Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-13 - RESOLUTIONS - SAND CYN RESORT APPEAL MC 18-021 (2)RESOLUTION NO.21-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE MASTER CASE 18-021, CONSISTING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-003, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 19-002, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 18-002, LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 18-003, MINOR USE PERMIT 19-028, OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 18-004, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 78248, AND ZONE CHANGE 18-001, FOR THE SAND CANYON RESORT PROJECT, LOCATED AT 27734 SAND CANYON ROAD AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAND CANYON ROAD AND ROBINSON RANCH ROAD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 2840-022-025 AND 2840-022-007), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 18-021, the Sand Canyon Resort Project (Project), was filed by the Project applicant, Sand Canyon Country Club (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on February 2, 2018, and deemed complete on March 3, 2018. The property for which this application was filed (hereinafter "Project site") is located at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Robinson Ranch Road in the community of Sand Canyon, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-022-025 and 2840-022- 007. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18-001 for new development or redevelopment within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone, building heights greater than 35 feet, and grading in excess of 100,000 cubic yards of earth • Development Review (DR) 18-003 for the proposed physical design and layout prior for commercial developments • Hillside Development Review (Class 4) (HR4) 19-002 for all development on slopes in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope or greater • General Plan Amendment (GPA) 18-002 and Zone Chance (ZC) 18-001 for a zone change and General Plan amendment • Landscape Plan Review (LPR) 18-003 for the installation of new landscaping • Minor Use Permit (MUP) 19-028 for a shared parking agreement • Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) (OTP4) 18-004 for the encroachment and/or the removal of four or more oak trees • Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 78248 for a commercial subdivision B. In 1996, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 950141049) and approved Master Case 95-049 for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course, which included the development of a 401-acre site with two 18-hole golf courses, a 26,000 square -foot clubhouse, a lighted driving range, Page 1 of 11 a maintenance facility, and 73 single-family residential lots (Resolution No. 96-120). The EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality during construction and operations, biological resources associated with the substantial decrease in locally and regionally significant sensitive communities and to sensitive wildlife species, aesthetics associated with irreversibly altering a City -identified secondary ridgeline, and noise during construction. The City Council found that the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project were acceptable when based upon the factors and public benefits listed in the Resolution, including the preservation of approximately 300 acres of open space included within the Project site. The resolution states that "The project would preserve approximately 300 acres of land into perpetuity as recreational/open space." Condition of Approval No. 83 was included as part of the 1996 approval and required that the applicant "record golf course/open space easement on all golf course/open space lots, restricting their use to those activities." As a result, the Final Tract Map includes language that dedicates to the City "the right to restrict residential construction" on the 300 acres of land that make up the golf course, including the approximately 75.5 acres of the Project site. In addition, a Final Tract Map note on Tract No. 52004, recorded as part of the 1996 approval, states: "AND WE ALSO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION OVER ALL OPEN SPACE LOTS 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 AND 8 L" The single-family homes were built in 2005. The golf course began operating in 2000 as the Robinson Ranch Golf Course and was renamed to Sand Canyon Country Club in 2017. C. The Project site is located on an approximately 75.5-acre, vacant, and former nine -hole portion of the Mountain Course of the Sand Canyon Country Club, located at 27734 Sand Canyon Road at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Robinson Ranch Road, and south of State Route 14 in the Sand Canyon area of the City of Santa Clarita. D. The zoning and General Plan designation for the Project site is Open Space (OS). The Project site is within a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone and the Sand Canyon Special Standards District (SCSSD). E. The surrounding land uses include vacant open space and residential ranch uses to the north; the Sand Canyon Country Club golf course, driving range, clubhouse, and restaurant to the northeast, east, and south; and single-family residential uses to the west, south, and southeast. F. The Project is a version of EIR Alternative 2 and includes the subdivision of one lot into three lots and a GPA and ZC for one lot from OS zone to Community Commercial (CC) zone, as follows: Page 2 of 11 • Lot 1: 25.16 acres, to remain as OS • Lot 2: 36.23 acres, proposed as CC • Lot 3: 14.12 acres, to remain as OS The development of the hotel and spa resort is summarized as follows: • Main Hotel Building: 177,000 square -foot, three-story building with 250 hotel rooms • Function Building: 62,000 square -foot building with restaurants, ballrooms, conference space, and Children's Center • Spa Building: 25,000 square -foot building with spa, gym, and salon facilities • Spa Garden Inn with an outdoor wedding venue: three three-story buildings, at a total of 60,000 square feet with 81 hotel rooms • View Villas Community: 16 villas with 52 units, at a total of 87,000 square feet • Outdoor Recreation: pedestrian trails, two outdoor pools, one tennis court, two pickleball courts, a par-3 nine -hole golf course, and children's play area • Detention Basin: two -acre water detention basin G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency, and the City Council is the decision -making body for the Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. H. The City determined that an EIR must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. I. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies for 30 days, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), beginning on October 17, 2018, and ending on November 16, 2018. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project. A subsequent NOP to reflect project revisions was recirculated for 30 days, beginning on April 2, 2019, and ending on May 2, 2019. J. A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall on October 30, 2018, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on October 19, 2018. Approximately 60 people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that Page 3 of 11 were raised at the meeting included aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, hazards, water, noise traffic, wildfire, and loss of open space. K. A tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was held on May 21, 2019. Approximately 60 people attended the site tour. L. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed and posted on November 20, 2020, with a 60-day public review period ending on January 22, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was extended by the Planning Commission for an additional 60 days, for a total of 120 days with an ending date of March 23, 2021. M. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal through on -site posting prior to the hearings and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, email notifications were sent to interested parties. N. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public meetings on the Project on November 17, 2020; January 19, 2021; March 2, 2021; May 18, 2021; and June 1, 2021. The Planning Commission meetings were conducted remotely, consistent with public health orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. These meetings were held at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The meetings were conducted via Zoom, livestreamed through the City's website, and broadcast on SCVTV Channel 20. O. On November 17, 2020, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, requested entitlements, and Project description. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. Of the 31 written comment cards and speakers, 5 were in support, 23 were in opposition, and 3 were neutral. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Project back to the Planning Commission at the January 19, 2021, meeting. P. On January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Draft EIR. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. Of the 29 written comment cards and speakers, 5 were in support, 20 were in opposition, and 4 were neutral. The Planning Commission extended the public review period by 60 days to allow for additional time for review of the Draft EIR, for a total of 120 days with an ending date on March 23, 2021. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Project back to the Planning Commission at the March 2, 2021, meeting with the responses to questions and comments on the following topics: architecture, construction, wildfire evacuation Page 4 of 11 and secondary access, General Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) consistency, noise impacts, Market Demand Study, open space, resort management, trails, and traffic impacts. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to the March 2, 2021, Planning Commission meeting. Q. On March 2, 2021, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project revisions, a presentation from the applicant, and public testimony regarding the Project. Of the 71 written comment cards and speakers, 9 were in support, 42 were in opposition, and 20 were neutral. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Project back to the Planning Commission at the May 18, 2021, meeting with the responses to questions and comments on the following topics: architecture, construction, evacuation/secondary access/wildfire, General Plan and UDC consistency, noise impacts, Market Demand Study, open space, resort management, trails, and traffic impacts. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to the May 18, 2021, Planning Commission meeting. R. On May 18, 2021, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project revisions and a summary of the responses to the Draft EIR comments. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. Of the 37 written comment cards and speakers, 6 were in support, 29 were in opposition, and 2 were neutral. In total, staff received 248 letters and emails from agencies, organizations, and individuals: 40 are in support, 159 are in opposition, and 49 are neutral or requested an extension of the Draft EIR public review period. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a draft resolution denying the Project, based on the prior action by the City Council to preserve approximately 300 acres of land into perpetuity as recreational/open space, and return to the June 1, 2021, Planning Commission meeting for its consideration. In addition, the Planning Commission expressed major issues with the Project in the categories of incompatibility with the purpose of the SCSSD, economic viability of a resort and golf course businesses, hotel and resort management, architecture and design, landscaping, open space land acquisition, traffic impacts, trails, and wildfire evacuation. The Planning Commission also directed staff to include language with the denial that if this Project is appealed to the City Council and the City Council determines this is a project they would consider approving with revisions, they would request that the City Council send it back to Planning Commission for the work on those revisions. S. On June 1, 2021, the Planning Commission re -opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff and Resolution No. P21-10. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the Project. T. On June 2, 2021, the City received a letter from the applicant appealing the Planning Commission decision to deny the Project to the City Council. Page 5 of 11 U. On July 13, 2021, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project. This hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, and adopted a resolution for denial of the Project. V. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based for the Master Case 18-021 Project file is within the Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Resort Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The City, as the lead agency, prepared a Draft EIR for the Project. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed and posted on November 20, 2020, with a public review period ending on March 23, 2021. The completion or certification of the Project EIR is not required by the City Council. If the City Council were to overturn the denial, then the EIR would need to be certified. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-021. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Resort Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Project is not consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan because the proposed hotel and resort use would be located on a parcel zoned OS, which prohibits hotels and resorts. Specifically, the Project is not consistent with the Land Use Element Policy LU 1.2.5 of the General Plan, which states that: "In Sand Canyon, ensure compatibility of development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the adjacent National Forest land; provide additional recreational trail links; minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River from incompatible development; and maintain community character in accordance with the City's Sand Canyon Special Standards District." Furthermore, the Project is inconsistent with strategies listed in the General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element that pertain to the designation and long- term preservation of open space within the planning area. In 1996, the City Council approved the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course, now called Sand Canyon Country Club. The City Council found that the Page 6 of 11 unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR prepared for the project were acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project. Specifically, the City Council found that "the project would preserve approximately 300 acres of land into perpetuity as recreational/open space" as a public benefit. Resolution No. 96-120 also cites that "the creation of 300 acres of recreational open space and establishment of a permanent habitat would offset the biological loss due to site development' of the original project. Condition of Approval No. 83 was included as part of the 1996 approval and required that the applicant "record golf course/open space easements on all golf course/open space lots, restricting their use to those activities." As a result, the Final Tract Map includes language that dedicates to the City "the right to restrict residential construction" on the 300 acres of land that make up the golf course, including the approximately 75.5 acres of the Project site. As part of the original project approvals, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 96-29 in August 1996 for a Prezone and Zone Change that added the Planned Development overlay zone to the existing underlining zoning to make it Residential Very Low Density - Planned Development. The property was rezoned to OS during the 2011 General Plan update to be consistent with other golf courses in the City. The Project, including the proposed GPA and ZC, would be in conflict with the prior direction given by the City Council in the 1996 approval for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course project. Therefore, a GPA and ZC from OS to CC for the purposes of allowing a hotel and resort use would not support the objective preserving open space land and would be contrary to the original City Council action to preserve open space, and the City Council cannot support these findings. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC); The Project includes a request for a GPA and ZC to change the land use designation OS to CC on a portion of the approximately 75.5-acre Project site. A hotel and resort use is not allowed in the OS zone. The OS zoning designation is intended to identify and reserve land for passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use. Typical uses include recreation, trails, trailheads, paseos, horticulture, limited agriculture, animal grazing, and habitat preservation (UDC Section 17.36.010). Therefore, without a ZC, the City Council cannot make this finding based on the existing zoning. As stated in the above section, the City Council found the public benefit of the original 1996 approval "would preserve approximately 300 acres of land into perpetuity as recreational/open space" (Resolution No. 96-120). With the Project site comprised of Page 7 of 11 approximately 75.5 acres within the 300 acres, the Planning Commission does not support the GPA and ZC from OS to CC. In addition, the SCSSD's purpose, as stated in Section 17.39.030, is to "maintain, preserve and enhance the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon." The Project would be incompatible with this purpose. Therefore, the Project would not be consistent with the underlying zoning of the Project site and the City Council cannot support these findings. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitabilityfor the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: i. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; ii. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; iii. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and iv. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The Project would encumber land zoned as OS in the City with an inappropriate land use and would conflict with prior action by the City Council to preserve 300 acres of open space as discussed above. The Project, including the GPA and ZC, would not support the public interest and would be detrimental to the community; and therefore, the required findings cannot be supported by the City Council. SECTION 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-021. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Resort Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed General Plan Amendment meets all of the findings per Section 17.06.030 (Findings and Decision); B. Properties which benefit from increased density or intensity of development resulting from the General Plan Amendment shall fully mitigate their increased sewer impact at Page 8 of 11 the time that development occurs on the properties; C. In addition, the City Council shall make at least one (1) of the following findings: i. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with other elements of the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5; ii. The proposed General Plan Amendment, if applicable, respond to changes in State and/or Federal law pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.9; and iii. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been referred to the County of Los Angeles and any adjacent cities abutting or affected by the proposed action, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and any Federal agency whose operation or lands may be affected by the proposed decision pursuant to Government Code Section 65352. Government Code Section 65300.5 states the "General Plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." As referenced in Section 3 of this resolution, the Project, including the GPA, is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project is inconsistent with strategies listed in the General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element that pertain to the designation and long-term preservation of open space within the planning area. The proposed GPA does not meet the findings listed in Section 17.06.130. Therefore, the City Council cannot make any of the findings listed in this section. SECTION 5. ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-021. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Resort Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. Principles and Standards for Zone Changes. The Council shall approve a Zone Change only after the applicant substantiates all of the following required findings: i. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning map as it pertains to the area under consideration; ii. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area; iii. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area: a. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and Page 9ofII b. That the proposed change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area unless a General Plan Amendment is filed concurrently and approve with said zone change. There are no modified conditions that warrant a revision to the zoning map as it pertains to the Project site. In 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-120, that approved two 18-hole golf courses, a 26,000 square -foot clubhouse, a lighted driving range, a maintenance facility, and 73 single-family residential lots and would "would preserve approximately 300 acres of land into perpetuity as recreational/open space." Since the adoption of this resolution, there have been no changes or modifications to the Project site that would support amending the City's zoning map to accommodate a hotel and resort use at this location. Based on this prior City Council action, the OS zone remains the appropriate zoning designation for the property. There is no need to change the zoning designation of the Project site. The Project site is a 75.5-acre portion of the existing Sand Canyon Country Club and is allowed to continue to operate as a golf course in the OS zone, consistent with Section 17.3 6.0 10.13 of the UDC. The Project, and the associated proposed ZC, would result in the loss of approximately 36.23 acres of open space land, which is contrary to the City's General Plan objectives that pertain to the designation and long-term preservation of open space within the planning area (Objective CO 10.1). A GPA has been filed concurrently with the ZC; however, as previously discussed, the GPA cannot be supported and this finding cannot be met. In addition, the City Council finds that the Project is incompatible with the purpose of the SCSSD and cannot support these findings. SECTION 6. NOW, THEREFORE, because all of the findings required by sections 3, 4, and 5 cannot be made, and because of the major issues that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, the City Council hereby resolves as follows: A. The City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and adopts Resolution No. 21-51, denying with prejudice Master Case 18-021, consisting of Conditional Use Permit 18-001, Development Review 18-003, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 19-002, General Plan Amendment 18-002, Landscape Plan Review 18-003, Minor Use Permit 19-028, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 18-004, Tentative Tract Map No. 78248, and Zone Change 18-001, for the Sand Canyon Resort Project, located at 27734 Sand Canyon Road at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Robinson Ranch Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-022-025 and 2840-022-007), in the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. L Page 10 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July, 2021. A 1 te31% '.utL�1 ATTEST: CITY CLERK V2-,L2-/ DATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 21-51 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 131h day of July, 2021, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: McLean, Smyth, Gibbs, Weste, Miranda NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 1 CITY CLERK Page 11 of 11