Loading...
12/09/1974MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1974 - 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL Pledge Roll Call PRESENT: Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse Norris and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz City Staff ABSENT: John C. Brown PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; A.J. Shaw, City Attorney; E.L. Rodgers, Chief of Police; Robert Strong, Director of Community Development 1. Memorandum from Charles E. Dills, Acting Chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee, recommending a proposed ordinance regulating the use of motor vehicles on rip vate property. The Citizens Advisory Committee.stated that many citizens living on the outskirts of the City adjacent to considerable areas of unimproved property have complained about the following public nuisance acts: 1. Harassment by vehicles continuously engaged in traversing the vacant areas, often with faulty or non - existant mufflers creating excessive noise, with the consequent destruction of wildlife and vegetation. 2. Annoyance by the same.vehicles constantly driving back and forth in close proximity to living.or sleeping quarters, much.to the detriment of the residents' peace of mind as well as television or telephone reception. 3. Similar action in disturbance of schools and churches in session. 4. Removal or destruction of "no trespassing" and other signs. 5. Use of wire cutters to permit-access to private (fenced) areas, with the potential torment.of animals in pastures. 6. Invasion of privacy by driving on lawns and private driveways, not to say public sidewalks, with accompanying racket. 7. Use of intemperate and foul language against anyone attempting to remonstrate. 8. Threats of retaliation against protesters of the above-actions. Many of these nuisances led to the physical prohibition of off -road use of vehicles in Laguna Lake Park over a year ago. As a result of these problems, many of the affected citizens were requesting that the City Council adopt an ordinance similar to that in effect in the City of Fullerton. The Fullerton ordinance had been subjected to close scrutiny by the City of San Luis Obispo's Administrative Officer, Police Department, City Attorney and members of the Citizens Advisory Committee.'' The Police Department had informed the Citizens Advisory Commit- tee that the City of Fullerton had enforced their ordinance and that it was workable. Therefore., the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance which had presently been prepared by the City Attorney e City Council Minutes December_:9, 1974 Page 2 and the Police Chief based on Fullerton's ordinance. While it was true that the proposed.ordinance.would.not completely stop the ill- advised use of motor vehicles on private property which gave rise to such complaints as were listed previously, but with the cooperation of the Police and the concerned citizenry, much of the public nuisance could be greatly alleviated. The Citizens Advisory Committee unanimously recommended that the City Council take.action now to alleviate this problem. The Citizens Advisory Committee then reviewed the code provisions.to be added.to the City law dealing with.the regulation of use upon private prop- erty of vehicles for noise control.purposes. The City Council discussed with.Charles Dills, Acting Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee, the proposal for an ordinance to control use of motor vehicles on private property without the:property owners' permission, and also discussed past attempts to control this problem. A.J.. Shaw, City Attorney, stated that the proposed.ordinance was.to be con- ducted under-the nuisance abatement provisions of the Municipal Code on private property and not under the noise abatement proceedings of the code. E.L. Rodgers, Chief of Police, hoped the City Council would give the Police Department-the necessary tools and personnel to enforce the new law, and if they received these; they would try to enforce it. He felt that the proposed ordinance could be an assist to Police control. Mayor-Schwartz. again reviewed each paragraph of the proposed ordinance by the Citizens Advisory Committee for the information of the citizens present. Mayor Schwartz opened discussion on this subject to the public. Elmore Reynolds, San Luis Cyclery., stated.that he was opposed.to the adoption of the proposed.ordinance as he felt -that there were enough laws on the books now to control motorcycles, motorscooters and noise caused by motor vehicles. His suggestion for a solution was the construction of a park or area for use by the motorcyclists sponsored by the City taxpayers. Don Cross, Laguna Lake resident, opposed the adoption of the proposed ordinance. He felt that before the City Council adopted such an ordinance they should provide an area for youngsters to ride their motorcycles and motorbikes before just cutting them off. John Lawrence, Laguna Lake resident, opposed the proposed ordinance to control motorcycle riders and noise in the City. Mrs. Markoff.was in support of.the.proposed ordinance in order to control the.noise in.-the residential areas of the City. Mr..McKenzie, Laguna Lake resident, was in support of some control of the use of motorcycles in order to reduce the noise level to residents in the neighborhood. Dr. Andrew Jones, Laguna Lake resident, was in support of the cyclists, felt it was.a good sport, but he felt that some-control should be made to keep the.lid on noise. He agreed that some area should be developed so that people who followed this sport would have a place to ride without annoying their neighbors. Mrs. Frank, Laguna Lake resident, was in support of an ordinance to control motorcycle noise in the Laguna Lake Park area. Mrs. Haumont Southwood Drive, was in support of some control of unlicensed riders and motorcycles in order to control noise and abuses of private property. -She supported the concept that some area be developed for cycle riders,.hopefully supported and operated by,the City or County.. She then submitted a petition signed by 59 residents of San Luis Obispo urging that. the City Council or some governmental agency supply an area for the youths to ride their motorcycles in peace and quiet. City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 3 Art Foge, Cal Poly student, spoke on behalf of the;time trial crowd-he worked with who have attempted to lease or-rent land to operate their club runs but that to date this had been impossible. He then reviewed some,of the activities sponsored by.groups.in.the Santa Maria area who had competitive sportsriding, including the granting of trophies.for motorcycles and motorbikes. Mayor-Schwartz declared the public discussion closed. Councilman Gurnee stated he was im support.of some expenditure of public funds by.the.City in developing a motor cross or similar track for use of cyclists to ride their bikes. He felt that a properly developed cycle track or area should be developed and operated by the City. He urged the Council to adopt.a positive.approach.to solve this problem rather than add new laws to.oppose the people involved. Councilman Norris stated that.he.was.in support of City cooperation with .cyclists.in.acquiring and-developing motorcycle track or area -in the City, and-he felt that after this-was-done the City then could get tough on bike riders -in.residential areas. He too agreed that there were too many laws now..on the books that were not enforced, or if enforced just selectively, and he felt that they did-not need.any new ones if they did not enforce the ..old ones. He concluded that-he would-oppose adoption of the proposed ordinance. He,felt that the existing laws should be enforced and not new ones-added. Councilman.Graham.stated that he was in support of the proposed ordinance as he felt.that.the only way.to.control abuses of cycle riders was to put the responsibility on the property owners who allowed this illegal activity: Finally., he would cooperate and - support - acquisition of a park for riding cycles-.under -supervision.. He felt that .the motorcycle =club should get together and come up with a plan.to- develop an area for cycle riders of all ages. E.L. Rodgers,..Police Chief, upon-question stated he felt that the proposed ordinance would be a good. tool:for..:.the Police Department. Mayor.Schwar.tz.stated that:he felt-that motorcycles and motorbikes complaints were the major city problem involving noise, dust, etc:, and-he felt that upon the recommendation of the•Police Chief.that the proposed ordinance would be.a useful tool for noise::.control.. He would support the proposed ordinance, but he would also_support.further study for consideration of the City.Council.for future public hearings-after more study. The City Council discussed with.the Attorney and Police Chief wording changes in clarification in the proposed.:ordinance from the Citizens Advisory Committee. .Councilman Norris suggested that.the- -City could ask the staff to look into City owned land for possible use-as a- motordrome for motorcycles, motorbikes, etc. On motion-of :.Councilman .Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz.the staff was instructed to prepare a new draft of an ordinance to be presented at the February 3, 1975 meeting,•and the staff to see what off -road funds were .available:for. developing a motorcycle-track and also encourage the motorcycle clubs to get together for development of a motorcycle area or areas for use by their members. Motion carried,-Councilman Brown absent.. 2. Recommended staff work program, General Plan and Regulatory System Revisions.Program, continued from the December 2; 1974 and December 4, 1974 meetings. Robert.Strong, Planning Director, again presented his. recommended proposal for completion of the General Plan and Regulatory System Revision Program. The completion of Phase .I, Preliminary Phase II, summary report and repro - .ducable.maps as defined in the memorandum of understanding has been accepted with minor modificaiions.by K.D G as.proposed.in the memorandum-of agreement. The Tentative-Work•Program Proposal.for completion of remaining portions.of Phase II.and -a11 Phase III•work referred•to:was being revised.to.reflect recent and continuing modifications.with the-County and various technical City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 4 consultants,.and further consideration; of alternatives. The proposed work tasks, assignments, schedule and estimated expenses would be further resolved by the staff as the work progressed. Robert Strong again reviewed -for.the Council the recommended proposal for the completion of the General Plan Phase I and Phase II through the memorandum of agreement with K D G. The recommended memorandum of agreement had a maximum total compensation to K D G for Phase i, Preliminary Phase II Professional Services and allowance for reimbursement of all direct costs, termination expenses and all other charges or claims of consultants was $53,000. During the rest of the month of December, Robert Strong stated that the City staff would assist K D G in the completion of their portion of the General Plan Study and then the director would resolve negotiations with the County and other technical consultants for completion of the remaining portions of Phase II and all of Phase III as follows: Alternative Plans and Comparative Evaluations would be done by joint City- County group Community Surveys would..be-handled by the City Newsletter Initial General Plan and interim Regulatory System Revisions would be handled through-the City - County staff cooperative and coordinated program Preliminary Specific Development Plan Elements would be handled by staff. Environmental and Economic'Evaluations would be handled by.technical - consultants - .Envicom Completion of these tasks and.tthe: former work performed by K.D G would enable the adoption of the General Plan and Regulatory System-Revision in the early part of 1975 continuing to the deadline of September, 1975. Robert Strong then.reviewed the comprehensive plan elements and.implementation program such as land use and housing elements, circulation and scenic highway elements, noise and air quality:elements,.public facilities, services and safety.elements, the seismic safety element, the open space, conservation, flood control -and recreation - elements, and the urban design and specific development plan elements: He also reviewed the work'to be done on'the' regulatory.system.revision.and implementation program to include zoning and-combining district ordinances-and maps, conventional and condominium conversion subdivision regulations., performance standards and development phasing controls, architectural,.sign.and design review procedures and criteria, E.I.R. and economic evaluation regulations, redevelopment., preservation.and community development programs, housing assistance programs and capital improvement programs. He then presented the following.schedule for individual tasks.as outlined. December 20, 1974. - .Completion of draft Phase I, Preliminary Phase II summary report. January 20, 1975 - Completion of Phase I $ II summary report, reproducible maps and Phase.II.supplementary report regarding plan evaivations.and.recommended initial General-Plan and regulatory system revisions. February 4, 1975 Commence joint City- County Planning Commission public hearings.. Concurrent staff preparation of.revised report regarding plan refinements and evaluation-of alternatives generated.at.hearings. March, 1975 - Completion of Commission hearings, commence joint Council - Board hearings. Completion of E.I.R. and economic evalua- tions report.on.initial General Plan and regulatory system revisions and refinements. 1 1 City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 5 April 22, 1975 - Tentative deadline for .adoption by Council and Board of Supervisors- of-initial General Plana, Regulatory System Revisions. : May -June, 1975 :. -..Preparation-of comprehensive plan elements., regulatory system and plan refinement evaluations. Draft,reports for hearings. July.l, 1975 . - Commence joint City- County Planning Commission public ..hearings. August 19, 1975 - Completion of Commission hearings.. -. Commence joint Council - Board hearings. Completion of E.I.R. and economic evalua- tions:on- comprehensive plan - elements, regulatory system and implementation= programs... September - .16,:1975- Tentative deadline for adoption of comprehensive General P1an.Elements,.Regulatory System and Implementation Programs September.30, 1975- Completion of Summary Report on Adopted Plan Robert Strong stated that the.work program outlined above anticipated completion of Phase .I, Preliminary .. Phase. - II,.consultant services at a cost.of.$53,000. The remaining. portions ..of.Phase..-II._and.all._of. Phase III. work .to.be-performed primarily by City - County Planning Team composed-of staff and some technical consultants, and-assistants as outlined in.the scope.of work. He then reviewed what he felt would be-the necessary additions.to..his..staff.in order.to get the project under way and completed by-the September, 1975 date. He felt:.for.the additional .$70,000.- remaining in the General Plan.program budget that with the-addition of- two..associate planners, two:.assistant- planners, one additional - planning technician-, - _draftsman and temporary clerical assistance, plus various.technical help from other: agencies that the $70,000 could be used and get amore-than adequate report for the Council's adoption. Councilman..Graham again questioned, as he had at past meetings, the need of the City to continually go outside the City boundaries to retain or hire planning.consultants . to do work-on-General Plans and elements of the General Plan'••for.the:City.. He.felt that the.experience.of the City. with K D G should make them aware of the fact,.that:.the,work.:could be- better.done either:inhouse or-by using local talent which was .available for a fee. Robert Strong stated that he would only.go outside the City for.consultants in certain.areas of,_special.expertise; .Councilman-Graham asked if what Mr. Strong was saying was that:there was no one qualified within.the City.to.work on City planning or City.General Plan. Mr...Strong.stated.he did not mean..this.exactly, -but only.-that-the City should..spend their .money.on.the..most..quaiified experts that were.available whether.they lived within the City or lived outside the City. Councilman Gurnee asked where in.all these alternative planning studies as presented, reviewed.. and.. brief ed ..by..Mr...Strong - was .there to be. -a definite growth policy in the proposed work..program.. Mr. Strong. answered. that :.growth,policy..alternatives would evolve from the initial studies being conducted.under:the -.work plan... Hopefully,.various growth policies would be-refined over . a.period- of.time..and:in continued phases of the..progiam. Councilman Gurnee stated that he had been working with several members of the County Board of Supervisors and he felt that they were willing to support and organize a- joint - committee -for. planning.in.the.regional area surrounding the.City of San Luis Obispo on a. cooperative.basis. He felt that this would be a good-approach by getting the City Council members and Board.of Supervisors together to resolve.all- conflicts in the General - Planning area.and then this group -could make recommendations to.-the City and to the County on growth policies, aims,.etc. of.the General Plan. He suggested that the so- called.regional advisory planning commission consist of two City Council members, two members City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 6 of the Board of.Supervisors, two County.Planning Commission members, two City Planning Commission members, one representative of the Airport..Land Use Committee, one representative from Cal_Poly.and.one representative from Cal Trans, plus possibly a member of the Land Use.Commission so that all the agencies involved in the- general regional area could.be available to discuss.problems involved in the General Plan. Robert:Strong.stated that what Councilman Gurnee had suggested was what he and Ned Ro goway, County Planning Director, were trying to.do on an:informal basis rather than form a regional.planning.commission as suggested-by Councilman Gurnee.. He felt that to.formalize.. the. group would be an asset to-.the final planning process for both the.City and County. Councilman Norris stated that he would support any proposal which would assist a cooperative.relationship with the County of San Luis Obispo. He felt though that most of the animosity on the part of the County was:generated by the City. He would support the proposal of Robert Strong for General Plan work program for the City, but-he would oppose the regional commission concept as brought forward by Councilman Gurnee. Councilman Graham stated that.he.was.in support of a City= County-cooperative group,.but hoped that this would not delay work programs as outlined.by the staff because he for one would like to get this General Plan completed and behind the City so.that they could move-ahead with some definite planning based . on. -good information. Mayor Schwartz stated that he too was opposed to Councilman Gurnee's suggestion for an advisory board due.primarily.to the make -up of the membership'of the advisory board and their input to.the.General Plan program. He felt that he would support.the work program -as.outiined by Robert Strong in a cooperative basis. -with the County. He. felt . the concept of an area.planning council was good, .but.it might be better. .to -have it evolve from the proposed work program . rather than have.them direct.the:studies. Councilman.Gurnee. again reviewed._his..proposal.for an area planning.-council concept for the new= General...Plan..studies and for a. continuing.cooperaiive. planning development by the County. Robert Strong again defended. his. proposal for the General Plan .work • program without prerequisite appointment of an area planning council which might delay the work program schedule. On motion of Councilman'Norris; seconded by Councilman Graham-the City._... Council approved.the work plan as. submitted by Robert Strong -for work on . the General Plan and Regulatory Systems Revision Program.. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Norris-:and Graham and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilman Gurnee ABSENT: Councilman.Brown 3. R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer, presented for the Council's. information.the quarterly report on the C.I.P.-progress dated-November 22, 1974. He stated thatthe report.indicated that the City was somewhere close to schedule on the major water.project, City Hall remodeling and.the planning. program;. although in regard to.the.planning program, refinements�'and plan element preparation adopted could.b6-extended perhaps six months beyond the original schedule due.to.the.change..in the approach by the City in its program. He then reviewed with the City.Council in detail each item of the 1974/75 C.I.P., the amount of money budgeted.and.the status of each one of the projects. The City Council discussed with the Administrative Officer the.progress of each project as-shown on the approved list. The matter was.received and filed. L� i 1 1 City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 7 4. . Memorandum .from.Robert..Strong,dealing with the Santa.Rosa Street widening-project,-Monterey to:-'Walnut Streets. He stated that:the present 74 foot.right -of -way provided for four travel lanes and parking on the west side only. _The.oiigina-lly conceived project.would avoid existing structures and increase the right -of -way to 80 feet. This would allow. .for four travel lanes and parking on both sides but would not provide for bike lanes-.nor left turn lanes unless on- street parking was eliminated. Further, limited - widening would-create. numerous non - conforming buildings and lots due...to_reductions . in front -yards and lot sizes as a result of right- of.- way.acquisition....With:the restriction of turning movements and on- street parking the:resultant..64 foot-curb-to-curb width would provide a maximum six.lane facility. Based upon..the.recently adopted City-street-widening policy, current traffic plans.and.projections and.collaborative evaluations by.planning and engineer- ing staff, he.. believed that consideration should be given to an alternative of acquiring 34 feet- of.addi.tional:.right -of -way creating .a 104 foot total right- of-.way. -,The 104 foot right -of -way would accommodate eight foot sidewalks, eight-foot parking lanes, four foot -bike lanes, four 12 foot travel lanes and a 12 foot median with left- turn.pockets.at appropriate intersections. If required-in the future, the-four-lane divided arterial could be.converted to a six lane - facility with separate turn lanes eliminating on- street parking and bike .lanes. Wayne Peterson :, Assistant City.-Engineer, presented for the Council's infor- mation-traffic studies and estimates for traffic up to 1995 for: this portion of Santa.Rosa Street and the various levels of service to accommodate traffic, parking and bike lanes ,.including..no..parking, -on- street parking,.bike lanes one side, etc. Councilman Gurnee left the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Robert Strong again.reviewed.for the City Council the various alternatives in the.80 foot width and the 104 foot..width, involving -the various individual ' properties-including the :continued..use:of.the.various improvements. He estimated:that..the'cost of widening Santa Rosa Street including - acquisition of property-for the 80 foot right-of-way-would be $452,000. If the City were.to go to the 104 foot right -of -way', the estimated cost-would be $1,074,000 with the majority of the cost involved.in acquisition of complete properties including improvements. •Staff,recommended that the City continue.-with-the proposed .80.foot -right -of -way . for.Santa -Rosa Street. - On motion of Councilman Norris,.seconded by Councilman Graham that the City. continue their plans for an 80.foot right -of -way as presently approved for Santa Rosa .Street,.. Monterey-to , Walnut Streets.. Motion. carried, all- ayes,-. . Councilmen:Brown and Gurnee,.absent. S. :. -Richard D. Miller:submitted.:for.the Council's consideration an ordinance amending certain provisions.of.the.Municipal Code involving the licensing and vaccination of dogs.. He-reported that the City and County had been working on a.new;animal control-ordinance which would be administered .'..by the.County -and would.include all-the-cities in the County in the same ordinance,.but due to some technical and legal considerations these contracts have.not.been submitted. The plan was -to have the new animal-control law go into.effect on.January 1, and..the.County. was asking that.the.various City.Councils and the Board .of:Supervisors.amend,their ordinances so that on January 1-or as .soon thereafter as.the ordinances could become effective, there would be a uniform animal..control law within the County.of.San Luis Obispo. He then briefed the:proposed.ordinance dealing with vaccination, registration period; dog tags,.license fees, etc. Walter Crawford, Chorro Street, appeared 'before the City Council stating that.he.was opposed to the proposed license fees for dogs on the basis -that other animals.such.as.cats, ponies, cows, -etc. did not have to.be licensed. He felt that people who loved dogs who paid the fees should not•.be penalized but -.that the.City should go after those who brought- animals into-the community .and really did not care for them, let them go free and showed-no control over their pets. Furthermore, he felt.it.was unfair not to license cats as they were as much-trouble and roamed more than dogs. He felt that this ordinance as proposed by the Administrative Officer was discriminating against dog owners. He therefore felt the City should adopt some other type of ordinance, one .that was not.so punitive. City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 8 The City Council discussed with the Administrative Officer and staff the benefits of a uniform County -wide licensing ordinance. On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Mayor Schwartz the following ordinance was introduced: Ordinance No. 628 (1974 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending certain provisions of the Municipal Code concerning the licensing and vaccination of dogs. Passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham and Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmen Brown and Gurnee 6. The City Clerk presented for the Council's consideration a business license application for an arcade at 2161 Broad Street, Jim Kinney - owner, doing business as the Ideal Arcade. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Mayor Schwartz that the application be approved. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilman Graham ABSENT: Councilmen Brown and Gurnee The Mayor ordered that the matter be continued to the meeting of December 16, 1974. 7. Richard D. Miller, Administrative Officer, brought to the Council's attention the following communication from the Board of Supervisors, County of San Luis Obispo, requesting that the City Council consider allowing the ' County of San Luis Obispo to use the City's jail facility on Santa Rosa Street as a juvenile detention center to hold juveniles until they can be shipped to the Monterey Juvenile Facility. The Supervisors submitted a letter stating that they had agreed to the terms negotiated with the City Administrative Officer which would rent from the City of San Luis Obispo a portion of the City Police Department building as a juvenile detention set up under the following conditions. 1. The term of the lease would be month to month and the City should have the option to terminate the lease upon thirty (30) days written notice. 2. The amount of rent paid by the County for the premises should be $1,000 monthly payable on the first day of the month. 3. The County should be allowed to construct and install improvements on the premises with permission of the City, including signs, light fixtures and electrical modifications to suit County needs at County cost. 4. The County should be responsible for all maintenance of the leased portion of the premises including custodial and /or repair of any damage to permanent fixtures. 5. The County agreed to indemnify and hold the City harmless for any and all liability for injury or damage to persons or property on the leased portion of the premises. 6. The County agreed, throughout the term of the use or lease of the premises to maintain public liability and property damage insurance against all claims and liability for personal injury, death or property damage arising from the County's use of the premises. City Council Minutes December 9, 1974 Page 9 7. The.County further agreed that upon termination of the use.of the premises,.the County would.make_ all repairs and remove all improvements such that the premises were left in their original condition. 8. .The City mould insure that throughout the use of the premises as a juvenile detention facility by the County, that no adults would be incarcerated by the City-on the.premises. 9. The-County also wished to specify -.that any equipment or furniture moved to the facility by the County was not intended to be considered as.fixed.or attached to.the premises. 10..The County wished to enter immediately upon the premises to make minor .improvements prior to occupancy. 11. The City agreed to pay for all .utilities used by the County during the use of the leased premises. The County stated that they hoped..they could consummate this immediately, as time was of the essence in handling this problem. Richard.D. Miller, Administrative.Officer, stated he had reviewed this:mat -ter carefully with.the Chief of Police and they both recommended that the City Council enter into this agreement. On motion.of..Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris.the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 2693 (1974 Series),.a resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement for County utilization of City jail facilities for juvenile detention purposes. Passed and adopted on-the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Graham and Norris and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmen Brown and Gurnee 8. The City Council adjourned to Executive Session. 9. . On motion of Councilman Graham, seconded by Councilman Norris the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: April 7, 1975 / H. itzpatrick, City.Clerk 1