CASTRO VALLEY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR March 22, 2004 (Approved as corrected April 12, 2004)

Transcription

1 CASTRO VALLEY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR March 22, 2004 (Approved as corrected April 12, 2004) A. CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Andy Frank, Chair, Dean Nielsen, Vice Chair; Councilmembers: Ineda Adesanya, Ken Carbone, Karla Goodbody, Jeff Moore, and Carol Sugimura. Councilmembers excused: None Staff present: Chris Bazar, Tona Henninger, Ron Gee, Bob Swanson, Maria Palmeri, Maria Marquez and Andy Young. There were approximately 70 people in the audience. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 8, 2004 Mr. Carbone moved, Ms. Goodbody seconded that the Council approve the minutes of March 8, 2004 as corrected. The motion passed 5/0. C. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Ms. Susan Barba reminded everyone of the upcoming luncheon to be held by the League of Women Voters on State and Local Financing on March 26, The meeting will be held at the San Lorenzo Homeowners Association Hall and the luncheon is $ D. REGULAR CALENDAR 1. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT Proposed revisions to provisions of Chapter of the Alameda County Ordinance Code regarding dedication of land or payment of fees to local park agencies for provision of park and recreation facilities. Mr. Chris Bazar presented the staff report. Mr. Bazar stated that this matter was brought to the council on February 9, At that meeting questions were raised in regards to the increase and how it was calculated. The possibility of phasing in the increase was also discussed. The Planning Commission will hear this item on April 5, Mr. Bazar mentioned that this item was heard by the San Lorenzo Homeowners Association and that board made a favorable recommendation in regards to the fee increase but did not favor the recommendation of exemption for affordable and disabled housing. The exemption of the agricultural properties continues to be an issue, there is a recommendation in the staff report which would potentially exempt parcels that are 100 acres or larger and a 50% of the suggested increase to any parcel smaller than 100 acres. Staff is also recommending that projects already in the pipeline should be exempt from this new increase. Staff also consulted with County Counsel on the calculation issue brought up by the Home Builder s Association and have decided to remain with the method used for the fee increase. Mr. Eric Willyerd, representative from HARD, shared with councilmembers a report on the improvements of local parks, census calculation and in-lieu park dedication fees. He wanted to reiterate that the Park District needs the increase of funds to continue to provide park services to the residents of the unincorporated areas of the county. He stated that the Park District is not in favor of an exemption. There are other ways the park district can work with developers, instead of paying the fees they could get a credit or help HARD improve or build facilities. Mr. Carbone asked about the dollar amount of land cost and what HARD has paid for properties in Castro Valley. Mr. Willyerd stated that in 1992 HARD paid $375,000 per acre for property in Castro Valley.

2 Minutes March 22, Mr. Nielsen asked what determines the demand for the 500 soccer teams in the area. He also wanted to know if HARD could have some agreement with the regional park district for joint use. He stated that this would be a better option instead of raising the fees. Mr. Willyerd stated that HARD has inquired but it is a very sensitive issue and they have not been able to come to some kind of agreement with regional parks. Mr. Willyerd expressed his surprise at the council s lack of knowledge on the needs of the community. He stated that HARD is constantly getting calls from community members on the need for more fields for children s sports. The teams end up practicing on Sundays and later in the day because of high demand for the fields. The Chair responded that it is not that the council is not aware of the community s needs but that they need quantification. They need a statement of the cost of operation for a park. The issue is qualitative and quantitative. HARD needs to justify and supply the council with explanation for the increases. We need to know how the dollars are spent. Mr. Willyerd stated that he can supply the council with the figures. Mr. Willyerd stated that they are losing money because of the state budget crisis. Mr. Carbone stated that HARD should consider taking advantage of other non-governmental organizations for grants. Mr. Willyerd stated that they do. HARD has a very good in house grant writer and is very aggressive in pursuing other sources of funding. However, this does not cover all the needs we have for development and upkeep of the parks. The Chair wanted to know how much of the funds for park fees came from Castro Valley. Mr. Willerd stated that since 1992 approximately 1.5 million. Of those funds 70% has to be allocated in the Castro Valley area. Mr. Joe Santos, with the Castro Valley Soccer League, stated that there are approximately 150 teams in Castro Valley. He stated that he has been on the board for the last five years. Mr. Santos said that some of the teams have to practice on Sunday because most of the fields are busy from Monday through Friday. There are simply not enough fields to practice and play. He stated that he just wants the council to understand the need in the community for soccer fields. This group fully supports the increase of the park fees. Mr. Moore asked how many fields does Castro Valley need? Mr. Santos stated that at least 3 soccer fields. These needs are for soccer only, there are other teams in Castro Valley that use some of the fields. Mr. Nielsen asked if there are other areas that the teams could use. Mr. Willyerd stated that a lot of the fields are developed for baseball, not soccer. Mr. Moore stated that there is not a lot of land in Castro Valley for parks so the teams might need to travel to use fields outside of the area. Mr. Willyerd stated that some teams do just that, they might travel to San Lorenzo to use their community center fields. Mr. Nielsen asked if some of these fields could be reconfigured. Mr. Willyerd stated that it is difficult, because the soccer and baseball season sometimes overlap. Ms. Cindy Barclay a resident of Castro Valley stated that she supports the increase of park fees. This will benefit Castro Valley and its citizens. There is a great need to preserve open space. Besides the children that play sports, there are the mothers with small children and the senior citizens. The council talked about traveling outside of the area to use other fields, but we should reduce traffic and use local parks. This area is running out of land but this increase will give HARD the purchasing power to buy land in Castro Valley. There is a huge need in Castro Valley for more open space and Ms. Barclay said that she strongly supports the fee increase.

3 Minutes March 22, Ms. Crisand Giles, Executive Director of the Home Builders Association, entered her letter into the record. She stated that they do not dispute the need to secure land for parkland but the county needs to base the parkland calculation on lands within Alameda County and phase in the adjusted parkland fee requirement over a three year period. Discussion ensued amongst councilmembers and county staff on the calculation method. The Chair asked if there was a double taxation if the calculation was using parks located within the city limits. Mr. Wallace stated that the main issue is not if the parks are within county or city limits but if the residents of the area are using these facilities. For example, Sunset Park is located in the Cherryland area but it belongs to the Hayward School District. It is the county s opinion that unincorporated residents are using these parks. Mr. Carbone stated that he thinks the way the figure is calculated the residents are being double charged. Mr. Wallace said that the way it was calculated it was reasonable. Mr. Willyerd stated that, as an example, the Five Canyons park is actually located in Fairview but used by residents of Castro Valley. He said that 70% of the park dedication fees have to be used in Castro Valley and 30% can be used elsewhere in the county. Ms. Adesanya asked if other jurisdictions use the same method of calculation. Mr. Bazar answered that he does not think the City of Hayward used the same method. Discussion ensued amongst councilmembers and county staff on the fairness of the calculation and using parks located outside of the unincorporated areas for the calculation. Ms. Giles from the Home Builders Association stated that project fees in the unincorporated areas of the county are already high and that this increase will just be one more nail in the coffin. It will make projects very costly. This is a huge jump in the increase of park fees. Ms. Proctor, resident of Castro Valley, stated that she is currently fundraising for the Castro Valley Community Center to accommodate children and also disabled children for different programs. There are 54,000 residents in Castro Valley. Ms. Proctor stated that she has been fundraising since November and they have also applied for grants from Starbucks and other organizations. Unfortunately some of these organizations do not fund capital improvements. In the face of children s obesity we need to offer the children of this area different options, soccer, baseball or gymnastics so that they have a place to go and exercise. The council needs to make sure that the money is available for these programs. Castro Valley is a great place to grow up, there are kids everywhere and we need to provide for the residents of this area. Ms. Linda Willis stated that she wanted to voice her support for the increase in park dedication fees. Other communities have higher park fees. The park fees have not been raised since Developers are paying only $2,800 per new single family residence. It is a pretty good deal. These new homes bring more people and children to Castro Valley. The developers need to pay for the park demand made by new residents into the area. It needs to happen now for the residents of Castro Valley and it is up to the council to vote in favor of this increase. Mr. Nielsen asked Ms. Willis if she was aware that developers pay at least $32,000 in fees for a new single family residence. Ms. Willis stated that the park fees are only $2,800 and it needs to be increased. It is not an unfair increase.

4 Minutes March 22, Mr. Roger Lowel stated that he has been a resident of Castro Valley for 30 years. Increasing the fees is not the way to go. He stated that the council should be looking at other ways, other options for Castro Valley. Mr. Tom Lord stated that he is from the Castro Valley Little League and supports the increase of park fees. He stated that Castro Valley is in need of more baseball fields. They are constantly looking for fields to play. The parents occasionally help maintain the fields and keep them clean. Mr. Nielsen asked how much do they pay to use the HARD fields. Mr. Lord stated that they only pay $2.00 an hour. Mr. Nielsen wanted to know the total fee they pay to use the fields on a weekly basis. Mr. Lord stated that he did not have those figures. Ms. Susan Keith approached the podium and asked how many of the councilmembers are currently developing property in Castro Valley? Mr. Nielsen answered probably two of us. Ms. Keith stated that was all she wanted to know. Mr. Mark Crawford stated that he spoke before the council at the last meeting. He is a developer and stated that if the fees are increased it will make it very difficult for him to build smaller, affordable 2- bedroom in the unincorporated areas of the county. Ms. Adesanya asked him if he is able to build it anywhere else. Mr. Crawford stated that he stays in Alameda County because the fees are still reasonable. He stated that the City of Hayward is hard to deal with. He feels that the county is easier to work with and if the fees are increased he will not be able to build anymore two bedroom units, it will become very costly. Mr. Willyerd stated that he wanted to respond to someone that talked about other types of fields. He said that there is the option of synthetic turf but it is very expensive. Mr. Willyerd said that the state will be taking a total of 10 million dollars from their budget next year. Even if the park district looks for other funds, it will be very hard to make ends meet. If this increase does not pass it will be very difficult to meet expenses. Mr. Nielsen expressed his concern with the fact that only one segment of the population, the developers, are being affected by this tremendous increase in fees. Everyone in the community should pay for the increase. Mr. Moore stated that it is a very hard situation. HARD does need the money and the acquisition power. Mr. Moore also understood how some parks were accounted for in different areas but he agrees with the letter from the Home Builders Association. Mr. Nielsen agreed with Mr. Moore and stated that the increase of fees would be devastating to developers. The way these fees were calculated it does not seem fair. Mr. Bazar stated that this item will be heard by the Planning Commission on April 5, Discussion ensued amongst councilmembers and county staff in regards to the exemption of fees for low income units, senior housing or housing for the disabled. Ms. Linda Gardner from Housing Community Development reminded the councilmembers that the exemption would have a condition that it would stay low income for 55 years. The Housing Element was just finalized and we need to build affordable housing in the unincorporated areas of the county.

5 Minutes March 22, Ms. Goodbody questioned county staff in regards to the A District proposed fees. Mr. Bazar explained that there were two options, one is to have an exemption to residents that own 100 acres or more. The other option would be to have owners with 100 acres or less to pay 50% of the fees. Ms. Adesanya favored the option of phasing the fees in two years. She stated that she is in favor of the full fee. The exemption for A District sounds fair. The other councilmembers, Mr. Moore, Ms. Goodbody, Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Carbone, Ms. Sugimura and the Chair favored the $7,300 fee, with a two year phasing, with all of the suggested exemptions, and the 50% of the fees to be paid by A District property owners of less than 100 acres. Ms. Adesanya moved, seconded by Mr. Nielsen that the board recommend the approval of the park dedication fees increase suggested by the Home Builders Association, $7,300, to include the phasing of two years, and the exemption for senior and disabled housing as well as a reduction of 50% for A District parcels of 100 acres or less. The motion passed 7/0. 2. REZONING, ZU MARC CRAWFORD Application to rezone an approximately 1.4- acre property from R-1-SU-RV to PD to allow construction of 20 townhouse-type apartment units with one-car attached garages for each unit, in 7 two-unit buildings and 3 three-unit buildings, with 21 uncovered parking spaces, located at 2854 Grove Way, north side, approximately 250 feet east of Betlen Way, in the unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, having County Assessor's Parcel Number: The Chair continued this item to April 12, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, S-1915 VANDERBILT CONSTRUCTION Application to allow modernization/improvement of existing buildings and 2 street facades; repair of existing covered walk structure; new Heyer Street sidewalk, new monument, located at 4795 Heyer Avenue, north side 140 feet, west of Center Street, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 84C The Chair continued this item to April 12, TENTATIVE MAP, PARCEL MAP-8194, MILLER - Application to subdivide one site into three parcels, containing approximately 1.00 acre in a R-1-B-E-SU-RV (Single Family Residence, 6,500 s.f. MBSA, 65 Minimum Lot Width, Secondary Unit, Recreational Vehicle Regulations) District, located at 4837 Proctor Road, south side, 173 feet west of Dorson Lane, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing County Assessor=s designation: 084D The Chair continued this item to April 12, 2004

6 Minutes March 22, TENTATIVE MAP, PARCEL MAP-8195, LARSEN - Application to subdivide one site into three parcels, containing approximately 1.00 acre in a R-1-B-E-SU-RV (Single Family Residence, 6,500 s.f. MBSA, 65 Minimum Lot Width, Secondary Unit, Recreational Vehicle Regulations) District, located at 4837 Proctor Road, south side, 245 feet west of Dorson Lane, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing County Assessor=s designation: 084D The Chair continued this item to April 12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C-7753 & VARIANCE V TRINITY CHURCH - Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to allow the operation of a church facility (Anglican Church), on a 21 acre parcel where 100 acres is the minimum, on one site containing approximately acres, in an A (Agricultural) District, located on Sunnyslope Avenue, west side, approximately 600 feet north of I-580, Castro Valley area of unincorporated Alameda County, bearing County Assessor s Designations: 085A , 085A , 085A Mr. Young presented the staff report. The applicant is presently requesting approval of one 3,435 square foot building to be built in two phases, located approximately 120 feet east of Sunnyslope Avenue. The 22 foot sanctuary, topped by a 3 foot high cross, would have an estimated maximum capacity of 99 persons. The second building would have a maximum capacity of 88 persons. A parking lot for 34 cars would serve the entire complex. The project would require cut and fill grading of an estimated 1.2 acres, including 1,200 cubic yards of earth. The application for the church was first submitted in March of The 45-foot high main sanctuary was proposed with a maximum capacity of 140 persons, and would be accompanied by a 75-foot high bell tower, a free standing parish hall, a 61-space parking lot and other improvements. Originally, the eastern and highest ridge on the site was proposed to be cut substantially to establish visibility of the church, but as a conflict with ridgeline preservation policies the grading of the ridge was withdrawn. This item was heard by MAC on March 25, Based on testimony received at this hearing from residents in the vicinity concerned about traffic, noise, natural resources, grading requirements and construction activity, the councilmembers continued the hearing until the applicant could present plans for the church complex to be built on the eastern end of the parcel, adjacent to Eden canyon road. The applicant prepared plans for utilizing that area of the site, but due to the unconsolidated fill on that portion of the site, and the resulting geotechnical infeasibility and impracticality of this alternative, the applicant withdrew the proposed use of the site. Current proposal will have less impact and more comparable in scale to the development of the surrounding area. Councilmember Sugimura asked for clarification of item #20 on page 9 Wedding invitations shall be limited to a maximum of 75 persons (allowing up to 24 other guests). She asked if it meant that it was for a total of 99 attendees. Mr. Young answered yes. Mr. Carbone pointed out that this looks like the same plans and that MAC had requested that the applicant look at an alternative location on the site. Mr. Young stated that it is the same location and that traffic engineering was satisfied with the traffic mitigation for the project.

7 Minutes March 22, Mr. Dick Flynn, representing the applicant, stated that they have been working on this application for the last two years. After the last MAC meeting and the request that we look at changing the location of the church on the site, we looked at the lower site and determined that there were an insurmountable problems with the location. There were serious questions whether water was going to be available. The alternative was to have the church located at the previous site. All referral agencies did not have an objection to the project as submitted. The applicant agrees to comply with all of the conditions of approval. Mr. Flynn reminded councilmembers that this church has been in this vicinity for the last 100 years. They have owned this property for the last 10 years. Most of the parishioners come from the Castro Valley area. The pastor and general contractor are present tonight if the councilmembers have any questions. Mr. Flynn stated that most importantly he urged the councilmembers to allow this project to proceed. The applicant has spent a lot of money already and they need a permanent home. Mr. Flynn asked that condition #22 on page 9 be eliminated, the church will always be available for community events. Ms. Susan Jones, resident at 6429 Sunnyslope, stated that the proposed driveway is approximately 50 feet from her driveway. She shared with councilmembers a photo of her car which was hit head on as she was traveling westbound on E. Castro Valley Boulevard and slowing down to turn onto Sunnyslope. She stated that this development will bring a huge amount of dangerous traffic, noise and confusion to the rural setting. This is a rural area and this project is out of character in this neighborhood. The developer says that the project is small, but once the church is built, there will be no way to stop any additional development of the property. She is also speaking on behalf of her neighbors: Gary and Teresa McLaughlin, John and Brenda Maciel, Elaine Maciel, Jane and Larry Frazier, John and Heidi Moller. Ms. Jones also expressed her concern with item 20 on page 9, which says that activities or assemblies will be held seven days a week. Ms. Jones stated that there will be a lot of traffic to the area. She asked that council refer to the site review map; she stated that her neighbors just bought this home on the hill and the church will be sitting exactly in front of their home; the church will literally going to be on top of their property. They have spent a lot of money and were thrilled with the rural setting and do not want the added traffic that is being brought to this area by this project. Mr. Bence Gerber, resident at 6700 Sunnyslope, stated that the proposed project is for an urban facility in a rural setting. He asked that his letter be entered into the record. This project will attract urban members, parishioners and it is important to understand that this project is inappropriate and against the intent of Measure D. This is a commuter church and if approved will allow the erosion of the rural areas of Castro Valley. This applicant was here two years ago and councilmembers recommended access to be moved and have access from Eden Canyon Road. The applicant explored that option and found it to be too expensive, but sometimes one needs to pay the price of improvement on a project. Mr. Gerber commended the applicant for the changes from the original project but once the project is approved there is no way to stop expansion of the church. This is not a small church, 187 people in two separate buildings. The Chair asked county staff if the applicant is suppose to use one building at a time. Mr. Young stated that they are supposed to only use one facility at a time and not in combination. Mr. Gerber stated that there are only 25 homes on Sunnyslope. All of the homes are on septic and well. The church will have 99 parishioners using the septic system and using the water. That is a lot of people. The key issue here is that this is not a rural project, this is an urban project. There are already five churches down the street. From Castro Valley to Dublin, it is like church row. The Chair stated that the churches are far from each other. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Gerber what does he

8 Minutes March 22, consider a rural project? This is an appropriate size for this church on this site. He asked Mr. Gerber if he thinks 50 people would be a rural project? Mr. Gerber stated that it is not the fact that this is a church, there are other issues, the driveway for this project is 25 feet wide, and most driveways on Sunnyslope are 12 feet wide. This church is an urban use. Ms. Diana Hanna, resident of Castro Valley, thanked all councilmembers for dedicating their time to be on various committees that involve issues in Castro Valley. She first wanted to state that this is not a NIMBY issue. Measure D does not allow a public facility to be located at this site, a church falls under that, a public facility. The staff report states that before Measure D this area was zoned suburban and low residential. The voters passed Measure D because they did not want urban sprawl. It does not matter what is being built on open space, the issue is this commuter church is not an appropriate use for this are. Ms. Hana asked if the use is for 187 or 99 people. Mr. Young stated that each building has a capacity for 99 people and the church is not supposed to hold functions at both buildings at the same time. Ms. Hana stated that this is an agricultural area and this use should not be allowed. The Chair asked Ms. Hana if she has traveled on country roads and does she see churches in these areas? Ms. Hana answered yes, but the voters passed measure D to stop urban sprawl. She stated that she drove on Harder Road and there are a lot of vacant lots in that area, she feels the applicant should look for another location for their church and keeps the residents of this area happy. Ms. Betty Davilla, resident at Eden Canyon Road, stated that she has been a member of this church for the last 50 years. She stated that the church has gone thru all the steps and the residents of the area will not see any more traffic going by their houses than they do now. Most of the homes are located above the site not below the proposed project. Ms. Linda Tangren, resident of Castro Valley, stated that she is not necessarily next to the project but she stated that Measure D was passed by the voters to preserve open space. She has great sympathy for the applicant but this project will have a tremendous impact on this rural area. These decisions are extremely far reaching, it will impact the ambiance of Castro Valley even further. She asked councilmembers to take time to consider this project before making a decision. The councilmembers spend a great deal of time making decisions for the Castro Valley area and they need to consider what is Castro Valley going to look like in the future if projects like this keep getting approved. These changes are irrevocable. A resident on Sunnyslope stated that this church use is not adequate for the area. If they have a wedding they are not going to limit the use to 99 people. The guests will be parking on the street and the Sheriff s Office will not give them a ticket. Once the church is established they will expand and will bring a lot of traffic to the area. Ms. Tina Pommy, resident at 5010 Camino Alta Mira, stated that she has been a member of the church for several years. She said that it is said that so many people would think that a church would be a detriment to their neighborhood. She stated that the church has lost members because they have not been able to find a site to grow. There have been a lot of changes to the original plans to address the issues raised by the residents at the last meeting. This is a Christian church and if they say they will not have more then 99 people, it means they will not have more than 99 people at a time. The people in the area can trust the church. What happened to love thy neighbor? We will certainly offer shelter in our church if the residents of the area ever needed.

9 Minutes March 22, Father Pomroy addressed councilmembers and said that the church has been in existence for the last 100 years. He has ministered, baptized, confirmed, counseled and buried the dead. He wants to be a good neighbor. He asked that the council approve his project and allow him to build a small facility and continue his work with the community. Mr. Nielsen expressed his concern with the sewer system and the water supply for that area. He asked what the effect of the sewer system would do to the residents of the area. Mr. Young stated that the church would be on public water. He was not sure how the residents upslope would be affected. Mr. Nielsen asked how deep are the wells in the area. One of the residents stated that they could get down as deep as 250 feet. Mr. Young stated that he is not a hydrologist and could not answer the question. Ms. Adesanya addressed the other councilmembers and stated that she would not feel comfortable making a recommendation without having read the initial study and what the impacts will be for this project. The councilmembers need to look at the CEQA review and the hydrology issue. Those issues would be addressed in those documents. Mr. Carbone stated that he is concerned with traffic and safety issues for the area. He asked to see the traffic study to see what the traffic impacts will be for this area. Nothing has truly changed, only the size of the project. The concerns have not been addressed. Mr. Young stated that the traffic issues are addressed in the staff report. He also discussed the issues with the traffic engineer and he felt comfortable with the recommendations. The Chair asked county staff if they had asked Environmental Health about the water and septic issues. Mr. Young stated that the application was referred to Environmental Health and they did not have any issues with the project. Mr. Flynn addressed councilmembers and said that the referrals were sent out to various public agencies. There was no objection to the project. All conditions meet the Health Department requirements. The water supply will not be affected by this system. Mr. Moore stated that the project has been substantially changed to address some of the concerns expressed at the last meeting by residents of the area. He asked county staff about the appropriateness of the use in regards to Measure D. Discussion ensued amongst councilmembers on water, septic, Measure D and land use appropriateness for the area. Mr. Young stated that the use is appropriate for the site. Ms. Adesanya stated that she has not seen any evidence that this is not a rural use. She stated that she likes the way the applicant changed the plans. This does not compromise Measure D. She would like to recommend that this item be continued until the councilmembers have an opportunity to review CEQA documents and the initial study. She stated that all of these issues will be addressed in these documents and then the council can make an informed recommendation based on the information. Ms. Adesanya asked Mr. Young to the initial study, it does not have to be the final document. It can be the draft. The Chair asked the Mr. Flynn if he would like to continue the item to April 12, Mr. Flynn agreed.

10 Minutes March 22, 2004 E. OPEN FORUM None F. CHAIR S REPORT None. G. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. H. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS AND REPORTS None I. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS AND REPORTS None. I. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at p.m. 10 NEXT HEARING DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2004