Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08211972MINUTES city of palo alto August 21, 1972 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:34 p.m. in a regular meeting with Mayor Comstock presiding. Present: Berwald (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Clark, Comstock, Henderson, Norton (arrived 7:44 p.m.) , Pearson, Rosenbaum, Ser►an Absent: Beahrs Sta&ed Urban Development Plan-- . eToIi udatrvr_ of -Planning Cfpmmission Mayor Comstock anrou,tced that he had received a letter from Robert Augsburger, vice president of finance for Stanford University, request- ing continuance until Stanford has had an opportunity to review this matter further. He read aloud this letter. MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Seman, that Item #4 of the agenda be considered out of order at this time for purposes of continu- ance. . The motion passed on .'a unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Mayor Comstock moved, seconded by Susan, that this item be continued to September 25. Further discussion ensued, and Councilman Clark noted that the date of September 25 would find some Council members absent on vacation. He said he felt this is something that deserved the consideration of the entire Council, and he would therefore request that the notion be amended to state October 2. Mayor Comstock *hi Councilwoman Semen agreed with the change of date to October 2. The motion to continue the Planning Commission's recommendation regard- ing the Staged Urban Development Plan to October 2, 1972, pesaed on a unanimous voice vote. Ad Hoc Architectural Design Review Committee Mayor Comstock asked Councilwoman Pearson, chairman of the committee, to report. He congratulated the ad hoc committee for the hard work they have undertaken on the report which was submitted to the Council and then referred to the Policy and Procedures committee. Councilwoman Pearson also complimented the committee on the fine work they performed. She said the planning staff had reviewed their report, and the Policy and Procedures Committee had the opportunity to examine these reports. She said the Policy and Procedures Committee's conclu- sion is that there is no question that some architectural review system 2 $ 2 $/21/72 1 must be set up for Palo Alto. It is late, but not too late to accomp- lish this, and the work of the design review committee will be an attempt to prevent ,:he proliferation of Southern California architecture in Palo Alto. (Councilman Berwald arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Councilwoman Pearson outlined the differences between the Planning Commission's and staff's recommendations and the Policy and Procedures Committee recommendations, namely, that the final architectural design review committee consist of five instead of three members, and secondly, that the architectural review committee should take under consideration the entire city and not just parts of the city. They should be equipped to deal with the total city. (Vice Mayor Norton arrived at 7:44 p.m.) MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson, in behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, moved: a. that the report of the Ad Hoc Architectural Design Review Cc•rn ittee be endorsed in principle and that an Architectural Design Review Committee be established as follows: (1) to consist of five members, at least three of w:iom shall be design professionals; (2) that the jurisdiction of said committee be over all new structures and exterior re:nodeIings in the City except for singly -developed, single-family dwellings, duplexes, and those uses permitted in the R-1 zon without a Use Permit; (3) that the committee be adequately staffed by the Planning Department; (4) that while the committee is advisory to the Council and should report its findings to the Council, from time to time, it shall report its findings on those- items which are now reviewed by the Planning Commission, to wit: P --C rezoning and D suffix, to the Planning Com- mission. In cases of ail item, that do not now come before the Planning Commission, the committee shall report its findings to the Directnr of Planning, chose responsibility it shall be to inform the Plann ng Commission of actions 'taken; (5) that issuance of building permits shall be contingent on a satisfactory report by the Planning Director to the Building Department as to the action or decision of said committee; Councilman Henderson stated that Item a (4) concerned him, especially the words "from time to time." He would prefer to see something more specific, such as requirement of a monthly report in the form of a listing of the projects reviewed by the committee. Councilwoman Pearson said it was her understanding that something similar to the listing supplied by the Zoning Administrator would be received by tee Council. See Page 325 2_8-3 8/21/72 Councilman t4erwald explained that his intent when caking the motion in committee was that the committee would report to Council quarterly or rather "at periodic intervals on its general activities." Specific findings on specific items to be reported to the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Seman raised a question concerning 11-2 of the Ad Iioc Architectural Design Review Committee's report and asked whether single-family residences in the 0-S district would be included in the ordinance. Director of Planning Knox responded to Councilwoman Seman that single- family residences in the 0-S district would be included under the ordinance, and this will be the subject of a report that the Planning Department will submit when the ordinance goes to the Policy and Pro- cedures Committee. Vice Chairman Klein of the Planning Commission stated that the Planning Commission's views and recommendations, are before Council this evening. The commission was almost completely in accord with the Policy and Procedures Committee's recommendations with two further concerns. First, the Planning Commission had some concern as to the system by which the Architectural Design Review Committee would report, to whom, and in what order, and how it would fit in. The Planning Commission was most concerned as to P -C development proposals that go to the Architectural Review Committee first, then to the Planning Commission. If the Plan- ning Commission said, for example, that the density was toe high and they have to cut back on the buildings by one third or one half, then the developer would have to go back to the Architectural Review Com- mittee, then back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was concerned that this would be a cumbersome procedure and for that reason wanted staff to give further thought as to how the reporting procedures should work and come up with more detail on that point. The second concern is that the Planning Commission felt because of that proposal, it would like Council to have an opportunity to hear the matter when it comes back in draft ordinance form and give Council the benefit of the Planning Commission's advice on that point and anything else that might came up. Mayor Comstock stated that the intention is to hove a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Policy and Procedures Committee when the draft ordinance is ready. Councilman Henderson inquired as to whether there would be minutes of these meetings, and Councilwoman Pearson responded that she assumed it would be handled the way any other ,committee is run with minutes being produced. AMENDMENT: Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Councilwoman Seman,-Chat paragrsph 1.a.(4) be amended to insert after the word "findings" the word "monthly" and to delete after "...to the Council" the phrase "from time to time." Councilwoman Pearson said that she agreed, in part, that she, too, had some concern with inclusion of "from time to time," bet she said she would object to having the word "monthly" put in, as that kind of detail will be decided at the joint Planning Commission -Policy and Procedures Committee meeting when both groups have the ordinance before thee. 2 8 A - 8/21/72 Councilman Clark agreed. He said he hated to lock this in, and he felt that this is too scan to make this point. He felt it would cut down the effectiveness of the committee if too strict a reporting s^.!..dule is imposed. Councilman Berwald agreed that it would be better to work out the refinements later and make changes then as necessary. He said he die not see any changes needed now. He said regarding inclusion of "from time to time" he was sure the committee would want to make a report periodically on trends, philosophy, and concepts. Councilman Henderson stated that if Councilwoman Seman agreed, he would ;withdraw the request to insert the word "monthly" in the amendment and let the committee and Planning Commission determine in whit way and how the committee should report. Councilwoman Semen confirmed her agreement. The amendment to delete "frog time :o time" from 1.a.4) passed on a unanimous voice vote. Councilwoman Setts; n noted that. the League of Worsen Voters recommendation submitted in a letter handed to Council this evening is that the Archi- tectural Design Review Committee be advisory to the Planning Commission and that the review of this committee should be basically informal and early, while plans are in the preliminary stages. The motion as amended passed on a unanimous voice vote. '40TION: Councilwoman Pearson, in behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, moved b. that the City Attorney be instructed to draw up an ordinance to effectuate the design review procedure at as early a date as possible; c. that said ordinance include revisions to affected chapters of the zoning ordinance to conform them to the proposed design review procedure and ordinance; d. that the staff return to the Council alternatives for appeal procedures, and e. that said ordinance and subject be returned to the Policy and Procedures Committee for further review, refinement, and recommendation. A ENDMENT : Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Berwald, that Item e. above be amended to read, as follows, "e. that said ordinance and subject be returned to the Planling Commission and the Policy and Procedures Committee for a joint meeting and for further review, refinement, and recommendation. The amendment passed on a unanimous voice vote. The motion adopting Itema b, c, d, and e (as amended) passed on a unanimous voice vote. Mayor Comstock recognized Mr. Rodney Heft. 285' 8/21/72 Rodney Heft, 974 Van Auken Circle, vice chairman of the Ad Hoc Architectural Design Review Committee, thanked Council for its action this evening and said that it had been a great pleasure for the members of the committee to work on this subject. He said all committee members are available to Council for any further help they may give. Mayor Comstock congratulated the committee f.or the great service it has rendered to the community. He said the Council is very deeply appreciative of this. Old Police/Fire Building MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson, in behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, moved that staff be directed to prepare a letter inviting bids for the use of the old Police/Fire Building, develop a draft of the proposed lease, and prepare drawings of possible land lease con- figurations. Councilman Henderson made a correction to the Policy and Procedures Committee minutes of August 8, 1972, page a, third paragraph on this subject, noting that on the third line "...and a basement of 15,000 square feet" should read "...and a basement of 1,500 square feet." Richard M. Nieto, 951 Dennis Drive, stated that he had spoken at the committee. He said the [nt;aatiaaa v'a*ratn4ng much of the building will be for City use, how much for commnercial use, or in other words, how much of a split does the City want. ..silo :.c ■.cu GLC laves John D. Snow, 105 Lowell., Palo Alto, on behalf of the Veterans Associ- ation, thanked Councilwoman Pearson for her courtesy at the last com- mittee meeting. He.'sald in regard to the discussion that has taken place of possible use of this building by the Veterans Association, he wished to ask one question this evening, and that is, "Are we going to move in or not?" City Manager Sipel responded to Mr. Snow and said he could not answer that at this point in time. Mr. Snow said he understood Mr. Sipel's answer to mean that he should go beck to the veterans and tell them to be patient regarding possible use of the old Police/Fire Building by their association. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Planning Commission Review of Sk line Scenic Recreation Route "General Design Guidelines" MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by liend'e 'eon, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission which .recommends approval of the recommendations made in the staff report, with the provision, however, that the Open Space (C-5).zone district regulations be amended as soon as practicable to include a 200 -foot setback along scenic routes within the City limits. Councilwoman Pearc.cn then referred to the Planning Commission minuts, p. 304, and said she would offer two amendments concerning a recommenda- tion made by both the Citizens'' Committee and Planning Department. 2 8 6 8/21/72 AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the district regulations be amended to include a 20 -foot recreation easement along or near Skyline for biking, hiking, and horseback riding and for viewpoints. Lawrence Klein, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, said that he was somewhat con.'ssed, because the report now includes the provisions of the amendment in that the Planning Commission's recommendation was to adopt the recommendations as set forth in the staff report of August 4 with one exception, and most of what Councilwoman -Pearson just said is covered in item 15 of that report. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: Councilwoman Pearson withdrew her amendment, vi t.h the agreement of Mayor Comstock. AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the staff be directed to develop with the Skyline Citizens Advisory Com- mittee a roadside rest turnout along Skyline within the city limits of Palo Alto. Vice Chairman Klein said that Item 3B, (3) of the report falls in line with that recommendation. The amendment passed on a unanimous voice vote. Vice Mayor Norton commented that he assumed the minutes would reflect the understanding that the Planning Commission recommendation does include the earlier amendment which was moved and then withdrawn by Councilwoman Pearson. Councilman Beawald stated chat he is in favor of what is proposed but didn't understand the reason fc:r the 200 -foot setback. It seems to him there would be strong arguments on the side of staff that it should be up to 200 feet. He asked staff to respond to this. Vice Chairman Klein responded that it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that language stating "...up: to 200 feet" was too vague. They felt it would be better to start with a definite rule and put the burden on the applicant to apply for a variance, if necessary. Planning Director Naphtali Knox said the staff feels to the contrary. Staff believes that 200 feet is too rigid. They believe there will be cases where a building could be set closer than 200 feet, and forcing the setback to be greater may cause cuts that will 4e more damaging to the terrain than the building itself. In such eases the entire variance procedure would have to be gone through,' Staff feels an effort should be made to reduce the burden in terms of Variances. At_this point staff would suggest language stating a distance of 30 feet to 200 feet. This would give the staff and . Planning Commission some leeway; 4r. Klein said that while Mr, Knox' comments May have some weight-, the Planning Commission's feeling is that this is an extraordinary situation. The Skyline area is one of the City's moat valuable natural assets, and if there is going to be something good there, it is worth the time of the Planning -Commission and Council to considex°_ variance applications when necessary. Councilman Berwald asked if the developers up therewould have to come to the Planning Department for approval, or if it were changed to read "...from 30 feet to 200 feet" could somebody just go in and build something 3D:feet from the road. 2-8 7 8/21/72 Planning Director Knox responded that all of the areas under Open Space would come before the Planning Commission for site and design review. Councilman berwald commented that he is persuaded by the arguments to amend this This is arbitrary in that it might not be good design. You right be asking people to pave a 200 -foot driveway or cut through scenic contours. AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Clark, that the language be changed on Item 3 of the staff report, first line from the bottom to read, "...to include a setback from 30 to 200 feet along scenic routes within the City limits." Councilman Clark asked staff to review for him the mechanics of a pro- posed facility being built there. Who says to the applicants, "the law sass 200 feet, but we don't think it should be 200 feet because of cut and fill, etc." He said the City is less apt to be locked into something bad if every setback has to be given individual consideration. It seers if there is a scale of 30--200 feet, the developer will he told. "Your setback here for this reason will be -- feet." He said if the ordinance is wiitten to specify 200 feet, he wants to be sure that 200 feet will be modified by variance in cases where staff thinks --ft. would be better. City Attorney Stone responded that an applicant in this district would have to core to sl to and design procedures; however, if there is a Dandatory 200 -ft. setback, and it is not appropriate, site and design does not relieve the applicant from that requirement. He would have to file a request for a variance, and it would have to come along with site and design procedure ir, tandem. Councilman Clark said this seems cumbersome, and he hoped Council would pass the amendment. Mayo Comstock asked if you say 30 to 200 ft., what happens if everyone comes in at 30 f t . City Attorney Stone responded that under site and design procedures, the'' applicant can be turned down at every step of the way. Mayor Comstock then asked if there is some way to indicate to the appli- cant in advance that X ft. setback is appropriate on his particular piece of property, Planning Director Knox said staff hopes soon to have architectural .design and review underway. It would be part of this function to advise the applicant. When an applicant says he has a piece of property on Skyline he wishes to develop, he will be greeted at the counter by a professional who will tell hire that his property is under }-S zoning. The staff person would find out whether he is going to develop one unit or more. If he is going to have four or five emits, he would, for example, be told that the clustering principle of the 0-S ordinance would apply. -If all he is talking about is one lot, it would be pointed out to him that there is a setback requirement that may vary from 30 feet to 200 feet, Staff would look at a contour map with him, and staff would probably go out to the site and make some investigation and see where the builaina'would go and then make a determination. Then staff, would bring a report to the Archi- tectural Advisory Committee, together with initial plans of the applicant, and the applicant 'would discuss his individual building with that com- mittee. All of these things would be in€ormal and preliminary before applicant comes to the Planning Commission for site and design review under 0-S. 288 8/21/72 Councilman Clark commented that he thinks it is unjust to add an addi- tional cost of the variance to the property owner's expenses. Couldn't it be stated so that setbacks will be a minimum of 30 feet and a maximum of 200 feet? Vice Mayor Norton commented that he thought 200 feet was a reasonable minimum. Councilwoman Sedan asked what basis staff would have to decide what is appropriate for each piece of property. The purpose is to establish a scenic corridor. Thirty feet wouldn't do that. Two hundred feet would ,:sake this very clear. She said she could not see that the procedure is more cumbersome. Councilman Henderson said there isn't going to be that much development along Skyline. He felt the burden of proof should be put on the applicant. Vice Chairman Mein said he doesn't see the variance procedure as a burden when it is coupled with site and design procedure anyway, and he also felt there are r:any cases where 200 feet might be inappropriate. In some places the City might want to have the setback 350 feet from the road. Councilman Clark said it seems strange to him that someone should have to go through a variance procedure and pay $75 for it because the City thinks in their particular case the setback should be less than 200 feet. Ceorge Bechtel, gob Shauna Lane, Palo Alto, a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Skyline Scenic Recreation Route, said this issue had been discussed by the committee. He said he doesn't feel that a general guideline of 200 feet is unreasonable, and he supported the amendment to the Open Space zoning ordinance to include a setback of 200 feet along all the scenic roads within the city limits. Councilwoman Pearson said she was distressed to hear the comments from the staff. One of the main goals of the City is to make sure this telains a recreation road. It is the burden of the variance applicant tce,ay the fee to get what he wants. The City has worked long and hard to get minimum standards for Skyline, and going through -the variance procedure is not too difficult for the number who will be applying on Skyline. AMENDMENT i•'ITHDR4WN: The emendment concerning Item 3 of the staff report was withdrawn by Councilman Berwald with the agreement of Councilman Clark. AMENDMENT: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Semen, that in the event, or the basis of special circumstances, staff, Architectural Design Committee, and/or Planning Commission suggests a variance is in order that the fee for such variance to waived where architectural control and scenic easements along Skyline are at stake. Vice Mayor Norton said he thinks Council will find that staff does not recommend variances ---that staff usually tells the property owner the. best thing he can go for. City Attorney Stone commented that it should be kept in mind that this is a special situation in the Open Space district. If Council wishes to change its variance fee ordinance so that in those instances that where staff, architectural review, or Planning Commdssion recommends a variance 289 8/21/72 from the 200 -foot requirement, that can be done as long as it is re- stricted to site and design Open Space situation. It should be speci- fically directed to this kind of zoning. Councilman Henderson commented that he thinks a builder would be very fortunate to get such a variance, and a $75 fee would be well worth it to the builder. Councilwoman Semen stated she favored the amendment. Her understanding is that this is to cover cases where the builder is not requesting a variance, but the staff is insisting that the development must be closer to the road and a variance is therefore required. The amendment was defeated on the following roll call vote: -Ayes: Berwald, Clark, Rosenbaum, Semen Noes: Comstock, Henderson, Norton. Pearson The motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission, as arr,end 1d, passed on a unanimous voice vote. 'T'...t- 0. F-. tVF Fi-.ltifi V`a S. .iF �A 77 77 MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following ordinance and caved, seconded by Henderson, its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 2672 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE. COUNCIL OF THE CITY 4F PALO ALTO FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1972-1973 AT $.74 PER $100 ASSESSED VALUATION" The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. Ad Valorem Assessment for the Fiscal ear - n vane t• venue .strict Off -Street Parking Project Nos. . -1'. d 2-14 Mayor Comstock acknowledged receipt of the City Controller's report dated August 9, 1972, concerning parking district assessment rates for 1972-73. He said that Council had also received this evening a letter from Mr. Paul M. Lufkin, senior warden of All Saints Episcopal Church, caking a foal request for exemption. MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Pearson, ita adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 2672 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE FIXTG Ali VALOREM ASSESSMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1972 -73 --UNIVERSITY AVP UE DISTRICT --OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NOS. 52-13 AND 32-14" Mayor Comstock noted that the rate to be inserted is $.427 per $100 of assessed valuation. He then asked for comments from staff regarding the communication from All Saints Church. City Manager Sipel said he recalls a similar zaquest in at least one past year. There sere undoubtedly good reasons for including the 290 0/21/72 property that is presently in the assessment district at the time the assessment district was formed. 'At the same time, there may be some changes that should be looked at. Those changes may relate to properties other than All Saints Church. He said he would prefer to see a general assignment to the staff to look at all properties in the district rather than passing the suggestion made by Mr. Lufkin this evening. City Attorney Stone commented that if certain properties are exluded from the district at this point in time, a new spreading of the existing assessment would be requited. There isn't time to do that. For that reason, it would technically not be a reasonable situation in which certain properties would suddenly be exempt, requiring instantaneous respreading of the assessment. This should be done during formal hearing procedures. Staff could be assigned to work up the figures, but it would not be possible at this time to exclude some particular proper- ties. City Controller Alfred J. Mitchell added that tonight Council should probably set the rate as recommended. Each year adjustments are made because of nonpayment, lack of revenue from parking meters, etc. Next year, if it is so desired to include exemption of church property, adjustments could be made in the rate. Councilman Henderson asked Mr. Mitchell to explain what Plan G E on_ds are. They are listed along with the others in the material received by Council, yet they don't seem to require approval. City Controller Mitchell responded that Council acted on the G Bond items several weeks ago when a hearing was held concerning the commer- cial square footage. In contrast to the ad valorem assessment that Council has before it tonight, -the assessment for the Plan G bonds is based on commercial square footage. Reference to G Bonds was included in the current nateeial for information only. Councilman Henderson said that in the future he would like to have e notation to teat effect. Cryatal Gaxeage, representing Downtown Palo Alto, Inc, stated that the' members of the organization who are property owners and who are directly affected by assessment district policies have long been interested in having Council and staff look at the assessment district from the standpoint of including those not already in or excluding some who believe they should no longer be in the diatrict. She suggested that if this becomes a referrst to the staff, one of the things they should be dfr. tari to look at in t ►e »naalhi lity of enlarging the district. City Manager Sipel responded that Mrs. Gamage's comments illustrate one of the reasons why there have been no changes since the district was first established. When you make one change, it tends to open up the ball game to a lot of other changes leadic.g to a very complicated process, and a lot of different factors are involved. He suggested if Council wishes to give the staff an assignment, it should be precise and should be formulated within the next sixty days. Staff would be happy to a aiat Council to define what the study might be. The ordinance was adopted on aunanimous voice vote. 291 8/21/72 Ad Valorem Assessment for Fiscal Year 1972-73 Cal iornla ATinue DITtr ct y treat ar n ro act o. -5 MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Pearson, its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 2674 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE FIXING AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972 -73 --CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 55-5" Mayor Comstock noted that the rate to be inserted is 8.666 per $100 of assessed valuation. The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. Ordinance Fixin Ad Valorem Assessment for sc_T Year 2-73---Caii��ornia Avenue District Off-StreeE-ValTing Project No. 60 - MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Norton, its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 2675 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE FIXING AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972 -73 --CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT N0. 60-8" Mayor Comstock noted that the rate to be inserted is $.554 per $100 of assessed valuation. The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. Merit Rule Revisions (CMR:410:2) City Manager Sipel noted that the resolution before Council this evening adopts certain merit rule changes which are presented in detail in the staff report,. Including reduction in the normal retirement age to 50 years for firemen entering service after September 1, 1972; modification of overtime policy -to accommodate epecial work -week scheduling; modi- fication of sick leave accrual rate for fire shift employees; adjustment in vacation qualifying period; policy clarification on vacation pay at termination; waiver of grievance procedure steps if mutually agreeable; and provision for union business agent access to City work locations. A one-time paid day off during April, 1973, in order to test a new three-day week -end concept can be authorized by the City Manager under existing merit rule previsions. Councilman Henderson raised a question concerning Page 1 of the resolution, section 3, and said he was confused between items (a) and (b). -- Jay Rounds, Director of Personnel, responded to Councilman Henderson's query that the fifty years' requirement would apply only to new employees who enter service after 9/1/72; therefore, the effective part of item (b) is to give the City Manager the option to retain. He said the appropriate change will be made at a later date, but it would be a number of years from nov. 292 8/21/72 Councilman Henderson also raised a questioe concerning Section 5, Accrual of Sick Leave, noting that if a person does not take any sick leave during the course of a year, this money goes into a fund and is held until he or she leaves City employment. He said his computation of this benefit worked out at 4.6% of an individual's salary. City Manager Sipel responded that Councilman Henderson was correct up to a point. Actually, the individual has to he with the City for fifteen years. If he or she leaves before completing fifteen years' service, no benefit for sick leave is granted, If.san employee remains for fifteen years, then the amount of sick leave is multiplied by 2.5% of salary times number of years of service, and this Is how the final figure is reached. MOTION: Councilwoman Seman introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Pearson,. Its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 4636 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING RESOLUTION 4372 TO AMEND s c:rio.:S 407, 509, 603, 702, 706, 1207(f) AND TO ADD SECTION 408 AND SUBSECTION (g) TO SECTION 1102 TO THE MERIT SYSTEM RULES AND REGULATIONS AND TO GIVE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT TO EE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1974°' The resolution was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. PPC--HUD Annual Arrangements (CMR:411:2) Mayor Comstock noted that Council had two reports from the City Manager and Assistant Director of Planning, Michael Grigoni, and a copy of aerial from the city of Gary, Indiana. He asked if there were questions from Council. Councilwoman Pearson read from the first page of the August 17 report, last paragraph, "With the program marks and the HUB concerns in mind, the PPC would develop a County -wide comprehensive development plan for submittal to HUD. This plan would he a Lot piiatien of comprehen- sive development plans developed by each individual city." She asked who pays for the compilation or will it be allocated among the cities. Mr. Grigoni responded that in all of the discussions with HUD so far, there has been no discussion of local funding for the actual develop- ment of a city development plan or program. Councilwoman Pearson asked if he meant that each individual city would have to put into a fund to support chis. City Manage► :'ipei responded that each city would fund the development of its own plan, and if the. PPC were the coordinating mechanism they would stand the cost, and if present staff were.tet sufficient to carry out that effort, the city would have to consider additional staff. He said he doesn't think there has been very much thought given to cities' having to provide additional funds. Councilwoman Pearson quote' Page 3, third paragraph, "Even if a suit- able negotiating mechanises could be developed...Palo Alto's negotiating power: might be extremely limited. Larger reities such as San Jose, Could desire voting power in soap proportion to'their population. Even if 2 9 3 8/21/72 there were some skated interest such as housing upon which negotiations could be based, Palo Alto would have limited ability to influence the nature of the final agreement submitted to HUD." She asked in view of the fact that Palo Alto's share might be quite small, what portion of the voting would that give the city. Would there be a further dilution of what Palo Alto might get? Mr. Grigoni responded that that was a point that was an argument against city involvement. Counriivoman Pearson then asked about Page 2, third paragraph, "As the PPC report ment innu& _ er oarly version of the Blo,:k Grant bill showed almost '$3,000,000 in community development money allocated to the County of Santa Clara but not distributed to the cities therein. The Annual Arrangement planning and funding process could provide the mechanism for allocating that money among the cities in Santa Clara County." She asked what Palo Alto is going to get out of it. Is there $3,000,000 around that is not being allocated at this moment? City Manager Sipe). responded that the point staff was trying to make in the report is that there are funds provided in a present bill that are allocated to the county. The formula for any further allocation is not known. It could be that the Annual Arrangements will be the _mechanism by which that money is a?.located. There is a variety of ways that the reney could be allocated such as (1) population, (2) some fort of need, or (3) interest and ability to take on projects that the federal government may want to have implemented. Mr. Grigoni interjected that that reference to additional $3,000,000 was on top of what an earlier bill suggested might be Palo Alto's share, because Palo Alto's population is above 50,000. Looking at Page 4 of the PPC's report on Annual Arrartgements, he asked Council to notice the chart at the bottom outlining the potential monies involved in a Community Development block grant, and Palo Alto is down for a formula share based en population, poverty, and other factors of about: $390,000. At the bottom of the Total Formula Share column is $.2,747,000 that is unallocated. That io the additional money that was referred -to. No one knows has that will be allocated at this point. HUD has suggested that this kind of negotiating arrangement could be how it might be appropriated in the county. City Manager Sipel said the City had a similar type of experience on the P.E.P. - ` - ii f der'1 eeveenment al leeee-A n certain ..u.+: }iCU�iili�[ Uitl�_LC the i\:a..,-�..._ _,_ 6a.ia�u amount of dollars to the county a=nd the three largest cities got their own separate programs. The remaining cities had to negotiate with the county to get a share of the total funds, and a formula was developed which it was felt was about as equitable as possible under the circume stances. This is the same kind of concept. The Annual Arrangements could provide a way to work into this and provide an apparatus by which it could be handled. Councilwoman Seman asked if the plan were implemented, would San Jose be forced to give up its awn Annual Arrangement, or coeld it also have one as it currently does. Mr. Grigoni responded that he didn't believe San Jose would be forced to give up its Arrangement, but the discussions he has had have pointed .to the possibility of coating together with San Jose includedti When 294 • 8/21/72 discussions first originated, there was some MW) feeling that there should be twa separate arrangements in the Santa Clara County, but San Jose kind of urged HUD to consider San Jose with all of the other cities. He said he thinko San Jose is reacting to becoming the de- pository of most of the low -moderate income housing in the county and was perhaps taking a long-range look at this. Mr. Eric Carruthers, representing the Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara County, said that Jerry Smith, Chairman, expresses his regrets for not being present to answer the questions Council might have. He said that with specific regard to Councilwoman Pearson's question regarding the local costs of preparing a consolidated program, the City Manager's answer is true that the costs would be borne locally; however, at a meeting held last week, with the city councils of Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Serena, etc., a HUD representative said this was a pro- gram they were interested in having succeed on the local level and that for the new calendar of funding, a Joint process would be an attractive process for HUD to fund. This could mean that the cost of the local government could be used as :catching funds for a federal grant to assist in integrating and reconciling plans. The City might look with optimise to a modest amount of federal money to help initiate the pro- cess. Mayor Comstock comglented that staff is recommending that the City con- tinue to be involved but not rake a final decision until mere refined information is available. He asked if that would create any difficulty. Mr. Carruthers replied that it would not. It is the kind of proposal that PPC would find helpful. An expression of continuing interest on the part of the City of Palo E.lto would be a positive act. Councilman Berwald commented that he was very impressed with the PPC report and Mr. Crigoni's report, and in view of wx,at Mr. Carruthers has said he would Nave to approve the staff recommendation. MOTION: Councilsar. Berwald moved, seconded by Henderson, that the City continue its involvement in the PPC consideration of the Annual Arrangement approach, but hold its decision to support the concept until a later date. In the continuing discussions between the PPC and HUD, the City should obtain additional information for Council consideration such as when the arrangement year will begin, what level of funding may be available, the specific nature of HUD z,cnceru , what alternative mechanisms for comnt;'w1de neftatietiene might be used, and what might be the impact on the County Fair Share Housing Plan. When such questions are resolved, the Council should take a position on the Annual Arrangement concept. Councilwoman Pearson asked if Palo Alto will get development plans from the various cities, and are the other cities going to provide low - moderate income housing. Can Palo Alto expect distribution of this kind of housing throughout the county? She said she is not sure what Palo Alto is expecting to get out of this. She asked if there are some cities that do not have any plans for lov- and moderate -income housing now; Mr. Carruthers responded that he thinks there are some cities that do not have plans. He said he thinks for some tine it will be a matter of issue between cities, and it will be useful to have a device for negotiating along the cities as to their responsibilities -295 8/21/72 Councilwoman Pearson commented that endless mounts of money are spent on reports, and no houses are built. Mr. Carruthers concurred, but said that what is lacking is any other weans. The primary concern on the first go -round is to get a viable process going to deal with issues which are going to be greatest. Mr. Grigoni said that the staff report suggests there ought to be a direct link between Annual Arrangement and host reward -type monies are allocated and what cities are doing with regard to low- and moderate - income housing. What he is hearing from Mr. Carruthers in terms of what HUD is saying is that possibly that might not be pushed during the first year. See Page 325 Councilwoman Semen commented that she serves on the subcommittee of the PPC Housing Advisory Committee, and the committee has been trudging through the Fair Share plan, and is at the point of recommending it to PPC for endorsement only to send it out to the communities for dis- cussion, and the vote to do that was just barely squeaking through. She said she could view the concept of the Annual Arrangement with great pleasure and hoped it could be ironed out. It will be a help to all communities to take their fair share of responsibility in regard to low- and moderate -income housing. Councilwoman Pearson said she thought it would be appropriate that the comments made here be relayed to other cities. She thought the other cities should know how Palo Alto feels. The motion to approve the staff recommendation passed on a unanimous voice vote. Foothills USilitLes Reassessment (0 ;412:2) Mayor Comstock commented that Council had received a report from staff which reviews the hietory of the previous assessment, proposes possi- bilities for reassessment, describes the process that must be engaged in, and'provides resolutions which set the process in action. He said that chile the Council will be considering the subject of Foothills utilities reassessment, it will not be taking final action this evening, but will be setting the stage for a process that will lead to that. He asked for comments from staff. ,Assistant City Manager Warren Deverel said that staff felt it was appropriate to go over in detail the background of some of these assess - meet districts and the rationale that ie being used in developing the reassessment process. He then showed slides to demonstrate and illus- trate these details. In his commentary on the sewer system, he stated that there are no design costs because with the intensity of usage contemplated in the zoning, septic tanks are entirely permissible under Palo Alto Code and county health ordinances. Vice Mayor Norton asked if he -were saying that because under the new density septic tanks are permissible, s'o sewer system was necessary. Mr. Deverel replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Norton asked if this would imply if Council approved it that if somebody actually developed a single unit on a ten -acre site that 2 9 b 8/21/72 The city would let him use a septic tank in lieu of connecting to the sewer system. Mr. Deverel said that the City would permit use of a septic tank in- stead of connecting to the sewer, depending upon the conditions of the development. If there were to be a cluster development, then there would be a number of factors to be considered in whether a sewer con- nection would be required of whether septic tanks would be permissible. The point here is that if property owners are going to connect to the sewer, there will be a connection charge that will recover the cost of constructing that portion of the sewer which is necessary to serve that facility. Vice Mayor Norton said he would be very concerned if by this action, Council were impliedly giving approval to the actual use of septic tanks in the Foothills in light of the fact that we do have a sewer line. This study assumes a lot of things that aren't in fact true, namely, that we don't have a sewer line. He said if staff came in with a proposal that would envision somebody's using a septic tank, he would have a great deal of difficulty with it. City Manager Sipel pointed out that there are septic tanks now in use in the Foothills. Mr. Deverel said the point also needs to be made that what staff is of necessity doing is having to design conservatively to the legally per- missible level of service and if it is Council's desire that property owners in the area ultimately do connect to the sewer and do not use septic tanks, it is within the purview of the Council to establish those types of rules. A`_ the close of the slide presentation, Mr. Deverel said that with these concepts in mind, Council has the -option to proceed with the next steps Outlined in the staff report. The final step would be distribution of reassessment funds. In response to a question from Mayor Comstock as to whether or not these were in comparable dollars, Mr. Deverel stated that in calcu- lating the cost, staff used the costs that were in effect at the time the project was built. Councilman gerwald asked on the matter of sewers, various uses are contemplated in the O -S zone other than residences and on some of these nonresidential types -of uses, would staff still be satisfied with septic tanks. Mr. Deverel responded that the exercise the City is going through con- templates the most conservative system or the most liberal from the standpoint of reassessments, acid that is the zoning established by recent ordinance. If a usage is permitted above that, the City has the option to develop connection charges that would recollect the cost of building that portion of tt'e system.- It is the City's intent to develop charges `that will assess property owners for any uses above that contemplated in the exercise. Councilman Clark commented that this is a direction he is happy to see being taken and one more factor should be included to make it equitable, and that is the property owner should get X dollars plus an investment factor. 297 8/21/72 Mr. Deverel said what he thinks Councilman Clark is referring to is that the City would be refunding cheaper dollars. If Council feels an inflation factor is applicable, a number of approaches can be taken, i.e., construction price index, general price index, etc. Councilman Clark said he thought at the time the motion is made, there should be an amendment to include such factors. City Attorney Stone said that just from a legal standpoint, it should be noted that during the period between the time that the assessment was levied and the present, all of the owners had the right to develop to the maximum intensity of use then allowed, and for that it can be legally considered that payment would be to the City the inflationary increase and the interest, because there was definitely a benefit on thole properties at all times in that period. The benefit to the property of the existence of the assessment districts was the right, which was valuable consideration, to develop to the then intensities of use. Counci bath Clark said that would be true up to the time the City iv - posed a moratorium on the area. City Controller Alfred 3. Mitchell said he wished to advise Council that he had consulted. with Mr. Deverel and Ms associates and that he endorsed the figures that appear en the repot. The question of interest factor to the benefit of the property owner is one that staff might take under consideration and report back to the Council. It is not simple. Some people who elected to go to bond have peen paying piece by piece over the years. All of these projects didn't happen at one time. Mayor Cosztcck suggested if this is to be considered, perhaps it should be done in conjunction with preparation of the assessment oil... Staff has scheduled a report to Council on September 11 on the assessment roll, and if Council were to give direction to do something of that nature, that would be the time to give a response. Councilman Rosenbaum said he was wondering about the mechanics of such a repayment, He assumes bonds are still outstanding, and a lot of money really hasn't been paid. What would the City do-echange the length of the bonds, reduce length of payments? Mr. Deverel responded that staff has been going through the process of identifying ehe status of payments on every piece of property, and - reassessment would take a number of forme --some in the form of direct cash repayments, some in the case of forgiving -future payments and adjusting payments against bonds, and others would be forgiving delin- quencies that have occurred. Sill Anderson, City Treasurer, added that each district would be hcndled separately. 59-1 bonds have been completely paid off. Any- thing eppiicable to that district would be paid in cash. 62-8 is about midway through that bond issue. There are seven remaining assessments which the City would assume the obligation of paying. 68-82, the gas issue, those are all deferred assessments. No refund would to appli- cable, just a recalculation. Councilman Rosenbaum asked what happens when property changes hands. Mr. Anderson responded that refunds would be applicable to the owner of record on September 1 1 . Staff's assumption here is the current 2 9 8 8/21/72 property owner has, in the purchase price, assured the benefit or liability of any assessments. Councilman kosenbaum said there have been stories about foreclosures. In that case it would seem inequitable to pay one who has foreclosed. City Attorney Stone replied that the same principle that he stated before would applyeethe property at that time had a certain value. If is impossible to say without further evidence that ariy foreclosure was caused by anything that had to do with the development rights of the particular piece of property. That is a burden which it would be im- possible to go into enough to say that the City had any obligation, There have been, as far as he knows, no foreclosures by the state for nonpayresnt of taxes or anybody else for nonpayment of assessments. Councilman Rosenbaum said he raised the point because the City is go- ing through this procedure out of a feeling of equity that it should attempt to be fair with the property owners. Councilwoman Pearsor, commented that one point seems to have been lost. The sewer and water districts were established from 1959 on and were installed between 1959 and 1962. The I..ivinf;ston & Blayney Report was not authorized until 1969. The owners had the property and could have proposed any development that they had in mind up until 1969. She said she thinks there are plenty of things on record saying that these people had opportunity between 1959 and 1969 to develop their property. Councilman Henderson referred to Page 3 of the report re deferred asseasre nts and said he assumed this would be the opposite side of the coin from what Councilman Clark was saying. What would happen to any deferred aee essments on the Foothills lands that might be purchased by a regional park district. Would deferred assessments be part o! the cost of those lands or would i.t be written off as a city cost, not redeemable? }sr. Deverel responded that there were no deferred assessments in the upper foothills area. Councilman Henderson then commented that the report states diet some assessments are past due and hence not returnable. What magnitude might that be, and would there be an opportunity for the landowner to pay off on thr.-basis of the original assessment plus_ his penalty, less a revised assessment? He would think it aright not be completely fair that a person get nothing back if, in fact, he were to pay that plus penalty.._ _ Hr. Deverel responded that the actual amount of delinquencies is quite small. The City has contacted the County Assessor, and it is passible to merely cancel liens against property as a result of assessments. The property over would not get anything back on that which is delis- quent. Anything that he has paid and is entitled to, he would get. Councilwoman Semen said she is curious about -the procedure followed if somebody wants to develop, how does he come to the City and decide whether there is going to be a septic tank or hook, up to the sewer, and what is the procedure involved, and who makes the decision. Secondly, what would be the difference in cost? If this reassessment had not occurred, there would be a certain cost for hooking up to the severs, and with this reassessment it would be a different cost. She said she would like to get a picture of those two costs. 2 9 9 8/21/72 Cdr. Deverel responded to the first part of the question that Coe oil and staff must recognize that this reassessment exercise is going to create a new ball game for the utilities rules and rates in the Foot- hills area. The City has the power under its ordinances and building codes to requtre sewers under certain conditions and as of right now, these are spelled out specifically. For the past part these same rules would apply in the Foothills, and therefore the City has the power to designate where conditions are such --health conditions, drainage con- ditions, or whatever they may be --are such to require a sewer that the property owner will connect to the sewer. Responding to the second part of the question, he added it is difficult to make any rules of thumb or averages about what the costs might be. It is a question of hoer far the property owner is from a potential sewer connection. If it were a question simply of economics as to whether he would build a septic tank or connect to the sewer, a number of factors would enter in --the cost of building the septic tank as opposed to the cost of getting to the sewer system, including the pos- sibility of crossing some other property owner's property through ease - tent. Councilwoman Seran consented that the fact that the property owner would have to pay core to be connected to the sewer because he would have to pick up a part of that whole assessment would not have any bearing on the decision as to whether he was to connect to it or not. The City's rules would apply. Mr. Deverel responded that if the building code and the health require- ments stated such that the property owner had to connect, then he would have to connect. If it were discretionary --if there were no physical or health stipulations requiring him to connect --it wculd be simply a question of economics. Councilwoman Semen Aattd fog - in costs would be. any ball park figures of what the difference Ray Femmel, Chief Engineer, Water -Gas --Sewer Division, responded that the costs of a septic tank in that area would run from approximately $1,500 to $3,000 per lot. The current rules and regulations set forth in the Uniform Plumbing Code say that the homeowner must connect to a public sewer if that sewer is available to the household. That means if the household is within 200 feet of that sewer. Councilwoman Semen said that still isn't exactly the answer to her question. If w1thuee this reassessment it would cost 5100 to connect to the sewer, with the reassessment, how such more than that would it cost? ttr. Deverel said the City is not in a position to answer that yet. Councilman Rosenbaun said he assumes the utilities staff considered the possibility of attempting to design a sewer system for this reduced density. Would that be a reasonable approach and would it solve some of these problems? Mr. Deverel replied that staff considered it, but the press of time and the recognition that such a system would not be required under the existing zoning precluded their going ahead with it. In order to cal- culate the connection charges for the future system, staff will have to go through this exercise. It is something that; is planned for the future. 900 $/21/72 Councilman Rosenbaum asked why it wouldn't be simpler to take care of that now. Since the sewer system is there, wouldn't redesigning it for this lower level of use be simpler? Mr. Deverel responded that the reassessment wouldn't be valid. Property owners would be able to challenge the proceedings in court. The City's own rules and regulations and county health code say you can use septic tanks under these conditions. In order to be entirely legal and de- fensible it was necessary to design to a conservative system. In this case, no system. MOTION: Mayor Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Pearson, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 4637 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION DIREC1IMF REASSESSMENT - PORTIONS OF FOOTHILLS ANNEXATION NO. 3 SANITARY TRUNK SEWERS AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - PROJECT NO. 62-8" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Berwald, that the staff investigate the possibility of application of an inflation factor to rebates offered Foothills property owners. City Manager Sipel commented that this could change the schedule, and staff would assess the possibility and try to advise Council before September 11. Vice Mayor Norton said he was not clear as to what Councilman Clark meant by 13infiation factor." Councilman Clark responded that over a 13 -year period there has been a great change in the value of the dollar and that perhaps it is signifi- cant enough to be cranked iuto this. It may be inappropriate when the answer cows out to do anything about it, but he said he thought in all fairness some consideration should be given the idea.. Councilman Berwald asked if staff had d cuaaed this with bond counsel. City Attorney Stone said the entire matter had been gone into with bond counsel. Ail of this has been approved by him. It was felt by bond counsel, and staff agrees, that the interest is the payment for the right to develop. It was felt that this was a matter that was not legally required. Councilman Bel -weld asked .tf Council had a recommendation by staff at this time regarding whether the City should delve into this matter. City Manager Sipel responded that the recommendation in the report is that one that staff would suggest. It is ai very clean, fair, and equitable process, and any change in what is suggested will complicate matters to the point where he didn't feel satisfactory results would be achieved. Staff's general feeling is that the City should stay away from the subject of interest and changing values of dollars. The bond counsel concurs in this. MOTION WITHDRAWN: Councilman Clark withdrew the notion, with the agreement of Councils Remold. 301 8/21/72 Recycling of Solid Waste (Cif:407:2) Mayor Comstock stated that Council had the City Manager's report with the proposed agreement and proposed ordinance. Councilman Henderson asked about page 2 of the contract under "duties of the contractor," last sentence. He suggested "by City" should be changed to say "by City Controller." City Manager Sipel said the contract was set up so that there is a single administrator and that person is designated earlier in the re- port. The City Manager is responsible for the contract, and he would call upon the person involved. He felt to change this in the manner proposed would divide the responsibility for the administration of tb:e contract. City Controller Mitchell said he would defer to the Manager on this point. Councilman Henderson then referred to page 3 of the staff report, where the last line under "Revenues and Costs" speaks of an appropriation of $30,000 being required, 0,000 per month for ten months and the con- tract itself on page 3 refers to this as a 12 -month agreement. Is this consistent? City Manager Sipel replied the additional two months, or a maximum of $6,000, would be picked up in next year's budget. Councilman Henderson asked as a further selling point is there any way staff might estimate roughly how much is saved by not having to pick up these materials in the regular garbage collection, and is there any significant saving in the dump area itself? Mr. Deverel said in actual practice this represents e fairly small por- tion of the tonnage the City takes to the dump. The saving is small. Councilwoman Pearson said that she recycles acid what she would like to have is three different garbage cans, cne for cans, one for papers, and one for garbage,, She wondered if the City would get to that, as she felt it'is the only way to get everyone to participate in the recycling effort. Mr. Deverel said what Councilwoman Pearson is seeking is total recycling in the City, but staff feels the place to do that is at the p`linr of disposal rather than at the point of collection, because it would raise collection costs substantially., The disposal point is the correct one from the standpoint of costs and convenience to everyone to perform recycling. Staff is actively involved in the project. A work plan has been developed and staff is starting to collect data and plans to have a Capital Improvement Project for 1973-74. Councilwoman Pearson asked if the plan is including any other cities or areas In this project. fr. Deverel said some of the neighboring cities are included as poten- tial partners in the arrangement. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Comstock, that the Mayor beauthorizedto sign the agreement with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company for the operation and management of the recycling program. 3 0 2 8/21(72 Councilman Rosenbaum asked if staff had any estimate of what percentage -o€ recycleable materials in the city are being recycled. Mr. Deverel responded that Mr. Beck estimates 20%. Councilwoman Seman said the SPUR-ABAG proposal relates to solid wastes and asked what happened with the funding for the pilot project. Mr. Deverel reported that, as directed, staff contacted Ai3AG and indi- cated Council's wholehearted interest in this subject. They advised that the group which was taking action the day after the Council meeting was essentially an ad hoc group that had generalized interest but no mandate from ABAG. They took under advisement a number of factors and have now come to the point where they are reforming them- selves into a working -level committee and they are going to develop a cost estimate for developing the project. Nobody seems to know where the funds are coming from. The Ford Foundation has indicated they are net willing to continue 100% funding of the project itself or the pilot project and funds should be sought from agencies which are going -to benefit from it. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following ordinance and mo-ied, seconded. by Comstock, its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 2676 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO. ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1972-1973 TO PROVIDE FOR RECYCLING CENTER SERVICE AND OPERATION" City Manager Sipel asked the record to state that he doesn't feel S.C. is the best policy to ,take money from the Capital Improvement Fund for what is essentially an operation n;,xv alone year a coacaui ivcak should be taken at the refuse rates so that they support the City's total recycling program. Councilwoman Pearson said at the same time she thinks some rewards for those who do recycle should be considered. The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous voice vote. Report on Town Affiliation Conference Councilwoman Serian reported that at the Town Affiliation Conference held iii Scaeele, Vice Mayor L orLeela daughter, Cynthia, wen a first place award in the art exhibit associated with the Conference. She further reported great enthusiasm or the part of other participating cities in connection with the observatory project Palo Alto and its Sister City, Oaxaca, have undertaken. She said this was regarded as a great step in the field of cultural exchange to include development exchange, or in other words, to help each other. Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra MOTION:_ Councilwoman Seman moved, seconded by Comstock, to refer the letter received concerning the Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra and the subject it pertains to to the City -School Liaison Committee. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. 3 0 3 8/21/72 Oral Communications 1. Todd McEwen, 753 Garland Drive, who has been working with KZSU, stated that one and a half years ago he started the machines rolling to record the Palo Alto City Council meetings. He is about to leave Palo Alto for a long time and he wished this evening to thank the City and the staff for their help in putting Council meetings on the air via KZSU. 2. Mr. J. M. Willits, 2185 Waverley Street, Addressed Council con- cerning the conduct of persons talking aloud at Council meetings and disturbing others, He said there is a need for a procedure to control such persons. He also spoke about the appointments in the Council Chamber. City Manager Sipel responded to Mr. Willits and invited him to make an appointment with the City Manager to discuss some of Mr. Willits' concerns. Meetinj of August 28 Mayor Comstock stated that he would be absent from the meeting next Mcnday, August: 28, and that in his absence Vice Mayor Norton would take the Chair. Meeting o ptember 5 Cancelled Mayor Comstock announced that the regularly scheduled meeting of September 5 (the_ day following Labor Day) has been cancelled. :here will be a regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, September -11. Adj ournmen t The meeting was adjourned.at 10:50 p,m. APPROVED: L4-1 ,k5Nit_ Mayor Arms-: : City Clerk /r` F 3 0 4 8/21/72