Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-28 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCL MINUTE5 Regular Meeting April 28, 1980 ITEM Mayor Henderson - wished Aleta Watson, San Jose Mercury, well with her new assignment Oral Communications I. Helen McStravl ck, 562 Mi l i tary Way Consent Calendar- Action Items 8aylands Interpretive Center Improvements Property Exchange, County of Santa Clara Grant/Ash Mini -Park Public Hearing; University Avenue 0ffstreet Perking Assessent District No. 75-638 CITY OF PALO ALTO PAGE 589 589 589 589 590 Grading Plan - Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Areas 5 9 1 Sign Ordinance Enforcement 5 9 7 Proposal to Reduce Traffic Congestion from Dumbarton 5 9 9 Bridge Ordi nonce re Barking Dogs ' 6 0 0 Council Meeting for Week of May 26 6 0 0 May 5 Council Meeting - Vice Mayor Sher nay be late 6 0 0 Adj3 +rn nt 6 0 1 a • Regular Meeting April 28, 1980 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto' met or this date in the Council - chambers at 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m., Mayor Henderson presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: None Mayor Henderson commented with appreciation on the presence of Aleta Watson of the San Jose Mercury, and wished her well in her new assignment covering school board matters in Palo Alto. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Helen McStravick, 562 Miltary Way, spoke of the hazards posed for nearby residents by a business at Military Way and El Camino called the Trailer Hitch, 3876 El Camino Real, where vehicles and trailers were serviced;there were also a print shop and a dry cleaning shop, all three of which used explosive materials in their work. Patronage for these shops, along with traffic for two nearby liquor stores, she said, ,...cause a serious threat to our future She submitted a petition signed by herself and twenty-four neighbors telling of a serious fire in the week ending April 26 at The Trailer Hitch, and suggesting that that business be asked to change its location. CONSENT CALENDAR None Referral Items Action Items BAYLAt4DS INTERPRETIVE CENTER BOARDWALK . : Staff recommends that Council approve the park improvement ordinance for modifications to the Baylands Interpretive Center Boardwalk. ORDINANCE 3198 entitled ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCtL OF Tiltr CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPT 1 NG A PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF- NCW RAILINGS ON THE BOARDWALK AND TWO OVERLOOKS WITH BENCHES IN UYXBEE PARK.' (First Reading 4/14/80 passed 8••0, Fazziro absent) EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY ZWIRMTRTIMMffir"TCMR:219:0) Staff recommends that Council find that the propsed exchange of land withwithihe county will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and authorize the mayor to sign the propsed exchange agreement and the grant and quitclaim deeds required to implement the agreement. 4/28/80 589 1 MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council approve the consent calendar. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING: UNIVERSITY AVENUE trintreiri.� r s (C14R:2 3:0) Mayor Henderson said that it was the time and place for a public hearing on the question of raising maximum interest rates at which assessment bonds may be sold, from 8 percent to 10 percent. People who were interested could express themselves in opposition or support of the plan. The increase was necessary to make possible the sale of the bonds at this time of current high interest rate markets. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open, and asked City Clerk Ann Tanner to report on any written reports or protests she may have received. Ann Tanner, City Clerk, replied that she had received no protests. Councilmember Eyerly asked that the record show that he would not participate in the item since he was a member of the assessment district. ;en Jones, special bond counsel of Jones, Hall, Hill and White, said (4/28/80) that 11 a.m, at his office in San Francisco had been fixed for the time and place of receiving bids, Ann Tanner, City Clerk of Palo Alto, had been in attendance. One bid had been received, and a report on the contents of that bid had been distributed to Councilmembers; the bid had been 92 percent of par with coupon rates at 9.25 percent, with bonds maturing from 1981 through 1989, 9.5;0 percent for bonds maturing from 1990 through 1993, and 7.25 percent or bonds maturing in 1994 through 1995 --overall maturing had been a ?5 -year schedule. The net interest rate to the assessment district, faking into account the discount and the coupon rates, computes to 9.48364 percent, Mr. Jones said his office recommended that the bid be accepted. He commented en the unpre- dictability of the money market in the last several months: "At the time that the notice inviting bids was structured --almost a month ago --our office, in consultation with the major purchasers of these kind of boards, liscussed specifications for the bid, and we reached the conclusion that we should allow an addition of up to 8 percent, which was reflected in the bid. We were told at that time that they thought that even with the condition of the market at that time, that they could probably come in at something like 95 percent of par, 10 percent coupon, but they thought the additional 3 percent was needed in the event of a further deterioration of the market. So we set it up to require that no bids of less than 92 mould be acceptable. Since that time, of course,the market recovered very substantially about two weeks ago, and represented the largest single improvement in the municipal bond market I think in the history of the country, and we therefore hoped and expected to have more interest in this issue. However, it is a very small amount, $175,000 is extremely small in the municipal market; the reaction to the improvement in the interest rates has been that almost every issue that's been standing in the wings to cow to market with bonds came to market last week, and the resul ti ng supply has been overwhelming, with the consequence that at the beginning of this week there's been what the experts call 'a softening of the market,' and there's a.tendency for the rates to go bad: up. The net result is the one bid, and I'm disappointed and I'm sure that the Counc i i i s ; at the same time the bid is near the market for a small issue of this size, and that is the reason for our reco mend i ng that it be accepted . " Council r Levy asked what the rating of the bonds is. 4/28/80 590 Mr. Jones said, "Well, that's the other feature. These are assessment bonds and there's no Moody's rating, or Standard and Poor's; the market accepts them as unrated bonds that are placed largely with individual investors and the number of investment bond houses that buy them are very limited. The regular list of active birders varies anywhere from four to twelve, depending on the issue, the location, and the market conditions. The market has been remarkably steady throughout these unsettled periods, but the bonds are unrated and for that reason simply do not attract the same rates and the same outlets as the rated bonds do. They're unrated for two reasons; one is the size of the issue, the other is that they're special assessment bonds the security of which is limited to the assessments levied against the University Avenue parking district. In past years, before the advent of Proposition 13, there was a general city backup in city bonds in event of delinquencies, which has disappeared with the applicability of Proposition 13. That concern has led to a dropping out of the major investment houses and a total inability to get a rating of the bonds --they simply do not have the stature to have a rating." Vice Mayor Sher asked if people or representatives of people in the assessment district such as Downtown Palo Alto Incorporated, had any reaction to the interest rates; they, after all, are the ones who are going to have to pay the assessment. There were no people present to speak on that issue. Since the bid had been made that morning he assumed there had not been time to obtain any reaction from those people to the bid. Vice Mayor Sher asked how fast the bid had to be accepted --was there a week? Mr. Janes replied that any money bid was good for twenty-four hours. Vice Mayor Sher said that if the time were not so short it would perhaps have been wise to give the people in the assessment district an opportunity to react. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel introduced the following resolutions and seconded by Witherspoon, moved their adoption by Council: RESOLUTION 5789 entitled "A RESOLUTION ORDERING CHAS At4D MODIFICATIONS." RESOLUTION 5790 entitled "A RESOLUTION AWARDING SALE OF BONDS . " The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyerly not partici- pating. SING PLAN EO:: Q `" " U DISPOSAL AREAS (CF4t:231:0) Ken Kaye, Eckbo Kaye Associates, said he would speak to the Baylands Master Plan adopted in 1978 as it related to the grading plan for the landfill* "...which fits within a context cf a design concept." There was to be a change in the landfill toward higher and bulkier; he projected transparencies on the Councilchamber wall to show how the plan would be phased, those changes still in process. The 150 acres had been designated by Council, he said, as "...a strategic recreational amenity." His firm had vied it from the standpoint of potential for a passive recreation facility. Maximum Might had been limited to 44 feet, to be reached in about 15 years. His f i ray had outlined two meadows with access from E rcadero Way, a pastoral park with 48 -foot height, thus giving more capacity in the landfill. The towers of the sewage treatment plant provided a visual scale for height in the transparencies. 4/28/80 591 The proposed grade of 3 percent (three feet rise or fall per 100 feet) met the engineering requirements for the landfill. There would be vegetation, both for visual screening and to attract and feed birds. Vice Mayor Sher ascertained that it had been proposed to seal off the landfill areas in stages --he asked how that would be accomplished. Mr. Kaye said that phases of closing off would begin in two to five years from now --he pointed out areas A through D saying that as sealing off took place recreational facilities would be screened off from the landfill operation. Vice Mayor Sher ascertained that Areas A through E would be closed by 1985; the "flexible" area, F, would be closed, maximum length of time, at the end of 1990, with, by 1995, all areas closed, landscaped and open to public use as recreation area, with landfilling screened off until about 19x0. Vice Mayor Sher asked if the extended landfill plan were an unmitigated disaster or a benefit in disguise. Mr. Kaye replied that the same plan was being adhered to; he did not think that raising the height a bit more was damaging under the cirumstances. Councilrnember Kennel said that in 1975 one diagram of proposed method of filling the dump would fill it from the tidegates up to the present fill area in 13 years. She was concerned that the dump capacity might be over -estimated with the 20.25 year plan. She wondered if ways to diminish refuse were being looked at, beyond home recycling. Dale Pfeiffer, Solid Waste Manager, said two aerial photos in 1977 and 1973 showed how refuse yardage could be calculated from the differences between the photos. Also, there was underway a program in composting, and the Materials Recovery program was going to explore ways to increase industrial recycling, and so they had some confidence in their calculations. Councilmemher Renzel said she thought that if the calculations were wrong there would be trouble because she did not think anyone would want to go higher than the already outrageous 48 feet proposed that evening. Councilor Eyerly said that the staff recommendation was Plan 0 for the grading --he did not have a problem, with that, but he wondered what staff's understanding was about excavation of the ITT property. William Zaner, City Manager, said that staff was planning to use the ITT excavated material for landfill. "Simultaneously we are working on the second part of that assignment which was to attempt to find a way to accommodate the uredging of the harbor, at least on an interim basis or a one -more -shot basis. Cour:cil ber £yerly said that he thought that that evening's proposal opened up occasion for considerable discussion of the ITT property. He would talk about that later, he said. Councilmember Levy said that Plan 8, staff had said, would allow the cost to be spread over a longer time period, permitting the City to accumulate the necessary funds without a general fund loan or use of revenue bonds. He asked if that irony would come from user fees at the dump or if there would be other sources of funding. Mir. Pfeiffer said that most of the money came from the garbage collection rate. 4/28/x(} 592 Council:nember Levy said that page 6 said that calculation of expenses was determined by discounting annual cash flows at 10 percent. He asked if that implied a forecast of a 10 percent inflation rate. Mr. Pfeiffer said that the 10 percent was used more as a common denominator and not meant to forecast an inflation rate. Councilmeember Levy said that then Mr. Pfeiffer assumed there would !e a 10 percent rate of inflation and that costs incurred in the future would be 10 percent higher than costs incurred at the present time --a forecast of a 10 percent inflation rate. He read from Appendix A: "Operating costs are escalated at 10 percent per year, revenues are escalated at 12 percent per year." Why the difference? Corrected See Pg. 642 5/19/80 Mr. Pfeiffer said that capital costs would exceed operational costs; it was consistent with rate setting in the past. Councilmember Witherspoon asked what was included in the estimates in Appendix A by Cooper and Clark of costs per cubic yard of dirt -she understood it did not include capital costs for equipment. Mr. Pfeiffer said the estimate included the cost of trucking along with the cubic yards of dirt; costs for excavating of the ITT property by a contractor averaged out to about $9.50 per cubic yard. Cost of the ITT property had not been included. He did not think any mitigation measures were required for excavating. Councilrnember Witherspoon said she had calculated from the staff report tables that the cost of the topsoil from the ITT property cane to about $31 million, about 78 percent of the total cost. She thought that was very high. Mr. Pfeiffer said he had re -calculated and that cost for importing the topsoil on Plan A came to $9.9 million, 25 percent of the total cost. Cost of importing topsoil for Plan 8 would be $6.7 million, about 19. percent of the total cost. : Mayor Henderson recalled that Council had reducedthetime of closing the dump down to 15 years or as soon as possible. Now he noted that to use Plan 8 the dump would have to be closed in 10 years. Mr. Pfeiffer said that a daily cover requirement at the present time had changed those projections. Now there was an increase of about 20-25 percent in garbage coming in and daily cover, than what was calculated in the earlier assumption of a closing date. Mayor Henderson noted that the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) advisory committee was saying that Palo Alto would not be eligible for «sino eny other 1anofi i i ..at least until mile -1980s." __Mayer Henderson asked if that might be 1990s, instead. Mr. Pfeiffer said that should have read "...late 1980." Corrected Councilmember Renzel said she assumed costs for garbage were based on See Pg. 642 pickup rather than volume of material picked up. 5/19/80 Mr.Pfeiffer said costs to commercial were somewhat higher than just cost of collection. Alan Ferguson, 3491 This, said that in addition to his interest in the landfill matter as a sailor he was also a chemical engineer, working in chemical market research at SRI International for the past 25 years. He had in .that way been involved in the economics of resource recovery. He 4/ 28/80 593 did not think 10 years was a long enough period of time for the dump to be kept open because costs for alternatives were very, very high, Resource recovery was very expensive. He did not think there would be a problem if the landfill were raised to a height of 50 or 60 feet, though the present plan was attractive. He thought Council did not have a good alternative for closing the landfill. Walter Stromquist, 3418 Thomas, said the elevation of the ITT property was zero; he did not think pickleweed would grow if the ITT property were excavated to a depth of 2 and 1/2 feet, cordgrass would grow at 1-3 feet above sea level, and pickleweed from 3-6 feet above sea level. He said that he knew of nothing that grew beneath sea level, and so he did not know how salt marsh could re-establish itself. He cautioned Council about deciding too soon to excavate the ITT land, and avoiding an ecological and environmental disaster. Mayor Henderson said he did not want to re -introduce problems about excavating the ITT property at that time, though Mr. Stromquist had some interesting material. Perhaps a Councilmember could put the topic on the agenda for future discussion. Councilmember Eyerly said problems inherent with the ITT property related to the dump closure plan because dirt was needed for cover. He thought it might be wise to ask staff to return to council with some figures to look at. He did not want to go forward with plans to excavate toe ITT property without having a supplemental environmental impact report. There were questions about where that plan stood with the Santa Clara County Water District» -had the, agreed there was no problem with the excavation? He wondered if building of dikes would be necessary, and about possible need for tidegates or culverts to facilitate water flow. Would pickleweed and cordgrass grow after the excavation? And costs were important. All those things should be discussed sooner rather than later. Ken Schreiber, Assistant Director of Planning and Environment, said that the City had completed the Environmental Impact Report related to the isaayiands Master Plan in 1978. That voluminous series of doeu ents had been judged to be sufficient for basing major policy -level decisions on issues such as the ITT property. The next step was to draw up a design for the excavation of the ITT property and then do an environmental report on the specific ITT excavation plan. Witheut that specific plan there was not a project upon which to do an environmental review. That plan should state what depth of excavation, volume of water that should flow in and out with the tidal flow, rise and fall of the water and kind of vegetation that water level change would permit, then a report, perhaps a supplemental environmental impact report, could be done. Cou€ . s :fir Eyerly said he had hoped that the design would proceed before the drawing up of a supplemental EIR. Me wondered what the timing would be. It appeared that a grading plan was needed right away. What plans were being made for the dredging of the yacht harbor and the salability of those dredgings? Dave Adams, Director of Public Works, said that the decision before Council that evening was entirely separate from the question of where the impermeable cover was to be obtained, and a decision that evening on a grading plate was needed so that garbage taken to the landfill ^ould be placed accordingly. In the meantime staff was soliciting expressions of interest on the excavation from various consultants. If there were problems, staff would return to Council with them. The project was one of total design, and therefore a slow process. 4/28/80 594 Councilmember Eyerly said that he then assumed that staff was searching fcr a consultant and when one was found staff would return to Council "...fcr a big budget amendment to tell us how much all of this is going to cost. Is that the idea, how this is going to happen? Do you have any idea yet as to what type of money we're talking about --how long he's going to have to have after you come to us and we set a policy, if we do?" Mr. Adams said he thought it would probably be a considerable sum; the City would work with the consultant throughout the life of the closure. Councilmember Eyerly said he would let the matter drop, but he foresaw that it would cost a considerable amount of money and then at the end the City could realize that it had not chosen the right alternative for getting fill for dump closure, That distressed him, he said, but he did. not know what could be done right now. Mr. Adams said staff would "...turn it off as soon as that was discovered. We would progress in stages." MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council nhprove Plan S of the staff recommendations as follows: Continue refuse disposal operations in Palo Alto through 1990, with final landscaping taking place in the summer of 1992, to result in: 1) beginning in 1981, excavating of 23,803 cubic yards (in place) per year from the ITT property; 2) beginning in 1980, importing of 30,500 cubic yards (in place) per year of topsoil, year-round. In addition to the imported topsoil, approximately 10,000 annual cubic yards of composting will be produced while the landfill is open; 3) material recovery will produce 10,000 cubic yards of compost per year through about 1990, or while the landfill is operating; 4) the 12 -year cost to the City of $18,80,000 (present value) that includes all osts such as: a) disposal and haul costs to Hellyer" Canyon (as per JPA Phase I i report) from January 19.91 through July 1992: b) 1 vdscaping of completed landfill; c) operation and maintenance of landfill; d) composting `;while the landfill is open. Councilmember Witherspoon said she sharedsome of the concerns Councilmember Eyerly had voiced; she did not want "...to make policy backwards," and she thought the matter should be put on the agenda for another evening. She understood that the City had made the last payment of the $2.3 million on the ITT property and she would like to have more information on uses in the future for that passive recreational area. Vice Mayor Sher said that Mr. Ferguson's mints rested dieec by to the graving plan; about there not being any but a vary nigh --cost alternative to the use of the dump if it were closed in 1990, had not been addressed. He would like to hear staff's comments on that. Dale Pfeiffer, Solid Waste Manager, said that the JPA was talking about the high cost of alternatives also. "Sy 1990 we won't be alone -- Sunnyvale and six other cities and counties will be in the same boat, Resource recovery is very expensive but compared to available landfill that probably is the most economic option,...it takes tire." Vice Mayor Sher asked "...What if there is no place to put the garbage in 1990? Mr. Pfeiffer answered, "Then it's a long haul to landfill and landfill site 1 4/28/80 595 Councilmember Renzel said she thought it was absolutely urgent that Palo Alto reduce its refuse stream and encourage other communities to do likewise. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Brenner, that Council ask staff to explore immediately ways to reduce the waste stream throughout the community --industrial as well as residential, by exploring the rate system based on volume of refuse rather than on cost of pickup. Councilmember Renzel added that in the long range view, volume would be the source of expense, rather than cost of pickup. She thought the design plan should be such that IL would last the duration of need for it; costs should not go higher --that meant the refuse stream had to be cut. Councilmember Fletcher said she thought staff was working on a plan for curbside recycling for industry. Did Councilmember Renzel have another kind of resource recovery in mind? Councilmember Renzel said that people usually responded to their pocketbooks; she thought present refuse rates should be set aside for costs that Corrected would arise in the futures and rates should be based on who was placing See pa. 642 the most refuse. 5/19/80 Councilmember Fletcher said she was concerned about the possibility of the cooling breeze from the bay beiry cut off if the landfill height was raised much more, Councilmember Fazzino said he thought Plan 8 was the only realistic grading plan; he would support it. At the sate time he was concerned about the development of resource recovery —two years of OA talks on the topic had shown how difficult it was to get a site, let alone the technology necessary to run a plant for about seven cities that would be involved with the venture. There might not be an alternative in place before the 1990s. As for the amendment, he did not feel sure that an increase in rates ouuld bring about a reduction in waste. He It old like to see a list of other ways of reducing the waste stream. He acknowledged that an updated FIR would be needed on the ITT property, and he did not think Council should wait until a consultant was at work on the project before changes that would occur resulting from excavation would be assessed. He said he would support the main motion and the amendment. Mayor Henderson said there would be tine for people who objected to a refuse rate increase to voice those objections. Councilmember Levy said h alert ceered tteet ten year from now there would be no alternative fc- landfill. He would support the main motion and the amendment. The idea about increasing rates based on volume of waste was new, and he thought that was worth investigating because the City would have to go to a new level of cost, to which the citizens should become accustoms. Councilmember Brenner said she supported the swain notion; in respect to the amendment she thought it was more than an incentive to diminish the volute of garbage --costs to the City were determined to a large extent on haw fast landfill was used up --the land itself was expensive --and that had not been reflected in the rate structure. Those bringing in truckloads of refuse chose their destinations on the basis of the fees charged, and higher fees might slow that down. 4/28/80 596 AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment, that Council ask staff to explore immediately ways to reduce the waste stream throughout the community -- industrial as well as residential --by exploring the rate system based on volume of refuse rather than on cost of pickup, passed on a unanimous vote. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: The main motion, that Council approve Plan B of the staff recommendation, with a proposed grading plan proceeding toward closure of the landfill in 1990, passed, as amended, passed on a unanimous vote. SIGN ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT (CMR:232:0) Mayor Henderson noted the staff report giving details on enforcement of the sign ordinance, dated April 24, 1980. The report also suggested that some sort of exemption procedure be established. Councilmember Brenner said Councilmenbers had received copies of a letter from San Francisco Savings and Loan. The sign on the west of the building was objected to because it was fastened to what the Building Department called a marquee. San Francisco Savings said that it was not a marquee but simply a portion of the roof that overhung the sidewalk. She wondered how that overhanging had been okayed. Was that normally allowed? Fred Herman, Chief Building Inspectors said that under building code guidelines any projection from a building that extended over public property was a marquee, and was permissible as long as the correct height above the sidewalk was maintained. The only signs currently permitted on marquees were theaters. The ordinance against signs oa other than theater marquees had been changed after the San Francisco Savings sign had been installed, and so it and several other such signs were now non -conforming. The marquee was still permissible. Councilmember Brenner said she thought that to have a marquee -type structure overhang public property was an intrusion on the public right of way. Phi: Vogt, chairman of the Architectural Review Board, said the board had unanimously agreed that some procedure should be available for granting a variance. In several instances a sign could be totally appropriate from an aesthetic and design point of view but yet did not meet the strict terms of the ordinance. The board would like to be able to grant such applications for variance. The ARB pressed for smaller and more discreet signs, and sometimes did not permit as many signs as the ordinance would permit; sometimes a larger sign would be more appropriate in cert.ie r'irreem tercet.. Mayor Henderson asked if the City had control over theater marquees -- there was an unattractive one downtown. Mr. Herman said the City could enforce maintenance; it was doing so now with one theater marquee. Corrected Councilmember Renzel ascertained that the matter before Council was See pg. 543exceptiens for signs that were now being amortized. She thought all new 5/1g/80 signs should meetthe ordinance. She thought that with the requirement for smaller signs it would make all signs more visible. She asked if there could be an exception procedure, making a change in the ordinance apply only to those signs now undergoing amortization. 4/28/80 597 Roy Abrams said he had not had an opportunity to see how to work that out --on the face of it there could be difficulty, if, for example, some pre-existing sign blocked a new sign. Mr. Vogt said he thought most incidents arose in connection with large signs erected before the zoning ordinance took effect. In a few cases the circumstances were such that there was only one fitting place for the sign to be placed, but according to the ordinance it would have been illegal to place the sign there. One such case concerned Studio 0 on Alma, where circumstances called for a roof sign, but a roof sign was now illegal. Permission to grant an exception to the ordinance was desirable in that case and in a few other cases. Councilmember Renzei said the new ordinance would alert architects not Corrected to design buildings that called for roof signs; she said she was more See Pq. 643 concerned with the size, rather than the placement of a sign, 5/19/80 MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Sher, that Council direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an appropriate draft ordinance to establish the exception procedure for the Architectural Review Board to tile for signs. Councilmember Levy said he approved the case -by -case method the ARB ranted to use for appoval of signs. He thought signs designed to catch the attention of the swiftly passing motorist wee out of date; he favored some of the signs on firms in Industrial Park, which, though they covered quite a large space, fit unobtrusively with the buildings themselves. He asked staff why signs elevated five feet from the ground were permitted to have larger overall dimensions than less elevated signs. Naphtali Knox, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said all of the sign ordinance had not been revised --the dimensions Councilmember Levy spoke of were one of the reining u►revised oddities of the ordinance. The dimensions applied to free-standing, not wall, signs. Mr. Vogt said that one such sign had been rejected, but for the reason that the ARB thought there were other signs on those premises that carried the advertising message. That was one such case where the ARB did not permit a sign, though with strict interpretation of the ordinance it would have been permitted. Councilmember Fletcher suggested that permission for signs could be granted from an aesthetic rather than the hardship point of view some- tizias pleaded by lie owner. in tote case of San_ 'rancisco. Federal she did not mind the marquee sign, but she did mind the logo on the free- standing "parking" sign. She ascertained with staff that marquees were assessed from the standpoint of earthquake safety as well as conformance to the sign ordinance, Vice Mayor Sher said he supported the motion; he thought needed flexibility would be provided by a revision in the ordinance. He thought grounds on which ARE could grant exceptions should be included in the ordinance, as had been suggested. That would keep people from applying on other grounds, One exception could be that only signs that were now under the amortization procedure would be considered; another 'middle ground' might be only existing signs or new signs on existing buildings would be considered. He said that flexibility in application of the ordinance was tit % important thing. 4/28/80 5 98 Councilmember Renzel said she would like staff to bring back some alterna- tives; Council could then discuss the merits of those alternative;. Councilmember Renzel noted that one of the criteria was that signs not be detrimental to businesses --she wanted the words "or residences" to be included. Councilmember Brenner said she would like the variance procedure to be as strict as possible, and to have it applied sparingly --limiting variances to existing signs and new signs on old buildings seemed good restrictions. She feared that exceptions might become rules. MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an appropriate draft ordinance to establish the exception procedure for the Architectural Review Board to use for signs, passed on a unanimous vote. RE EST OF VICE MAYOR SHER RE CODE RIDGE Vice Mayor Sher emphasized that the matter he was now speaking about had nothing whatsoever to do with the approach road to and from Dumbarton Bridge. His topic was traffic congestion to and from the bride, and he proposed that a traffic lane, for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) be established to cut down on that congestion. He said that when it was learned that the bridge was to be constructed many had urged that HOY lanes be provided; though it had not yet been done the anticipated need had become more compelling. He thought Council should request the California Department of Transportation to investigate the feasibility of designating an HOV lane on the bridge, at least during peak traffic periods. That lane designation should be made before the bridge opened because once lanes were used by motorists in the customary way it was difficult to "recapture" the lane. He said he thought Santa Clara County supported the policy that new traffic lanes should be designated HOY so that transit i uld be promoted and number of auto trips would be reduced. He thought nearby communities would support that designation. MOTION: Vice !Mayor Sher :roved, seconded by Renzel, that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter to the California Department of Transportation urging that the department investigate thefeasibility of designating High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) lanes on Oumbrion Bridge immediately upon the opening of the new bridge; also, that a copy of the letter be sent to city councils of Menlo Park, Atherton and East Palm, Alto, and to Boards of Supervisors of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, with a note urging these boards to - take similar action. Mayor Henderson recalled - how lanes on the bridge for rapid -transit had been sought --this proposal was a good substitute. Councilmember Eyerly said he thought it would be wise to send the same letter to East Bay cities and counties. - Vice Mayor Sher said he thought it would be good to have unanimity here on the west side of the bridge, and then perhaps approach the east side -he did not want to slow the process. He said he thought it would be good for the proposed letter to say that cities and counties were very concerned about the traffic to result from the bridge, and wanted to do what they could to cut down on the volume. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote. 4/28/80 599 r------_ RErUEST OF MAYOR HENDERSON RE Mayor Henderson said that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors received advice from the Animal Advisory Committee on March 17, 1980, that the ordinance adopted by San Francisco be adopted by the county as part of the anima? ordinance. The Board of Supervisors referred the item to the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) with a request for the cities in the county to study and make recommendations concerning the ordinance. Mayor Henderson said he thought the best recommendation would be to direct the City Attorney to add the regulations concerning barking dogs to the municipal code, Mayor Henderson said that it was difficult for citizens to take action, there were so many steps to go through and consequently relief was delayed. The proposed ordinance simplified that so that any two unrelated persons living within 300 feet of the disturbance may, after signing an affidavit, request a police officer to issue a citation to the owner of the dog. He thought the recommended scale of first offense warning through to fourth offense, $50 fine, seemed reasonable. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Title 6 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to include regulations concerning barking dogs. Councilmember Witherspoon ascertained that the amendment to the ordinance proposed for Palo Alto had been in effect in San Francisco since October, 1975; its effectiveness had not been known to be questioned. She agreed that barking dogs could be maddening; she noted that some people appeared to be very sensitive to barking and didn't like dogs at all, and she thought the stipulation that two unrelated people had to sign an affidavit about the barking was wise. Councilmember Fenzel asked if there were any limitations, as with the Corrected See Po. 643 5/19/80 case of traffic citations. Roy Abrams said that said that the dog owner posted bail, or bait could be forfeited and the owner could go to court and object, as with other misdemeanors. Animal Control people, he added, were working on the entire animal control ordinance, and including in it previsions for barking dogs. He said that with Council's permission he would forward the material for inclusion in their animal control ordinance. Councilmember Brenner ascertained that the two unrelated people had also to be from two separate residential units. MOTION PASSED: The motirn that Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Title 6 of the Palo Alto municipal code to include vtgulatu,ns concerning barking dogs passed on a „ vote. unanimous ire � WEEK OF 14kY 26 William Zaner, City Manager, said that since since May 26 was Memorial Day and occurred on a Monday night, he would suggest that there would be no Council Ming that week. MAY 5 MUM Vice Mayor Sher said that he might attend scme of the industry and Housing Task Force presentation to the Board of Supervisors on the evening of May 6, and sae mould be at the Council meting later. 4/28/80 600 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmernher Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council adjourn. Council adjourned at 9:50 p.m. AFFIRM i APPROVE: 'k- _ 6 ___ 1 1