01-24-1995 Council Minutes Adj RegularAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON FEBRUARY 14, 1995.
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
January 24, 1995
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on January 24, 1995 at 4:00 P.M. in
an Adjourned Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange,
California.
400 P.M. SESSION
1. OPENING
1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
1.2 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT -
Barrera 1.3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None 1.4 PRESENTATIONS/
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS _ None 1.5 PROCLAMATIONS -
None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.
1 Declaration of
City Clerk Marilyn 1. Jensen declaring posting of City Council agenda of an adjourned regular meeting of
January 24, 1995, at Orange Civic Center, Main Library,Police facility at 1107
North Batavia and the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board; all of said locations being in the
City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before
commencement of said adjourned regular meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of
Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a public record in the
Office of the City Clerk.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Spurgeon
AYES - Murphy, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater
ABSENT - Barrera Item 2.1 was approved
as recommended.END
OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR
COONTZ - None 4. REPORTS
FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS,
COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS _ None PAGE 1
Adj. Reg. Mtg.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1995
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None 7.
REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 8. LEGAL
AFFAIRS - None 9. ORAL PRESENTATIONS -
None 10. RECESS MOTION SECOND
AYES ABSENT
Murphy
Slater
Murphy,
Mayor
Coontz,
Spurgeon, Slater
Barrera The City Council recessed at
4:05
p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:a. Conference with Legal Counsel - existing litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a):Citv of Oran2e et al.
vs. Donald D.
Greek. et aI., Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Case No.GO 13897 b. Conference witl1 Legal Counsel - anticipated
litigation.Initiation
oflitigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(
c) (one potential case)c. To consider and take possible action upon such
other matters as are orally announced by tl1e City Attorney, City Manager, or City Council prior to
such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any ofthe matters will not be considered in
Closed Session.11. RECESS MOTION SECOND AYES Murphy Barrera Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz,
Spurgeon,
Slater
The
City
Council recessed
at 4:30 p.m. to their
regularly scheduled Council meeting, January 24,1995 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers and
reconvened Closed Session at 9:30 p.m.MARIL 1. JE F&Y, CMC CITY CLERK PAGE 2 Adj.
Rag. M'g.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF A REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 14, 1995.
ORANGE, CALFIORNIA
JANUARY 24, 1995
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on January 24, 1995 at 4:30 P.M. in
a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
4:30 P.M. SESSION
1. OPENING
1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Given by Councilman Mark Murphy
1.2 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT -
None 1.3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting
January 10, 1995.MOTION - Barrera
SECOND - Murphy AYES -
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ACTION: Approved.Adjourned Regular Meeting
January 17,
1995.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Barrera AYES -
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater
ACTION: Approved.1.4 PRESENTA TIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS
Resolution No.
8434 was presented to Philip L.
Colin of the Orange Water Department,honoring him for more than 38 years of
service to the City of Orange.Presentation of Resolution No. 8425 to Trey Sirks
of the Orange Police Department,honoring him for more than 29 years of
service to the City of Orange will be rescheduled.Police Officer Sirks was unable to be present
due to illness.1.5 PROCLAMATIONS - None PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
2.CONSENT CALENDAR TAPE 194
2.1 Declaration of City Clerk Marilyn J. Jensen declaring posting of City Council agenda of a
regular meeting of January 24, 1995, at Orange Civic Center, Main Library, Police facility
at 1107 North Batavia and the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board; all of said locations being
in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours
before commencement of said regular meeting.
ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a
public record in the Office of the City Clerk.
2.2 Authorize Mayor and Director of Finance to draw warrants on City Treasurer in payment
of demands.
ACTION: Approved.
2.3 Request to transfer funds in the amount of $14,869.82 for payment of extra work on
Public Works Improvement Project, S.P. No. 3070, Bid #934-17. (A2100.0.Agr.
2215)FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds available in the Street Scan Feasibility Study (Account
No.284-5032-485100-6207) to be transferred into the Interchange/
Santiago Blvd. at NoW Ranch Rd. (Account No. 284-5032-
483100-6016)
forcompletion of this project.ACTION: Approved.2.4 Request for the installation of a '3-Way'
STOP control and a school crosswalk at the intersectionof Palmyra
Ave. and Lincoln
Street. (S4000.
S.3.3)FISCAL IMPACT: None.ACTION: Denied.2.5 Request from Orange County
Transportation Authority to approve Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-
93-515 for the Fairhaven Overcrossing of
the Costa Mesa SR-55) Freeway. (A2100.
0.AGr.2179.1)FISCAL IMPACT: None. Funding provided by OCTA.ACTION: Authorized
the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the Amended Agreement on behalf of the City.
2.6 Request from Orange County Transportation Authority to approve Cooperative Agreement No. C-
94-873 for the construction of a traffic signal at LaVeta Ave. and Yorba St.;
and the modification of
a traffic signal at Tustin St. and
Fairhaven Ave.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement on behalf of the City.
2.7 Request from Roger and Rebecca Tsui of 9646 Crestview Circle, Villa Park, CA, to
connect to City-owned sewer. (A2100.0.Agr.
2323)FISCAL IMP ACT:
None.ACTION: Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement on behalf of
the
City.REMOVED AND HEARD
SEPARATELY)2.8 Request Council authorize payment of billing from City of Anaheim for 1-
5 Freeway Consultant Services. (A2100.0.
Agr.2046)FISCAL IMP ACT: Appropriate $50,000.00 from TSIP Unappropriated
Reserves to Account No.
284-5011-483300 (TSIP).Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, asked why the City was billed $50,
000 for the 1-5 Freeway consulting services. The Director of Public
Works/City Engineer reported the City entered into an agreement with the City of Anaheim in
January, 1993 to contract for design services for infrastructure and improvements of
the 1-5 Freeway corridor. The agreement provided the City was obligated for 20% of the
consultant's costs in an amount not to exceed $50,000 in anyone year. The invoice is the City'
s share of the work being performed by the consultant for this past year. This agreement set
a fixed cost and if more is spent by the contract, the City has
no obligation on
the ceiling amount.
MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Murphy, Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater ACTION: Approved.2.9 Request Council authorize the Police Department to charge a fee to
other agencies that use the services of the Department's Forensic
Artist. (C2500.K)FISCAL IMP ACT: This would be
a revenue-
producing program.ACTION: Approved.REMOVEDAND
HEARDSEP ARATEL Y)2.10 Approve and authorize the award of Bid No. 945-17 for
one window-style cargo van and one five-passenger compact van, to Prestige Ford,
San Gabriel, CA. in the amount of 40,456 and reject
all other bids. (A2100.0.Agr.2334)FISCAL IMP ACT: There are
sufficient funds
in Account
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Councilman Spurgeon indicated 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12 all involve bids and awards to car and
motorcycle dealerships outside the City of Orange. Councilman Spurgeon asked why
there was no response from dealerships within the City.
The Purchasing Office explained each time bids go out for vehicles, all Orange dealerships
are afforded the opportunity to bid. Villa Ford's Fleet Manager did not submit a bid
because of other cities cancelling their purchasing of cars due to the County's bankruptcy.
Contact was made to all dealerships in Orange regarding bidding and future bids. Also,
the Director of the Chamber of Commerce was invited to meetings that are held with
Orange businesses to discuss how business is conducted with the City. No answer has
been received from the Chamber.
Councilmembers expressed disappointment that Orange car dealerships did not bid.
Council discussed scheduling for a future agenda a review of the opportunities that are set
up to encourage business in Orange. This information is being compiled at this time.
There are parameters and additional incentives which can be given to local businesses vs.
those outside the City. It was suggested this should be referred to the City Manager and
the Economic Development Manager to discuss the 5% additional incentive and other
incentives. A study session was also suggested for further education on this subject.
The City Attorney recommended that Council take action with respect to those bids on the
Agenda at this time. It would be difficult to go out to bid again since those that did not
bid now know what the others have bid.
MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND -
Barrera AYES - Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ACTION: Moved to
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute award of the four bids on behalf
of the City.REMOVED AND HEARD
SEP ARATEL Y)2.11 Approve
and authorize the award of Bid No. 945-18 for 14 black & white police cars and nine solid
color police sedans to Downey Ford, Downey, CA in the amount of $474,982 and reject
all other bids. (A2100.0.Agr.2335)FISCAL IMP
ACT: There are sufficient funds in Account No. 720-5023-472102 (Vehicle
Replacement Fund).
ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute award of bid on behalf of the
City.
NOTE: See vote count on Item 2.10.
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
REMOVED AND HEARD SEP ARATELY)
2.12 Approve and authorize the award of Bid No. 945-19 for four police
enforcement motorcycles to Y.I.P. Motorcycles, Buena Park, CA in the amount of $29,967 and
reject all other bids. (A2100.0.Agr.
2336)FISCAL IMP ACT: There are sufficient funds in Account No. 720-
5023-472102 (
Vehicle Replacement Fund).ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute award of bid
on
behalf oftl1e City.NOTE: See vote counton
Item 2.10.REMOVED AND HEARD
SEP ARATEL Y)2.13 Request Council accept six-month report for Material Recovery
Facility, as operated by Orange Resource Recovery Systems, Inc., subsidiary of
Orange Disposal Services, Inc.from July I, 1994 through December 31, 1994. (
C2500.M.I.
I)FISCAL IMPACT: None.Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, asked what the pilot program
was for the multi-tenant,and what are the options now for
the multi-family total recyclingprogram?The Director of Public Works/City Engineer
reported the pilot program has approximately six multiple family complexes that have 2 to 3 bins
for co-mingling of recyclables. It is recommended that the contractor expand
this program to get greater participation. This has to happen to meet the goal of25%
diversion as mandated by State law. The Recycling Coordinator commented Orange
Disposal Service has made available to the single family residents the change to co-
mingle
recyclables in a
larger container at
this time.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Barrera AYES - Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ACTION: Received and filed report and directed
contractor
to implement tl1e following actions:a. Continue co-mingling ofrecyclables for
residential program through decal
issuance and mailing of new brochure.b. Conclude pilot program for multi-
tenant, and implement options
available for multi-family total recycling program.c. Continue dry processing of
commercial wastes, where possible,
and implement new recycling services where feasible.d. Continue researching new
and alternate
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Con tinned)
2.14 Request Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1994. (C2500.J.1.3)
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ACTION: Received and filed.
2.15 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM: (C3200.0)
a. City of Villa Park
b. State Farm Insurance
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ACTION: Denied claims and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster.
REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)
2.16 Request for extension of time to accept franchise proposal from Cablevision of Orange
and extension offranchise to June 30, 1995. (FII00.0)
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
The Assistant City Manager explained as provided under the Federal Communications
Commission guidelines for refranchising, the City has gone out to the cable community
asking for bids on a new franchise. Four cable companies and Pacific Bell were contacted.
No bids were received within the time period provided. However the City has received a
request from Cablevision of Orange to accept a late bid proposal by the end of the month.
Staff is recommending this request be granted. The City Attorney's office will be
providing the cable company with a draft franchise by February 15th and negotiations will
begin thereafter. Staff is also suggesting the current franchise period be extended to June
30, 1995 to ensure there is adequate time for public hearings.
Mayor Coontz made the following announcement: "One of our interests in the extension
of the franchise period was resolution of the questions Council had regarding the
programming. During Closed Session, just before this meeting, a tentative settlement
agreement was discussed with Cablevision of Orange and its parent company, Time-
Warner, to address complaints from local subscribers concerning the transmission of
sexually explicit programming on Channels 44 and 45. Council all accepted the
agreement. The agreement provides that Cablevision will either remove the current
programming of these channels or install additional positive trapping technology. The
City will withdraw its civil penalty which is in effect right now only upon successful
completion of the positive trapping or removal of the programming. "
Page 6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
JANUARY 24, 1995
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Barrera AYES - Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ACTION: Approved.2.
17 RESOLUTION
NO. 8437 A Resolution of
the City Council of tl1e City of Orange finally accepting the completion of a certain Public
Work and improvement; Bid No. 934-30; Mladen Grbavac Construction Company; Maple
Street Storm Drain across SCRRA Right-of-Way. (A21 00. 0.Agr.2227)
ACTION: Approved.
REMOVED AND HEARD SEP ARATEL Y - NOTE: Councilman Slater abstained from this
item due to interest in adjoining property.)2.
18 RESOLUTION NO. 8439 A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange authorizing execution of a Public Works
Cooperation Agreement with the Orange Redevelopment Agency relating to property
acquisition, design and construction of a public parking lot in an amount not to exceed $
400,000 located immediately across the railroad tracks (west side) from the Metrolink
Train Station, at 184 N. Atchison St. (A2100.0.Agr.2337)Barbara
DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, asked if the parking lot will be costing $800,000 because
there is an identical item on the Redevelopment Agenda of matching funds for 400,
000.The
Director of Public Works/CityEngineer reported this is a matching grant, $400,000 is a
grant from Cal Trans and $400,000 is from Redevelopment funds.The
City Manager reported this will allow the City to match the Cal Trans funds for the Metrolink
station.The
Traffic Engineer gave a brief history of the parking lots in the downtown and depot area.
It was explained that once the parking lot is developed and parking facilities located on
both sides of the railroad the problem of passengers only getting off on the west side can
be corrected. The railroad tracks are owned by Metrolink and the other is owned by Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.Mayor
Coontz suggested a review of this project for Councilmembers.MOTION -
Murphy SECOND - Coontz
AYES - Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon ABSTAIN - Slater Page 7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved and authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the
City.
2.19 RESOLUTION NO. 8440
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving an application for grant
funds from the California Used Oil Recycling Block Grant Programs to expand existing
program for certified collection of used oil and accompanying education of residents.
C2500.M.1.l )
ACTION: Approved.
MOTION - Barrera SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Items 2.8,
2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16and 2.18 were removedand heard separately; all other items on
the Consent Calendar were approved/denied as recommended.END OF CONSENT
CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM
MAYOR COONTZ 3.1 Report
on County Investment Pool from Mike Jeffers. TAPE 1360 C2500.F)Mr.
Jeffers requested
the final report be delayed until the next Council meeting, February 14,1995.Council discussed
the
status of the interviewing process for tl1e prospective members of the outside oversight committee.
Mr. Jeffers explained criteria is being formulated for membership and will be
included in the report. The process can begin at any time. The City management should decide who
should be on the committee to recommend the appointment of the members of the committee. The
City Manager suggested the committee membership should total no more than five. The
interviews can be conducted and recommendations will be sent to Council for appointment. The City
Manager indicated he would contact Mr. Jeffers to expedite the process.MOTION SECOND AYES
Barrera
Spurgeon
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater Moved to accept Mr. Jeffer's
request to place the final report on the February 14, 1995 Council meeting.Page 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ (Continued)
Mayor Coontz announced she and the City Manager have attended many meetings regarding the
County Investment Pool with no resolution on the disbursement of pool funds, just speculation.
Strong feelings have been indicated about the City getting 100"10 of their money returned plus
interest. Also, addressing the overall county pool, not the investment pool, the City needs to be
assured the funds will be returned. There are approximately $2 million of public works projects.
No response has been given to this because the main focus is on the Investment Pool.
Mayor Coontz recognized Nick Lall, 6231 E. Mabury Avenue, who suggested the following:
I. Enact an ordinance that makes it a criminal violation to invest in any investment that does not
conform to City investment policy. If a conflict exists within the Investment Policy the most
conservative interpretation should apply.
2. Have the Investment Advisory Committee meet in open public forum, no closed door
meetings. There is pleanty of input from citizens of the City that could be helpful.
3. Require the City budget to be balanced and that interest income is not used in the calculations.
Interest income will then be rebated to the property taxes in the form of credits which should take
away some of the incentive of the Council to feel extra pressure to try to get as many pennies out
of our dollars as we can.
4. If the Investment Policy prohibits a direct investment in a particular type of investment, then it
also should prohibit indirect investment in a similar type of investment.
5. Form a Citizens Review Committee to make an independent review of the City of Orange's
investment within the County Pool.
Mayor Coontz replied some of the questions have been answered in the past. The City budget
being balanced will be answered by the City Manager and the citizens review committee and
outside consultant is independent. The suggestions will be taken under consideration.
Mr. Lall asked the following questions:
I. To City Manager, Mr. Dixon - On May 10, 1994, the Council minutes state you believe that investing
in the Orange County Pool did not conform to City Investment Policy. On September 13,
1994, you acknowledged that the City is continuing to invest in the County Pool and no funds were
being taken out. At that time you also stated the policy is being handled and followed. The question
is, "How do you reconcile the contradiction of your statements from May to those statements
you made in September?"2.
Addressed to City Attorney or Mayor - City Ordinance No. 2.50.00 requires an Annual Investment Policy
Compliance Report be submitted to the City Council. One has been submitted for the
1993 period and is dated September 28, 1993. As of December 19, 1994 the report for the 1994
period has not been filed. "When will it be filed? Is this not a violation of the Orange Municipal Code
since it has not been filed as of yet?3. Addressed
to Mr. Jeffers - Mr. Jeffers stated the City lacked the expertise to invest directly in reverse repurchase agreements. "
If they lack the expertise to invest directly, do they have the expertise to properly
evaluate the risk and conformity to our City policy of safety, liquidity and yield to invest
indirectly and make an inteligent decision in doing so?'Page 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ (Continued)
Regarding question number 1, the City Manager indicated he would like to review the minutes
and Council tapes before responding. A complete response will be given in a report.
Regarding question number 2, the City Attorney opined it is imminent that the report will be filed.
He did not think the Municipal Code ever contemplated that if a report is filed late there would be
some sort of criminal charge brought against the person who filed it late, especially in light of the
Treasurer who was supposed to file the report resigning on October 28, 1994 when the report
was due.
Regarding question number 3, Mr. Jeffers indicated he had already covered this concern at the
January 10th Council meeting and it is in their report. The City recognized it did not want to
operate a complicated investment program. The City believed the County Treasurer, as
advertised, was using reverse repurchase agreements in a prudent, safe manner. The problem is
the County Treasurer was apparently abusing his use of reverse repros by investing long term.
This was not disclosed and was contrary to the express statements in the County Investment
Policy and other assurances given to the City and the 185 other municipalities. They were
appropriately prudent in relying on the statements that were published that they were using the
repurchase agreements in a prudent manner at the County level and that they did have the
necessary expertise to manage their reverse repurchase agreement borrowing program.
Regarding the May 10th resolution, Mr. Jeffers did not believe it was appropriate to say Mr.
Dixon said in the May 10th minutes that investing in the pool did not conform to the City
Investment Policy. The question was raised on May 10th and raised on two or three other
occasions which was, in Mr. Jeffers opinion, a very prudent, proper exercise of diligence by
members of the Advisory Committee at the time. The determination was that the City cannot
directly invest in reverse repurchase agreements but that the pool was a specifically authorized
investment with the knowledge that the pool did, to some extent, use reverse repurchase
agreement borrowings. There was never a statement that the investment in the pool did not
conform to the City's investment policy. On one later occasion, the City consulted with experts
from the City's auditors. They said if there was any issue in this regard, their recommendation
was to clarify that the investment in the pool could be made with the knowledge that they were
using reverse repurchase agreement borrowings at the County level. There was never a challenge
that it was an improper practice.
The City Attorney announced the City Council took action at its Adjourned Regular meeting of
January 17, 1995 to adopt a resolution placing the County on notice that the City expects 100"10
of its investment in the Pool to be returned to the City. There was also an additional item in the
resolution regarding release of documentation by the County to financial advisors in order to
allow them to perform their work. The City Clerk has copies of this resolution on file (Resolution
No. 8441).
Page 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ (Continued)
TAPE 2006
3.2 Response to requests from Orange Tax Payers Association. (ORI800.0.24.1)
Mayor Coontz read the following draft response by Mayor Coontz and Councilman Murphy: "As
representatives of the City of Orange, elected by the people, we embrace a policy of open
government promoting the exchange of ideas and the free flow ofinformation. The City Council
recently received a request from the Orange Tax Payers Association to answer a questionnaire.
This response is addressed not only to the Orange Tax Payers Association but to the entire
community.
I. QUESTION: No new taxes or fees assessed on citizens of Orange. Also, City Council must
notifY the Orange Tax Payers Association 30 days in advance of any attempt to do so.
REPLY: The City Council has no plans to impose any new taxes or fees and State law requires a
minimum of30 days public notice prior to imposing any new tax and certain fees if we were to do
so.
2. QUESTION: There shall be downsizing of unnecessary and costly City government.
REPLY: Efficiency and cost effectiveness is an ongoing responsibility of our City. Beginning in
1990, through the City budgetary process, we downsized City government in response to
declining economic conditions and continued to do so through fiscal year 1994-95. As
future budgets are adopted, we will continue our responsibility to ensure cost effective
government.3. QUESTION: No City funds shall be invested with the County or
State.REPLY: The City will not invest in the Orange County Investment Pool. Each of the City'
s investtnents will be carefully analyzed and their appropriateness assessed through a thorough
and ongoing process. We will continue our limited investment in the State Pool (LAIF) unless
the analysis being conducted by our securities special counsel advises
otherwise.4. QUESTION: All Council members and Mayor will take a 10% cut in pay to be reflected as
a genuine cut. This cut will be accurately reflected to
PERS.REPLY: The City Council initiated a voluntary pay cut beginning in 1992 which is still in
effect.City Council pay is reported to PERS in conformance with PERS rules and regulations. We
will initiate efforts, through our Finance Department, to make appropriate deductions which will
be reported to
PERS.5. QUESTION: Council will accept, consider and respond to in a timely manner
evaluation reports regarding city operations from citizen groups that are beyond the control of
Council.REPLY: The City Council will continue to encourage, accept and respond to input
from individual citizens and groups pertaining to any facet of City operations and
responsibilities.Page
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ (Continued)
6. QUESTION: Council will determine and report to the public within 60 days the minimum
level of city services and regulations lawfully required.
REPLY: The protection of the health, safety and welfare of our citizens is not defined in State
law by levels of service. Levels of service are reflected in the operating plan for the City through
the annual budget process. Services are determined by the City Council as expressed by the
citizenry and/or mandated by other regulatory agencies, balanced against the revenues the City
receives.
The City Council agrees we will continue, as we have in the past, to review both services and
revenues on an ongoing basis during each budget year.
7. QUESTION: Council shall strictly comply with the public meetings Brown Act.
REPLY: The City Council has, and will, continue to comply with the Brown Act's open meeting
laws. All meetings of the City Council are open and public except for special provisions as
defined within the Brown Act. These include pending and anticipated litigation and personnel
matters.
8. QUESTION: Orange City Council members and any Investment Advisory Committees
formed must be held accountable for their actions of the past and their actions in the future.
REPLY: The City Council is accountable to the citizens of Orange for its actions. All
commissions and committees (including those related to investments) are accountable to the City
Council.
Mayor Coontz recognized the following speakers:
Carole Walters, 534 N. Shaffer, President of the Orange Tax Payers Association, indicated she
would take the response back to the board for review and comments at the next Council meeting.
Also, it was asked if the 10% cut would be taken off the top like the employees did.
Mayor Coontz commented this was the case.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Barrera Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to
accept the draft response.4. REPORTS
FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5. REPORTS FROM
BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None Page 12
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None 7.
REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER The
City Manager commented the City has been advised at tl1e end ofthis week there will be an issue
brought before the Bankruptcy Court with respect to tl1e distribution of property tax.There
is approximately $211 million in tl1e fund that should be distributed to taxing agencies. It is hoped
the judge will rule favorable to the City.8.
LEGAL AFFAIRS 8.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 21-94
An Ordinance of the City Council oftl1e City of Orange approving first amendment (No.1) to
Development Agreement No. 1-88 between the City of Orange and California Quartet,
a California limited partnership, as successor-in-interest to
Woodcrest Development, Incorporated.A2100.0.
Agr.
1416.
1)
MOTION SECOND
AYES
Barrera Murphy Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater That Ordinance No. 21-94 have second reading waived and be adopted and same was
passed and adopted by the
preceding vote.8.2 ORDINANCE
NO. 1-95 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending sections 17.
42.040 (0),17.43.030 (0), 17.43.130 (A), 17.44.040 (M), 17.80.030 (A-D), 17.80.
040, 17.92.010,17.94.050 and 17.95.055 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to
the processing of applications to allow sale of
alcoholic
beverages. (
A2500.
0)
MOTION SECOND
AYES Murphy Spurgeon Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz,
Spurgeon, Slater That Ordinance No. 1-95 have second reading waived and be adopted and same
was passed and adopted by
the preceding vote.8.3
ORDINANCE NO. 2-95 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange
amending the "Southridge Development Area XX Planned Community" text. (
Z 1500. O-
ZC 1171-94)Zone
Change 1171-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Spurgeon
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater That Ordinance No.
2-95 have second reading waived and be adopted and same was passed and adopted by
the preceding vote.8.4
ORDINANCENO. 3-95 An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 17.06.020 of the Orange
Municipal Code and approving the reclassification of property situated at the northeast corner
of Chapman Avenue and CliffwayDrive and property located south of and adjacent to City water
reservoir #5. (ZI500.0.ZC 1170-94)
Zone Change 1170-
94 Applicant: B.A.
Properties
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy Spurgeon
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater That
Ordinance No. 3-95 have second reading waived and be adopted and same was passed and
adopted by the preceding vote.
9. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
Nick Lall, 6231 Mabury Avenue, commented that he was misquoted recently. In comments made
by others it was said the Council might have done something ofa criminal nature. Mr. Lall
indicated he had never alleged that in any way and took great pains to be clear that was not what
he was alleging. Mr. Lall requested Council meetings be televised.
11. RECESS
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Murphy
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater The City
Council recessed at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m.Page 14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
7:00 P.M. SESSION
12. INVOCATION
Given by Pastor Tim K1inkenberg, St. John's Lutheran Church
12.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Given by Councilman Mark Murphy
12.2 ANNOUNCEMENTS - None 12.
3 INTRODUCTIONS - None 12.4
PROCLAMATIONS - None 12.5 PRESENTATIONS -
None 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
TAPE 4104 13.1 APPEAL
NO. 424,
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2064-94, MILT GALBRAITH/JEROME GREUBEL: (A4000.
0)Time set for a
public hearing on petition by Milt Galbraith and Jerome Greubel to appeal tl1e Planning Commission's denial
of Conditional Use Permit No. 2064-94 on September 19, 1994. A request to allow
the construction and operation of a "Senior Citizen Apartment Project" and the construction of buildings
exceeding two stories in height. The proposal includes a request for a density bonus in
exchange for renting 25% of the units to low or very low income senior households. Subject property
is located on the west side of Newport Boulevard, 400 feet soutl1 of Chapman Avenue (
340 N. Newport Boulevard). The zoning is C-l (Commercial).NOTE: Negative
Declaration 1454-94 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of
this project.THE
APPELLANTS STATE THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL:Orange
Park Heights Senior Community requests City Council Appeal based on the following:A.
Due to a scheduling confusion, the project architect was absent from tl1e public hearing, hence unable
to explain the technical concerns raised by the Planning Commission.B.
By the Planning Commission Chairman's admission, the Commission is only able to consider issues
relevant to land use and technical issues therein. The Orange Park Heights Senior Community
however has significant social, economic and community benefits which are generally Page
15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
responsibilities of the City Council. In addition, the development team has worked closely with
the City Housing and Community Development Staff for twelve months, and issues relevant to
those negotiations were also not considered by the Planning Commission.
We feel that the City of Orange deserves the quality senior housing our proposal provides. We
feel the City Council should have the opportunity to see the project for themselves."
MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
The Director of Community Development reported within the city ordinance are regulations
regarding senior residential development which are allowed by conditional use permits in the C-
I zone. Within the regulations is a 25% bonus density allowed over the site designated density,
and 83 units would be allowed. The request is to provide 25% of the units as affordable units for
low and moderate income individuals in exchange for consideration of modifications of
development standards. Those include a reduction in the parking provided on site. The parking per
ordinance is one space per unit. The applicant is proposing a parking ratio of approximately .82
parking spaces per unit, 75 spaces for the 92 living units proposed. Also requested is a modification
of the height standard. The proposal includes two and three story development with a
maximum structure height of 42 feet. The ordinance establishes height as two story or 30 foot
maximum.The proposal has 92 exclusively senior units, which will not be allowed to be converted to
normal residential apartment units. The rear building is three story maximum in anyone location,
though in the rear portion of the building, the floor level is elevated higher than the front. There has
been discussion of whether that represents three or four stories. From a technical zoning
code compliance it is a three story
building.Elevators are provided in the structure. There is a security gate provided near the entry of
the project. There are six parking spaces outside the security gate for
guests.The site elevation changes from the street to the southwesterly corner approximately 100
ft.,which is a substantial slope. The terrain dictates that substantial grading is required to provide
for development of the building pads on the site. It is estimated that 32,000 cubic yards of
material will need to be removed for development. To the rear of the structure is a crib wall, 29
ft.maximum at its highest point to provide the level building pads on the
site.The following letters have been received by Council which indicated the senior use
was acceptable, however serious concerns regarding the project were
expressed:Sherry Ullman, dated l/19, Linda Cross, dated l/17, Mary Haupt, dated 1/21, Terry
Sargeant,dated 1/21, Linda Elliott, dated l/23, James L. Onak, Santiago Hills Action Committee
dated l/17, Russell & Lori Miura, datedl/24, Keystone Pacific Property Management, Cowan
Hills Assoc, dated l/20 and Robert Hahn, dated l/
13/.Page
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
The Planning Commission held a public hearing September 19, 1994 and denied the request based
on the following: I) Although the proposed use of this property for senior housing would fulfill a
sound principle ofland use in that senior housing is a service needed in this area of the
community, the manner in which the construction is proposed would cause deterioriation of
bordering land uses and create special problems for the area. 2) The site presents significant
physical constraints in regard to its shape, topography and access limitations which run contrary
to the applicants' requests for increased density and light and for a decrease in parking. The
proposed height and mass of the buildings, the parking reductions and limitations on access
combine to create a project which would, ifbuilt, have a negative effect on the community and
neighborhood plans adopted for the properties in the area and immediately adjoining the property.
3) The action to deny this project was made in consideration of a revised condition number ten
relative to dedication of the recreation/equestrian trail and an additional requirement that any
application for development of this property be accompanied by precise dimensions on the site
plan and preliminary grading and landscape plans.
THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE SPOKE IN FAVOR:
Jerry Greubel, Appellant, 12805 Newport Avenue, Tustin
Adele Chang, Lynn Chang & Associates, Architects for the project, Pasadena
Allen Heller, Real Estate Management System, 1407 N. Batavia, Orange
Don Ames, Western States Geotechnical, Anal1eim
Ann Hogen Sheresheusky, 2152 Elden Ave., #1 Costa Mesa
Rich Katnik, 10452 Orange Park Blvd.
Charles Jones, 19255 E. Chapman Ave.
Their comments are as follows:
There is a demand for senior housing in this area.
Seniors have a low crime rate and low impact on the local infrastructure.
This site is the only site for a senior project in Orange. It is close to shopping, parks, community
college across the street and a 4-line bus line which will provide access for seniors through
the City of
Orange.Parking has been increased from79"10 to 81 % from the first submittal and more parking can
be created, if
needed.Ms. Chang reported if the project moves forward, grading and drainage plans will be
prepared and drainage should occur without draining onto other people's property. A civil engineer
would be retained for these
plans.Mr. Ames commented his relationship with this project began in 1990 when engineering
began for development of the parcel as a shopping center. Civil engineering, geotechnical and
drainage work began with about the same configuration as shown at this time for this project. The
plans were approved two years ago, although the project never came to fruition due to
financial problems. The drainage problems were solved however, and there is adequate storm
drainage Page
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
facilities in the area to handle runoff the project would generate. The soil is stable. Construction
of the crib wall 27 ft. high is not significant because the material will stand on its own. A fault
was found also.
The following people spoke in opposition:
Bob Hahn, 7620 E. Briarcrest Ln.
Sheri Ullman, 371 Brook Glen Ln.
Russell Miura, 319 N. Willow Springs Rd.
Ron Kuskie, 7702 E. Live Oak
Bill Burk, 10051 Sunrise Ln.
Terri Sargeant, 137 N. Cobblestone
Sheri Shepherd, 7620 E. Cedar Creek Way
Beverly Bryant, 169 S. Amberwood
Gary Hoffman, 310 N. Willow Springs Rd.
Their concerns were expressed as follows:
Support senior housing in Santiago Hills, but this particular site is constrained in terms of access,
frontage onto Newport Boulevard, steepness of the site and the project is attempting to exceed
density requirements that already exist in the code for senior housing.
The project tries to go beyond the requirements for building in the area. There are no tlrree and
four story buildings in Santiago Hills. This is a rural community.
If the project can meet the density requirements at 83 units and meet the building height
requirement of 30 ft. and can satisfY the parking requirement of one space per unit, then there will
be no problem.
This project does not fit into this area.
Safety of seniors and other citizens trying to drive on Newport Boulevard is at risk the way the
driveway is situated at a 10% grade. This is an extremely steep driveway to negotiate a 90 degree
turn at the bottom and then turn into traffic going approximately 45 mph and merging from two
lanes down to one at that spot.
If there is a fault on the project, the exhibits should show it.
Trucks park on Newport Boulevard and will cause traffic problems.
Project will impact neighbor's views.
Mr. Berke discussed the differences between his shopping center project and the currently
proposed project.
The Fire Chief was asked what grades were allowable for the Fire Department. ChiefRudat
indicated 12% for limited distances.
Page 18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continned)
REBUTTAL
Mr. Gruebel commented $75,000 of taxes per year will be paid. There is no senior project within
five miles. No one's view will be blocked. Mr. Gruebel indicated he didn't necessarily want four
stories but had to try to provide the affordability on this project.
Council discussion ensued relative to the need for a civil engineering plan, questions regarding the
dimensions, the complexity of a hillside site with many constraints, details and dimensioning
throughout needs to be a reviewed in order to make a decision. The project can be a benefit to
the community but needs to address the concerns expressed at this meeting.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz Murphy
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved that
based on the concerns of the community and their support of senior projects we need to give
this application another chance and send it back to the Planning Commission,requesting a
civil engineer be hired to prepare a plan that shows detail and dimensioning density and
building height is still a question,parking is
a concern of mine because I helped to draft the senior housing development ordinance and visited
many senior projects a number of years ago.grading is
another issue, the incline grade of the driveway; the crib wall, retention and appearance; turnaround
areas which are important to emergency vehicles,the amount
of usable open space. (I'm not too sure that a outdoor swimming pool for seniors is a necessity -
it's an option.)storage area for
tl1e seniors, which is another aspect of the senior housing code which has not been properly addressed;
circulation in general,
safety issues of
ingress and egress off Newport Boulevard,ADA requirements which
may go beyond the senior housing ordinance;guest parking including
its location issues concerning the
appearance of the building control of the
parking spaces through assignments all equipment contained
within the roof all speakers to
be notified of public hearings for the Planning Commission any other issues
the Planning Commission or staff has previously addressed or wishes to address in the future.
Statement - Mayor Coontz: "
We hoped for a positive result out of this exercise. <<NOTE: The City Council
recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.Page 19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
TAPE 938
13.2 CONDmONAL USE PERMIT 2071-94, ALMOUSSA
VI:Time set for a public hearing on petition by AI Moussavi to consider Conditional Use
Permit 2071-94, approval of an Alcoholic Beverage Control "off-sale" license, type
20, pursuant to Section 17.80.030 of the Orange Municipal Code. The property is located at
3232 E. Chapman
Avenue. (C3300.0)NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15301.MAYOR COONTZ OPENED
THE PUBLIC HEARING.The Director of Community Development reported since this is an existing
development there are no proposed modifications to the building. The Police Department appeared
at the Zoning Administrator's public hearing and identified their intention to protest this
according to ABC regulations for overconcentration of the number of alcoholic facilities within the area
and for its location within a
high crime area.The Zoning Administrator's action dated September IS, 1994 is a recommendation
to Council to approve the application. There are eight conditions of approval, however it
was suggested that two suggested conditions replace condition number 8, which is as follows:
I) This conditional use permit shall be reviewed one year from date of approval and each year
thereafter. 2) A review shall be conducted jointly by the Community Development Director and
Police Chief, or designees. Purpose of the review shall be to identifY uniquely
adverse issues ofloitering,vandalism, criminal activity, noise or nuissance resulting from approval of this
CUP. If such issues are identified, the CUP shall be presented to City Council for
consideration of conditions,modification or revocation. Advisory Note: During its investigation of
this application, the Orange Police Department hasdetermined that this proposal is located within a high
crime area, an area of over concentration of existing ABC licenses as defined by the rules of
the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Unless directed othelWise by the City Council, it is the
intention of the Orange Police Department to protest this request as allowed
by ABC rules.
Speaking in favor:Mr. AI Moussavi, 3232 E. Chapman, agreed to the 10:00 p.m. curfew and
indicated all his competition have beer and wine licenses. It is important to stay competitive
in this business.THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ
CLOSED
THE PUBLIC HEARING.Councilman Spurgeon commented he is opposed to having alcohol sold where
gas is pumped,however the City Attorney has educated Council on ABC regulations and
conditional use permits
for land
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Slater Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved that
this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.MOTION SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Barrera
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved to approve Conditional
Use Permit 2071-94 based on tl1e Zoning Administrator's recommendations, and amending
the conditions to include tl10se under the title of conditions added to all
ABC Conditional Use Permit draft that was included in tl1e packet. Also, to include the conditions as
outlined in the report of September 15, 1994.TAPE 1566 13.
3 REQUEST
FOR RATE INCREASE, COAST YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE:Time set for
a public hearing on petition by Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative to consider the following taxicab rate
increases: (P1300.0.4)First 1/6
Mile $1.90 Each Additional 1/
6 Mile $.30Waiting Time (per
hour) $22.00 MAYOR COONTZ OPENED
THE PUBLIC HEARING.The Revenue Manager
gave the report outlining the State vehicle code requirements.Bill Craig, Manager
for the Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, 17300 Mt. Hermon Street, Fountain Valley, eXplained how
the rates would effect the average rider.THERE BEING NO
FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.MOTION SECOND
AYES
Murphy
Spurgeon
Murphy,
Barrera,
Mayor Coontz,
Spurgeon, Slater Moved to approve the request
from Coast Yellow Cab Cooperate for the fee increase as noted on Agenda item 13.3.Page
21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1995
14.PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT TAPE 1778
14.1 APPEAL OF A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION TO DENY
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 94-06, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO.
3-94, APPLICANT/APPELLANT DANNY F. SHIELDS: (A4000.
0)Request by Danny F. Shields to permit reconstruction of a residential single-car garage
and a second-story addition proposed as a workshop, with a view balcony. This
project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303 of the
State of California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines.The Director of Community Development reported the piece of property is zoned
R-2 and is approximately 3100 sq. ft. in size. It is currently occupied by a single family
residence with a one car garage. Construction on the project began before plans were prepared
or plans were issued.There has been a stop work order issued on June 22, 1994. Plans were
submitted in July, 1994.It was determined upon submission of the plans there were a number
of minor approvals required to allow the plan to be approved. Administrative Adjustments were required
due to the shallow depth of the lot, 45 ft. deep lot. The setback dimension from the garage
door to the street property line is 16 ft. as opposed to the normal 20 ft. as required by
ordinance. The rear setback is 9 ft. as opposed to lOft. required. The rear is a 10% reduction, and the
front is a 20%reduction. It was determined 50% of the garage was being removed so
a
demolition permit was required.The DRB reviewed and denied the application on October 20,
1994. The Zoning Administrator also denied the Administrative Adjustments. These two decisions were
appealed to the Planning Commission which
also denied the project.Hearing notices were mailed to the applicant and the architect as
well
as adjacent property owners.Neither the applicant nor the architect were present
to address the project.The Director of Community Development was asked if the project was denied
by Council could it be torn down? It was recommended if Council denies the project, the
property owners would be required to return the property to its original state (put the one car garage back
the
way
it
was).
MOTION SECOND
AYES Murphy Coontz Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz,
Spurgeon, Slater Moved to deny
the appeal.15. ORAL PRESENTATIONS -
None Page
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 24,1995
16. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The City Council met in Closed Session at 9:30 p.m. to discuss the following Closed
Session items:
Conference with Legal Counsel - existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956. 9( a): City of Orange et al. vs. Donald D. Greek, et al. Court of Appeal,
Fourth District, Case No. G013897.Conference
with Legal Counsel - anticipated litigation.Initiation oflitigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c)one potential
case)NOTE: Councilman
Spurgeon left the Closed Session at 10:00 p.m.MOTION SECOND
AYES
ABSENT
Murphy
Barrera
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Slater Spurgeon The City Council
adjourned at
10:25 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular meeting, January 31, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. to
discuss Goals and Objectives.7 I71~M~~~MARIL . JE
N;
CMC CITY
CLERK L.;U:. /? ~JOANNE
C. COONTZ
MAYOR Page
23