Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/04/28 AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, April 28, 1987 10:05 p.m. Council Chamber Public Services Building ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members McCandliss, Malcolm Nader, Moore, MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss, Assistant City Manager Asmus, City Attorney Harron, Community Development Director Desrochers 1. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER The Council and Agency have held several joint workshops on the proposed DDA in the past several months to discuss major issues of content ion between the City and Homar t Development Company. The DDA which is submitted to the Council/Agency this evening represents the culmination of the negotiating process and the resolution of all of the outstanding issues with the exception of the disposition of the Boys' Club property. Several options for the Boys Club are included in the DDA including immediate disposition and demolition, or temporary continuance until a fourth department store is secured. Community Development Director Desrochers submitted the Rider the Town Centre II Disposition and Development Agreement. to 1. As provided in Attachment 13, the Agency is to choose by May 5,1987 between (a) a $500,000 contribution to be made by Redeveloper, or (b) the City/Agency's retaining the Boys Club. It is an either/or choice. Director Desrochers referred to his memo dated April 28 in which he noted the cost of bringing the Boys' Club up to standard approximately $640,000. Staff has not heard from the Boys' Club; no report has been forthcoming from them except a newspaper article whereby they were quoted as stating they could financially operate this facility. Minutes "Redevelopment Agency - 2 - April 28, 1987 Mr. Lonnie Thomas, President of the Boys'/Girls' Club, 660 Telegraph Canyon Road, Chula Vista, submitted budgetary figures noting it does not include the day care program at "L" Street, they were specifically looking at the existing programs, the revenue from those programs and the revenues from future fund raisers. As to the United Way contribution of $25,000, Mr. Thomas indicated they may get $35,000 this next year. If the $25,000 was not forthcoming, the Boys' Club would have to hold future fund raisers to make up this difference. Member Malcolm stated he wants to be sure that the Boys' Club is kept but felt they would get a better deal by relocating the Club within a block or so of their present facility. Staff is stating that over $600,000 would have to be spent to bring the Boys' Club up to standard and having the Boys' Club relocated at a Chula Vista High school ground would be a much better location, noting that the students could have the use of their field for their soccer games and other outdoor activities. Director Desrochers agreed stating staff feels it would be better to relocate the facility using Homart funds and Community Block Grant Funds. In answer to Member Malcolm's question, Mr. Thomas stated that the facility would not be just a Boys Club, it would be a Girls and Boys Club facility. Chairman Cox commented that an alternative is to allow the bu ilding to remain and the developer bui Id around it; however the $643,000 needed to bring the facility up to Code is a lot of money. He is committed to a worthwhile facility which would serve the entire community and not just the Boys Club. Chairman Cox added he would like to see a multi-use facility developed whereby other organizations could use it such as the YMCA, the adult schools, jazzercise classes, etc. Member Malcolm remarked that before any action is taken by the Agency to have this facility move, a site should be picked out. Agency discussion followed regarding the: facility on Oleander Street; give the Girls and Boys Club the first call for the programs at the new facility; concern that they would not be able to meet the financial commitment to operate the facility; if the Clubhouse remains at its present site it must blend in with Homart's renovation plans for the Shopping Center; the Redevelopers will begin construction this August and need Council' direction; noted the Boys Club already has a number of organizations using their facili ty such as Alcoholics Anonymous which meet on saturday mornings and questioned whether the schools would allow this organization to meet on their property. Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 3 - April 28, 1987 MSC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to direct staff to meet with the school districts to see if adequate room can be found for a new facility for the new facility taking into consideration the parking and the playground for a joint facility usage that can be obtained in one of the two sites mentioned by staff earlier (school sites). This report to come to the Agency before May 5. Mr. Tom Gourgeuchon, representing Homart stated that the Redevelopers have made many assumptions on the use of that Boys Club site, such as using it as a major entryway into the mall and for parking purposes. Member Nader asked whether the motion could leave the staff with some flexibility such as the underlying ownership of the land and who would have title to the building. City Manager Goss noted staff would just be able to get a commitment from the school people if the School Board cannot meet in that timeframe. Mr. George Carney, 555 Naples St reet, Chula Vi sta, asked that Council not "blow" the renovation of the Shopping Center but to retain the Boys Club facility. He noted the advantages to Homart to develop the Center and the needs of the children in that area to use the BOys' Club facility. Mr. Gourgeuchon stated that if the Clubhouse is allowed to remain they would ask that a condition be put in whereby the Clubhouse would have to be brought up to a first class site in order to be comparable to their Shopping Center plans. Chairman Cox asked that the motion include scheduling a meeting for next Tuesday (May 5) at 7 p.m. at which time a report should be forthcoming from the School District regarding Council's action. Phi 1 Scheuer, 1319 Costa Avenue, Chula Vista, submi t ted a li st of finances and budgetary items for the Girls Club and Boys Club facili ty. He favors leaving the BOys Club where it is; however, it has been a deadlock throughout the entire consideration of the Shopping Center. Mr. Scheuer then discussed his budgetary figures with the Agency. Chairman Cox stated he will be voting against the motion since he is concerned that the motion addresses specifically having a Girls Club and Boys Club facility and not a multi-facility for the entire community. Member McCandliss said her intent is to find another location for the Boys Club and at that time when this is considered by the Agency, the Members can discuss having a multi-use hcility. The motion carried with Chairman Cox voting "no." Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 4 - April 28, 1987 2. Under Attachment 14, the Agency elects Alternat i ve A (cash or credit in the amount of $750,000). Alternative B is deleted. Director Desrochers stated staff's contention that if there is a savings on the part of Homart in developing the Center, the City should share in those savings. The Homart management team withdrew that particular condition and offered the cash or credit in the amount of $750,000. Member Malcolm stated he would like to have a condition requiring Homart that for any cost below the approximate $42 million estimated for the construction of the Center, the savings be split 50/50 with the City with the first $.5 million from the City will be put back in and given a credit to Homart adding to the $1.5 million already committed for a tenant allowance to entice them to get nice tenants. Mr. Gourgeuchon responded they cannot accept that particular clause since they have direction to go with just the cash or credit in the amount of $750,000. He added that the staff has had 6 months in which to verity all Homart's figures and to take this position at this time now is "blatantly unfair"; Homart is taking all the risk and they should get the rewards at the same time; if the Agency changes this particular condition, they would ask that the $750,000 no longer remain available. Member Malcolm said he just wants to be assured Homart will be spending the $35 million plus the $7 million from the City in renovating the Shopping Center. Director of Finance Christopher stated it is staff's position that the Agency is putting in $7.3 million and Homart is putting in $35 million. The Agency's participation can easily be verified; however, all that they are asking is simple verification from Homart that they will indeed spend the $35 million in this project. They are willing to accept verification from Homart on this. Mr. Perry Hall, also representing Homart stated that whatever resolution is passed by the Agency this evening, they will have to call their management team in Chicago the first thing tomorrow morning to get their agreement. He added that it should be clear that whatever condition is imposed on #2, the $750,000 is wi thdrawn. He added that both comments by Member Malcolm and Director Christopher are contrary to what their management team has agreed to and the management committee cannot overrule their Board of Directors. One of the concerns of the Management Committee is the the method of verifying their expenditures. MSUC (Nader/Malcolm) that in this agreement it is agreed that $35 million will be invested by Homart and Chula Vista will accept a certified statement from a Homart accountant that the $35 million has been spent (this will be proof of that investment). Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 5 - April 28, 1987 Maria Scully, Attorney representing the Agency, stated the motion leaves the City with the alternative of pursuing default provisions and suing for damages. She discussed the avenue for damages which will be between the $35 million that Homart should be spending and what would actually be spent. Member Malcolm remarked that these liquidated damages set forth dollar by dollar into the agreement. should be Attorney Scully noted that when the physical structure of the Center is completed the developer is then entitled to a Notice of Completion. She asked that the Agency note at what point of time Homart would be found in default of not spending the $35 million. Mr. Hall stated that they would like to have the flexibility of up to two years after the opening of the Center. I f they find they can do it sooner, they will provide that. Member Nader asked that the motion incorporate the two year period of time, that this be two years after the Notice of Completion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. The bed of 5th Avenue will be conveyed from (a) HUD to the City, (b) the City to the Agency, and (c) the Agency to Homart, at the close of the First Escrow. Concurrently with their approval of this Agreement, the City and the Agency will adopt appropriate resolutions authorizing their respective acquisitions and conveyances of those properties. By letter agreement with HUD, the Ci ty and Agency recognize that HUD will appraise the bed of 5th Avenue and is to receive consideration for it. HUD has represented to the City Attorney and has confirmed in writing that the price "should be determined on the basis of its present use as a public street." Redeveloper is not to bear any of the appraisal costs or the price payable to HUD as a result of the appraisaL Rather, the City and Agency shall be responsible for such costs and for the payment to HUD, in such manner as they may determine between them. Director Desrochers stated that HOD owns 1/2 of Fifth Avenue and Homart owns the other half. Homart wants the City to pay for the appraisal cost. It is staff's contention that Homart should pay the first $10,000 and then the Agency split whatever cost comes over that amount. in Mr. Hall indicated that he feels the appraisal will come under $10,000. MSUC (Malcolm/Cox) that the City will pay the first $10,000 of the appraisal and anything over that will be split 50/50. Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 6 - April 28, 1987 4. The rules in the Agreement into two categories: regarding Relocated Tenants fall (a) A prohibition against leasing more than 20% of the additional leasable floor area to Relocated Tenants (Section 506-1) and (b) In relation to Redeveloper's sales tax guarantee, denying credit for any sales taxes such a Relocated Tenant (Section 506-2). generated by With respect to Category (a) above, the Agency and City agree to defend, indemnify and hold Redeveloper harmless from all losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable at torneys' fees) in connection with any act ion in which it is claimed that Redeveloper's agreement to, or compliance with, the Category (a) rules violates any anti-trust laws or violates the FTC consent decree binding upon Redeveloper, a copy of which has been provided to the Agency and the City. With respect to both Category (a) and Category (b) above: (1) The rules set forth in Section 506 shall terminate and be of no further force or effect four (4) years after the close of the First Escrow; and (2) If Redeveloper obtains a written representation from a prospective lessee or sub-lessee of retail space within the Chula Vista Shopping Center, that it has no other pre-existing retail business within the City, or that it has such a business but has no plan or intent to transfer, relocate or close that business, that Redeveloper may rely on that written representation in the absence of actual knowledge that such a representation is plainly false, and the lessee or sub-lessee making that representation shall not under any circumstances be considered a Relocated Tenant. Director Desrochers explained that Homart Ci ty hold them harmless from all losses, connection with any anti-trust violations. that the sales revenues generated by from not be counted in the guarantee. is requesting that the costs and expenses in Staff is recommending these local merchants MSUC (Nader/Moore) to delete 4a from the DDA. Mr. Hall noted that page 3 of the Rider covers the concerns of the Agency and Homart noting that the tenants would have to file a document with the City stating they are not a transfer but a new sale. Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 7 - April 28, 1987 Member Malcolm stated he goes along with condition #2 and would like to have included in the motion to get a letter from Homart and their Agent signing that agreement that they do not know this person is going to close their store. The motion carried unanimously. Paul Meyer, 701 B street, San Diego, Attorney representing Homart, stated that is agreeable to his clients. 5. The Deposit from Redeveloper in the amount of $ll,OOO,OOO.OO in cash, cashier's check or letter of credit (Section 1l0) is deleted. No such deposit shall be required. Redeveloper shall, however, deliver the Guaranty of Completion to the Agency (Attachment No. 11) on or before the close of the First Escrow. MSUC (Malcolm/Nader) to McCandliss voted "no." the corporate guaranty. Member accept 6. If for any reason the Site Lease, Agency/City Lease and Operating Lease are not approved concurrently with this Agreement, the Agency and the City agree that they are bound by the terms set forth in the Financing Plan (Attachment No. 5) and warrant to Redeveloper that the economic obligations set forth in the Financing Plan are nevertheless valid, binding and enforceable obligations that will result in Redeveloper's practical realization of the economic benefits described in the Financing Plan. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) to approve recommended by staff and Homart. #6 (Member Malcolm out) as 7. In the Scope of Development (Attachment No.6), the 140,000 square feet refers to newly constructed additional gross leasable mall area. Some outbuildings may be demolished and the leasable area lost by such demolition is not to be "netted" against the new construction. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) to approve recommended by staff and Homart. #7 (Member Malcolm out) as 8. The fees, charges and costs paid into escrow by Redeveloper (Section 302-3) in fact shall be borne half-and-half by Redeveloper and the Agency. The Agency portion shall be advanced by the Redeveloper under Section 302-3, but will be applied against the S750,000 cash or credit to which the Agency is entitled under Paragraph 2 of this Rider. MSUC (Moore/N ader) to approve recommended by staff and Homart. #8 (Member Malcolm out) as Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 8 - April 28, 1987 9. The city's obligations to the Redeveloper in relation to this Agreement will be reduced to a City/Redeveloper Business Points Letter, which shall be approved by the city and signed by the City and Redeveloper on or before the close of the First Escrow. In that City/Redeveloper Business Points Letter, among its other provisions, the City will acknowledge that the conditions precedent to the vacation of 5th Avenue (including without limitation the Fig Avenue and DDA conditions) will be deemed satisfied and removed, effective on the close of the First Escrow (through which the bed of 5th Avenue is conveyed to the Redeveloper). I n answer to Counci Iman Nader's query, Attorney Scully explained that the intent of this language is in order for Homart to close escrow for their acquisition (and they want to close escrow on Fifth Avenue at the same time); they want the Agency to find that the obligations of Homart as set forth in the DDA satisfies those conditions. MSUC (Moore/N ader) to approve recommended by staff and Homart. #9 (Member Malcolm out) as 10. Regarding the mitigation items required by Section 3.1 of the EIR (Section 409-3 and the scope of Development), Redeveloper shall be responsible for construction and installation at the specific intersections described in the text of Section 3.1, and not for any consequential work (such as traffic light synchronization), or other construction or installation at any more remote intersections. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to approve recommended by staff and Homart. #10 (Member Malcolm out) as 11. The specific dollar amount and the reference to "best efforts" in Section 409-6(b) are deleted. Redeveloper agrees to actively encourage and cooperate in the upgrading of the exteriors and interiors of the Broadway and Sears stores, including using reasonable efforts and reasonable inducements, consistent with prudent business practices and Redeveloper's obligation to actively encourage and cooperate. Director Desrochers stated that staff dollar amount we put into this DDA. is requesting that the Member McCandliss referred to the letter from Carter Hawley Hale which she indicated was quite vague as to their commitment to upgrade their building. Mr. Gourgeuchon agreed; accomplishing this task. however, they are committed to Member Malcolm returned to the dais at this time (1:20). Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 9 - April 28, 1987 MSC (Cox/Moore) to accept #11 as recommended by staff and Homart; Member McCandliss opposed. 12. The $5,000,000 insurance requirement of Section 412 may be met by certificates of insurance, or by a program of self-insurance naming the Agency, the city, their respective officers, etc. in the same way that a certificate of insurance would name them. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to accept #12 as recommended by staff and Homart. 13. In the Grant Deeds (Attachment No.8) and Agreement Containing Covenants (Attachment No. 10), the covenants to be recorded (a) will be revised to conform to this Rider (as appropriate), and (b) as to covenants that will survive the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, will be screened so as to contain only those covenants that are necessary in order to satisfy the Agency's statutory legal requirements. For example, if an absolute obligation to rebuild after total uninsured earthquake destruction is not statutorily required, or if "freezing" the exterior look of the shopping center for the next 25 years is not statutorily required, those covenants should not be included. Agency discussion followed with Mr. Gourgeuchon regarding the "uninsured destruction" of the Center. He noted that the covenants run with the land and if the Center should be destroyed for some reason, it limits their ability to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. Attorney Meyer noted the statutory requirements and they do not want to see the covenants running with the land. They will agree to be bound by all statutory agreements. They are asking that those by statute which do not need to became a part of the recorded documents be handled in some other fashion. MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to refer this back to staff to work with the bond counsel and the Homart representative. 14. The Agency is satisfied with the assurances Sections 300-5(c) and 422 regarding referred to in (a) Redeveloper's ability to complete the improvements; (b) Redeveloper's evidence of equity capital and financing; and (c) The Sears and Broadway participation as evidenced by their letters. . ._----_.- -------- .---- Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 10 - April 28, 1987 The financial information submitted to the Agency by Redeveloper will be kept confidential in strict accordance with the covering letter accompanying it, which will be signed and delivered to the Redeveloper by each person who is allowed to review it prior to his or her review. MSUC (Moore/Cox) to approve #14 as recommended by staff and Homart. 15. Redeveloper shall bear the risk of increased project costs and obtain the benefit of project savings after the execution of this Agreement. Changes to the Basic Concept Plans and subsequent drawings and plans which have an effect on the cost of the project shall be handled as follows: (a) Redeveloper shall bear the cost of changes which are consistent with the logical evolution of the basic Concept Plans and Scope of Development as set forth in this Agreement; (b) Redeveloper shall bear the cost of changes required as a part of the City's review of plans and specifications for compliance with building codes and other such statutory obligations. (c) Redeveloper shall have no obligation to bear the increase in cost due to changes which are the result of the Design Review Process and which impose additional requirements upon Redeveloper which are not contemplated by the basic Concept Plans and Scope of Development which are part of this Agreement, if the net effect of such changes is an increase in the total costs of the Project. Mr. Gourgeuchon stated he has concerns with the time element and cost with going through the Design Review Board. Member McCandliss noted that at a previous meeting the Agency indicated that if there was any problem with the Design Review Board, Homart can appeal this to the Agency. Chairman Cox said there would be good faith efforts on the part of the Design Review in reviewing these plans. Director Desrochers stated that #19 also applies to this. 19. The Agency's review and approval of the Design Development Documents under Section 403 and the Schedule of Performance (Attachment No.7) is limited to review of such documents at the stage of evolution that they are required to be in, in connection with their design review, after input has been given by the Design Review Committee. Later logical Minutes Redevelopment Agency - II - April 28, 1987 evolutions of those documents, including by way of example and without limitation, working drawings, detailed plans and specifications, are not required to be submitted to or approved by the Agency. The foregoing sentence applies only to logical evolutions of approved documents; it does not apply to changes of the kind that this Agreement requires to be submitted to the Agency. MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) staff and Homart. to approve #15 and #19 as recommended by 16. The standard for intra-corporate transfers at any time by Redeveloper shall be the standard stated in Section 418, and not the standard of "approval not unreasonably withheld" as erroneously stated in Section 109-2. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve #16 as recommended by staff and 17. With respect to sales, transfer, etc. under Section 418, contracts to sell, transfer, etc. that cannot close by their terms until after the issuance of a Certificate of Completion are not prohibited. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve # 17 as recommended by staf f and 18. If requested by Redeveloper. the Agency and the City may permit Parcels 1, 5 and 6 to close other than concurrently, so long as Parcell has closed on or before the close on Parcel 6. Where applicable, the phrase "close of the First Escrow" will continue to mean the close of escrow on Parcel 6. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve #18 as recommended by staff and 20. The bonds referred to in Sections 408-1 and 408-2 are to be construction bonds covering the performance of construction work by Redeveloper's general contractor, not bonds covering performance by Redeveloper under this Agreement. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve #20 as recommended by staff and 21. The texts of the Site Lease, Agency/City Lease and Operating Lease will be amended to include references to the Recognition and Attornment Agreement (which shall survive the issuance of Certificates of Participation). The texts of the Site Lease, Agency/City Lease and Operating Lease will also be amended to include customary provisions allowing leasehold loans and Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 12 - April 28, 1987 related lender protection provisions (subject to any requirements later imposed in order to facilitate the issuance of Certificates of Participation). The Recognition and Attornment Agreement described in the Financing Plan (Attachment No.5) will be executed and recorded concurrently with the foregoing leases. MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve #21 as recommended by staff and 22. The Agency will deliver title to Parcel 6 (5th Avenue and the fillets) to Redeveloper at the close of the First Escrow, free and clear of Exception Nos. 54, 56, 57 and 58 attached to this Rider (except that as to Exception No.5 8, matter s di sclosed on the ALTA Survey may be shown) MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve #22 as recommended by staff and 23. The Agency will deliver title to Parcel 4 (Boys Club) to Redeveloper at the close of the First Escrow (if Paragraph A is elected under Attachment 13), free and clear of Exception No. 85 (except that matters disclosed on the ALTA Survey may be shown). MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) Homart. to approve #23 as recommended by staff and Member Moore left the meeting at this time - 1:48 a.m. 2a. RESOLUTION 130ll OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA INCLUDING THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE ACQUIRED WITH TAX INCREMENT FUNDS BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN FINANCING THE PROJECT RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER COX, as amended, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously (Member Moore out). Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 13- April 28, 1987 b. RESOLUTION 806 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously (Member Moore out). Member Nader referred to the staff the Community Committee. report noting his motion for 3. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONVEYANCE OF GRANT DEEDS TO THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR 495 I STREET AND SLIVER PARCELS LOCATED At FIFTH AVENUE AND I STREET. Director Desrochers asked that the Agency not deal with and 4 at this time. items 3 Mr. Gourgeuchon asked what will happen if they get a Negative Declaration from their management team in Chicago as to the Agency's motions this evening. Chairman Cox asked that this meeting be continued to 7 p.m. on wednesday, April 29 in order to find out if there is any need for any feedback on the part of the Agency to Homart's commitments. MSUC (Cox!McCandliss) to reopen the public hearing and to continue it to 7 p.m., April 29. Attorney Scully stated that escrow is to close on April 30. To date they have not received any word from HUD on the Fifth Avenue closing and there may be a need to get an extension from Homart. City Attorney Harron asked that the Agency give authorization to the Chairman to sign the documents. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) documents. to authorize Chairman Cox to sign these MSUC (Cox/Nader) to recess to Closed Session to discuss Sierra Club v. Marsh; Sierra Club v. Coastal Commission and items of potential litigation. Minutes Redevelopment Agency - 14- April 28, 1987 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. 6. 7. MAYOR/CHARIMAN'S REPORT COUNCIL/MEMBERS' REPORT None. None. The Council/Agency recessed to Closed Session at 2 a.m., the City Clerk was excused and the City Manager reported at 2:07 a.m. ADJOURNMENT AT 2:07 to wednesday, Thursday, April 30 at 4 p.m. April 29 at 7 p.m. and to 1009C