HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-01 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting August 1, 1994 1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation ................ 73-296 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator ...................... 73-296 ADJOURNMENT ................................................ 73-296 1. Appointments to the Planning Commission ............... 73-297 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 73-297 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1994 ....................... 73-297 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and United States Pollution Control Inc. for City-Generated Hazardous Waste Management Services ................... 73-297 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Rodding-Cleaning Services, Inc. for Providing Cleaning and Video Inspection of Sanitary Sewers ................... 73-297 5. Ordinance 4234 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 9.24 [Minors in Streets and Public Places] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Juvenile Curfew Regula-tions ................................................. 73-298 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 73-298 6. Embarcadero Bridge and Bike Path Extension Project - Right of Way Agreements and Environmental Assessments . 73-298 6A. (Old Item No. 4) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and VoicePro, Inc. for Purchase and Installation of a Voice Mail System ................................ 73-299 7. Approval of Proposed Format and Content for New Mission Driven Budget Document ................................ 73-300 8. Mayor Kniss and Council Member Fazzino re Consideration of Placing an Advisory Measure Regarding the Sand Hill Road Project Site Concept on the November 1994 Ballot . 73-308 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 73-312
08/01/94 73-295
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. ........... 73-313 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 5:35 p.m. PRESENT: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Andersen, Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Subject: City Clerk Gloria Young
Authority: Government Code ∋54957 Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Ron Andersen, Liz Kniss, Dick Rosenbaum) Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk Gloria Young
Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 2. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Her Designee (June Fleming, Jay Rounds) Unrepresented Employees: Management/Confidential
Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 Mayor Kniss announced that there was no action to report with respect to the Closed Sessions. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
08/01/94 73-296
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:32 p.m. PRESENT: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Andersen, Simitian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Planning Commission MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the appointment to the Planning Commission to Monday, August 8, 1994, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Simitian absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding government by the people (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, No. 302, spoke regarding the curfew ordinance. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, spoke regarding concern about bicycle parking spaces on Hamilton Avenue. Mary Ahern, 4215 Ruthelma Avenue, spoke regarding the Day Workers Task Force of Mountain View. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of June 13, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2, 3, and 5, with Item No. 4 removed by Mayor Kniss. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and United States Pollution Control Inc. for City-Generated Hazardous Waste Management Services 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Rodding-Cleaning Services, Inc. for Providing Cleaning and Video Inspection of Sanitary Sewers; change orders not to exceed $5,650. 5. Ordinance 4234 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 9.24 [Minors in Streets and Public Places] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
08/01/94 73-297
Relating to Juvenile Curfew Regulations" (1st Reading 7/18/94, PASSED 6-2, McCown, Simitian "no," Fazzino absent) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3, Andersen, Simitian absent. MOTION PASSED 5-2, for Item No. 5, Fazzino, McCown "no," Andersen, Simitian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 4 would become Item No. 6A. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 6. Embarcadero Bridge and Bike Path Extension Project - Right of Way Agreements and Environmental Assessments Grant of Easement and Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Grant of Easement between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Grant of Easement (Parcel 1) between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District Grant of Easement (Parcel 2) between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the project was ongoing and the design was being developed. It was at the stage where agreements and environmental assessments were necessary. City Manager June Fleming said there was a cost item related to the item which had not been anticipated when the project had begun. The cost was $25,000 to install fencing for the area which was the subject of the easement now being used by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for small storage. The PAUSD would absorb the cost of moving the items and purchasing sheds for storage, and the City agreed to put up the fencing which would enclose the entire area. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to approve: 1) four right-of-way agreements, one with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Attachment 1), one with Stanford University (Attachment 2) and two with the Palo Alto Unified School District (Attachments 3 and 4), and 2) an Environmental Assessment (Attachment 5) for the Embarcadero Bridge and Bike Path Extension Project (CIP No. 10310). Council Member Fazzino asked why chain link fencing would be used. Ms. Fleming said the fence would be black vinyl and aesthetically more pleasing.
08/01/94 73-298
Mayor Kniss said it was another fine example of the City Manager working closely with the PAUSD Superintendent Jim Brown. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Simitian absent. 6A. (Old Item No. 4) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and VoicePro, Inc. for Purchase and Installation of a Voice Mail System Mayor Kniss felt the item was significant. When the system was installed, the public would be able to reach City Hall either day or night, and it would be user-friendly. Also, there would be a human being available to talk to during working hours. Director of Information Resources Dianah Neff said after many years, the voice mail system was being installed at City Hall. The system was developed to meet the public's needs as well as the needs of internal staff. The system would be answered on the public lines by a human being; and at the times that it was answered by voice mail, the option to get out of the voice mail system and speak to a human being would be available. It would take approximately three months to install and it was hoped that by election day the system would be operating. Mayor Kniss asked what would happen differently when someone called City Hall. Ms. Neff said the system was basic and provided call answering, routing capabilities, and the ability to forward calls to a pager if necessary. The features were the same as any other voice mail system. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Acting Vice Mayor Wheeler, to approve that the Council: 1) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with VoicePro, Inc. to provide and install a voice mail system in the amount of $63,075; 2) authorize the City Manager to approve the purchase of electronic circuit cards for the voice mail system in the amount of $60,000; and 3) approve a 10 percent contingency ($6,300) for the project. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion and commended Ms. Fleming and Ms. Neff for bringing the proposal before the Council. He believed voice mail could be an effective tool and increased productivity because administrative assistants would not spend three-quarters of the day writing names and phone numbers. He was pleased that there were all kinds of human alternatives in the system so whenever a member of the public contacted City Hall, he/she was guaranteed an opportunity to speak with a human being. He felt that was important to the success of any voice mail system. Mayor Kniss asked whether a process would be built into the system that would keep the public from pushing buttons several times to reach a human being and then end up going full circle without reaching someone.
08/01/94 73-299
Ms. Neff said there would be an early option in the menu to push "0" which would take it to a backup line that would be answered by another person in the department or another department. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Simitian absent. 7. Approval of Proposed Format and Content for New Mission Driven Budget Document City Manager June Fleming was concerned the Council and members of the public felt the Mission Driven Budget (MDB) was a panacea. It was staff's intent with budgeting to break the mold of presenting in an eloquent form an organizational chart of the City and advising how much it cost to fund and support that organizational chart. The MDB was staff's very best effort to display, in terms of services, what staff provided and the cost to provide it. Council Members had often asked how much it cost to perform a particular task, such as enforcing traffic or running a library. The question was asked because Council was often faced with making difficult service priority decisions and it had been extremely difficult to advise on the cost. As a result, the traditional way of coping was to reduce positions. Reducing positions to balance the budget was not a good way to decide which services should be provided. Staff had attempted to present to the Council through the MDB a service driven budget. Services were provided to keep up with the missions that were selected for the City. The MDB would do a number of things differently but not everything. It would not answer every desire the Council Members wanted to see in the budget; it would answer most desires and, most of all, depict services. It was a budget that would not ask that two positions be cut but that Council decide what level of priority should be given to services, up or down, and staff could then make the adjustments and return to Council. There were internal and external benefits of the MDB. Staff working with the MDB could manage and determine what was being done and goals and objectives could become real which had not been available before. There were benefits to the Council, to the public, and to the staff. It was all about being service linked. Countless hours had been spent by staff to get to the present point with the MDB. The Council had made the first milestone decision a year before when it agreed to have staff move forward with the MDB. It was almost to the point that things were almost irreversible, so the decisions the Council made that evening were extremely important so that the staff could begin to develop the budget for Fiscal Year 1994-95. She emphasized that mistakes would be made which was the reason for a one-year budget. It was hoped that in a few years the MDB would be complete. There had been some internal adjustments to support and complement the MDB. Staff was moving on a tight schedule, and she asked the Council for its patience as the MDB moved forward. Director of Finance Emily Harrison said that last year the Council approved the concept of the MDB. Staff wanted to show the Council the structure it proposed for a budget, which was still conceptual without numbers and positions, and wanted Council's reaction to it from a policy level. There were critical areas in the format that
08/01/94 73-300
needed to be acted upon that evening by the Council in order for staff to move forward. The critical areas were the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) and how it was integrated with the MDB, the level at which staff would show expenditures in the budget document, the level at which the Council would appropriate expenditures, how staff would deal with full-time equivalent positions and the level of detail shown with the services associated with the positions, the budget document in a priority setting role, how the budget would become a living document by returning to the Council throughout the year with the status of accomplishing the MDB goals, how the organizational review would integrate with the MDB process, and staff's recommendation. The most important thing to remember about the MDB was that it was not being done for staff but was being done as a benefit for the Council as decision makers and to the public. Staff would remind the Council of its decision-making enhancements as it went through the prototype. The public would benefit from the MDB by having a more understandable budget, a budget that was based on the services it saw everyday that were delivered by the City departments everyday and the costs associated with the services. Staff also hoped the public would benefit by the fact that because there would be more accountability, that the services would be provided more efficiently and effectively. Time had been spent making the MDB customer-driven, thinking about sales and services and how they were delivered to the customer. The public would be able to give the Council better information about what it wanted in terms of priorities for services. The Council saw in the Fiscal Year 1994-95 handout a department overview which included key priorities and projects for the following year's budget process. It focused on what the department was going to focus on. Also, the department summary would show all the functional areas related to the department with its mission statements and the gross dollars associated with it, the full-time positions, and resource changes. The prototype showed the highest detail at the department level to the lowest detail which was the service level. It showed the highest function of full-time staffing. She referred to the Police Department's prototype, Attachment C of the Appendix which showed all the functional areas in the Police Department, the way that staffing was split by FTE's. The presentation would show the extent to which time was allocated at a very low level between services which showed how serious staff was about making it a service-based budget. It would return as a critical decision to the Council and would force the Council to work with services and not FTE. There were certain administrative positions which was titled Allocated Administration that showed a part of the people's functions which supported Citywide efforts, e.g., department heads attending Senior Management Group meetings every Monday since that could not be allocated to a specific service. After the department level, the next highest level was Functional Area which was the major groupings of services. The presentation of the Functional Area showed the service and a mission statement. Staff realized that impact measures were not enough in terms of telling the Council what the dollars were being allocated for and that there were some key plans that were being accomplished in the next year. The key plans would focus on time, effort, and resources. It also showed a lower level of FTE's
08/01/94 73-301
which tied back to the Functional Areas' summary that showed how many FTE's would be associated with all of major activities. To an even finer level of detail, it showed all of the positions and the time allocation provided for each of the major activities in that functional area which would not work unless there was a very good timekeeping system. Departments were being cautioned, however, as to how low they went in terms of activities. Council Member McCown referred to the Police Department prototype which showed the Functional Area of parking services with two key activities identified; the sleeper parking ordinance and the conversion of Lot S. She asked whether there were numbers that showed what was being budgeted for the conversion of Lot S. Ms. Harrison said there were no numbers for the key plans which were the high level projects that would be accomplished over the following year. Some things were more project oriented, and staff wanted to be sure that they were a part of what the Council reviewed in allocating resources. They did not have to be quantifiable to be a key plan because if they were, they would become an impact measure. Council Member McCown said the sleeper parking ordinance would be adopted on a one-year trial basis and evaluated for its effective-ness. She asked whether there was a way through the budget document that the Council could get a description of what the proposed cost would be if the Council wanted to move resources from existing parking service activities into implementation of a sleeper ordinance and an evaluate its effectiveness. Ms. Harrison said staff would return to the Council with an answer because everything could not be costed out at the subplan level below the major activity. She said how the service adjustments occurred was one of the critical decisions that needed to be made at some point. Another level below the Functional Area level was the Major Activities, which was shown previously at a high level. Council would now see them at the lowest level where the impact measures and line item detail were seen. It showed Salaries and Benefits, Non-Salaries, and Allocated Charges as the three groupings of expenditures for each major activity. The services had been broken out into an extraordinary amount of detail. The trade-off was that the expenditures related to the services were at the higher level. The higher level would be for any service level changes which would be detailed and discussed and where the impact measures that related to efficiency, effectiveness, and performance would be displayed. For the first few years with the MDB, the figures would be meaningless because that kind of performance measurement had not been measured in the past. It should be understood that the goals might be erratic for the first few years. She said the Police Department was a General Fund department, and all the General Fund departments worked the same. There were some real significant differences with Enterprise Fund departments because the enterprises were run based on funds. Each Enterprise Fund had its own fund, e.g., Gas Fund, Electric Fund, Water Fund, etc., and with each of the funds there was an associated rate which was how the whole structure for the MDB
08/01/94 73-302
worked. The public or consumer wanted to know what the rate was and why. The MDB structure was formulated for each utility from a high level in terms of the fund and how commodities were purchased and provided to the customers. Part of the overall rate was not just the operating budget but also the capital program, and the two came together to form a utilities rate. At present, there was an artificial separation: a CIP document and an operating budget; but the rate, whether it was for refuse, electric, etc., was a merge of the capital and operating programs for the utilities. It was a big decision for staff with regard to format because it was important in terms of where the customer would expect to see the information of what went behind the rates. Each of the utilities funds would have a reserve analysis so a person would be able to tell how the funds were doing vis-á-vis the targets of the reserves for each. With regard to the MDB program, staff had committed to bring together key programs that were of interest to the public and Council in one place, programs that crossed departmental lines but had a lot of priority from the Council. She said parking was an example on a major cross-departmental program. It would show the public all the departments participating, what each department did, and what on an inter-departmental basis was planned for the coming year. Council Member McCown asked what the process would be for deciding what programs had cross-departmental analysis and inclusion in the budget. Ms. Harrison said conceptually the departments for the first year had already been chosen but that could change each year. Council Member McCown asked whether there would be the ability to pull together a cross-departmental analysis, that had not been included, during the budget process when the document was being worked by the Finance Committee and the public. Ms. Harrison said it could be done for anything that crossed departmental lines. The benefit of the cross-departmental programs was that it forced departments to plan together when getting them ready for the budget. It was not just for information purposes; it was to coordinate five or ten different missions before the budget process was even started. Also, staffing associated with the cross-departmental programs would be shown in the budget document. Staff wanted to make the budget a living document. The proposal was to return to Council probably three times during the year to update what was happening with the key plans, and the departments, and, on an exception basis, the impact measures. The exception basis was because there were hundreds of impact measures. If the impact measures were not going to be exceeded or going to be met, they would not be brought to the Council's attention. The first report Council would see would be halfway through the year because the first three months were not significant. Every financial, accounting, or administrative system in the City was being redone to accommodate the MDB. Staff had to redo the entire budget and accounting system, rewrite the Palo Alto Municipal Code, develop project reporting, etc.
08/01/94 73-303
Mayor Kniss asked what was anticipated with regard to cooperation. Ms. Harrison found it amazing that the concept had achieved the level of acceptance in the organization that it had which was due to the guidance from the Council and the City Manager that a changed needed to be made. Ms. Fleming said it was evident to her and the staff that the City was functioning in a very different environment where a number of things had to happen. Firstly, staff had to thoroughly understand, appreciate, and be involved in any massive changes. It was a process that had been driven from the bottom up which was essential. Secondly, the City was functioning in an environment where the community demanded to know, be involved, and had to have the City's current present information in a simple, understandable fashion. Thirdly, the City was functioning in an environment where there was not unlimited resources available; moneys were more difficult to attain and the Council needed to make priority decisions. It was staff's responsibility to assist the Council in doing that. She said the staff had not reinvented the wheel; other cities had been looked at. Program budgeting was not a new concept but there were some pieces that were Palo Alto's and different, and the Council might need to give staff some leverage as the pieces were being implemented. In most program budgets; the effectiveness and efficiency measures did not work for Palo Alto. Impact measures would not be seen in other budgets, it worked best for Palo Alto. The Council had previously indicated it wanted to be able to measure how effective the City was and that meant the impact the services had on the community. When the process was started, it was with the General Fund, but the more progress that was made the more Utilities realized that it did not want to be left out. It now included the Utilities Department and the General Fund departments. Ms. Harrison summarized the key points for the Council: 1) staff's proposal was that the capital program for the Utilities Departments be integrated as part of the Utilities overall budget. Utility rates represented the combination of an operating and capital budget needs. In the General Fund, there was not often the same close linkage between a capital project and an area of service. For example, the Senior Center seismic retrofit, while it benefitted senior citizens, was really only an improvement to a leased property on the City side. Where there was a close nexus between a capital project and a service, such as with park or playground equipment, those would still be shown as part of the department presentation; 2) the expenditure detail, having the much lower level of detail for each service but at the service level having salaries, non-salaries and allocated costs; 3 the presentation of FTE positions at the Functional Area and Major Activity level; 4) if it were chosen that services would be adjusted, that would be the level that priorities would be set for the budget and staff would return to Council with how those service adjustments would affect FTE's and line items; 5) periodic performance reporting, the living document; 6) what to do with the Organizational Review recommendations which would adjust services. Staff asked for the Council's understanding in order to
08/01/94 73-304
get the MDB in place by 1995-96, staff would not be able to completely work through the issues; and 7) the first MDB budget was an experiment and staff preferred a one-year budget rather than a two-year. Council Member Huber asked whether Capital Improvement Project (CIP) General Fund projects could be included in MDB. Ms. Harrison said there were many General Fund projects that had dotted line relationships to major activities within the depart-ments, e.g., the Senior Center seismic retrofit of approximately $3 million. There was not a major activity that capital project supported that could, therefore, be integrated in the same way as the overhead lines or undergrounding for the utilities could be integrated which directly related to services in the department. Other projects might be in one department such as computer upgrade which bought more computer capacity, which would be for the entire City. The linkage between the Capital Program and the General Fund was much more tenuous than in each of the utilities funds. There was a whole capital program that was only for producing utilities services. Parks augmentation program which needed playground equipment was a perfect example. It belonged in the Parks Division and needed to be shown as something that was important and needed to move forward. On the other hand, the vault remodel did not further the mission of the Finance Depart-ment, but it needed to get done. Council Member Wheeler referred to the way and quantity in which Council was now provided with information on employees. She applauded the effort that had gone into it and felt it was useful information for the Council as it discussed issues on service levels. When reading through the document she found herself wanting more information. Now that she could see titles associated with periods of time, such as .02 FTE of someone's time spent on particular projects, she wanted to know what those people did. She thought it might be good for the Human Resources Department to provide that type of information to the Council, but it did not need to be part of the budget process. Ms. Harrison said the MDB process needed to stabilize before staff went into a lot of detail. The allocation of time for the first two years was a guesstimate. Council Member Wheeler said the present Council during the previous few years had tried to approach the document and the budget process on a fairly high policy level and she felt that was appropriately where it belonged. Faced with too much detail, the Council might slip back into the habit of micromanaging when it was really staff's and management's function to move resources around. Ms. Fleming said detailed information was provided because Council had pressed for it, but during budget hearings she would strongly resist telling the Council where each .02 FTE of any person's time went and would prefer the focus be on the service and policy issues and whether Council wanted service at a certain level.
08/01/94 73-305
She, as City Manager, had the obligation to keep the Council on the policy path. Staff originally planned to show detail at a higher level; but each time it was discussed with Council, staff felt pressured to show more detail about personnel. Council Member Wheeler understood impact measures would measure ongoing projects from year-to-year so the Council could see how the projects were improving against certain goals. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Staff had spent a lot of time in-house working through impact measure issues. There was a real desire by departments to have yes/no impact measures, e.g., yes it was completed, no it was not completed. In some cases, that was appropriate but not at the same level as percentage or numbers. To the extent that it made sense to have something that was not quantifiable, staff did not want to force fit the MDB structure. Staff wanted it to make sense, not reproduce the Sunnyvale type budget. Key plans were there for that reason, for the one time that staff needed to do a demand management study or complete an Embarcadero bridge. For example, in the accounting division, if Council wanted an unqualified opinion every year, it would be a yes/no answer. It was still an impact measure and it said how well the City was doing. Council Member Wheeler said in addition to trying to measure ongoing projects, she thought it was important to select impact measures that related back to the central missions of the depart-ments or the Functional Areas. She did not want the budget to become a kind of burden either to the people formulating the budget or to the Council who was trying to get through it as a policy document. Ms. Harrison said the staff wanted to use the impact measures to compare not only the things in the past but how other cities that provided comparable services were doing. It would not be a short-term goal because the whole area or municipal performance measure-ment was in its infancy. Long-term staff wanted to make sure the City's impact measures could relate with how it was doing compared to other cities. Council Member Wheeler said she wanted to make sure the right things were measured, e.g., if the goal were to be safe in our homes, then she wanted to make sure that an impact measure was chosen that measured that. She realized a few things would be missed and also some of the percentages would be missed. She was more concerned that the right measure would be made than the right percentage the first time through. Ms. Fleming emphasized that staff had the same concerns about the impact measures as the Council. It was new ground for staff, and staff would not get it completely right the first time. It was staff's thinking that put the process in place, and there was no place to go for help. It was Palo Alto's stamp on program budgeting. Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was any concept at the
08/01/94 73-306
present time as to what the totality of the document would look like. Ms. Harrison said the document would be no thinner than the current document. There were approximately 250 major activities in the General Fund, and she anticipated that the budget for the General Fund, Utilities, and other funds would both be approximately 2 inches thick. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the format would continue to be in a loose-leaf binder. Ms. Harrison said yes. The final budget would have two separate volumes. Council Member Wheeler said it was getting easier for the Council now that there were some concrete results being seen for the many hours of work that the staff had invested. She believed it would benefit both the Council and the community. She had heard from some staff that examining so closely the functions within the department and how the department interacted and needed to interact with other departments had been valuable lessons for the departments. It was an exercise that would keep making progress and would build strengths both internally within departments and between departments. She hoped staff saw the process as a benefit for staff. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the: 1) Capital Improvement Program; 2) presentation of expenditure detail; 3) full-time equivalent positions; 4) priority setting; 5) periodic performance reporting; 6) incorporation of organizational review recommendations; and 7) a one-year 1995-96 budget. Mayor Kniss was pleased with the comparable services aspect which helped enormously when talking with other cities. She said there were some long and lean years ahead before cities recovered economically and the document gave the City another way to look at how its money was spent. Fortunately, the City was still able to maintain a substantial service level. She commended the staff for its work. Council Member Fazzino associated with many of the comments of Council Member Wheeler. He commended the staff on its efforts. He recognized that a significant risk had been taken to overhaul the entire budget system of the City. Based upon the presentation that evening, he was comfortable that it was a risk worth taking and that many of the questions that Vice Mayor Simitian and he asked during the Finance Committee budget discussions were answered using that type of format. It was more appropriate, given the City's Charter, that the Council focus on service delivery rather than actual positions or position titles in the City which was the City Manager's job. The format took the Council a very long way towards achieving those objectives. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Simitian absent.
08/01/94 73-307
COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Mayor Kniss and Council Member Fazzino re Consideration of Placing an Advisory Measure Regarding the Sand Hill Road Project Site Concept on the November 1994 Ballot Council Member Fazzino said the item was placed on the Council's agenda that evening to give the public an opportunity to speak to the Council regarding the issue. There was a formal request several weeks before to place an advisory measure regarding Sand Hill Road on the November 1994 ballot. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he had received a telecopy from the lawyer representing an organization of citizens who had requested an advisory measure be placed on the ballot with some language attached that looked like the same language that came in a letter from Tony Badger. The telecopy had not been copied for the Council since it did not add anything more to the information the Council had already received. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, urged the Council to place the proposed advisory measure on the November 1994 ballot. He submitted a revised version that clearly stated the Sand Hill Road configuration proposed by Stanford University. The Sand Hill Road development proposal had not changed appreciably in ten years. He referred to Bob Moss' public testimony in the 1984 Sand Hill Environmental Impact Study and said the proposed changes in the Sand Hill Road project after all the public input were 1) the Stanford Shopping Center would be expanded from 140,000 square feet to 160,000 square feet, 2) the amount of housing development would be increased from 200 to 300 additional units over the original proposal, 3) the medical facility expansion that could reach 1 million square feet had not been put on the table until the workshops were over, and 4) no change in a four-lane Sand Hill Expressway that connected El Camino Real at the Alma Street intersection, a configuration that alarmed every workshop partici-pant. The Sand Hill Road was getting substantially bigger despite public input to the contrary, and the City bought into both the direct and indirect costs of Stanford University's continuing effort to sell the community on its wonderful idea. Stanford University continued to delay submitting the final Sand Hill Road proposal to the City that was presented to the community on April 28, 1994. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton Street, said Stanford University would not change the particulars of its project, would ask for a four-lane expressway about the size of Page Mill Road and aimed at Alma Street that would gridlock the City, and would ask for 1,373 new units of housing which would represent a 5 percent increase in the population of Palo Alto and result in significant infrastructure costs. Stanford University would give the City 150,000 to 200,000 square feet at the Stanford Shopping Center that would give the City a little bit of revenue, put in 1,500 parking spaces, and add 1 million square feet in the Medical Center and increase the campus. Stanford University was asking the citizens of Palo Alto
08/01/94 73-308
to accept a significant increase in traffic, general density, utility rates, and degradation of the quality of life to support revenue-generating projects. It was time for the people to know what was being done and to be able to vote on it. He urged the Council to put the measure on the ballot. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the revised advisory measure mentioned Sand Hill Road and more clearly defined the project. He had ambivalent feelings about putting the issue on the ballot because if the vote went against a particular project, Stanford University could make minor adjustments and say that was not what the people voted on and that it was an acceptable project. The measure would give people an opportunity to become educated and informed on the issues. The issue should be placed on the ballot because there was a possibility the City of Menlo Park would also move forward, and it would give the City an opportunity to coordinate with a neighboring city and get a consensus on the degree of interest or disinterest in a specific project. He suggested the City Attorney use the advisory measure proposed by Mr. Badger as a baseline for the actual language. He suggested that one or more members of the group who sponsored the advisory measure be given an opportunity to write the supporting arguments. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, asked the Council to put the advisory measure on the November 1994 ballot. The issue would be the most important decision the City Council would make in the next 10 to 20 years. Most of the people in Palo Alto believed that 80 percent of the issue at stake was the issue of connecting Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real; but in terms of impact, the issue of connectivity was probably less than 10 percent. The advisory measure would be an important way to get direct citizen decision making into the process. She urged the Council to adopt the measure. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said it was the wrong time to ask the people of Palo Alto to vote on Stanford University's potential proposals for the Sand Hill Road corridor. The vote should take place after the Council had certified the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the potential project. At that time, the voters would be able to make an informed decision about the details of the whole project and know what mitigations were required by the Council as part of the project and the significant environmental effects of the project acceptable to the Council and unavoidable due to overriding considerations. An advisory vote should be a binding vote on Stanford University's potential projects. The binding vote would occur whether or not the City Council placed a binding measure on the ballot because all the project approval actions were subject to referendum. The objective conditions in Menlo Park and Palo Alto were different for the current year due to Menlo Park's City Council election. The advisory measure asked the advice of the voters and the Council should refrain from making judgments about potential projects that were subject to quasi-judicial decisions. It would prevent the people who signed the ballot arguments from participating in the quasi-judicial decisions due to a charge that it was not possible for the Council Member to reach an impartial
08/01/94 73-309
decision on a project when the Council Member had already signed the ballot argument or rebuttal on the project. It was the third installment of the Sand Hill Road saga, and he had noticed that the longer it went on the more forthcoming Stanford University had become about the total development in the Sand Hill Road corridor. He reminded the Council that it needed five votes to vote for a resolution to place the measure on the ballot. Bill Watson, 1305 Bay Laurel Drive, Menlo Park, said the develop-ment proposed by Stanford University along Sand Hill Road had been essentially the same. Recently, the President of Stanford University indicated to the Council the importance of the Sand Hill Road development moving forward. Stanford had spent a great deal of time and money pursuing the development, citizens had spent a great deal of time and money fighting the development, and the Council had spent the same amount of time and money considering the issue. It would change Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and people should have an opportunity to vote on the issue. The City had an opportunity to inexpensively and quickly put it on the ballot. The Council could begin the business of governing if the citizens of Palo Alto voted in favor of the development; and if Stanford University received a strong message that the citizens did not want the project, Stanford might choose to design the project in another way. Council Member McCown associated with the reservations raised by Mayor Kniss and Council Member Fazzino in their memorandum dated July 27, 1994, that the advisory measure might be premature. It would be difficult for the process to be useful and effective in evaluating the direction of the project. She agreed with Mr. Borock's comments that the voters would not have the benefit of an evaluation of the potential impacts of a Stanford project(s). She was uncertain whether it would be clear what project was feasible until the project was brought into the process and evaluated and the Council had a chance to respond to that information and mitigate and condition it. If the vote were supportive of Stanford University proceeding with a project, she might not consider that binding on the City Council as an advisory measure. She might conclude after the environmental analysis that the project should not be built as proposed by Stanford. The suggested wording was: "should the Council allow development substantially similar to the plan," and if the vote were in support of the position that the project should not be allowed, she was uncertain whether a "no" vote would end the issue. Stanford might be able to return with a scaled-back proposal. Mr. Borock's point was correct that there was a process available that had been used in the community previously to referend specific development proposals. If Stanford University proceeded through the process and some specific environmentally evaluated and mitigated project was then clear from that process, there would be an opportunity for the community to look at that specific set of proposals and the environmental impacts associated with it and vote it up or down. It was the preferred process. She understood the concern and the differences of opinion about the issue, but she did not believe the approach would produce useful information.
08/01/94 73-310
Council Member Fazzino concurred with Council Member McCown's comments. It was intriguing to move forward and place the measure on the ballot and have the community decide whether to proceed; but it was not fair to the public, the City, or Stanford Universi-ty. It was important for the Council to have a formal proposal presented, and then possibly place that proposal on the ballot. There would be opportunities in 1995 to place the measure on the ballot. He believed the voters were best served if a specific proposal were before them so that everyone affected by the proposal had as much information as possible regarding the measure. He was concerned that it was the eleventh hour for the 1994 election, and it would be difficult for the Council to draft the appropriate pro and con arguments for the measure. He would prefer that the measure appear on the ballot in 1995 as part of a city election rather than as part of a state and federal election. He was sympathetic and probably would support the idea of placing the measure on the ballot at some point in the future, but he did not believe that November 1994 was the right time to do so. Council Member Schneider agreed with the comments of Council Members Fazzino and McCown. She had been encouraged over the last several months by Stanford University's outreach to the community and that the neighborhoods had responded positively to the outreach; but she had also heard from the people directly affected that the changes were not the changes anticipated. A previous speaker stated it might be the single most important issue facing Palo Alto; and for that reason she did not believe putting the measure on the ballot in November was timely. She was interested in Stanford's proposals and hoped that the communication developed would continue. Council Member Wheeler said she had never been enthusiastic about the Sand Hill extension and connection to El Camino Real. She had enunciated her strong reservations about the proposals previously presented. Her feelings about the project were similar to the comments expressed by members of the public that evening, but she agreed that it was not the right time to put the measure on the ballot for a vote. She agreed it would not give an answer that would be useful for the voters, proponents, opponents, or the future Council that would have to deal with the issue. She advocated going to the voters when the Council had the right question to ask. Council Member Huber said if there were to be a vote on the project, it should be binding. In order for it to be binding, there had to be some type of concrete project. In order for the Council to reach that stage, the project needed to be reviewed through the normal public processes with public comment, etc. It was uncertain whether the project would ever meet with the approval of both City Councils in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. He had spent many years on the Planning Commission listening to Stanford's various projects and proposals and trying to determine when and where Stanford was going. He was concerned about the proposed project and the medical school and hospital projects. The Council needed to consider everything that might happen on Sand Hill Road as it went through the process. It was not the
08/01/94 73-311
time to have an advisory measure. It might be appropriate when something concrete had been reached. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Mr. Borock's statement that the proponents of the advisory measure did not need to worry because the Council would have to do something that was referendumable in order to approve the various projects. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Stanford University's last plans included several Council actions which would be subject to referendum. Council Member Rosenbaum asked which actions would be subject to referendum. Mr. Calonne said the proposal hit almost every entitlement subject to referendum that the City had. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the EIR process had begun. Mr. Calonne said work had begun to develop baseline information that would need to be available to inform an analysis of a specific project. Council Member Rosenbaum asked when the EIR process would be completed and when the Council would take action if it chose to do so. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Stanford University had indicated the previous week that it hoped to file the application for both the Sand Hill Road extension, the Stanford Shopping Center expansion, and the housing projects some time in late September 1994. If the applications were filed in September 1994, the EIR would reach the Council in the latter part of 1995. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the City Council would not take any action on the issue until 1996. Mr. Schreiber said the latter part of 1995 or early 1996. Council Member Rosenbaum said the proponents would be better off with a definitive piece of legislation than to put an advisory measure on the ballot at the present time. Mayor Kniss said there was nothing definitive at the present time. The bottom line question was whether an issue that had been around 25 to 30 years deserved to go to the voters. She believed it did, but it was not the right time. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to direct the City Manager to inform the City of Menlo Park of Palo Alto City Council action to take no action on the issue. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen, Simitian absent.
08/01/94 73-312
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Kniss asked Council Members whether they planned to attend the East Palo Alto Kaleidoscope event. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/01/94 73-313