4. SAN DIEGO PIPELINE CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., COMPLAINT FOR REFUND OF PROPERTY TAX, LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. C502532, CLAIM NO. 84-18 Authorize the County Counsel of the County of Orange to defend the City of Tustin in the above-referenced action pursuant to ,-- Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5149, as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 5. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL, 1892 SANDWOOD PLACE Authorize the removal of three street trees at 1892 Sandwood Place per Case I of current City Policy and replace two trees along the Cloverbrook Drive frontage with two 15-gallon size Magnolia trees, as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 86.1 6. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL, 13301 CROMWELL DRIVE Authorize the removal of two street trees at 13301 Cromwell Drive per Case I of current City Policy and replace with one 15-gallon size Magnolia tree, as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 86.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 7-16-84 7. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRACT NO. 11649 (Barnett- Nowling Company, 1162 Sycamore Avenue) Accept all public improvements constructed by the developers of Tract No. 11649 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 99 8. RESOLUTION NO. 84-56 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 84-3 (Riverford Road) ~ Adopt Resolution No. 84-56 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 81 9. RESOLUTION NO. 84-46 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED GYLAH-WARREN ANNEXATION NO. 134 Adopt Resolution No. 84-46, as recommended by the Community Development Department. 24 RECESS - CLOSED SESSION; RECONVENED At 9:22 p.m. the Council recessed to a Closed Session for discussion of legal matters. The City Council meeting was reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with Councilman Hoesterey absent. VII. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 1. ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-2 - ORDINANCE NO. 914 Councilman Greinke declared a conflict of interest, and thereby abstained on the matter. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 914 have second reading by title only. Carried 3-0, Greinke abstained, Hoesterey absent. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 914 by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 914 be passed and adopted. Council discussion followed. Councilman Saltarelli expressed con- cern regarding parking requirements in the CG~PUD zone. Councilman Edgar responded that Ordinance No. 914 does not address parking, but states that the property owner is permitted to apply for the proposed use (auto repair shop) which is lthen subject to approval/ denial by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director stated that the zone change would enable the property owner to seek automotive repai~ use on the property. If the subject zone change is not adopted, the Planning Commission hearing that is presently in a continued state would then be denied/with- drawn. Mayor Kennedy stated her preference that the property remain C1 (Retail Commercial) for sales tax benefits and because the property is a prime piece of land that serves as a window to the City from its freeway proximity. Councilman Saltarelli reiterated his concern that approving CG zoning would allow other types of developments that would not be allowed in the C1 zone. Councilman Edgar pointed out that the CG-PUD designation is more restrictive, and approval Would not be automatic. The City Attorney responded to Mayor Kennedy that with Council con- sensus, the roll call vote could be withdrawn and Councilman Salta- relli's suggestion to continue could be considered. After further Council discussion, there was Council consensus to withdraw the roll call vote. A substitute motion was then made by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to continue to August 6, 1~84, consideration of the following: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 7-16-84 ORDINANCE NO. 914 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON LAGUNA ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 401-064-01 AND 401-064-02) FROM THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT {CG-PUD) DISTRICT Motion carried 3-0, Greinke abstained, Hoesterey absent. 110 Councilman Edgar requested that staff provide Council with a copy of permitted uses via the proposed zone change. Councilman Greinke noted he was advised by legal counsel to abstain on the matter. VIII. OLD BUSINESS 1. FOSTER ART SERVICE/BOYS CLUB OF TUSTIN AGREEMENT Councilman Edgar provided a history of incidents relative to the matter, noting that there is no direct financial responsibility to the City and the $20,000 from Foster Art Service will go into the Boys Club endowment fund. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, to approve the agreement and authorize its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. Mayor Kennedy stated she could approve the agreement on the basis that the City will retain a permanent easement for a possible future water well on the property, but expressed her disappointment that the City did not retain more rights in view of the fact that the land for recreation will no longer exist and the Boys Club will be paid for same. The motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 45 84-30 2. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation. Council concurred to accept the late filing by applicant Alicia Eppinger which was submitted on July 12, 1984. Following Council discussion, it was moved by Greinke, seconded b Edgar, to schedule a meeting on Monday, July 30, 1984, at 7:0~ p.m. for interview of Planning Commission candidates. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 80 Councilmembers provided direction on interview format, i.e., no pre-screening of applicants, notification by telephone to all can- didates of the meeting, interview by random selection, and a two minute candidate introduction followed by a Council question-and- answer period. IX. NEW BUSINESS' 1, AWARD OF CONTRACT - FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 SIDEWALK & CURB REPAIR PRO- GRAM IBids for subject project were received on July 10, 1984, as follows: Harper Construction Company, Running Springs $52,002.78 Arm & Hammer Concrete Removal, Tustin $53,635.94 Damon Construction Company, South Gate $65,505.35 Gabi Construction Company, Inc., La Habra $71,889.44 Nobest, Inc., Westminster $84,041.15 As recommended in the inter-com dated July 10, 1984, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to award the contract for subject project to Harper Con- struction Company in the amount of $52,002.78; and authorize the FinanCe Department to transfer funds from Account 2915, Street and Alley Repair,> to subject project account in order to cover the shortfall in funding for subject project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 7-16-84 The City Manager and City Attorney responded to Councilman Greinke's questions concerning State law requirements on bid award procedures for public works projects. The motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 92 2.NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATE- MENT FOR SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to authorize staff to respond to CalTrans on the notice of preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement as outlined in the letter dated July 16, 1984, as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer in his inter-com dated July 11, 1984. Councilman Edgar stressed the importance of including in its response to CalTrans the City's expectation that the Red Hill and Newport overpasses not only accommodate freeway traffic, but also surface traffic in Tustin. The Director of Public Works explained this would be in direct opposition to current CalTrans policy which does not include rebuilding of structures that are not within the roadway proper itself. If desired, the City could enter into a separate agreement to have such improvements done at total City expense. The Director noted that the City will have an opportunity to express such concerns during the environmental review process. After further Council/staff discussion, the motion was amended by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to authorize staff to respond to CalTrans on the notice of preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement as outlined in the letter dated July 16, 1984, with the addition of a paragraph indicating concern over modification of the Redhill Avenue and Newport Avenue overpasses. The amended motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 54 X. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - JULY 9, 1984 Following staff response to Council questions, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to ratify the July 9, 1984,~ Commission Action Agenda. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 80 2. IRVINE BOULEVARD FROM RANCHWOOD ROAD TO CULVER DRIVE, AND FROM JEFFREY ROAD TO SAND CANYON AVENUE It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to receive and file subject report dated July 9, 1984, prepared by the Director of Public Works. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 95 3. COLUMBUS TUSTIN WELL PROJECT STATUS REPORT The Director of Public Works presented a status report on subject project, and responded to Councilman Edgar that a bonus/penalty clause will be included in the contract document to motivate the contractor to complete the project on schedule when actual well construction is advertised for bids. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent. 107 XI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION The City Manager requested a Closed Session for discussion of legal matters. 2. ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ABATEMENT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Mayor Kennedy referenced a memo regarding appointment to the Orange County Noise Abatement Commission. Council concurred to review a resume from Mr. James Plesetz and agendize the matter for the August 6, 1984, City Council agenda. 67 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 7-16-84 3. ROUTE VERIFICATION OF OLYMPIC TORCH PROCESSION The Director of Administrative and Community Services responded to Mayor Kennedy that staff will verify the correct route of the Olympic Torch procession. 4. FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS SPECTACULAR Councilman Greinke congratulated staff on the 1984 Fourth of July ~-- Fireworks Spectacular. He suggested improvements to include hot dogs, more patriotic music with sing-alongs, and possibly video- taping the program for viewing by senior citizens. Mayor Kennedy echoed Councilman Greinke's congratulatory comments, and Council concurred to forward commendation letters to involved staff members. 41 XII. RECESS - REDEVELOPMENT - CLOSED SESSION; ADJOURNMENT At 10:10 p.m., it was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to recess to the Redevelopmerit Agency, thence to a Closed Session for discussion of legal matters; and thence adjourn to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on July 30, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. for interview of Planning Commission appli- cants, and thence to the next regular meeting on August 6, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 4-0, Hoesterey absent.