Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/6/1985 - MINUTES 32 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 1985 A Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Bogert, in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz-McCallum Way, on Wednes- day, March 6, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Birer, roster, Maryanov, Smith and Mayor Bogert Absent: None The meeting was opened with the salute to the Flag and a moment of silence. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Foster, seconded by Birer, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of January 29, February 6, 13, 15 and 20, 1985 be approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 . ZTA 5.0218 - SIGN REGULATIONS Recommendation: That the Council approve multiple revisions to the Sign Ordinance, and its inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance. Planning director reported background of events leading to the Sign Ordinance revisions, which was submitted to the Council along with areas which were not resolved; that the draft was submitted to the staff, who evade recommendations and submitted it to the Planning Commission, which held hearings and additional meetings, and submitted a recommenda- (103) tion to the Council in August, 1984; that the Citizens & Merchants Association requested additional time for review, because of procedures and content; that an alternate draft was proposed, and the Planning Commission held new public hearings ; that the final draft before the Council has been reorganized to provide for its inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, clarify issues and make it easier to use. He stated that the primary issue relates to control of signs inside of a business; that the Planning Commission recommenda- tion was that the formula would be 1 inch in sign for each 1 foot back from the store front; that the task force believed the control was unnecessary and was a potential constitutional problem and recommended that it be eliminated; that the Planning Commission developed a compromise version, i .e. , 2 inches of sign per foot back, up to a maximum of 3 feet back; that the task force still believes it is an area that should not be regulated and left to the individual store owner; that amortization is still an issue whether there is a conflict with new State law; that existing schedule can be used and existing State Law does allow amendments to sign ordinances, if such are not more restrictive; that no change is proposed ' in the abatement process, and the task force believes that a different schedule should be adopted, based on a buy-out program; that the task force believes graphics should be included to illustrate various items; that staff disagrees with this view, in that the items of themselves are not ambiguous, and pictures would Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 2 I . ZTA 5.0218 (Continued) be more confusing, although some graphics could be developed which clearly depict examples of the ordinance; that the ordinance includes the original task force recommendation relative to sale signs, although the re-formed task force believed that sale signs should be allowed three times per year, without a permit; and that relative to size, the ordinance provides a commercial sign four times greater than before, real estate signs are generally bigger, and trade construction signs have been liberalized to include all construction type signs into one sign. Mayor declared the hearing open. Joan Gattuso, 11g S. Indian Avenue, stated that the P.S. Project Steering Committee reconvened the original task force members to look into the commercial sections because 23 of the 27 proposed pages where changed by City Staff. She read a prepared statement, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, and requested that all of the recommenda- tions of the task force made to the Planning Commission, also be considered by the City Council . Bill Claybrook, 2340 Wayne Road, member o'F the original task force, requested that memoranda of the task force to the Planning Commission and City Council , dated February 13 and March 6, 1985, respectively, be made part of the minutes. Copies of these documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Lynn Ludwick, P'Zazz, stated that petition signed by 600 people, requesting elimination of any control of signs within a merchant's store had been submitted to the Planriining Commis- sion. She submitted petitions containing an additional 200 names. Jack Morey, P.S. Mall merchant, spoke in support of the task force concerns relative to control of signs within the store space; that he only wanted professional window display people to tell him how to use windows for advertising; that merchants must be daring and competitive to attract customers; that retailers know more about retail than City staff, and must compete with other communities for tourist's business. Deyna Hodges, 595 N. Calle Marcus, spoke in 'favor of not regulating signs inside of stores, and the task forte 's definition of a sign, and allow merchants the ability to present themselves. She suggested that if the City were to receive 10 written verified complaints regarding a certain store, it could confront that merchant, explain the problem and ask for cooperation, and if there were no cooperation, the Planning Commission would act as judge and jury and determine if there was disservice by the merchant, and enact strict guidelines applicable to that specific merchant, who could appeal to the Council . She also suggested that a fine system might be instituted for failing to adhere to any such guidelines; and believed the suggestion would give the City control , without restricting all merchants. Pauline Smith, 749 Prescott Drive, and 278 N. Palm Canyon, opposed control of signs inside of the stores ; and considered the proposal an insult to those who signed the petitions. 326 Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 3 1 . ZTA 5.0218 (Continued) Owner of Educational Toy Store, stated that merchants are stifled by restrictions imposed by the City, e.g. , color of buildings, permits, etc. , which spends too much time in finite details, instead of communication how to stay in business. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. In answer to question by Council , Planning Director read task force definition of a sign (refer to Page 11 of attach- ment to task force memorandum to the Council , October 27, 1984) which basically excludes from regulation anything within a store; and the definition proposed by the Planning Commission, which excludes from regulation anything in a store beyond the first three feet from the front; and the task force issue relates to not what is a sign, but what is to be regulated. Councilman Smith stated that he was not interested in regula- ting merchant displays; that the sign area will now be two times greater; and that signs inside of a store have the same purpose as; if it were outside. Planning Director stated that; the task forte' s definition, "anything of visual appearance," is extremely broad and vague, and would need to be more clearly defined; that for many businesses, the building is the sign, and is what people relate to. Councilman Foster stated that he sat with the task force during its meetings, and did not believe it wished to destroy the Sign Ordinance, but to clarify it for easier understand- ing; that there were areas of disagreement, and those were left open, and the task force members should not believe that City staff just simply changed things, rather it looked at those items in terms of propriety and legality; that he did not wish to discourage or inhibit merchants ; that he believed most merchants and residents want sign controls, although they may not agree on the proposal , and his concern relates to the issue of what happens if a merchant does not use good taste. Councilman Maryanov stated that the Council and merchants are not on opposite sides, and both want a successful business community; and that there has been no discussion or delinea- tion of problems covered by petition signers. Councilman Birer stated that there has been a lot of hard work to bring the Ordinance together;, and there has been no attempt on the part of the Council to interefere with the ability to do business; that he believed the reduction from 10-ft inside the store to 3-ft was a reasonable solution; that the effort is not to police a business operation, but to avoid people from going around the ordinance; and that if it is found that the 3-ft distance is unworkable, it can be reconsidered. Councilman Smith stated that: the ordinance has regulated interior signs for many years, and a person has the right of appeal if he feels abused; and questioned why the issue is being raised at this time. Planning Director stated that the issue of staff discretion Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 4 1 . ZTA 5.0218 (Continued) and enforcement of the ordinance, raised the need by the task force to develop as objective standards as possible, and attempt was made to distinguish between display and attempt to attract business; that the issue became one of developing objective criteria, and whether there should be any control ; and that under the task force definition, a merchant could have a lit neon sign if it were more than 3-ft within the store. Councilman Maryanov stated that he would be willing to accept the portion of the task force definition of a sign which states what a sign is not; that he did not think it should be controlled 3-ft back, and agreed that signs should not be affixed to the glass. Councilman Smith questioned why if a sign is controlled on the outside of the store, it should not be controlled if on the window, one-inch, two or three beet back; and if a person has a legal sign on the outside, without controls inside, what would prevent a person, with an all-glass front window, from hanging another 25-ft sign inside the store, resulting in more sign space than desired to be regulated? Bob Keenan, Sign Users Council , in response to question by Council whether the proposed task force ordinance would prohibit the situation described by Councilman Smith, responded that if it did not specifically prohibit it, then it should do so; that such a case is the most far out, incom- petent situation that a retailer would ever do in this City, and he did not believe the Council should draft an ordinance based on the most far out situation that could happen. He cited the sign ordinance in Santa Barbara as an example of an ordinance too restrictive, resulting in merchants papering and painting their windows with signs, because the exterior identification was not enough to enable people to locate the business; and that the proposed ordinance, I-sq. ft. per lineal foot for exterior signs, is acceptable. In response to question by Council , Mr. Keenan stated that the people of the community would prohibit the kind of situa- tion described by Mr. Smith from occurring. Councilman Maryanov stated that a self-policing society simply does not happen, therefore, rules are established for everyone to try to follow, and the Council tries to make those rules fair, equitable, easy to enforce, good for the most people, and in respect for individual rights. in answer to question by Council , Mr. Keenan stated that whether the ordinance prohibits that type of situation, is one that would be left to legal counsel for an answer, however, he believed it was covered. He stated that there will always be violators, but the ordinance proposed by the Commission punishes the majority of businesses, on the basis that some may violate it in the future, which he did not consider, to be equitable. In response to questions by Council , he stated that the membership of the Sign Users Council is not available without authorization of the entire membership. Councilman Smith expressed his concern that in view of the amount of work which has been undertaken in developing the ordinance, and that answers are not responsive to the issue of interior . signs, and suggested that the Council proceed with the ordinance, as recommended, and request more study by the Planning Commission to develop language to make it clear that the regulations are strictly for signs and not displays or presentations in the window or in the store. Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 5 1 . ZTA 5.0218 (Continued) In answer to question by Council , Planning Director reported there would have been few signs which would have violated the 10-ft limit, and probably fewer would be in violation of the 3-ft limit. Councilman Birer stated that there has been a general loosen- ing of the requirements ; that there must be some control over the signs ; and he believed the reduction from 10-ft to 3-ft with 2-inch letters per foot is reasonable. Planning Director reported that the Ordinance contains appeal provisions. Councilman Foster stated that the 3-ft may not be palatable, but without some control , the result may be bigger signs to compete with others who may not have the same taste; that he agreed with Councilman Smith that it should be 10-ft; that if the ordinance is unworkable, it can be changed; and that there are currently few potential violations. In response to question by Council , Planning Director stated that the meaning of the task force' s definition of sign was ambiguous. Councilman Smith stated that although he was opposed to the 2-inches of sign per foot for the first three feet behind the window, and favored the entire store, he would not oppose the Ordinance. City Clerk read title of the Ordinance, as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 93 OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE REGU- LATING SIGNS. It was moved by Foster, seconded by Birer, and unanimously carried, that further reading be waived, and the ordinance be introduced for first reading. 2. CUP 5.0351 (DMV OFFICE) - SNEDAKER CONSTRUCTIiON APPEAL Recommendation, That the Council consider appeal by Snedaker Construction Co. , from Planning Commission denial of a proposed DMV Office on the SE corner of Farrell Drive and Research Drive, Section 7. Director of Community Development reviewed his report, dated March 6, 1985, and reporting Staff recommendation for approval (78) and suggested conditions, as well as. Planning Commission reasons for denial . Councilman Maryanov stated that he would abstain due to a client relationship with Snedaker Construction. Mayor declared the hearing open. Mike Levin, 2422 Camino Vita, owner of the property, referred to letter by Senator Presley, urging approval , and stated that the application was approved by the Architectural Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 6 2. C.O.P. 5.0351 (Continued) Advisory Committee; that the site is on Farrell Drive, three blocks south of Vista Chino, and zoned for light industrial use; that the project was approved by the Traffic Engineer and City Staff, and the projected traffic is 25 cars per hour, or 200 per day, with a maximum of 300 per day; that the site contains 42% open space; and the Pi-1-P serves as a buffer to the residential area, which allows a bank or restaurant without a conditional use permit, and would cause (78) more traffic than a DMV; and that there will be no entrance on Farrell Drive. Jim Snedaker, 770 Ave. Palos Verdes, builder for the new DMV building, stated that determination was made that the Levin site would be feasible for the project, and it was encouraged by City staff; that there was concern about direct access to Farrell Drive, and that was adjusted to reflect Research Drive; bid was submitted to DMV, and held pending confirmation that the site was suitable to the City; that time was spent to satisfy DMV and City concerns, and staff recommendations for design were followed, which the Staff and AAC approved. Charles Martin, Palm Desert, Architect, skated that the State turned down a number of architectural plans before the matter came to the AAC; that the building was looked at from an energy standpoint, with indigenous landscaping along Farrell and Research Drives ; and the reason for denial was not architectural considerations, because those could have been restudied. James Cioffi , 600 E. Tahquitz, member of AAC, stated that location considerations were deferred to others, but the Committee felt the building was an outstanding piece of architecture, and in disagreement with the Planning Commission in that regard. Bryan Bailey, State Dept. General Services, stated that as of July, 1984, the bid process was delayed in order to try to put site together next to the existing facility; that the State decided, in 1983, that a solution to the need for new facilities should be found in the private sector, and proposals were solicited from seven selected companies, two of which responded, and the Levin proposal was accepted, based on staff input and the location ; that City staff was relied upon to work out parking, traffic, etc.. , and a denial would cause a 2-year setback in the project, *Including re-ad ve•rtising for privately-owned parcels; that the flexibility suggested by the Planning Commission is not real , and depend- ence is made on private property owners to undergo the arduous task of putting together a project of this complexity; and in reliance on initial reactions and discussion with City staff, a lease was entered into with Levin, in excess of $1 million. Hal Wesselrod, San Diego DMV Office, 2191 Escondido, Vista, stated that the Department has outgrown the present site; that the proposed site is ideal for DMV, and an unmanageable amount of traffic should not be generated, since the Depart- ment currently transacts a great deal of business by mail and by appointment. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. ;3:3 i Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 7 2. C.U.P. 5.0351 (Continued) Councilman Birer stated that the M-I-P permits the use, and it is not encroaching into the residential area, has the AAC approval , and will not generate as much traffic as stated; and he recommended approving the project. Councilman Foster stated that he believed the design was substandard, very plain, and does not fit the tone for the area; and that the AAC approval was not unanimous. It was moved by Birer, seconded by Smith, and carried by the following vote, that the Planning Commission denial be overruled, the conditional use permit be approved, and the appeal granted: AYES: Birer, Smith & Bogert NO: Foster ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Maryanov 3. SEWER CONNECTION APPEAL - GOLDEN SANDS MOBILE:HOME PARK Recommendation: That the Council deny appeal by Golden Sands Mobilehome Park for an exemption from sewer connection requirements for the park located east. of Sunrise Way; and authorize a five-year program for connection. Building & Safety Director reviewed his report, dated March 6, 1985, and stated that he cannot support the appeal not to connect to the sewer; that he understood the economic hardship, and since the site is below grade, a pump station would be required; and he recommended the five-year program outlined in the proposed resolution to allow an incremental approach to connecting to the sewer. In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that the Rent Review Commission would have to determine if a (128 hardship exists, which cannot be answered in the abstract, but rather a review of the books for the operation ; that a categorical statement cannot be made that the cost of the connection would or would not constitute a financial hardship; that application would have to be submitted by the park owner; and that there is no reason why the Council could not indicate its views to the Commission, since the Council is not an appeal body for the Commission 's decision. Mayor declared the hearing open. Walter Ingalls, Attorney representing t;he park owner, stated that the owner has maintained the park and there have not been sewer system failures, nor has the public safety been endangered or the tenants inconvenienced ; that there is not a lot of excess profit or leeway; that the park offers the lowest rentals in the City, other than AFCOM, at $140 per month, and if the sewer connection costs must be financed out of that amount, the park will go out of business; that projected costs would mean a $22 per month increase in rents, or 16%, without consideration given for other rent adjust- ments ; that if the costs cannot be passed to the tenants, the owner will go out of business, and if they are passed to the tenants, it will affect people who are on a very marginal income; that the City can provide assistance through the Sewer Facility Fee, and the Council ' s expression to the Rent Review Commission ; and that the park provides an important part of the housing stock. `3:3 Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 8 3. SEWER CONNECTION APPEAL (Continued) There were no further appearances, and the hearing was closed. In answer to question by Council , City Attorney stated that the City cannot lend the credit of the City or make a gift of public funds ; that through a grant of easement, the project might be considered a public improvement rather than a private improvement, which would be possibly financed through an assessment district; and that an increase of S22 per month has been granted in the past by the Commission. Building & Safety Director stated that the recommendation would spread the sewer facility fee over a five year period at 10%, which represents one of the costs involved. Mayor stated that this represents a significant hardship, however, believed that the sewers must be required, and that the Rent Review Commission be asked to do what it can to pass-through the costs. Councilman Maryanov stated that the issue could not be pre-judged, and there would still have to be a hearing before the Commission, and testimony presented. It was moved by Maryanov, seconded by Foster, and unanimously carried, that the appeal be denied; that Resolution 15454 establishing sewer connection program be adopted; that the Rent Review Commission be requested to look `avorably on a situation beyond the control of the park owner and the City, because of State mandate, which poses a unique undue hardship in this case; and that the Staff facilitate the financing as much as possible. 4. P.D. 157 - JIMSAIR DELI/SERVICE STATION/CAR WASH Recommendation: That the Council approve planned development district to allow a gasoline service station, including a delicatessen/restaurant, car wash and car rental storage, for the JimsAir FBO on the west side of Gene Autry Trail , north of Ramon Road, Section 18. Planning Director reviewed report, dated March 6, 1985, and stated that the uses are incidental to the Airport zone, although not specifially included in the master plan. Mayor declared the hearing open. ➢avid Christian, 1000 S. Palm Canyon, representing the applicant, offered to respond to any questions. There were no further appearances, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Foster stated that he believed the use violates the zoning for Airport uses, and is for public purposes and not airport related; that he did not have a problem with the car wash or delicatessen, but was opposed to the service station. In answer to question by Council , Mr. Christian stated that the car wash will be automatic, and mainly used for the car rental function; and that the gasoline pumps are needed for the car rentals, a major marketing effort is not intended; and that most of the food service will be take out, and not a typical restaurant. y� l{ w Hlfi Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 9 4. P.D. 157 (Continued) Councilman Foster stated that if the purpose of the gasoline pumps is to serve the car rental facility, those can be relocated and a full facility is not necessary. He did not believe the combination of gasoline pumps and delica- tessen/restaurant was very classy. Resolution 15455, approving the planned development district as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Smith, seconded by Birer, and carried, Foster voting no, that Resolution 15455 be adopted. 5. SIGN APPEAL - 246 s. PALM CANYON (FRIO FRIO) Recommendation: That the Council consider appeal by Golden State Sign Systems, representing Frio Frio, from Planning Commission denial of sign for 246 S. Palm Canyon. Report reviewed by Planning Director. Mayor declared the hearing open. (131 ) Robert George, Golden State Sign Company, stated that the sign is a continuation of the design used within the interior of the store; that the patio wall of the adjoining business to the north screens the store from traffic until a person is directly in front of the store; that a rheostat can be installed to reduce the amount of neon "light; and requested that the Council inspect the premises. Councilman Foster stated that the issue of neon signs must be addressed, and doing it on a piecemeal basis was a mistake; that the sign is bright and will become the main sign at night, which will start a trend for other stores. His motion to uphold the Planning Commission action, failed for lack of a second. Councilman Birer stated that he believed the store was very attractive, and the sign fits with the design, although he would favor a permanent rheostat to control the brightness. Councilman Maryanov stated that he looked at the site, and believes it is a unique situation, in terms of the type of store and its location, i .e. , a location on the main street, but blocked by the adjoining patio wall ; that he did not see this as a precedent, but agreed that the subject of neon should be addressed; and that this sign is one that would address the need for flexibility. Councilman Smith stated that he was impressed with comments by Planning Commissioner Kaptur, relative to signs fitting the building, and the overall issue should be addressed; and on an individual basis, he did not believe this sign fits the pattern of this building. It was moved by Birer, seconded by Maryanov, and carried by the following vote, that the appeal be granted, and the Planning Commission decision overruled: AYES: Birer, Maryanov & Bogert NOES: Foster & Smith ABSENT: None Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 10 6. ZTA 5.0353 - ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS Recommendation: That the Council amend the Zoning Text to establish a retroactive, two-year time limit for approved architectural applications, including time extension provisions. This item reviewed at the last study session; no further report was given. Mayor declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing was closed. City Clerk read title of the Ordinance, as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9403.00 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS ON PROJECTS REQUIRING ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN CASE 5.0353-ZTA, CITYWIDE. It was moved by Foster, seconded by Smith, and unanimously carried, that further reading be waived, and the Ordinance be introduced for first reading. 7. STREET VACATION - MISSION ROAD/MOUNTAIN VIEW PLACE On February 6, 1985, Council declared intent to vacate a portion of Mission Road/Mountain View Place, and set this as time and place for hearing. Report reviewed by Director of Community Development Stan Johnson, 801 Tahquitz, representing Knudson owner of the premises at 844 Mission Road, reviewed background of tentative parcel map approval which led to the replacement of curbs, and the installation of a tennis court and a new wall along the majority of the frontage; that request for vacation of the portion to enable a 50-ft curb return was made, and subsequently rejected for hearing by the Council ; that the predominant curb return in the Merito Tract is 50-ft; and that a 50-ft return would protect the integrity of the Tract and reduce the traffic hazard, and accomodate the aesthetic concerns of the City. Engineer for the owner stated that a 5-ft dedication was required, and equal to the area of the proposed vacation. Resolution 15456, ordering the vacation, was presented; after which, it was moved by Smith, seconded by Birer, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 15456 be adopted. PUBLIC COMMENTS: a) Jeremy Crocker, 330 W. Arenas, questioned if the Council has received his letter of March 6, 1985, relative the CRA agenda items concerning agreement with McDevitt Construction for use of the Hess property as a temporary construction storage site, which he filed on this date with the City Clerk. He questioned the legality of use of the property for that purpose, and requested that reconsideration be given to the issue. He also read a prepared statement relative to the Sign Ordinance, and discretionary actions by the municipality vs. that of the merchants, and cited the Desert Fashion Plaza construction fence as an extreme example of abuse of discretionary action by the municipality. A copy of the letter is on file with the City Clerk. LEGISLATIVE ACTION: Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 11 8. COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS Recommendation: That the Council approve amendments proposed by Riverside County to its Solid Waste Management Plan. This item reviewed at the last study session ; no further report was given. Resolution 15457 approving amendments, as recommended, was presented; after which, it was moved by Foster, seconded by Maryanov, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 15457 be adopted. CONSENT AGENDA: 9. Minute Order 3552 approving substituted agreement with AYSO for use of DeMuth Park for youth soccer program. 10. Minute Order 3553 awarding contract to Western Pacific Builders, in amount of $19,025, for construction of a cat shelter addition to the City Animal Shelter. 11 . Minute Order 3554 through 3558 granting exemption to certain properties from requirement of sewer connection based on site connection costs in excess of previously established criteria - 650 Linda Vista Drive, 1093 Buena Vista, 735 Granvia Valmonte, 1451 Paseo de Anza, 360 Crestview Drive. 12. Res 15458 approving TTM 19467 for property on the west side of Avenida Caballeros, between Arenas Road and Saturnino Road, R-4, Section 14, Hallmark/Peri-Mel . 13. Res 15459 approving 12-mo. time extension for TTM 18216 for property on the NW corner of East Palm Canyon Drive and Sagebrush Road, R-3, Section 23, Hacker/Ichi Associates. 14. Res 15460 and 15461 approving Payroll Warrants and Claims & Demands. 15. Motion concurring in CRA Res 315, 317, 318 and 319. 16. Res 15462 amending the budget to appropriate $3,000 for purchase of an automatic telephone dialer/programmed message sender. It was moved by Maryanov, seconded by Foster, and unanimously carried, that Resolutions 15458 through 15462 and Minute Orders 3552 through 3558 be adopted. 17. TM 12943 - BONDS Recommendation: That the Council approve release of bonds posted in connection with subdivison improvements for Tract 12943, which expired, and was replaced by improvement bonds posted for Tract 19396 for property on the NW corner of Ramon and E1 Cielo, J.M. Peters. This item reviewed at the last study session ; no further report was given. Resolution 15463, releasing bonds as recommended, was pre- sented ; after which, it was moved by Smith, seconded by Foster, and unanimously carried, that Resolution 15463 be adopted. REPORTS & REQUESTS: .33,) Council Minutes 3-6-85 Page 12 18. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS - Received & Ordered Filed a) Police - 1984 Annual (submitted 2-26-85) (113) 19. CITY COUNCIL reports or requests a) It was moved by Maryanov, seconded by Foster, and unani- mously carried, that Resolution 15464, commending Joan (74) Gattuso and the members of the Sign Ordinance Task Force, for outstanding work in development of the revised Sign Ordinance. 20. PUBLIC reports or requests - None 21 . STAFF reports or requests a) Adrians. City Manager stated that the Planning Commssion action relative to this matter will be final unless appealed to, or by, the Council ; and a recommendation (78) that the business be tied into the Police Department for communication, will be implemented with the Police Chief, and is not a matter required to come to the Council . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business at 11 :15 p.m. , Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk