Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-1986 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 16, 1986- 7:00.p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 1377 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting 1. ROLL CALL .Counci]Jne_q~0ersMlava, David Moyles, Virginia Fanelli, and Linda Callon present at 7:~6 P.M. Mayor Clevenger absent. Vice Mayor Mlava presided at the meeting. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Administration of Oath of Office Sharon LanOsness was sworn in as a Heritage Preservation Commissioner. This is a second term for Mrs. Landshess, and she has been on the commission for 4 years already. 3. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes COUNCILMEMBERS FANELL!/MOYLES MOVED. TO APPROVE MINUTES OF 4/2/86 AS SUBMITTED. Passed 4-0. B. Approval'of Warrant List Several items were discusseO inc'luOing reissueo checks for the parking district~ speed reading classes~ Saratoga High school programs, and drug programs. FANELLi/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE THE WARRANT LIST. Passed 4-0. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR i - CLAIMS A. Consideration of Claim - Cucuzza MOYLES/FANELLI MOVED TO UPHOLD STAFF IS RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. F'asseO 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - OTHER ITEMS A. Planning Commision AEtions - Notedand filed. B. Heritage P>eservation Commission Actions - Notedand filc~]l. C. Resolution Prohibiting parking en Portlens of Saratoga Avent~e. Approved. ~5~ION ~-185 Resolution Up~olding Site Review Committee Decision and Denying Parker A .eal of Hamm Project considered 4/2 E. Ordinance 71.3 Amending City Code by Adding Section 2-10.188 Relating to Payment c,~ an Expense Allowance to Councilmembers (second reading) AdopteO. F. Resolution confirming Reappointment of Sharon LanOsness to the Heritage Preservation Commission ~SO~ION 2129 G. Final Building Site Approval, SDR I61~, Loma Rio Drive, B. Kelley (i H. Letter from West Valley Kiwanis Club Proposing Renewal o~ Agreement te Operate Recycle Center. Approved. Z. ~emnity Agreement - Bas Homes City Council Minot:es - 4/16/86 ('age 2 J. Authorization to Purchase Lads aplno Equipment in connection with Bonnet e D1 ~ c _ Way Landscap=-= Assessm nt 's ~ict-Approv6<t. K. Request from Finance Director: to Attend Legislative seminar, 5/1/86.-ApproveK] attendance with reasonable and necessary expenses L. Parks and Recreation Commission Actions - 4/7 - Receiveand fil~. M. Letter from Library Commissio0 Chairman - Receiveand fil~. CALLON/MOYLES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEMS EXCEPT FOR ITEM H. Passed 4-0. Comissjoner N!ava requested that item H be removed for further d i scussi on . Mr. Dominic Faneili, Kiwanis, .requesteO re~evra~ o~ agTee~t foz B~o~zcle Cen~er. .' ":':, "' ~ HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED FOR APPROVAL. Passed 4-0. No Award of Contcact for Reconstruction and Overlay of Reid Lane and Bea~Dnt Ave. (added at meeting)- Awarded to' O'Grady in amount of $282,291.10. nOMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions -None. B. Written Communications frjm the Public ~1 from Drs. Fred anti Mary Mansubi, ] San Jose, objecting to home for unwed mothers'. Referr~ed~_to.City AtbDrney for repiv. Mrs. Shirley Cottonburgf 198~8 BonnetEWay, spoke in support ,z,f the group home ~or unwed mothers. She feels there has b~en some unfounded fear over the group ~c, me members and would like to see the city of Saratoga support this neighbor. Cc, uncilmember Callon stated she concuCs with Mrs. Cottonburg as .long as there is not a zoning problem. The City Attorney stated the home for unwed mothers should be treated as a single family residenqe if they dmn't have mare than 6 people as ~t for~ h .S~te la~.. Councilmember Fanelli thanked the speaker for coming and would like to give the home a try as a good neighDot. I Consensus was to let the- group home ~ ~2 from Phil Cosentino~ San Jose, with objections to Hign~'~ay 85. ~5 from Miles Rankin opposing High~,~aV 85. . . ~6~eo' ano' f i ~ ed. ~4 from Bill and Marie Phillips, 19~96 Bonnet Way, favoring widening of other highways rather than constructice c,~ Highway 85. ~5 from Michael Rips, withdrawinq from candidacy for Planning Commission. ViCe Mayor Hiava's' tegling was that the Council should write a letter that a decision has not yet been made. He ma~ have misinterpreted the Council's intent. 6. OLD BUSINESS City Council Minutes - 4/16/86 Page A. Memo from Parks and Recreation Commission responding to Eivira Roe letter concerning unleashed and unsupervised dogs at Kevin Moran Park. Maintenance Director reported on further attempts at enforcement, cc~Dared with Palo AlzoI and recommended rescheduling in six months. The Parks and Recreation Commission had formulated the following recommendatic. ns: (1) Post signs clearly stating the C~ty code and maximum penalty for violations. (2) instruct Communzty Service Officers to begin program of first warning suspected violators. (5) After ne more than two, weeks of warning, Oegin issuing citations. The Council was in consensus with the staff's recommendazions. Z. NEW BUSINESS. ' A. Report on Design Review F;rmcess from F'!anning Director. Planning Directer Hsia repmrted updat~ regarOing a 0es~gn review me.eting and explained differen~ optimns available. He feels ~he besZ apprc. ach would be to nave ~ne Planning Commiseimn identify specifzc design review criteria. The Planning Commissic, n would like te transfer the responsibility of residential review tm a committee of 3 department heads: Planning Directmr City Engineer, anO S~. Building inspecter. This. bo~ would be called the Plan Review Cmmmit~ee. Any appeals would go to the Planning Cc~mmissimn.. This would cut the Planning Cemmissic, n's wc~rkload by 5B-4~% and cut the City Council's wmrkload by. 18% and will keep design review within the Planning Commissimn. Councilmember Fanelii stated her first preference would be to '~liminate the design review altogether. If not~ then Mrs. Fanelli appiauds the Planning Commission idea. She wc.u!d also like to see same cc. nsistency in designs. :' Planning Director Hsia would definitely like to keep the design review process in the Planning Cemmission ratbet than elim'inating it cempietely. Councilmember Callon had 3 concerns: ~i) MayDe we could include a Planning Commission member almng with the three department heads. (2) Standards: She's concerned abmut where the o3mmittee will go with standards. (3) She is not in favor of drc, pping the appeals at the Planning Commissfen level. Sometimes the City Cmuncil differs with the Planning Comml'ssic, n prmcess. She ~elt ~at ~e Ci~ sho~ cont~oe appeal prmcess to the City Council. Mrs. Callc, n did some research where appeals stop at the Planning Cc, mmissic, n. The Council is still held accountable far the Blanning Commission even though the City Council did n,z,t make the decisic, n. Cc, uncilmember Moyles states if the PlanninQ Cmmmission thinks we c~n do better with something, he urges them to simplify. The standards nave tm be explicit ~nd should fit on a half page fc, r the committee te ~ucceeo and shmuld De readily understmoO by'everybc. Oy. If not~ the fic. wcharc will just be cleggeo up on anc, t~er bottleneck. There has to be a comm'itment that these decisions have to stick (~rom this body). Mr. Hsia stated the Planning Commission is looking at creating different City Council Minutes - ~/16/86 Page 4 . etahOards fer different areas, ;e.g. standards of building on the hillsides. Our community consists of several different kinds of neighborhoods. Mr. Hsia states . some of the current design review standarOs are tooOc~plex, too vague to be understc, od, and cannot be applied across thE: board. CxDuncilmember Moyles stated i f the Oc~ssion:doesn't=-return 'with,-g~Inethincj sub- stantially sinplez!than~what-we=havein the ,~ray of design=~revieW, he -will~te very 5k'eptical when presented for approval as an ordinance. He may simply move along the lines Mrs. Fanelli has suggested. The burden af proof is to come up with something simple. If it gets more complicated than what we have, Moyles would have a hard ~ime being supportive of that. Vice Mayor Hlava would like to do away with square footage requirements that seem to be such a preblem in design review. She's supporti,:e 'of the idea of having three different sets ,:,f standards from her point of view: HillsidesVillage, and the rest of {he res.idential areas. It seems to be logical because there are different kinds of concerns. However, she does have a, preblem with the appeals .stopping at the Planning Commission. It~s difficult, in her opinion, to have rules where the City Council is responsible but where the Councilhas not had the Opportunity to have any input on the way in which the ~olicy is implemented. She thinks the Council does have a direct say in which staff implements policy. But at the point at which itls appealed tO the Planning Commission, the Council has no input, yet is responsible for the actions. Councilmember Fanelli was cencerned about a couple c,f items. (1) In dealing with areas of the city, her basic concern is how you draw those lines. (2) How soon will the F'l~nning Commission come to the City Council with the changes? Mrs. Fanelli would like to see it done scion so that this Council can make a decision about it. Planning Director Hsia feels it will take at least 5-6 months before he can get the criteria to the Courteli. A discussion was also held abc, ut t~e length of time the proposal will take to get together and whether we should leave the process as is. There was also discussion abou~ testing the effects and ratiO, us procedures. Mrs. Callon suggested we could dum~ the ordinance while we work on the · problem. Vice Mayc!r Hlava said itShas taken the Council 5-4 years to ~eel comfortable with what they feel should be done with design ,, review and feels it would be difficult fo~ the next council to bring everyone up to speed. Mrs. Fanel!i suggested we could do a type of reverse moratorium where there was a period of time when the ordinance was not in effect. It would allow us to see the effect of that while the Commission is working on its criteria. The City Attorney stated the main question is whether we are talking about a moratorium on the issuance.elf building permits as opposed to a suspension of the ordinance. If we are talking about a suspension of design review, then w~en a project'comes in, we would be checking a compliance :~ith building code [equirements and the. basic zoning requirements and setbacks which are not part of the design review coverage. We wou].d not necessarily be looking at. things like privacy impact which are ~he crux of the design review ordiance. One alternative is to leave in thE? findings but ta!~e out the square footage. Mrs. Fanelli stated that she likedlthat and then we could leave things the way they are anO the Planning Commission could work on whatever they wanted with appea]~ to the Council. The City A~torney discussed whether we want to change any of the City Council Minutes - 4/16/86 Page 5 circumstances that trigger design review. The City Attorney has a problem with an urgency ordinance because you have to make certain findings that there is an urgent problem. The City Attorney stated that the procedural changes Mr. Hsia suggested can Oe implemented into the ordinance quite easily. The City Attorney summarized that we are really talking about aOolishing the site review committee and replacing that with a plan review committee. All the site review committee does right now is look at single-family design review. There is really no neeO to keep that committee in pla.ce. The site review committee was established six months ago to give review of design applications. Most of the homes coming in are in excess of the square footage so they en0 up before the Planning Commission. At most of the design review committee meetings, there are only one or two applications. We could amenO the ordinance by estaolishing the plan review committee, eliminating site review committee and then reframe the standards so the plan review committee becomes the initial approving authority with right of appeal to the Planning Cemmissic!n. In the meantime, we could keep in place the further appeal up to the City Council. So in that event, there would not be any need to change the .language in the existing code concerning appeals. But that would Re a zoning amendm8nt, so we have to start at the Planning Commission with a public hearing and then have the recommendation of the Planning-Commission back to the City Council. The ordinance could be drafted fairly quickly, but in terms of noticing anO going through the required procedure, it would take a couple of months to get back to the Council. The City Manager cited the example of the Paul Masson matter. tf it is the intent of the Planning Commission to follow the same course of action, it should be 5 months before something happens. Discussion was held between Councilmember Callon and the City Attorney about square footage in the ordinance and metboOs of measuring it. Councilmember Fanelli discussed the design review process, stating it w~ cumbersome and time consuming. She feels that the Planning Commission was qui~e clear that they were also dissatisfied with the design review process. She is concerned that the new procedure will not be easier to work with than the one we have now. Planning Director Hsia stated that the Planning Commission is really Oeoicated to simplifying the process. This is the first time~- Mr. Hsia stated~he has hearO directly from City Council that the Council would like to nave concise standards. If he can relay that back to the Planning Commission, the Commission can come back with something workable. Vice Mayor Hlava summarized that not only does the Council want those 'standards streamlined, but mayoe the Council doesnlt want those standards at all.' The City Attorney stated the midway point would be an ordinance that eliminates the reference to square footage and simply gives bullet standards of some very fundamental considerations in general terms (privacy, compataoility, and appearance). Councilmember Callon~s preference would be to have the City Attorney draft an amendment to the ordinance to include the Planning Committee idea and-think aOout a way to nave a moratorium on standards. Mr. Peacock thinks there is still an very long way to go in dealing with the issue of standards. He feels in effectively serving the Council that City Council Minutes - 4/16/86 Page 6 there should be more than c,n~ proposal in order to have a chc, ice. Mr. F'eacoc~ dc;essn't want to rush4 the matter. Councilwoman Callon feels ~_hat there is a tuo of war between the Planning Commission and. City Council.~ She O,:,esn't hear the Planning Commission following the direction ,:,~ the Cc, unci!. She hears the Planning Commission is ~olding tightly onto standards ~or different areas of t~e City. This is OaseO par~l,/on the fact that they want no appeals to the Council. That's a clear direction tc, the Council that they don't wan~ the Cc, uncil in [he business.' The Council feels somewhat the other way around. She wants to make it clear that the present Council feels the design review orOinance doesn't work, isn't working, and isn't fair. Mrs. Callon likes the iOea of keeping the design review ordinance~ not getting rid af it altogether' for single-family residences, but having findings th~at have to be maOe that give "the body" some discretion in : approving it. But then,we wouldn't be stuck on a bunch of numbers. Counci!member Fsne!li alsq states that she doesn't think the ordinance Vice Mayor Hlmva directed the staff to report back to the Council with p~o~sal to be consiOereO alta study session, then sent to the Planning Commission. B. Accounting and Pmyrml 1 Syste,m Mr. Peacock summarized that he saw a tremendous advantage in changing to DECISIONMATE soft~are, a pa:ckmge ~c,r municipalities, for significant savings in money and productivity. It -will also improve '. . : the City's ability to forecalst. He and MBS. Shriver both have a high level of confidence in the DECISIONMATE systems. Mr. Peacock stateO that in his experience he has seen. the vendc,~ constantly enhance the system with almost me,cost to the Ise s. Mm. City Council apprmve the acc~ounting/paVroll system at a p~ice not to exceed $21,~8~. He also u]rged the Council to approve purchase of necessary computer hardware ~et a price not to exceeed S6,588. The~e were various discussio'ns about p~ice, compatability with othe~ office machines, trade-ins, ~and especially t~aining. Mr. Peacock would like to purchase the ha~dwa~e now so that we can input next yea~'s huHget on it. Vice Mayo~ Hlava was~ concerned about whether i~ was in this yea~'s budget. ' I FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO APPR:OVE THE PURCHASE OF THE $65~ IBM PC HARDWARE THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE iSYSTEM AND WILL ~P~ T~ ~ ~} ~ ~DD ~t .;4EXT YEAR'S BUDGET. Passed 4-8. C. Prc. ceedings in connection with landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1 (existinO) = ~ CALLON/MOYLES MOVED TO APF'ROVE RESOLUTIONS 2558 AND 2538A. Passed 4-~. D. P~oceedings in connection with Landscapinq and LiOnring District LLA-1 CALLON/FANELLI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS 2331 AND 2551A. Passed E. Request fm~ Storm Drain Reimbunsement for Inn at Sa~atooa. City Council Minutes - 4/16/86 Page 7 CALLON/FANELLI MOVED TO AUTHORIZE RESOLUTION 2241.22 FOR PAYMENT TO THE INN. Passed 4-0. F. Application for "Driving under the Influence" Grant The Sherifles Office applied for a grant fr,sm the State Office mf Traffic Safety rOTS. to, finance a specially trained team of officers to enferce laws prohibiting driving under the influence (DUI) ef dice, hal. The County and State would previde 18~% ~:,f the funding for the first year and one half fc, r the secmnd year. The centtact cities would be respc, nsible for all elf tbe funding of the pro, gram over the third year and thereafter. Mr. Peacmck presented data en the pregram stating the key element is adz, heroics. It is anticipated that increased revenue over the three year period should approximate the City's actual cos~_e. Mr. Argow stated the proposal assames the program is cost recclverable. Therefore if the pr,:,gram falls shmrt of recmvering its costs, we drop the program. Vice Mayor Hla,:a was concerned about' commitment to the pr~:~gram in the third year if the City of Saratoga ~!as not happy with it. She deesn't want to be committed based en-OTS' in~erpretatic, n of statistics. She was concerned aPout lureping all West Valley Cities together because the aggregate number could lc, ek gc, c,e~ even if Saratmga did no~ recover its investment. Councilmember Fanetli was cmncerneO about getting statistics for drunk drivers/accidents in the City of Saratoga. She wmuld also like more inf,:,rmation abmut year four. How can~ we pull out .:.f the pr,z, gr~m if' we are not happy with it? Discussion was held abeut drunk' drivers vs. fatal accidents in the, City of Saratoga and the desire to nave more statistical information. 'The Council ~as also concerned about what effect this program wcluld have as far as protection and safety. ~, Councilmember Ceylon is interested only if we participate in the f'irst year. 'She feels our arrest record is great withcut the prmgram and doesn't feel we should fund the .program. Councilmember Meyles discussed the advantages c,f ~oining the pregram. Ccluncilmember Hlava requested clarificatimn about the West Valley . cities if we do not participate. The cclnsensus was that the Council is not opposed, but the z~acts are .iust not convincing enough. The Ccluncil feels that the City ef Saratoga is doing'a goec~ ~c.b now withou,t the program; it wouldlye been mere beneficial three years ago befmre people were so aware of drunk driving. Mr. Peacock stated that one of the advantages mf the program~. is ta bet'ter train ~he officers to identify driver characteristics. Dave Lapic, Community Services Officer discussed drunk driver symptoms and identifying a drunk driver. The consensus was that Sararage is ~oncerned about w~ether the pro.given zs crest effective and would like t.a discuss it with the Sheriff. COUNCILMEMBERS MOYLES/CALLON MOVED NOT TO PARTICIPTE IN. THE PROGRAM. Passed 4-6. City Council Minutes - 4/16/86 Page 8 G. Report frmm Green Valley Disp~,sal Company on RecVcling Feasi. oility. MOYLES/CALLON MOVED TQ APPROVE' ARGOWIS PROF'OSAL.~Oi'OCDNDUCT A SURVEY. Passed 4-0. ~. Constructice Acceptance ,:.f~ Tract 7295, Oak and Third Street (Garner-Sc~renson-Fanel!i) (ADDED AT P~EETiNG) MOYLES/CALLON P10VED FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT. F'asseo 3-0-1 with' Councii~ember Fanelli abstaining 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 P.M. OR EARLIR A. "Appeal of deniel of design review apprcIval for new parking deck and variance approval te allow -15 substandard parking spaces where approximately 69 spaces are required for the restaurant and .retail-type uses c!n-site e, nd to allow no ~loading facilities or handicap par~ing spaces where a minimum of one Off-street loading space and one hanOicap space would be required. at the!northwest corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way (Appellant/applicaH(, Dr. and Mrs. J. Brozda)(V-720, A-l165)(continued frmm 4/2) i Staff summarized their repc, r(s. UnOer parking district ratio standards, it was clarified no~! many par~ing spaces the Brozdas would nepd tm comply wit~ parking sp~ces. It was explained that, with the parking district ratio of one space for each 380 square feet of gross floor area, the Brozdas would k~e required to have 35 parking spaces rather than the 69 r~.i~ect if a prerni.ses is outside t_he parki~ng district area. Mr. Peacock calculated that the:c, ne property which the City may condemn,-. rather than get, in terms of dedication generates 21.6'of the 30 extra spaces. Then the 8rozdas wouldJ meet the reqpirements' of the 55 spaces. . .Prices of the spaces: Need-a firm idea of appraisal of.land prices fc.r district ~3. Mr. Peacock xpl .~ned the specific~ c.f his staff repo?t 8 8 figures. There are a lot of qubstions involving forming district ~3 anO potential litigation. There are some technical decisions ef spreading benefits and the key elements of it as a condition of getting the variance. The Brozdas are committed to joining the district and contributing property te the district, voting strength, and dedication of property where the parking woul8 be in exchange for getting the 20 parking spaces they need to fully utilize the builOings they'have. Bob Shmok, City~ngineer, clarified the parking space ratios. Mrs. Fanelli was concerned about the mther merchants' requirement to buy parking spaces. With the additimnai properties beyonO Rosenfeld, would it pr60uce any additional parking spaces? Mr. Peacoc~ said the City could exclude intervening parcels in a discontinuous district. You can. nave discontinuous parcels Witjq a showing ~at the inte~rediate parcels have their own parking v/nich meets their requirements. Without tbac ~onoiticm, members coulq ' protest the exclusion. The other issue on ccintinuing t'6 ado to the size of the district is a potential fc.r additional opposition to the formatimn. City Council Minutes - 4/16/86 Page 9 Council also discussed easements, appraisals, and existing uses. Attorney for. the applicants, Doug Addams, as,~ed for a continuance foc the applicants. He said the applicants are Oeing asked to spend $525~8 over the construction clf the deck~ for a total of $65~,~00. Making a decision quickly over that ameunt of money would be difficult, and they donlt know if it would be economically feasible for them. Mr. Ao0ams had 3 consiOerations. (i) If they sell land, would they get creOit for that lanO? (2) The preperty was measured today and 'there was a one-space discrepancy. (5) Expenses: The Brozdas have to took at how much it will cost. When will payment start regar0ing parking district Discussion was held on ciarification of City Manageo's humbees in his staff reDeft. CounciLmembers opted for calculating assessments based on the third alternative contained in the City Manager' s report. Discussion was helO about changing the parking district ratio and length of parking spaces. Discussion was also neio to ma,~e the responsible person or business pay for the packing space proOlem. Consensus to continue to May 7. The applicant was requested to prepare revise0 plan for deck which addresses s~ze and access problems. B. Vacation of Dedicated Pedestrian Walkway between Ua Vista Drive and the Congress Springs School Site. Disdussion was held about need, abandonment vs. tearing up t~e sidewalk, and dividing the property. The puDlic hearing opened at 9:53, anO no one appeared to speak. FANELLI/CALLON closed public hearing at 9:54 P.M. FANELLI/MOYLES MOVED TO 'VACATE THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AND ~ioPI<)VE P~ESDLLrfION 2322. Passed 4-0. C. Solid Waste Disposal property Liens for period December-February 1986 The public hearing was openeO at 9:55 P.M. 75 names were presented by Mr. Argow. No on appeared to speak. Fanelli/Moyles moved to end public hearing at 9:56 P.M. PasF~=<t 4-0. FANELLI/MOYLES ~OVED TO CONFIRM STAFF REPORT. Passed 4-0. 9. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A~ Discussion of Oral Communications not referred to staff. The City Engineer noted tDat representatives from Los Gatos/Saratoga observation Nursery School left children's artwork but were not able to stay for the meeting. B. Items from indiviOual Councilmembers Councilmember Fanel!i was concerned about an invitation to ~he Young home where artwork was to be exhibited. Councilmember Callon prefers not to have addendums to the agenda. She City Council Minu'tes - 4/16/86 F'ag=~ 10 will not be at Tuesday's study session or at the first meeting in May. Vice Mayor Hlava was concerned about Route 85 Policy Advisory Board (PAB) and led a discussion on it. ~ C. Legislative rtems (1) Letter from Senator Pete Wilson requesting oppositic, n to HR 5858. Consensus was to support oppositiun to HR 3838. Passed 4-0. (2) Letter from Mayor Peter~ Weber, IRoll~R.g Hills Estates, requesting support for AB 5461. Consensus to support it. '.' '- (3) Reso'lution P. roposition 46. Consensus to support it. (4) ACA42 (Moore) Proposed amendment would prohibit th~ imposition o~ ' m _ power sale or use tax on residential property use o~ heat, light, water, and telephone. Consensus was to support staff~s position of opposing ACA42. CALLON/MOYLES MOVED TO ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL MEETING at 10:48 P.M. Passed Respectfully submitted, HP:m~