HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-27 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 27, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 77-345 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1995 .................... 77-345 1. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037944 between the City of Palo Alto and Roberta Enterprises, Inc. for Temporary Agency Services ............................. 77-345 2. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gainer and Associates for Used Oil Recycling Program Development ........................................... 77-345 3. Resolution 7555 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on Tuesday, November 7, 1995 ..................... 77-345 4. Ordinance 4310 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposition of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles ......................................... 77-346 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 77-346 4A. (Old Item No. 6) Status Report and Recommendation to Extend the Site Option and Timing of the Single Room Occupancy Project at 725-753 Alma Street .............. 77-346 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 77-349 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 77-375 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. in memory of Dr. Barney Oliver .................................. 77-375
11/27/95 77-344
Regular Meeting November 27, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding the exciting conclusion to the sweeping saga of the big beer can caper. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Tammany Hall in Palo Alto (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Irvin Dawid, 3886 La Donna, spoke regarding prioritization of transportation modes. Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Street, spoke regarding traffic (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of October 16, 19954, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. 1. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037944 between the City of Palo Alto and Roberta Enterprises, Inc. for Temporary Agency Services Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037893 between the City of Palo Alto and Wollborg Michelson Personnel Services, Inc. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C3037888 between the City of Palo Alto and Kelly Temporary Services, Inc. 2. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Gainer and Associates for Used Oil Recycling Program Development 3. Resolution 7555 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on Tuesday, November 7, 1995"
11/27/95 77-345
4. Ordinance 4310 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.31.040 of Chapter 2.31 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Disposi-tion of Unclaimed Property Other than Vehicles" (1st Reading 11/13/95, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to bring Item No. 6 forward to become Item No. 4A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 4A. (Old Item No. 6) Status Report and Recommendation to Extend the Site Option and Timing of the Single Room Occupancy Project at 725-753 Alma Street Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney, called the Council's attention to the supplemental report from the City Attorney Office dated November 22, 1995, which included the latest version of amendments to the option and purchase agreement for the subject property. There were two substantive changes between the report the Council received in their packets and the one at Council's places that evening. On page 3, Section 4, there was an amendment to the purchase agreement which essentially simplified the timing for the close of escrow to be within 10 days. Also, on page 4, there was new language concerning the remediation of soil contami-nation as the seller of the property completed a remediation effort that he was obliged to undertake. It also gave the City as the buyer, until the option was assigned to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), reasonable access to the property during the option period should the buyer wish to further investigate. Should the option be exercised, it would allow the ability to do a clean up or terminate the option if something were found. Staff did not feel that would be necessary, but it was important for the option to be available. She also called attention to a typographical error in the title of Attachment 2, the Budget Amendment Ordinance, in the City Manager's Staff Report (CMR:494:95), on the last line, the word "occupance" should be "occupancy." Council Member Andersen referred to pages 4 and 5 of the November 22, 1995, Report from the City Attorney. He asked if it were discovered that a substantial amount of unanticipated clean up became necessary than was anticipated at the time the agreement took place, would the City be fully responsible for any future clean up or was there a way to back out of the agreement. Ms. Cauble said the option and purchase agreement as amended would give the City or the PAHC the ability to do further investigation if deemed necessary and if conditions were discovered that indicated there was contamination, which was unknown to the City
11/27/95 77-346
and would be costly to clean up, the City would not have to follow through on the purchase of the property. Council Member Andersen clarified that there was no condition for the seller to be responsible for clean up; it was the City's responsibility or the deal would be forfeited. Ms. Cauble said that was correct. The seller's obligation for clean up had always been limited throughout the transaction and he had fulfilled the responsibilities included. The documents before the Council that evening did not make any changes but gave the City the right for additional investigation during the extended option period and to terminate the transaction if it chose to. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, said if Council supported the motion it would make the PAHC's application for tax credit financing stronger and it would be in compliance with the new tax credit requirement due December 11, 1995. The results would be become available in approximately 60 days. There were two main objectives: 1) to provide the PAHC, as sponsor of the project, with site control as defined under the new Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan which required an option extension and that the option be assigned to the PAHC so there would be no question that the PAHC had site control upon the date of application; and 2) to commit the local funding which was a requirement of the tax credit program. She pointed out that the Budget Amendment Ordinance committed a maximum amount assuming that other subsidies were not forthcoming. She said the affordable housing grant had been recommended for approval for at least $350,000, depending on the interest rate at the eventual time of closing. The PAHC was optimistic that Palo Alto would get the Home Investment Partnership Programs (HOME) money. The last HOME grant was used very rapidly and effectively for the Barker Hotel. The PAHC remained cautiously optimistic about tax credits because, as the Council was aware, the tax credit program had changed over the summer. Palo Alto remained very competitive. The maximum allocation for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) was 10 percent of the credit; however, the project would still score well without any major adjustments, particularly with competition and affordability of the targeted population at 35 percent of the area median income. The PAHC made a strategy decision upon the advice of its tax credit financial consultant and marketing consultant, in conjunction with the City staff, to lower the rents somewhat which would make it even more competitive in the affordability pool of the tax credit competition. It would cost the City more in the subsidy but was the best chance for the PAHC to get the other major funding. Without that funding, the PAHC would not be able to accomplish the project. The PAHC had become more cautious about operating costs and reserves so the project would be and always would remain an asset to the community. If those two objectives were accomplished that evening, the PAHC could move forward to the next stage and continue to work toward making the project a reality for the City. Council Member Fazzino said the staff report (CMR:494:95)
11/27/95 77-347
indicated that the new rating system adopted by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee improved the City's chances for approval. Yet, it had been stated by Senior Planner, Housing Cathy Siegel and Ms. Prendergast that SRO's were a less favored housing type. He asked what was more favorable about the rules. Ms. Prendergast said there was nothing more favorable, it was that the expectation was for the new rules to be disastrous and they were not. The finite amount for SRO's could be problematic and that was the basis for the PAHC's decision to lower the rents because of the way the benchmarks were controlled. It only slightly would beat out those areas which were most likely to be presenting SRO's into the system. Council Member Fazzino clarified that to have the project score well under the new rating system might be too optimistic a conclusion. Ms. Prendergast said the project would probably score well, but it was a question of how many others, from where, that might be a tenth of a point better. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to an editorial in The San Jose Mercury News on November 26, 1995, that suggested tax credits were in danger due to a proposal in Congress to end tax credits. He asked whether that would apply to the PAHC's current application or was it something that might happen in the future. Ms. Prendergast said she had not seen the editorial, but it had been discussed frequently during the past six months. Her understanding of the bill before Congress was that it would apply in 1997. Council Member Rosenbaum asked Ms. Prendergast how often she anticipated those tax credit awards to be made. He said if the project were not awarded in the current round, could there be another round consistent with the length extension of the option that was being proposed. Ms. Prendergast said yes. There should be another application made in April 1996 and the results of that would be known in June 1996. If that occurred, the PAHC would have to look realistically at why the tax credits were not awarded and whether it was hopeless or something could be changed or fixed. Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed that the project could fail on the first application but would still have an opportunity to be awarded a tax credit. Ms. Prendergast replied time wise, yes. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to: 1) approve the Second Amendment to the Option Amendment and Purchase Agreement extending the option to purchase the 725-753 Alma Street property to December 31, 1996, and modifying provisions concerning site remediation as negotiated by staff; 2) authorize the Mayor to
11/27/95 77-348
execute the Second Amendment to the Option Agreement and Purchase Agreement in substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreements as amended; 3) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to appropriate $32,501 in Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds to pay the option extension costs through May 31, 1996 as amended to revise the title to read "Occupancy" instead of "Occupant"; 4) approve the Assignment of Option Agreement to assign the amended Option Agreement and Purchase Agreement to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation; 5) authorize the Mayor to execute the Assignment of Option Agreement in substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the Assignment of Option Agreement; and 6) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to appropriate $2,400,000 in Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds to set-aside the maximum amount of local subsidy funds projected for the acquisition of the site and the development of the SRO project. Second Amendment to Option Agreement and Escrow Instructions and Purchase Agreement Proposed Assignment of Option Agreement to Palo Alto Housing Corporation Ordinance 4311 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Six Additional Months of Payments for the City's Option to Purchase 725-753 Alma Street for Single Room Occupancy Housing" Ordinance 4312 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide Funding for the Alma Single Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725-753 Alma Street" MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from November 16, 1995) The City Council reviewed the Governance portion of the Governance and Community Services (GV) Section of the Comprehensive Plan and there was one hour of public communication at the beginning of the section.
11/27/95 77-349
Bob Kirkwood, Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, Governance and Community Services Subcommittee, focused on four points. He said several people had asked why there was a GV Section in the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). It had been suggested to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Governance and Community Services Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) that other cities had included those sections in their comprehen-sive plans which had provided a useful base for longer term planning beyond land use. A task force formed and received information from two cities, Pasadena and Mountain View, whose comprehensive plans had such sections, and two significant land use items emerged: participation and early involvement in the planning process for more specific projects. Two additional points in the services area were the concept of leverage: working with other jurisdictions, government agencies and private sector groups, and the area of quality which was really a mind-set to be more customer-oriented and to think about process improvement. Those ideas were also being considered by other government agencies with some value, and the thought was to try and encourage Palo Alto, which was already very community-oriented, to go a little further in that direction. Another area that staff had discussed at length was the idea of electronic communication. The idea was that Palo Alto should be a leader in the field of electronic communications and that items such as providing access for the general public who could not afford equipment or a network connection at home needed to be explored. The Subcommittee put some specifics into policies and programs which would capture the idea and if the specifics did not hold up, it would at least encourage thinking beyond that. The participation element broke down into two areas: First, the Planning Commission and consider-ation of enhancing the Planning Commission's role and looking at the need for more commissions in specific areas. In many jurisdictions, planning commissions were normally the final decision maker on many land use decisions subject to appeal to the Council. The Subcommittee felt that giving the Planning Commission the stature of final decision maker subject to appeal to the Council would have considerable merit in terms of reducing repetitive presentations, potentially reducing the number of items brought to the Council, and would be an appropriate direction to go in strengthening the role of the Planning Commission and broadening its effective participation in the City's decision making. Second, was encouraging engagement of people through the strength of neighborhood groups. It would not transfer power to a particular neighborhood group but would encourage neighborhoods to have more effective participation in the life of their neighbor-hoods. Some people found it difficult to get engaged at a city level but could get involved if it meant planting trees in their neighborhood, setting up a citizen watch, earthquake preparedness, etc. The tendency in discussions was to immediately think about the most controversial or planning issues and assume that was the core of the proposal. Neighborhood groups got engaged in contro-versial land use issues when the issues involved their own neighborhoods and did so effectively and constructively. The Subcommittee felt that neighborhood organizations should be encouraged and suggested some specific approaches to allow a
11/27/95 77-350
connection to the City that many people might find more attractive than the present options available to them. On the planning front, he felt that the staff comments caught the essence of what CPAC wanted and did a good job of relating it to known processes in the City. CPAC wanted to reinforce the idea of coordinated area plans with major areas in town which would likely warrant significant well staffed efforts and the possibility of constructively having neighbors brought into discussions around specific sites and also the in between area of small areas and large sites where a significant redevelopment might occur. He hoped there could be new ways to streamline the process that would make it possible to facilitate something that was fairly light in process and reasonable for developers to use at the time of decision which would engage the neighbors in the discussions to determine how the land should be used. It would be helpful if there were a way to allow developers to receive feedback that would include some City involvement. Encouraging neighborhood interest at the time of the actual building design would not preclude people from speaking later on in the process, but by drawing people out early on, ideas could be heard and explanations given as to why they could or could not be accommodated. The hope would be to reduce the degree of conflict over any given site and go forward on good design. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, had heard a comment at one of the earlier Public Hearings that she wanted to add, "The GV Section was conceived and supported to do work like bridging the gap between government and folks." Keeping the folks in mind and building a trust in government was a concept that needed nurturing; to have trust and collaboration with the community. Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham said the Planning Commission agreed with staff that perhaps the CPAC overestimated the value of what could happen with it in terms of streamlining the government, etc. The Planning Commission changed the wording from "most land use decisions" to "more land use decisions" should be delegated to the Planning Commission. Currently, there were no land use decisions made by the Planning Commission. As staff noted, appropriate land use decisions might be Zoning Administrator appeals, subdivision maps, and some site and design reviews. Benefits to the Council could be up that up to one-quarter of the Planning issues that went before Council might be eliminated and one-quarter of the applicants might not have to go through the process. Staff also indicated that a Charter change would be required to delegate those responsibilities to the Planning Commission. He referred to Goal GV-2, "The Council will use advisory commissions of citizens to review and clarify issues coming to the Council," and said using the prototypical CPAC as an example, benefits included an incredible amount of work, broad community involvement, and many new ideas. On the negative side, it was extremely staff consuming, did not guarantee bringing the community together for a decision, and stretched out the time frame. Putting aside the much talked about Library Commission or Utilities Commission, and speaking on an ad hoc basis, there were uses for advisory committees in Palo Alto, but they needed to be
11/27/95 77-351
well defined, well controlled, and well specified in terms of objectives and lifetime. He referred to Goal GV-4, "Palo Alto residents are effective community citizens and their neighborhood organizations are strong and contribute to a sense of community," and Goal GV-9, "Planning policy changes and some implementations are preceded by public outreach scaled to the magnitude of the change," and said Goal GV-4 would encourage and facilitate neighborhood organizations. There were some organizations in Palo Alto that were well organized, had a good staff, provided valuable input, and were trusted resources. There were cases where supporting and working with neighborhood organizations could make it more efficient for the City to find out what the neighborhoods wanted and work out a consensus within those neighborhoods. Goal GV-9 provided for a quasi-formal neighborhood preview which the Planning Commission recommended eliminating. Implications were quasi-formal reviews by quasi-formal organizations and approvals. The Planning Commission felt that if it went that level, the City would be required to be involved with those quasi-formal organizations, such as by-laws, elections, etc. Supporting and enhancing those organizations was fine. The Planning Commission did not have a way to resolve the issue, but in some cases the term "neighborhood organization" could be replaced with "neighbors and residents." He felt staff could find additional ways to get neighborhoods more involved. The basic idea worked, but he asked how the City could make it to happen or better support it. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber referred to staff report (CMR:509:95), and noted staff's suggestion that the issues of Governance and the issues of Community Services be separated. Staff felt the Council should begin consideration of the issues of Governance, and Community Services could be addressed at a later date with another opportunity for the CPAC, Planning Commission, and public to participate. The Council also received a revised version of the staff report (CMR:295:95) dated November 13, 1995, regarding coordinated area plans which was a concept brought forward by CPAC as part of the GV Section discussion, The staff report provided significant detail that was developed after the work by CPAC and Planning Commission had been completed. Staff's thoughts on area planning had evolved from cautious support to a conclusion of much stronger sympathy with area planning in certain areas of the community and the value of it. Contrary to the other materials the Council had reviewed, governance was not required by state planning law or guidelines and was an optional area as far as the Plan was concerned. Staff was concerned with incorporating the GV Section into the body of the Plan. If a governance related policy- and program-type document was desired by the Council, the Planning Department concluded it would be best done as a separate document rather than incorporated into the Plan. He complimented CPAC for raising the governance issue; it was not part of the initial work program. CPAC had responded to a lot of public input and had done a good service in providing the Council with a variety of issues and policy and program material that staff concluded should be the basis of a productive and valuable public discussion.
11/27/95 77-352
Council Member Fazzino referred to staff comments with respect to delegating items to the Planning Commission. He was surprised at the negative conclusion that only 28 to 32 percent or fewer planning applications would end up before the Council. He viewed the percentage as a fairly significant reduction and wondered why staff did not. Mr. Schreiber said it was unfortunate if staff had come across as negative. Staff was responding to a perception that a majority of the planning items could stay at the Planning Commission level. There were a number of types of applications that had to go to the Council by law. Staff wanted to be cautious that it was not a delegation from the Planning Commission, which might be a good idea, but not a cure all for the amount of time the Council spent on planning issues. There would still be many planning items that dealt with development applications. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Council would spend 28 to 32 percent less time on planning issues as a result of delegating those issues, or whether there would not be an appreciable reduction of time spent on planning items at the Council level based upon the need to bring a number of items before the Council, as well as the likely controversial nature of a number of items. Mr. Schreiber said the items that were logical to the staff and Planning Commission were usually not controversial, and the more controversial items would tend to go to the Council or would likely be appealed in order to get the decision beyond the Planning Commission. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the CPAC thought there would be a significant reduction in time and energy devoted by the Council to planning issues if CPAC's proposal were adopted. Mr. Kirkwood said when he sat on a city council for another city, it was exceptional to see a land use matter. Only the most controversial issues went before the Council, such as variances which were required by state law. It would depend on the confi-dence established between the Planning Commission and the Council and whether the Council supported the Planning Commission's deci-sions. Mr. Schreiber said if smaller jurisdictions, 25,000 to 30,000 population or less, in the Bay Area were looked at, nearly all planning decisions, variances, use permits, etc., went before the City Council. In larger jurisdictions like San Jose, relatively few decisions went before the City Council. In San Jose, staff had greater decision-making authority and subdivisions did not go to the Planning Commission unless appealed. Palo Alto was in the middle from a population and size standpoint where there were expectations reasonably accessible to the Council and at the same time an activity volume, such as almost all issues went before the Council in Saratoga or Los Gatos. Variances and use permits stayed with staff unless appealed, design review stayed with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which was technically a staff decision, and appeals, subdivisions, etc., went to the Council.
11/27/95 77-353
It was a matter of where in that spectrum the City felt the most comfortable. There was no magic answer, and if the Council so desired, there could be a movement toward greater delegation to the Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said for those people who had noncontroversial items, it could mean a savings of one or more months in time. If people came to a negotiated agreement before applying to the Planning Commission, they would not have to go on to Council level, but sometimes there was no point in making a negotiated agreement at the Planning Commission level because the item would have to go to Council anyway, which lost the ability for the Planning Commission to help negotiate. If the extra step was not made, it meant money saved for preparation for the Planning Commission and time saved for the Council and the applicant. Mr. Beecham added that if the Planning Commission actually had potential final authority, for other than an appeal that went to the Council, the Planning Commission would be more motivated to find and explain solutions to both sides of any issue, so hopefully both parties went away feeling their concerns had been taken care of. Council Member Andersen said there was an interest in making the process more participatory and at the same time taking out a level of participation. He asked whether it would be possible for something to slip by people more easily as a result of streamlin-ing, whether it would make it less likely for people to be aware of a change, or whether there would be some resentment on the part of the public for having the process end at the Planning Commission level. He asked for responses from both the CPAC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirkwood said a comment he heard during the CPAC process was that maintaining neighborhood interest until the last hearing was a problem. People were reluctant to participate early in the review because the neighborhood interest would not be sustained until it went to the Council. He sensed that issues that attracted participation were known early on in the process and people would go to the Planning Commission, especially if the Planning Commission became the final decision maker in more instances. He felt the Council would want the Planning Commission's role to be a serious one that people were vitally interested in and wanted to become engaged in. There were some features that could be considered streamlining but that was not the primary motive. It would change the positioning and what the City Charter said about the role of the Planning Commission, and it was a very attractive way for broadening the base of decision making in the City. Ms. Cassel had not noticed a difference between the people who attended Planning Commission and City Council meetings. If it were a controversial issue, it would go to the Council regardless. Mr. Schreiber said the most extensive noticing was done for the
11/27/95 77-354
Planning Commission hearing; cards were mailed to every property owner within 300 feet, etc. When the item came out of the Planning Commission, the notice for City Council hearings was just a newspaper ad, properties were not renoticed. The notice for the first hearing would stimulate people that were interested. He did not feel it would reduce participation or that people would get lost in the process. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the issue of the Council, an elected body, delegating some of its ultimate responsibilities to an appointed body and the issue of that body's responsibility toward the citizens of Palo Alto versus the Council's responsibility. She asked for responses from both the CPAC and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kirkwood replied that the irony in Palo Alto was the amount of responsibility delegated to the staff when there was essentially no delegation to the Planning Commission and the reservation of all other decisions to the Council. When he originally reviewed the Charter, he was astonished at how much was delegated to the staff which in some other communities would be dealt with by the Planning Commission. The Council needed to exam where decisions should be placed in the three-way balance. Mr. Beecham said the decisions or responsibilities that were being discussed that evening were not policy-making decisions. The policies would still be set by the Council and the Planning Commission would be implementing those policies. Council Member Kniss said the bottom line was what was anticipated by people in the community as far as holding someone accountable. If the Council made enough wrong decisions, Council Members would be voted out of office which could not be done with the Planning Commission nor any other commission. The balance had to come between the threesome and that might be an area that needed to be considered more carefully. She asked about the law and the responsibilities of the Council, Planning Commission, Planning Department, etc., and whether too much was being delegated to the Planning Department's staff. Mayor Simitian said with respect to the recommendations before the Council that evening, anything that would be delegated to the Planning Commission would be appealable by any single citizen. He asked to what extent would the Council abdicate its responsibility by failing to consider items which had not generated disagreement through the Planning Commission process but which the Council might have a different point of view. Council Member Kniss said the Council was making a judgment decision, there was nothing that said precisely how it would be done. Mr. Schreiber said part of the balance in Palo Alto related to the fact that it effectively functioned as a larger city than its population inferred. Palo Alto's daytime population was 120,000 which was a nonresidential base and was significantly larger than
11/27/95 77-355
many cities with a 55,000 populace. The number of variances, use permits, home improvement exceptions, etc., processed through the Zoning Administrator function were substantial and totaled approximately 100 applications a year, which constituted about 3 percent being appealed per year. The process was working well and the Zoning Administrator public hearing process allowed an opportunity for input, informal give and take, and for staff to negotiate solutions between neighbors. The proof of success was the low number of appeals. There was much to be said for having the items that CPAC identified as being handled at the Planning Commission level, but his issue was whether it was worth the effort of initiating a Charter amendment, ballot measure, etc. The bottom line was that a relatively small amount of items would not go to Council. There was no right answer, it was a judgment call. If it involved a special election with all of the costs entailed, he would suggest it not be done. If it could be done without being of notable cost to the City and the Planning Commis-sion was the final decision maker with the exception of appeals, he would not object. In his tenor, Planning Commissions listened and followed the Council and knew City policy. He agreed with Mr. Beecham's comments that if the Planning Commission were the final decision maker, there would be even more vigorous application of policy and understanding. Council Member Huber asked whether the Council could treat items the Council might want to consider but had not been appealed, like an agenda item, and request that it be brought to the Council. Mr. Kirkwood said he was not familiar with any such process but presumably the Council Members were still citizens and could appeal or use a fiduciary approach to pull an item off that the Council wanted to consider. He sensed it would be unusual to have a desire to delve into a decision the Planning Commission had made and appeal anymore than someone wanting to appeal a decision that staff had made. He clarified that all appeals from staff decisions currently went directly to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said all of the appeals from the Zoning Administrator went through the Planning Commission, and the only appeals that went directly to the Council were appeals from the ARB. Mr. Beecham said an item might be on the Consent Calendar which would imply that if someone had an item on the agenda, they would have to be at the meeting in case the item was taken off and discussed in order to present their point of view. It would also extend the time frame for the applicant and process time was something CPAC had hoped to save. Council Member Huber said his suggestion was that if there were items at the Planning Commission level, not appealed, in effect a Council Member could request that the matter be brought to the Council but not as a Consent Calendar item. Council Member Fazzino said the Subcommittee proposed expanded use of the voluntary commission concept and every time the idea came
11/27/95 77-356
up, staff expressed grave concerns about increased use of staff resources. Yet, at City Hall one could find minutes from the Library Commission, Recreation Commission, Community Center Commission, Board of Public Works, and Board of Public Safety which were voluntary commissions in place in Palo Alto from 1909 to 1950. If one looked at the minutes, they would discover that the notes were taken by commission members and very little staff resources were used in those days. He asked if the City had changed that much as a species in 40 years that expanded use of voluntary commissions required additional staff resources and he asked whether there was any way around that concern. City Manager June Fleming said times had changed from the time referred to by Council Member Fazzino. Staff now received requests for more staff support for existing boards, commissions, etc. She did not want that to be interpreted to mean those boards and commissions were not valuable, and therefore, they were dimin-ished in their services depending upon the kind of support they needed, but the issues that were dealt with tended to be complex and had record requirements for things to be maintained. There were a few groups that did their own minutes, but the groups were not satisfied with that and wanted more support. That was why the last time adding another board or commission was considered, staff asked that the Council let them examine how those advisory types of boards were staffed, functioned, what they felt their needs were, and how they could best serve the community. Some functioned very well without a lot of staff support but others did not. Staff experienced that with the addition of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) because it required a great deal of staff support but the City also received from the UAC invaluable benefits in return. Mr. Kirkwood said it was a matter of examining in each instance what would be gained and the cost to gain it. There was no question that times had changed because legalities had worked their way into all processes even if only advisory, and it was a fundamental turn off to citizen participation. It was important to keep in balance not only what the City would gain from the volunteers that were serving, but it would require a degree of some Council oversight to be sure on an ongoing basis that any given commission was continuing to serve in a manner that served the City well. Terminating a commission once it was established was not going to be an easy political matter. He understood in 1950 there were quite a few commissions that were discontinued, and he asked whether the pendulum had swung too far at that point and whether the City was ready to review on a selected basis, creation of one or two new commissions. It should not be general policy, but what CPAC suggested was for Council to take a hard look at whether there were some areas in which having a commission of dissolving a commission already established would make sense. Council Member Fazzino clarified what Mr. Kirkwood was proposing was a specific set of criteria to determine whether or not a commission was justified. Mr. Kirkwood was not sure it could ever be captured in written
11/27/95 77-357
guidelines or a set of criteria, but the suggestion was that there were some things that Council would want to have in mind when weighing the merits and costs while considering the establishment or disestablishment of any particular commissions. Council Member Kniss said there was no question that the Council welcomed the input that the boards and commissions provided. The question was one of balance, and she asked, without requiring another bond measure, what amount of resources needed could be determined because whenever additional City resources were used, resources had to be taken away from somewhere else. She asked what Ms. Fleming's quesstimate was as to what the costs might be, and if the Council added a commission that required staff support at the meeting and subsequent staff support, would it mean another staff member would need to be added. Ms. Fleming said it varied depending on the commission and the assignment given. The City Clerk had given her an estimate of $5,000 for just meeting notices, publications, etc. That would be a minimum cost for any group and then when minute transcription time was added, it could rise to $15,000 to $20,000 for some groups and exceed that for groups like the UAC because its needs were different. At a minimum, it would cost $15,000 to $20,000, but she did not want to put any judgment value on that amount. The one thing that made Palo Alto different was the way it was organized. For example, Palo Alto had a Community Services Department which most cities in California did not have so there were some economies that could be realized around commissions that existed because it was a larger group and the purpose was to have disciplines work together, so maybe the cost would not be as much there as it was in some places. It was hard to determine the cost, but she felt that was not the final way to judge whether or not any board or commission was really needed. Council Member Kniss said while it may not be the final way, it needed to be one way because during the budget those choices had to be made. She recalled recently a rather exact figure that was put out when the Historic Resources Board (HRB) was reviewed and she asked what that figure was. Ms. Fleming said she could not recall the figure but it was a good example of a group that was really undersupported by the City. It needed more staff support, more resources, etc., and was strug-gling to do the very best it could. Council Member Kniss said it was a tough judgment because the City wanted community support and involvement but at the same time resources were limited. When more was put onto City staff, it would take away from another program unless another source could be found. Council Member Fazzino said at some time during the process he would appreciate an analysis by the City Attorney's Office regarding the current laws with respect to electronic communica-tions and what was and was not allowable under the Brown Act. Obviously, the Brown Act when adopted in 1953 could not have
11/27/95 77-358
anticipated the kind of electronic media that was currently being used. That kind of analysis would be very helpful to the Council. Ms. Cauble said the City Attorney was the expert in that area, particularly issues related to electronic communication. She suggested the Council advise her of any specific issues or concerns, otherwise she would take it as a general desire to have more of a briefing on the issues. Mayor Simitian said it would be helpful if the City Attorney focused his comments on both the possibilities and problems that were articulated in the GV Section. There were very specific references to possibilities and the staff had raised a number of problems associated with that. Council Member Fazzino addressed making Palo Alto government more accessible to the public. He was surprised that there had been no discussion of possible physical changes to the Council Chambers, which he considered to be very intimidating for members of the public. He wondered if CPAC had any discussions regarding altering the Council Chambers so the Council could look directly at the public and not sit high above the public looking like a Supreme Court. Mr. Kirkwood said CPAC had not had any formal discussion on the issue, but he had heard side comments that the Council Chambers was not as welcoming as it might be nor as comfortable. Ms. Fleming said when staff reviewed the GV Section of the Plan, they were aware that staff as well as Council Members had received comments from CPAC members individually and citizens about the Council Chambers. Staff felt the issue could be dealt with internally and did not need to be included in the Plan, and staff had begun to move forward on the project. The Council Chambers was designed 20-plus years prior when government had a different atmosphere, and appropriately was in need of some alterations. Council Member Huber asked Mr. Schreiber to elaborate on why the GV Section should not be a part of the Plan. Mr. Schreiber said staff's primary concern was that the City had and was continuing to move toward with more refined analyses of findings of conformance and consistency with the Plan. The Council currently made those types of findings on zoning changes, appeals, etc., but the issue was becoming more specific in detail. If a GV Section were included in the Plan that was reasonably detailed in terms of public process expectations, procedures, etc., staff was concerned that it would be a fertile ground for challenging City actions on the basis that the finding of consis-tency and conformance with the Plan was invalid because something in the procedure of the review did not fit some aspect of the GV Section. If the Council desired the GV Section to be included in the Plan, staff would recommend that it be more general and more useful to the Council in order to ensure that errors did not occur inadvertently in reviewing projects as they went through the system in making those findings.
11/27/95 77-359
Ms. Cauble described Mr. Schreiber's comment as the legal implica-tions of including the GV Section in the Plan. Even though it was not a mandatory section, once it was contained in the Plan it would be subject to both internal consistency and vertical consistency requirements with certain other decisions, which fortunately in Palo Alto had not been a "hot bed" of litigation, but it had been in other communities. The City would not have those issues if a separate policy document were created that was not subject to the myriad of date statutes and judicial decisions that would otherwise apply. In terms of legal implications, there would be a procedural implication with respect to amending the document because it would be part of the Plan and would be required to go through a dual process of Planning Commission and City Council review and, depending on the level of specificity in the document, the Council might not want to go through that kind of process. Mr. Kirkwood said when the Subcommittee went through the process, it was not clear how much of a mandate was required for including a GV Section beyond self invention. The Subcommittee had contem-plated three possibilities: 1) that a GV Section would be included as part of the Plan; 2) that the GV Section would be part of a forward or annex that would accompany the Plan and begin to establish the idea of long-term planning beyond the sphere of land use; and 3) whether the Council chose to act on the issue of governance or not, at least discuss it in a context separate from the Plan. The Subcommittee felt that all of the ideas were sufficiently meritorious and warranted attention. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if the Council determined that it would be better served by a document separate from the Plan for embedding the concepts, what kinds of legal force would a policy similar to the already existing policies and procedures have, and would the document be a meaningful tool which would ensure the public of attempting to achieve the goals that Mr. Kirkwood commented to earlier in terms of increased public participation and involvement in a lot of the City's processes. Ms. Cauble said specific suggestions for inclusion into a gover-nance document, if the Council chose to approve them, would lend themselves to code changes without being included in the Plan or other policy document. If the Council decided it wanted to change the development review process, it could be done through a code change. In terms of policy documents, the Council would be the best judge of what it had followed over the years and its commit-ment to follow it. The Council could put something into its Policy and Procedures Manual, it could be a separate vision document that read like a comprehensive plan but stood separately and could be referenced in various Council approvals, or elements could be included in ordinances and become law and the other aspects could stand alone in a policy document that Council set the tone for as to whether or not it was followed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked to the extent that the GV Section was included in a policy document as opposed to being codified, what
11/27/95 77-360
kinds of legal implications were there for an omission where the procedural rules were violated. Ms. Cauble did not envision any legal implications unless the Council mandated through a code requirement, through the Comprehensive Plan, or through a condition on something that was complied with as policy. It would be the political repercussion that would ensure conformance rather than the legal repercussion. Council Member Andersen concluded that the reason behind such an approach would be to make certain that a more participatory process would be assured with future councils. He asked if the GV Section were not included in the Plan, whether a separate document would have the same influence on future councils in a similar manner. In terms of making the broadened participatory process certain rather than getting too technical from a legal standpoint, he asked whether the Council could achieve the objective the CPAC had recommended effectively through another process. He was interested responses from the CPAC and staff. Ms. Fleming said what the Council wanted to accomplish in terms of having broadened participation could be realized. If that were Council's direction, staff and the City Attorney's Office might have to think through the actual document for the title, code, etc. Council Member Andersen said the present Council had been very responsive in wanting to bring about greater participation in the process. Assuming that the City had a future council that did not want to utilize that participatory process in the future and the City had that type of separate document being described, he asked whether that document would still have an influence over a future Council or would the future Council be able to change it. Ms. Fleming said it was her understanding in a City Manager form of government, that any seated Council could make any policy changes it desired and there was very limited ability to bind one Council to another. The control generally came from the public, and if the public did not like what the Council was doing, there were ways of making that known, even Charter Amendments could be put on a ballot and changed. She believed that the prevailing influence was the community, who would speak clearly about the way in which they wanted to be governed. Once any seated Council made a decision in the City Manager form of government, it was the duty, responsibility, and obligation for the City Manager to see that those policies were executed and, if not, the Council had the authority to deal with it. Council Member Andersen clarified that if a GV Section was included as part of the Plan, then the future Council's behavior would be inconsistent with that Plan. Mr. Kirkwood said that was true until the Plan was amended, so any Council could change any policy. He felt if policies were not embedded in the Plan, there were different ways of dealing with different policies. Acting on the Planning Commission's
11/27/95 77-361
delegation issue would start a Charter Amendment process, review of commissions might go into the Policy and Procedures manual, and the social service delivery portion might be viewed as the beginning of a long-term planning process that guided the annual budgeting. There were a lot of different ways to look at different parts of the Plan and where the Council might wish to place them in terms of the tools available might differ from item to item. The bottom line was to get the issue before the Council and encourage the involvement of more people in the review. Council Member Huber referred to Ms. Cauble's comment about the GV Section being an appendix to the Plan and clarified the Plan document itself would be attached to the Comprehensive Plan in some fashion with a governance or some other section if the Council chose not to have it legally included as part of the Plan. Ms. Cauble said how it was packaged would need to be looked at. Typically, an appendices to a general plan was actually part of the plan but read better if the technical types of analyses, policies, or data were included as an appendix rather than in the body of the general plan. She referred to Mr. Schreiber's earlier point that if the Council were inclined to include governance policies in the Plan, he would recommend that the policy be more general in nature to avoid getting hung up over small things in the future which might mean using it as a forward or broader policy rather than detailed goals, policies, programs, etc., the way the required elements were done. Council Member Huber asked how such a section could be solidly emphasized as being part of the Plan but not a part of it. Ms. Cauble said one possibility that might be explored would be to have a simple broad statement included in the Plan e.g., "Community participation is vital for the review of development projects. The Council shall adopt a policy to ensure that such participation occurs." Council Member Huber was interested in something that had more of what was already contained in the Plan traveling with that plan so if there were a legal concern, the consistency would not have to be dealt with but it was still physically there. He understood the generalization she had mentioned which would be easy to do, but he was thinking more specifically that it was there because the Plan was a vision and governance was part of that vision. He asked if he wanted the GV Section to be with the vision and if there were a legal consistency argument, how could it be dealt with so it was still physically there. Ms. Fleming said the statement Council Member Huber had just made was the type of direction that needed to be heard. If what he had articulated was a consensus of the Council, that gave staff the kind of direction it was seeking. Council Member Kniss said there were a number of semi-command verbs in the Plan and she asked what they meant or did it depend on what they were being tied in with. She saw words such as help,
11/27/95 77-362
facilitate, encourage, enhance, etc. Mr. Kirkwood said the CPAC was given instructions on how to write the goals, policies, and programs. One of the instructions at two or three different stages was to use action verbs, and the CPAC tried to identify action verbs that sounded appropriate. Council Member Kniss said the verbs sounded appropriate but asked what they meant. What would "facilitate communication," mean versus "helping residential areas," "work with neighborhood organizations," etc. If a neighborhood organization were to approach the City in a year or so and convey that it was stated in the Plan that the City would work with neighborhood organizations, she asked whether that meant provide staff support. She asked what was the CPAC's view when it used the "helping" verbs. Mr. Kirkwood said that each of the verbs would have to be discussed as they got to each of the sections. Again, it would be a question of balance, particularly with neighborhood organiza-tions. He asked how the City would go about encouraging neighborhood organizations to be formed without people starting to feel as if the City was trying to dominate them, how much could be drawn from new staff time, and how much could be done in a way of restructuring some of the existing staff liaison efforts. Those questions were not so varied in many of those operative words. It was not for the CPAC to reach a conclusion, it was ultimately for the Council to reach a conclusion. Council Member Kniss felt it was one of the areas that needed to be concentrated on. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the magnitude of the direction change already signaled by the Council's previous actions on the other elements of the Plan was alarming, and a widespread review of land use and zoning would be a serious disservice to the public to tamper with long established procedures. The myriad of zoning reviews, coordinated area plans, and land use changes already gave the Council imprimatur in the review process and it would be virtually impossible for citizens to keep up with it. The present Council would probably not be around when they came into being and the public reacted. She asked the Council to consider carefully before streamlining and to make the process more predictable for applicants (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). With respect to the discussion of responsibility of the Planning Commission, by initiative, the Planning Commission had direct first responsibility for preparing the Comprehensive Plan. Susie Thom, 753 Maplewood Place, addressed the issue of a combined Community Services Commission and referred to a letter dated July 3, 1995, from the Council of the Arts which indicated there was no discernable support among the arts constituency, and the entire Palo Alto community could not be well served with one commission being an advisory for the arts, community services, etc. There
11/27/95 77-363
was widespread desire for encouraging fuller participation in government which could be done through the GV Section of the Plan. It seemed regressive to establish a Community Services Commission which would be a small group covering an extensive domain and could not properly represent the arts or any of the other entities which were part of the Community Services Department. She referred to Program GV-1.A6, "Sponsor an annual opportunity for all public and non-profit organizations serving Palo Alto to provide information about themselves and recruit participation in delivery of and use of their services," and said she believed the nonprofits in the community were equally as important as the neighborhood associations because they served the entire community. Such an event would serve to bring the nonprofits closer to the community and give the City an opportunity to promote and advocate the various organizations. The City could play a role either sponsoring an event such as the nonprofit showcase during the Centennial or facilitate it for the benefit of the community. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett, former CPAC member and GV Subcommittee member, said accountability and trust were the biggest issues with government. Measure R was a prime example of some of the erosion of trust. When she was on the Subcommittee, she was very committed to the process and took her responsibility seriously, but in the past year, she had become increasingly discouraged and concerned about the CPAC process. Inconsistencies were permitted in the content which was a critical blow to the accountability of the CPAC members. There needed to be real limits to the GV Section that were non-negotiable and could not be bargained away. She strongly recommended that Council take on some limits that might have been discussed as part of the Measure R process, which the City would not go beyond over the next 20 years. There needed to be a substantially different accountability process for large projects that went beyond a specific set of parameters. Measure R failed, but she felt it sent a clear message to the Council that one in three people in Palo Alto voted for it because they believed the CPAC process had gone awry, and that the growth in the proposal had gotten too liberal. It was an important opportunity for the Council to consider some of the voters concerns expressed during the Measure R process within the Plan. The Council was ultimately responsible to the citizens of Palo Alto, and she felt there were things that could be done in terms of process to make it more consistent and more participatory which was critical to the future of Palo Alto during the next 20 years. Mayor Simitian said Measure R could have been one of two things; either a vote on growth and development in Palo Alto or a vote about process. He did not believe that more than 70 percent of the people that voted against Measure R did so because they supported substantial changes in Palo Alto's patterns of growth and development or wanted to see the community become substantially commercial. He believed that the 70 percent vote reflected a view brought out in the polling process with regard to the process and the public's trust or lack of trust in that process. That was his conclusion and the conclusion he shared
11/27/95 77-364
with the press because after the election, the Council was frequently asked if that meant a "green light" for commercial development in Palo Alto. He assured the press that it was not a "green light" in his view but did not want to suggest that there was no room for improvement in the process because there was. He clarified that the 70 percent vote suggested that people had some respect in and trust for the process in place and did not mean that the 70 percent vote wanted substantial commercial develop-ment. Ms. Ward-Dolkas agreed but felt there was a large group of people who felt the CPAC process was too pro-growth and had concerns over it not being accountable to all opinions. Although it needed to be a creative ad hoc process, by nature it was not possible to make it completely accountable but some balance was needed. She believed people voted against Measure R because they wanted to see the CPAC process concluded, which was why the GV Section was so critical. Claire MacElroy, 641 Forest Avenue, said there were three points she wanted to make; posting blame, seduction, and vagueness. With respect to posting blame, she referred to the empty red seats in the Chambers and asked why so members of the community were not present at the meeting. It was easy to post blame as to why the public was not informed of important issues. She had only recently been advised by Emily Renzel about the Plan and found it to be a very complex issue. She asked why the Council had not worked harder to attract her attention to the issues. With respect to seduction, she felt the Council should be careful when people said they would save time or reduce the workload because soon the City would become downsized and outplaced. With respect to vagueness, she was concerned with increased density which appeared in the Plan. She would like to see increased density spelled out clearly in the Plan, and she planned in the future to read the text carefully to get a better understanding of what the Councils intentions were with regard to housing density in certain areas. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, disagreed with the staff recommendation in the staff report (CMR:509:95) that the GV Section did not belong in the Plan. He felt it was appropriate to have a satisfactory GV Section when the Council adopted the Plan. He referred to the staff comments on page 1 of the GV Section and agreed with Council Member Fazzino that the percentage was a significant number. The Council should decide whether it felt comfortable with that large of a reduction. He referred to the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 2, under Participa-tion and said that a single Community Services Community was too broad and there needed to be three or four commissions. With respect to the cost of having commissions and staffing them, he felt the benefits were significant. He referred to Program GV-1.A1, "Employ a program of city/ neighborhood liaisons, electronic communications and print communications to inform the residents of coming issues and to facilitate their comments to the council and staff as policies are developed," and said it would not be necessary to have one staff member for each neighborhood, it could
11/27/95 77-365
be a group of neighborhoods. He referred to the staff comments regarding making citizen groups advisory to the City Manager and said that had happened in the past a number of times, sometimes on an ad hoc basis and sometimes with specific direction. He referred to Program GV-1.A6, and said the City could either expand its World Wide Web Page and allow each organization to have one or two pages or the City could work with the Palo Alto Weekly and have an annual insert published about various community organizations and nonprofits to explain what they did and how people could become involved. He felt the staff comments Policies GV-3.A1 and GV-3.A8 lacked vision. He felt there was no reason for not having an expanded electronic communication presence in the community, and there were a number of ways the City could expand electronic access to the community. He referred to the comment that only the sophisticated developers talked to neighborhood associations which was not true, his neighborhood association had done it for 10 years. He felt it was beneficial to all sides which should be encouraged and carried forward. Bonnie Packer, 768 Stone Lane, encouraged the Council to embrace the philosophical concepts in the Goal GV-4, Palo Alto residents are effective community citizens and their neighborhood organiza-tions are strong and contribute to a sense of community." She felt Mr. Kirkwood's comments were to the point. Neighborhood associations promoted a sense of community, provided a vehicle for essential safety programs, empowered a broader range of citizen involvement in their respective communities, and helped build a stronger democracy. She felt it was important for the City to encourage the creation of neighborhood associations for neighbor-hoods which were not represented by an association. The City could sponsor or support an annual conference where the organized existing neighborhood associations could attend and help others with ideas about forming new associations where there were none. With regard to process and citizen participation, the oral communications process was not conducive to citizen togetherness because it was input from individuals in random order and the public did not talk with one another. She suggested a model used by the California Public Utilities Commission where all of the parties interested in a particular issue came together, talked to one another, and learned to listen in a workshop environment. Council Member Andersen struggled with the issue of neighborhood associations' relative strengths and weaknesses and how that problem was approached. Many associations were created as the result of a particular issue that came about and when that issue was resolved, the group faded away and did not become active again until another issue came along. He concluded that what Ms. Packer had in mind was more consistent and ongoing, but he did not get a connection as to how it could be accomplished by the City as opposed to within the neighborhoods. He asked Ms. Packer if she had any additional comments. Ms. Packer said neighborhood associations should be autonomous and independent of the City, but felt the City could show support for the idea by co-sponsoring an occasional conference with some neighborhood associations to get ordinary citizens involved
11/27/95 77-366
without feeling threatened by the process. Council Member Kniss asked about the thrust rather than the existence of neighborhood associations, and the previous comment to bring together neighbors with respect to a common problem. She felt it was very defined areas that brought neighbors together whether there was an issue or not. She asked whether Ms. Packer thought it should be the staff's job to identify for the residents what the neighborhood should be and then to motivate them to get together or whether it was a passive kind of situation where it happened only if a neighborhood desired it. Ms. Packer thought she the City should not prejudge where there was a sense of neighborhood. Council Member Kniss added that it was great to belong to a neighborhood association but sometimes those who fell outside the boundaries could not belong and felt somewhat left out. Ms. Packer said there was nothing to prevent the people in the areas that did not belong to do something of their own, and there were associations that were fluid and did not have boundaries. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:45 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. Council Member Rosenbaum thought there were a lot of substantial ideas in the GV Section, but there were items he did not have a strong opinion about because he did not feel he had enough information. There were items that normally would be included in a staff report, along with some public testimony, but he did not see that time available in the Plan process as it would not leave the Council in a position to make comfortable decisions on many of the issues. Some of the issues had been before the Council previously, i.e., having additional advisory commissions; community services, library, or parks and recreation commissions. He did not believe the Council was prepared to make a decision or to discuss anything specific as part of the Plan process. While recognizing the effort that was put in, he believed an appropriate step for a variety of ideas would be to refer it to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee for discussion about the individual components and then make some recommendations which would be outside of the Plan process. Council Member Kniss concurred with Council Member Rosenbaum's suggestion to refer the GV Section to the P&S Committee. She was concerned about the substantial ideas and costs involved. Also, the Council had not dealt with governance before, and it was going to require some time and thought. Ms. Fleming agreed that the Council needed to understand what implication governance had with the Plan. She asked if the intent was to move forward with the Plan and refer the GV Section to the P&S Committee to deal with it later and not be a part of the Plan or was the intent to refer it to the P&S Committee to have it
11/27/95 77-367
return to the Council for discussion as part of the Plan and then the Council make a decision which would delay the process. Staff's concern was the process. Mayor Simitian said there were two different issues. First, whether the Council wanted to establish the commissions or whether it wanted to go through a new process. It could be debated fairly in the P&S Committee and brought back to the Council. Second, whether the Council should make decisions about what should be done and whether it should be an attached document, an appendices of, or incorporated into the Plan. He asked whether the Council desired to have a discussion of greater length in a separate forum and could it be done without slowing down the Plan process. He assumed it could be done without seriously disrupting the Plan process, regardless of whether the Council returned with an action to include the GV Section as part of the Plan or whether it be done as a separate policy. Ms. Fleming said it would depend on how long it would take the body the GV Section was referred to to deal with it and the process chosen to do that. Staff needed guidance on whether the Council wanted to do it in one night or if there were a desire to have more public involvement. Mr. Schreiber referred to the revised staff report (CMR:295:95) regarding coordinated area plans, and said that staff had indicated from a scheduling standpoint, if the Council could complete the six sections of the Plan and the wrap-up by the end of January 1996 and Land Use in February 1996, staff could return a Comprehensive Plan document to the Council hopefully by late summer or fall of 1997. That schedule was set out to provide some framework and, if the Council desired to have the GV Section as part of the Plan, it needed to work within that time frame and to have whatever review that needed to occur fit into that schedule. If the Council desired the GV Section to be a separate document or added on to the Plan later, that could be done. Mayor Simitian asked if that would return to Council a year and a half later. Mr. Schreiber said it would take approximately six months to draft the Plan and do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which would take until August 1996, so the formal review of the Plan would start in the fall of 1996. The boards and commissions could take three or four months which would make it early 1997 before it returned to the Council. By Palo Alto Municipal Code requirement, once there was a set of Planning Commission recommendations, any changes made by Council needed to go back through the Planning Commission. Once the Council started its review in 1997 and it went back through the Planning Commission and back to the Council, that process would take until the summer or fall of 1997. Mayor Simitian thought the comments made by Council Members Kniss and Rosenbaum had merit in terms of a way to have a more thoughtful discussion about the governance issues. He asked with regard to the issue of both ad hoc and formal commissions, what
11/27/95 77-368
were the benefits of having those groups and what was being derived from having a particular commission. It might vary from group to group, as was the case of the UAC where the Council was looking for expertise. He was troubled by the fact that sometimes the different commissions became advocates for a particular special interest, which might be a legitimate interest, but was that what the City really needed or sought out. The HRB were advocates of historic preservation and the Public Art Commission were advocates for public art, which he felt was a different role than was seen with the Planning Commission. He raised the issue because if the Council was going to discuss whether or not there should be a Community Services or Library Commission, then what did the Council want from those groups and would it want expertise from a Library Commission or would it be more effective in the role of advocate. It was a generic question, but it had more to do with what would be derived from those particular groups. He asked Mr. Kirkwood to comment. Mr. Kirkwood referred to an earlier question that if the Council made a decision to severe the GV Section from the Plan and he said it was important how the Council chose to do that and how the content was dealt with during the process. There was nothing in the GV Section that required an EIR or a change in the process, and delegation to the Planning Commission would require an EIR so it would not have to be packaged with the Plan for that purpose. If governance was delegated to a committee and people got the idea that it would disappear because of that, there would be a substan-tial number of people who would feel it would get lost in the process. If it were delegated to a committee to work parallel with the Plan and the Council made sure the issues were addressed and focused on in a coherent manner, it would be better received by the people as it was being looked at in a different light but the same substantive issues were being addressed. He agreed with Mayor Simitian that there were different roles for different commissions. Advocacy in the community was just as important as with the Council. One of the arguments made by the group that supported the Library Commission was that Palo Alto was the only city in the State of California that had libraries and did not have a Library Commission. He did not know how much weight that carried but he suspected it had to do with rallying support for libraries from the larger community and not just from the Council. He felt the Council needed to examine each commission individually and decide what needed to be accomplished by the particular commission. Ms. Fleming said from her experience, there were different reasons for each group that had been established, and the important ingredient was for the Council to look at the commissions purpose and what could better be accomplished by each. She did not feel there was an all inclusive set of rules and regulations that staff could make to apply to each. With regard to Mr. Kirkwood's comment about the Library Commission, she could not say that Palo Alto was the only city without a Library Commission, but it was the only city with a population of 57,000 that had six libraries. One might then ask what the purpose of a Library Commission might be, and the people supporting it would probably say it was to
11/27/95 77-369
maintain what Palo Alto already had, which up to now had never been threatened. The Council needed to look at establishing new commissions carefully being mindful of the costs and the staff available to support them. She felt it bespoke more of the concern on the part of residents to be involved rather than a need for commissions. Council Member Fazzino said with regard to the concept of City commissions, some of the suggestions: advocacy, expertise, building a sense of community, were all important criteria but most important was the concept, the vision, and the principal of pursuing community participation for its own end. It was a principal that had guided Palo Alto since its founding in 1894 and if for no more important reason, the concept should be included within the GV Section. There were some specific criteria beyond that which could be applied to various commissions. In the case of the UAC, it was expertise, experience with Utilities issues, technical background, etc., and that commission had been invaluable to the City. In the area of Community Services which involved both City and school services, it might be a group that helped build support for a particular program. Mayor Simitian agreed to some extent to the value in participation, but he did not believe that participation was an end in and of itself. There should not be a lot of make-work activity that kept people engaged in busy work without any real product. People walked away disillusioned when they participated for no good purpose. People needed to be engaged in genuinely constructive activity, and he asked what that constructive activity was that the Council would want the people to put their talents into because it needed to be articulated up front or he would not be interested in engaging them on that particular commission. Council Member Fazzino was not sure that could be done. He agreed that people should not meet just for the sake of meeting. It was not enough and overtime could lead to anxiety toward the City. At the same time, assuming that there were clear reasons as to why a commission needed to be formed, he felt that the concomitant building of a sense of community could be beneficial in the long run to the members of that committee as well as to the City government. Mayor Simitian clarified that Council Member Fazzino agreed that every committee should have some clearly defined purpose before being established. Council Member Fazzino said yes. Mayor Simitian said one of the undercurrents of discussion in the document that was heard that evening and also at some of the CPAC discussions was that there were a number of groups that were "friends" groups that somehow felt they would be better positioned if they had some greater official status. He asked for clarifica-tion of that statement.
11/27/95 77-370
Mr. Kirkwood said he was only aware of the one group that had approached the CPAC, but he felt it was in the Charter that was written for that particular commission. Whether it was permanent or temporary was an issue that had not been discussed. If the Council specified what it desired and a Charter was written to that effect, that would help with the staff not to respond to every request that was not within that Charter. He felt that was a very important piece to what the Council did. Mayor Simitian asked based on what was in the Plan and what had been heard, what people were missing from their public participa-tion role that they felt they could provide by a different structure or role in the organization. Mr. Kirkwood said the general undercurrent the CPAC received was along the lines that a commission could be more effective in generating private support for the libraries as a commission than as a "friends" group. Ms. Fleming felt there were a number of perceptions as to why a commission should be formed, but the Library Commission was a typical one with a range of perceptions that individuals had as to why there should be a commission. The difficulty came when every commission wanted to maintain exactly what they had despite the fact that resources might be decreasing. She did not mean there was not a role for the Library Commission, but she believed the Council needed to look cautiously and carefully at what it wanted to get out of any commission concept that it considered, and then apply that and the particulars to each commission that was considered and in some way establish some fairness and evenness around how they would be staffed and supported. The City did not do that currently and that was why some groups left very frustrated and cynical about their effectiveness. The Council needed to decide whether or not those commissions that were already established needed to be perpetuated and a policy needed to be drawn up as to what the future needs might be. She felt a friendly approach to government was not a satisfactory approach for establishing a commission and that was not what people were asking for. Council Member Andersen said earlier on he had been an advocate for an environmental commission and a majority of the Council felt at that time that it was not a good idea. He had learned to appreciate the wisdom of his colleagues and had become aware of some of the complications that arose when groups were created. He was a firm advocate of the UAC and was pleased with its outcome. Mr. Kirkwood had made an interesting point with regard to "disconnecting," and he wondered what would happen in the future when either the P&S Committee or the Council suggested that a commission be eliminated. He sensed there would be a room full of people stating all of the reasons why the City should have that vital organization that served the community in such a great way. If the Council moved forward on any assessment as to whether or not an additional commission was needed, the Council had to evaluate each commission individually for the purpose that was intended and how it would best serve the community. Then the
11/27/95 77-371
Council would have to determine whether or not the commission should be continued, merged, established, etc. As Council Member Rosenbaum had commented, when the Council decided to do that, it needed to be thoroughly evaluated and for that reason he strongly supported referral of the item, as long as it did not slow down the Plan process. He felt it could be done concurrently and still accomplish the intentions of the CPAC, exploring it in a much more appropriate manner than the Plan document allowed. He felt that it had been difficult for the CPAC to present innovating ideas in a way that the structure lent itself to, and he was sure that the CPAC would like to have an opportunity to do a more comprehensive analysis. Referring the item would give the CPAC that opportunity and at the same time allow staff to move on with the remainder of the Plan. If the Council decided later that the GV Section should be a part of the Plan or an appendix to the Plan, it could always be included since it was not connected to an EIR. Mayor Simitian agreed with Council Member Andersen intellectually that if the Council suggested to the boards and commissions that they were going to be reviewed for possible termination, there would be a fire storm of reaction and self-preservation from each board and commission, which would eliminate the possibility of discussing the potential for new commissions and what role they might play. Council Member Andersen said his reason for suggesting that approach was that it would be difficult for the Council to recommend additional approaches of inclusion and advocacy without determining whether or not what was already in place was working. Ms. Fleming reminded the Council that staff was currently working on an assignment to do exactly what Council Member Andersen had articulated. As staff talked to groups to gather information, the groups first concern was when the report was going to Council and that they hoped their commission was not being recommended for termination. Staff was working on the report and if Council referred the item to the P&S Committee, it should go with that item. Council Member Huber believed that the GV Section belonged with the Plan. For legal reasons maybe not "in the Plan," but physically the vision as to how the Council wanted the City to be a participatory type of government needed to be in a prominent place within the Plan document. He had no problem with a parallel track, but he wanted the Council to commit that something resembling the GV Section would be "in the Plan." Council Member Kniss referred to a comment made by Ms. Ward-Dolkas with respect to the lack of citizen participation at the Council meeting that evening and informed Mr. Kirkwood that if the GV Section was referred to the P&S Committee, it would provide a better opportunity for the public to comment. She had heard an indication from him that the public might think it would get lost in the process, but the committees tended to move the items along. It would give the public an opportunity to have a more casual interaction which might bring about more citizen participation
11/27/95 77-372
than was evidenced that evening. When something new was being incorporated into a plan, the committee route would be a wise way to approach the problem. Mr. Kirkwood said the intent of his earlier comment was that if the Council submitted governance to a committee with no guidance, he felt people would be disappointed, but if a parallel process were used and when completed would in some way be associated with the Plan, people would see it as a serious undertaking. It would also be a way to air some of the ideas thoroughly. Council Member Fazzino supported the inclusion of the GV Section within the Plan. Its appropriate purpose was to maintain and enhance the tradition of community involvement, and he was particularly impressed by suggestions of ways in which community involvement could be manifested through new technologies. The document struck a nice balance between Citywide and neighborhood specific community participation opportunities. He liked the concept of delegating more noncontroversial items to the Planning Commission, despite some of the concerns. He supported the concept of additional City commissions and said Palo Alto had fewer commissions than many other communities in the area. He felt Palo Alto did not avail itself to enough opportunities to rely upon the expertise of a very remarkable and talented constituency and should do so more often. He was intrigued by the proposals to increase predictability in decision making, recognizing that democracy could not be made predictable. It was appropriate, whether one be a project applicant or a citizen, that there be a fair amount of predictability built into the process so individuals were not surprised by the actions of a city body. He supported the referral of the GV Section to the P&S Committee. He disagreed that the item would get buried in the process if referred and felt it would provide an opportunity for an open discussion of the proposals. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed with Council Member Fazzino's comments on the possibility of having more citizen commissions. Many communities with a fraction of Palo Alto's resources had more commissions than Palo Alto. One problem that had not been acknowledged was the level of Council involvement with the commissions, e.g., the interview process, annual meetings, etc., which might be a bigger burden. It would behoove the Council to see how many other cities with more commissions operated, there was probably a different level of interaction between council and commission. With regard to the concern about governance being buried, he believed it would be appropriate to establish a placeholder for a GV Section and refer the material to the P&S Committee for consideration and eventual recommendation to the Council for possible inclusion in the placeholder. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, that the City Council: 1) provide a placeholder for the Governance portion of the Governance and Community Services Section, i.e., Governance Goals GV-1 through GV-10, in the Comprehensive Plan product; 2) refer the Governance portion of the Governance and Community Services Section, i.e., Governance Goals
11/27/95 77-373
GV-1 through GV-10, to the Policy and Services Committee for its recommendation to the City Council regarding inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) retain the services and quality portions of the Governance and Community Services Section, Goals GV-11 through GV-15, for future discussion by the City Council. Mayor Simitian clarified that some of the Council Members spoke to the desirability of inclusion in the Plan to accompaniment rather than it being a formal or legal inclusion. He understood that staff had some concerns about the legal inclusions and not about the fact that it would be an integral part of the Plan. He asked whether flexibility would be left to the eventual determination of how that linkage might be made and with the understanding that the Council saw it as being an integral part of the Plan product. Council Member Rosenbaum said yes. Council Member Fazzino wanted to make sure that the Council establish a time schedule which allowed the Council to bring the language and GV Section back into the process at the appropriate time. Mayor Simitian clarified that if the decision of the Council were to have the GV Section attached to but not legally incorporated into the Plan, then many of the time considerations were not as severe as if it were incorporated into the Plan formally and staff had to do a consistency analysis to integrate the document into the Plan. If the Council decided that within six months it wanted the GV Section to be an important document that accompanied the Plan but not incorporated as part of the Plan in a legal way, a year might be spent on it but it would not be a deterrent from moving forward. On the other hand, if the Council decided that it wanted the GV Section included in the Plan, it would be a different matter in terms of timing. He felt the most important thing the Council could do would be to let the P&S Committee decide early on with respect to where the GV Section belonged; and if what needed to be accomplished could be done without being formally included in the Plan, it would give the P&S Committee greater latitude in terms of time and also the opportunity to discuss the issues at greater length. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it should be a policy issue for the full Council. Mayor Simitian replied that the P&S Committee could take the issue up as one of the first items of business and return to Council for a decision on the issue. Council Member Kniss asked for clarification on whether the motion included Governance only or did it include Governance and Community Services. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified it included Goals GV-1 through GV-15, both Governance and Community Services, but noted that staff had separated 10 of the goals.
11/27/95 77-374
Ms. Fleming said staff incorrectly assumed the Council was referring to the Governance Section of the element only and not the entire element which included Community Services. Staff saw the two as entirely separate distinct pieces. She asked the Council for clarification. Council Member Kniss said she would feel more comfortable if the Council referred only the Governance portion to the P&S Committee until the Community and Services portion could be discussed at greater length. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the Governance portion would include only GV-1 through GV-10 and the Community Services portion would include GV-11 through GV-15. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the services and quality portions of the Governance and Community Services Section, GV-11 through GV-15, to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Fazzino said Dr. Barney Oliver, former Vice President of Research and Development at Hewlett-Packard, and former President of the Palo Alto Unified School District School Board, had passed away. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. in memory of Dr. Barney Oliver. 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.
11/27/95 77-375