HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-28 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting May 28, 1996 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-200 1. Appointments to the Historic Resources Board..........79-201 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-202 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1996......................79-202 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. for the 1996 Resurfacing Program.....79-202 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Jardin Pipeline Incorporated for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase VI....................................................79-202 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Control Systems, Inc. For Providing and Installing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System Master Station for the Electric Utility......................................79-202 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and R. W. Beck, Inc. For Consultant Services - Electric Distribution System79-202 6. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. in Partnership with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for Consultant Services to Prepare a Solids Facility Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant...........................79-202 7. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Public Financial Management Inc. for Financial Advisor Services for Golf Course Master Plan Improvements..................79-202 8. The Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the staff recommendation that Council adopt the sidewalk repair policy and that the policy be applied retroactively to the property at 180 University Avenue.....................79-203
05/28/96 79-198
9. Ordinance 4351 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.57 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Firearms Dealers............79-203 10. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-203 11. Review of the Work Plan of Theodore Barry and Associates for an Organizational Review of the Utilities Department..79-203 12. The Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the text language re Policies and Programs Related to the Governance Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, GV-1 through GV-10, as per the Policy and Services Committee Minutes of February 6 and April 9, 1996, and the staff report (CMR:279:96)..........................................79-212 13. Mayor Wheeler re Cancellation of June 3, 1996, Regular City Council Meeting.......................................79-221 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:35 p.m.......................................................79-221 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.......79-222
05/28/96 79-199
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Fazzino, Kniss (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Michael Jackson, Rodger Jensen, Susan Ryerson, Tony Sandhu, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, John Walton) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
05/28/96 79-200
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 7:32 p.m.), Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Historic Resources Board Council Member Kniss said Dennis Backlund, Martin Bernstein, Roger Kohler, and Carol Murden met the requirements of the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Mr. Kohler was the incumbent and an architect who had a great deal of background not only in architecture but also in dealing with historic homes. Mr. Backlund occupied a Category II historic structure and had a good deal of background in historic structures. Mr. Bernstein had an architectural background, and Ms. Murden had an academic background and had faithfully attended the early morning HRB meetings. Three other excellent candidates had also applied. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BACKLUND: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR BERNSTEIN: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR HOHBACH: VOTING FOR KOHLER: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR MURDEN: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR STARK: VOTING FOR WILLIAMS: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Dennis Backlund, Martin Bernstein, Roger Kohler, and Carol Murden received unanimous votes and were appointed on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Civic League.
05/28/96 79-201
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding communications. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 1996 MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of March 11, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 9. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. for the 1996 Resurfacing Program; change orders not to exceed $150,000. 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Jardin Pipeline Incorporated for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase VI; change orders not to exceed $176,600. 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Control Systems, Inc. For Providing and Installing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System Master Station for the Electric Utility; change orders not to exceed $65,000. 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and R. W. Beck, Inc. For Consultant Services - Electric Distribution System; change orders not to exceed $7,000. 6. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. in Partnership with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for Consultant Services to Prepare a Solids Facility Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; amendments not to exceed $25,000. 7. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Public Financial Management Inc. for Financial Advisor Services for Golf Course Master Plan Improvements
Ordinance 4350 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide Funding for a Financial Advisor for Golf Course
Improvements≅ 8. The Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the staff recommendation that Council adopt the sidewalk repair policy and that the policy be applied retroactively to the property at 180 University Avenue.
05/28/96 79-202
9. Ordinance 4351 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.57 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code Regulating Firearms Dealers≅ (1st Reading 5/13/96, PASSED 8-0, McCown absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 10. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Joe Huber, Dick Rosenbaum, Lanie Wheeler) Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Manager June Fleming, City Auditor Bill Vinson, and City Clerk Gloria Young Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Public Comment None. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 11. Review of the Work Plan of Theodore Barry and Associates for an Organizational Review of the Utilities Department Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek introduced Tom Resh, Project Director, and Theodore Barry and Associates (TB&A), who would make a presentation that evening and then receive input from the Council on the Utilities Organizational Review. Tom Resh, Managing Director, Theodore Barry and Associates, presented view graphs that showed the highlights of the work plan. He explained that part of the study was not to just look at the internal operation of the Utilities Department but to also interview a number of outside agencies such as the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), and other city departments that interfaced with the Utilities Department. He asked the Council to provide feedback on any other areas of concern. Council Member Schneider said the report from TB&A referenced Council interviews, and she asked whether individual Council interviews were a Brown Act violation. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said yes. The purpose of the discussion was to develop collective concurrence about the issues
05/28/96 79-203
that would be covered by the review. A private conference with a Council Member would be inappropriate. Mr. Resh said the objective of the study was to review how the Utilities Department was organized, determine whether the Department was performing at a high level of efficiency and effectiveness, and providing responsive and reliable service expected by the customers. The focus would be on the organizational issue, but TB&A also recognized that an important part was the emerging issues on the water and gas side of the utility. One of the challenges would be that the results and recommendations should be specific and actionable. The Phase I management study would look for opportunities for improvement and development of a detailed improvement plan. After the study was completed, it would be the responsibility of the the Utilities Department and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to carry out the design and development of the improvements and to determine whether some areas identified might require a more complex study. The Organizational Review had three main components: 1) an extensive process of competitive benchmarking for the different utilities. Questionnaires had been developed, and a survey had been started for the electric side. The gas and water surveys would be sent out shortly. The extensive external data would provide an objective assessment of the performance of the utility and also some ongoing measures for monitoring the performance of the utility in the future; 2) value centered management as a tool to look at the performance of the white collar portion of the work staff, e.g., the value would not be measured from the people who produced the product or service but from the people who received the product or service. The information from those two components would be used to develop recommendations regarding the
organization=s structure; and 3) the competitive assessment which would have three major tasks: a) the expansion of a study that had been done earlier by Resource Management International (RMI), the subcontractor working on the project; b) a more detailed analysis of the customer expectations regarding utility performance; and c) programs designed to retain customers under a competitive environment. The work schedule would be lined up with planned meeting dates of the UAC, so there would be a number of interim deliverables during the course of the project. The benchmarking portion would give an objective assessment of performance and would also provide some excellent ongoing measures for monitoring the performance of the utility in the future. TB&A had 55 firms that participated annually in its benchmarking survey, and the department could continue to participate in that annual survey as an option. The final report would be completed on October 3, 1996. Mayor Wheeler cautioned the Council not to broaden the scope of the review beyond which it was intended. There were many issues around which Council had on various occasions expressed well-warranted concerns about Utilities such as rates, reserves, and
05/28/96 79-204
transfers in the General Fund, but those concerns were not within the scope of the organizational review. Council Member Andersen said previously there had been discussions by both the UAC and the Council regarding competitiveness. He asked whether the area of competitiveness would consider the bases by which the City made its judgment and analysis of the amount of return that went into the General Fund, and on the basis of the primary deliverables that seemed an appropriate question. City Manager June Fleming said the study would not be the in-depth review described by Council Member Andersen. The scope of the organizational study was whether the City was prepared to deal with those subjects. After the study was completed, the Council might have some other areas it wanted the staff to review. The review was to be a mirror image of the type of review that was done with the General Fund. Mr. Mrizek explained the RFP recognized the competitive issues, and the scope of work had an addition to compare the Utilities transfers to the General Fund with municipal utility transfers in other California cities. There was also a request to compare the utility rates by customer classes with other municipal and investor-owned utilities in California which would also give a comparison of the competitiveness of the rates and transfers. Those two pieces of information were part of the study.
Council Member McCown asked how the UAC=s response to the progress
steps would be incorporated into the study. She said the UAC=s minutes of April 3, 1996, indicated some good suggestions, and the UAC would always have more pertinent suggestions than most of the Council. Mr. Resh said when the study got into the findings, the observations would be shared with the UAC, but an independent view would remain as well. If there were areas that the UAC believed needed a more in-depth review, it would be done. The intent was an independent objective review. In addition to the feedback from the UAC, there would be regular meetings scheduled with the City
Manager; and the City Manager=s views and direction would also be incorporated into the study. Council Member McCown said it would be helpful if the study identified for the Council the core issues that might have been brought up by either the UAC or staff as the analysis moved forward. Mr. Resh said the study would be made advantageous for the Council.
Council Member Simitian asked what was TB&A=s role of identifying potential cost savings in the scope of work that would be provided.
05/28/96 79-205
Mr. Resh said opportunities would arise from the benchmarking when the comparative analysis was done. A lot of the benchmarking data related to cost or staffing and performance levels. Those opportunities would be presented to the Utilities Department and the UAC. Council Member Simitian believed cost savings should be a significant goal of the study. Council Member Schneider said the Utilities Department had received numerous citations for excellent service and had been recognized throughout the nation as providing quality service, and she asked how the Utilities Department felt about the organizational review. Mr. Mrizek said when the Council suggested that the review be done
following the General Fund=s review, he asked the City Manager to give him two years since he was a new director to look at the department internally and improve the operation. Substantial changes had been made to improve the operation of the Utilities Department, e.g., staff had been reduced and operating costs had been reduced substantially. It was the appropriate time to have an outside consultant review what could be done to improve the organization, especially with respect to the competitive issues that would be faced in the electric utility. He had a very high comfortable level that the review should be done at the present time, and a message had been conveyed to the staff that the review was to improve the operation. He believed members of the Utility felt comfortable with the direction being taken. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was any anticipation of what the outcome of the organizational review would be. Mr. Mrizek said the Utilities Department was a very efficient, well run organization, and he believed the operations would be in the upper quadrant of any benchmarking that took place compared to other similar type utilities and investor-owned utilities. Council Member Kniss said fortunately, the City had been able to provide excellent service and competitive prices for the businesses and residents in the community, but deregulation was an issue. She asked what was the philosophy that would allow the City to stay competitive in the environment 10 to 15 years in the future. The City would have to operate the Utilities similar to private business and stay competitive and be aware of trends. Mr. Resh said the City would have to run the Utilities as a competitive enterprise with a focus on the customer and what the competitors were doing at all times. Municipal and investor-owned utilities had not done that very well in the past.
05/28/96 79-206
Council Member Kniss asked how the recommendations would apply to a municipality which responded differently and slower. Mr. Resh said the changes in the municipal market would be slower. A municipality had regulations that treated its customers differently than investor-owned utilities. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) customers were already being taken, and the transition on the investor-owned side would happen sooner than expected. Investor-owned utilities were making some bold moves in terms of protecting stranded assets, but at the same time they were gearing up for the reality of competition. The marketplace would dictate what would happen in that arena. The pressures from customers would increase as they recognized the potential options. The message to utility customers was to run the operation like a business every day and focus on the customer, be aware of the competitors, and develop competitive intelligence about what was happening in the industry so the threats were known. Council Member Kniss asked that the comments consider the culture of the City. Council Member Rosenbaum said at the UAC meeting there was some discussion about the need for balance between the amount of time spent on the organizational review and the competitive assessment. He asked what percentage of time would be spent on each of those items. Mr. Resh said the ratio would be 60 percent on the organizational review and 40 percent on the competitive issue. Considerable activities had not been launched in terms of the customer side. The customer interviews and focus groups would be an important part of the input into the study. Council Member Rosenbaum said the review of the organization had been referred to as mundane, whereas the competitive issue was new and exciting. He encouraged TB&A to devote as much time as possible to the more mundane aspect of the utility. The cost of generation was the largest cost of any utility and it was very flexible. He asked whether financial details would be recommended. Mr. Resh said the scope of the study did not include financial details of some of the contracts, but the dimensions of the competitive position of the utility relative to its existing contracts, the price of purchase, and the flexibility to take advantage of the new open access market would be reviewed. It was a critical component and a large percentage of the cost of purchase power. There were presently new options available that were not available three months previously. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council were well informed on the competitive difficulties that the City potentially faced. He asked
05/28/96 79-207
whether it was worth 40 percent of the consultant=s time on the review of the issue of competitive assessment. Mr. Mrizek said it was very important to have an outside consultant review the strategic plans that had been done internally. Staff had prepared an excellent competitive document with the help of the consultant. The consultant should look at to what extent staff was following that document and suggest changes to correct the course in the competitive market, e.g., should more time be spent working with the internal customers or should aggregation be done separately. Council Member Rosenbaum believed in the area of competition that the City had a very sophisticated staff and Council, and he hoped the material provided would not have a great deal of review of the fundamentals and that the comments would be on what the consultant
thought of the City=s program and where there might be changes in course. Mayor Wheeler said a great deal of time was spent with the UAC discussing benchmarking and the apples-to-apples issue. One of the difficulties with the previous organizational review was that the Administrative Services Department had some disagreement with some
of the consultant=s assumptions, particularly with the way the City
handled its budgeting. She hoped it was the consultant=s intent to work with the Administrative Services Department so that he/she
understood that the City=s accounting might be different than other organizations so that the comparison would truly be apples to apples. Mr. Resh said the questionnaires had already been sent out with certain types of questions and data requested. It was almost impossible to make it totally apples to apples, but TB&A would review the data and sort out the differences to make certain the comparisons were as accurate as possible. One problem was that the survey could not be changed for the purposes of a particular study because the changes would have to be reflected in all of the 55 or 60 utilities that had already participated and were part of the data base. The City would be compared against a large existing data base that had over 500 data points. Council Member Fazzino was interested in the electric utility restructuring issue, and he had heard a lot about POOL CO and direct access. There seemed to be a real poseity of information or analysis about the impact of restructuring on a municipal utility. He asked whether the impact was unknown. He had heard that the City would benefit along with for-profit utilities because of the general benefits of direct access. He did not believe anyone to date had completed an adequate analysis of the impact of direct access on municipal utility. He asked whether the study would provide that analysis.
05/28/96 79-208
Mr. Resh said the study would provide some analysis, but there were many unknowns. He had participated in one of the committees involved with the filing for the structure of both the independent system operator and the power exchange. The meetings had been open to the public for over a year. There was a number of municipal utilities that also participated on the task force but generally there was very limited input from the municipal sector which he thought was because they wanted to protect their position to make sure they had a voice on a board of directors of an independent system operator on the board of a power exchange. It was not clear what the quid pro quo would be for the municipal utility if they were given a board seat and why they would be willing to open their territory to competition. He did not believe the answers would come from the utilities but would be driven by the marketplace and the pressures that large industrial customers could bring to force all possible options. One focus of the study would be to find out what the larger industrial customers expected out of the restructured market. Some other studies had been initiated, and his firm had been contracted to do a study for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power that would be an extensive analysis of customer expectations for a restructured market. The impact on municipals was unclear at the present time. Council Member Fazzino clarified the municipals had not played a major role in lobbying of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) when Southern California Edison was on one side and larger industrial customers on the other side. Southern California Edison wanted POOL CO and large industrial customers wanted direct access. He asked why municipals had not played a major role at that point. Mr. Mrizek said the municipal utilities had a role in the CPUC but it represented smaller territories compared to the large investor-owned utilities such as PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego. The municipals went through the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) and intervened on the proceedings; however, the effort was not as successful as hoped for. Council Member Fazzino asked what message the municipals conveyed. Mr. Mrizek said when pooling agreements were discussed, CMUA presented a recommendations for a different version of the pooling agreement which had not been heard by the CPUC. The issues basically followed the investor-owned direction. A number of issues had not been resolved, and one of the questions was whether the City should be part of POOL CO. The Council could be provided with updates if desired. Council Member Simitian recalled making a plea for an incentive-based system that Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Grimsrud had
05/28/96 79-209
recommended. He also recalled a discussion about the scope of the effort and about savings. Mr. Mrizek said the wording suggested by Council Member Simitian
was added to the scope of work as follows: ΑPropose any recommendations or approved service levels and/or identify cost
savings.≅ Council Member Simitian wanted to make certain the consultant was aware that that phrase was part of the language that was previously adopted by the Council. Council Member McCown associated with the comments of Council Member Rosenbaum in terms of the emphasis on the organizational issues. There was a variety of ways the Council had looked at and would continue to look at the competitiveness issue. Many of the
questions were directed at customer perceptions of the City=s Utilities, i.e., from a broad perspective to specifics of operation management. She did not feel the anecdotal feedback she could give would be as useful as the work done with the focus groups. She was more interested in hearing what the consultants found out than what she heard. Most of the comments she heard were complimentary. She complimented the Utilities Department staff on the quality of the new utility bill which provided a tremendously useful change in the way the City communicated to its residential customers. Council Member Andersen was not concerned about anecdotal information but was interested in how the top ten companies felt about the issues. It was important for the City to be responsive in a competitive customer service perceived process. He believed the organizational review coincided with the competitive issue. In order for the City to be competitive, it had to make changes quickly which was often an organizational issue. An important element was for the Council to be aware of any indicators that would suggest the City might have difficulty making those kinds of adjustments quickly. He would be interested in any suggestions regarding Calavares due to the costing questions. He appreciated that there was a separate segment on water and gas issues but suggested the consultant review the Finance Committee minutes with
regard to those issues. He said the City used a Αpay-as-you-go≅ approach to maintain the infrastructure improvements, and he hoped there would be some costing element in the study regarding the effectiveness of that approach. Mayor Wheeler echoed the comments of her colleagues regarding the value of what the consultant would do versus the anecdotal evidence that could be relayed to them that evening as being a definitive mark of how well the Utilities was perceived by its customers. It was much easier for constituents who were unhappy to communicate with the Council than it was for those people who were happy with their experience with City Hall. The Utilities was not complaint
05/28/96 79-210
free, but the number of complaints about the Utilities Department was extremely low in comparison with other departments. She recalled that there were previous concerns which was prior to the
current management=s tenure. She believed those concerns had been dealt with effectively but suggested the consultant review the productivity and excessive use of overtime issues that existed previously within the department. No action required. 12. The Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the text language re Policies and Programs Related to the Governance Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, GV-1 through GV-10, as per the Policy and Services Committee Minutes of February 6 and April 9, 1996, and the staff report (CMR:279:96). Council Member Rosenbaum said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee discussed the issue on February 6 and April 9, 1996. At the first meeting, the P&S Committee discussed Goals GV-1 through GV-8 and the issue of whether Governance should be an element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). The P&S Committee believed it should be an element, but staff was given the assignment to make sure that that action would not cause any consistency problems, i.e., that future land use decisions would not be challenged on the basis that some part of the Governance
Element was not being fully lived up to. The staff=s recommendation was rather than formulating the material as an element that it instead be included as a chapter of the document, together with or similar to the Implementation Section. Staff suggested there should be disclaimer language in the chapter which explained that the policies and programs were implementation objectives and not subject to the internal and vertical consistency requirements of the Plan. The P&S Committee believed it would be equivalent in terms of its impact on City policy to have it as a formal element. The P&S Committee suggested staff redo the format of Goals GV-9 and GV-10 so that it would be easier to read. Attachment I of the staff report (CMR:279:96) reflected that revision which contained six goals and the primary issues of the original ten goals. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said since the Council concluded its earlier work on the rest of Phase II of the Plan, staff had been working with an editor to reformat the various goals, policies, and programs. Attachment I was not a
final product, and it was part of staff=s process to take the material that the Council had directed to be placed in a draft plan and put it into an appropriate format for the Plan. Council Member Kniss asked whether the dollar amounts had been calculated for staff time and implementation.
05/28/96 79-211
Mr. Schreiber said staff had not worked out the implementation arrangements for the various policies and programs in the Plan. After Council completed its work that evening, staff would take the product and start addressing that issue. There would be major costs involved, but the amounts were unknown at the present time. Staff would provide that implementation information to the Council when the Plan was completed. Council Member Kniss said there would be inherent costs when anything was added, and it was important to recognize that some costs would be incurred. She clarified that information would be provided to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said yes. The completed Draft Plan would include an implementation chapter which would initially address potential expenditures and cost savings. Council Member Kniss asked whether the addition of the Governance Section as a chapter or as an element in the Plan would cause any major expenditures. Mr. Schreiber said some jurisdictions were beginning to add that information to a comprehensive plan, but Palo Alto was ahead of most of the California jurisdictions in that regard. The City Attorney had expressed concern regarding how the information would be tied into the Plan, and staff had been working with his office so that the information would be handled in such a way that it would not increase risk for the overall City process. The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) process raised a wide variety of governance-related issues which were not part of any additional work program approved by the Council. Staff believed the issues were legitimate but would create some changes in direction for City policies and procedures. Staff was comfortable that the changes could be accomplished and would be a positive
addition to the City=s decision-making process. City Attorney Ariel Calonne believed the Governance Section was another form of compact between the Council and the public as to how the Council would run public decision making. It added another layer of assurances to those that existed in the Charter and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). He referred to page 3 of
Attachment I, Program A1, ΑInitiate a charter amendment for the ballot that would delegate specific decisions to the Planning Commission, including appeals of decision by the Zoning
Administrator and the Planning Director,≅ and said the most action compelling part of that program was the provision that the Council would initiate a charter amendment to delegate final decision-making authority to the Planning Commission which was a very significant change. Some additional costs might be created when a Planning Commission decision was the final action which meant that the City could be sued based on that action. Therefore, his staff would refocus its effort to have those decision fully defensible in
05/28/96 79-212
a way that was currently reserved for Council. The second area
that had some ramifications was Goal 5, ΑNew planning processes which encourage collaboration among the public, property owners, and the City to simulate positive outcomes in areas where change
has been identified as needed and desirable,≅ on page 5 of Attachment I. The coordinated area planning process was a significantly new set of assurances from the City to the public on how particular land decisions would be made. It could be a costly
assurance. He said on page 6, Program A2, ΑInitiate a customer
oriented process improvement effort,≅ could require substantial consultant expenses from his office for auditing the City on how it
implemented the program. Also, on page 6, Program A3, ΑDevelop, use, and update when necessary, design guidelines for various geographic areas of the City or types of projects to supplement the
ARB ordinance,≅ appeared to call for creation of fairly specific encyclopedia of design rules that would supplement the existing ARB process which was currently governed by the experience and expertise of the board members. The effort appeared to codify some of their judgment.
City Manager June Fleming said the City Attorney=s comments had targeted the core issues. Staff had made a commitment that once the section was adopted and approved by the Council that it would be used as a comprehensive plan and it would be integrated into all
of the City=s activities as thoroughly as possible. There were cost items in the future. An infrastructure would need to be in place to support the section. Suggestions had been made to stay in contact with neighborhood organizations and conduct a more participatory process. There were some fundamental changes that staff supported, but the Council should be aware that there would be some additional costs. She had had discussions with both the Planning Department and the City Attorney about the best way for the section to serve the City well. She did not believe the section should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as an element. The various review processes had not determined its consistency with other areas. Improvements would probably be found after the section had been used for awhile, and the Council might want to consider folding it in as an element at that time. Council Member Kniss said the section was significant. She clarified the staff would have more information regarding the impacts and costs when it returned to Council. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. The present staff could not support the statements in the section regarding Internet, advanced communication opportunities, and establishing electronic bulletin
boards. Staff could not even support the Council=s e-mail the way it would like. Plans, policies, procedures, and infrastructure would have to be developed, and she was committed, if the Council approved the section, to fold everything into the budget process.
05/28/96 79-213
It could not be done quickly and would have to be prioritized as one of the guidelines. Council Member McCown asked the difference between calling the section a chapter and an element. Mr. Calonne did not want to commit to the schematics at the present time, but a chapter was similar to an appendix and would not be part of the Plan. Council Member McCown recalled that at the first P&S Committee meeting there was strong support for not having the section be an appendix and not in the Plan. There was also a recognition of the
City Attorney=s legal concern and a desire to allow that to be properly dealt with. She asked how the section could be included in a way that stated to the community that the Council was committed to conducting its land use decision making in a certain way while at the same time not getting caught up in a legal box about consistency and inconsistency. An appendix was something the community could not count on as a commitment by the Council because it was only an appendix to the document. Mr. Calonne said the Council could include the section as an element without major legal risks by including a lot of intent describing preparatory language. The draft needed to be carefully done, but it was doable. He was still concerned about the legal aspects regarding consistency, but he did not want that to diminish an underlying poor policy issue with respect to the relationship between the Council and the community. Mayor Wheeler asked what was the relationship between the language in the vision statement and the language in the goals, policies, and programs. Mr. Schreiber said the vision statement in a particular element provided the initial broad direction that the goals, policies, and programs needed to fit within.
Mr. Calonne concurred with Mr. Schreiber=s comments and added that the language would be used to resolve ambiguities or unanswered questions raised in the specific programs and policies. If a policy were subject to many interpretations, the vision statement could be used to find the beacon that would guide the Council down the same path that the previous Council had in mind when it was enacted. Mr. Schreiber explained the Vision Statement on page 2 of Attachment I was the first three paragraphs, and the last two paragraphs were part of the opening text that related to Goals 1 and 2. He suggested a heading be inserted regarding participation.
05/28/96 79-214
Mayor Wheeler asked what was the relationship between the text and the policies and programs. Mr. Schreiber said the text was explanatory material that would provide background, direction, and clarification if needed. Within the Plan, there was not a lot of space for great amounts of text, so text served as introductory functions to set some goals and policies and additional text was added as short explanatory statements to clarify a particular point that was made in a policy or program. The Plan consisted of text, draft words, and graphics. The captions of the graphics also conveyed a sense of what the Plan was about. The graphics would be structured to be consistent with the text of the policies and programs and reinforce the main themes of the various elements. Mayor Wheeler clarified it was similar to legislative intent. Mr. Schreiber said it was intent and an explanation for the reader who had not had the benefit of the background discussions that had occurred previously.
Mr. Calonne said an example was the existing Comprehensive Plan=s vision of parts of South El Camino Real being pedestrian oriented. There might be specific goals, policies, or programs that focused on a particular piece of property, yet he was aware of at least two occasions when the language that described the overall objective of having a pedestrian-oriented place significantly influenced the
Council=s decision making. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, urged the Council to incorporate the element into the Plan. Most of the Council, CPAC, Planning Commission, and the public believed the element should be in the Plan. He encouraged the element to be consistent with the other elements. He referred to page 3 of Attachment I and said Program C1 would only establish a liaison system, and he recommended the
program be reworded to read: ΑEstablish a city/community liaison system using electronic and print media to inform residents of
current issues and to facilitate resident feedback to the City=s staff and the City Council and to provide services directly to the
public.≅ The term Αcommunity≅ was broader than the term
Αneighborhood≅ and would allow for two-way activity so that people could apply for permits, boards and/or commissions, and have direct dialogue rather than passing information back and forth. If the public could participate directly and effectuate things remotely, it would save the community and the City money. He referred to
Goal 5, ΑNew planning processes which encourage collaboration among the public, property owners, and the City to stimulate positive outcomes in areas where change has been identified as needed and
desirable,≅ and said all the policies and programs related to specific changes. The implication was that Goal 5 would only be implemented if there were changes in land use or policy. Sometimes existing land uses and policies could benefit from prior review and
05/28/96 79-215
consultation. He suggested adding Program A4, ΑEncourage referrals of proposed developments to neighborhood organizations in the affected areas for community review and comment before formal
applications were made≅ which would provide a cost savings and benefit to both the community and the developer. The City would not have applications being submitted that were totally inappropriate and would meet a lot or resistance in the community. The community would have an opportunity to fine-tune the application so that when the application came to the Planning Commission and the Council, it would go through expeditiously. It would be better to be more general and not focus only on the changes from the existing conditions. There would be some up-front costs, but in the long term the City would benefit. It was easy to quantify the direct costs, but it might be difficult to quantify the actual benefits. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve that the Draft Comprehensive Plan contain the Governance
Section as a chapter rather than an element and the staff=s revisions to the goals, policies, and programs text as indicated in the Draft Governance Section dated May 14, 1996. Council Member Schneider said when she was the co-chairperson of CPAC, she was not comfortable with the Governance Section as it was proposed initially. However, she was much more comfortable with the section as proposed by CPAC and the P&S Committee to be included as a adjunct to the Plan. The overriding theme of the Governance Section was that the City needed to improve convenient access to local decision making. Palo Alto involved its citizens in decision making, and she knew of no other community that had such intense involvement of the public. The CPAC process was a good example of true involvement of the community. She said it was mentioned on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:279:96) that the City needed to improve access to local decision making, and that many people felt that the public hearing forum only allowed a minority of citizens and special interests during the public hearings to take place. She disagreed with that statement. The public hearing process in the community was one of many resources for the community to gather information, e.g., e-mail, United States mail,
telephone, and open meetings. The Council=s decisions were not the result of the information it gleaned from the public commentary at a public hearing. The Council gathered a tremendous amount of information prior to its decision. She wanted the Governance Section to be included in the Plan but wanted it to be a chapter or addendum to the Plan. Council Member Kniss echoed the comments of Council Member Schneider. However, she was very aware that it was a draft document, and there were a number of pieces that had not been addressed yet.
05/28/96 79-216
AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to amend the motion to pursue the Governance Section as an element in the next stages of the Draft Comprehensive Plan process as developed by the City Attorney.
Council Member McCown did not agree with some of the staff=s comments that the concepts were revolutionary in the section. She believed the section was evolutionary and tried to articulate more expressly the philosophy of how the Council had conducted its business for many years. There might be some specific proposals that the Council would need to review in detail. The section was
still being evaluated, and she wanted the benefit of staff=s input on how the environmental analysis and remaining steps involved in the process would be done. It was a new step to declare such a section an element. It was important for the Council to continue that approach, and it would be easier to back away from that approach at the end rather than not evaluating it as an element and conclude at the end that the section should be included as an element in the Plan. Council Member Andersen was comfortable with the chapter approach. The section as an element might be used as a tool to force a particularly narrow agenda. He believed the chapter approach accomplished the intent of opening up the process for more involvement than had been available in the past, and it would allow an opportunity for a vision of government that was quite different from what was generally used in standard government processes. Council Member Simitian supported the original motion and opposed the amendment. During several of the earlier discussions, he argued strongly for the importance of both external and internal consistency in the document. Notwithstanding those earlier arguments, he was still opposed to the amendment that evening. He believed a legitimate expectation was that internal consistency should be that the Council should say what it meant and mean what it said and the same thing should be said from element to element. There was a qualitative difference between elements which were
about the substance of the Council=s decision regarding land use, transportation, and open space and the process of the section on Governance. He did not want the Council entangled in the substance of the Plan because of a dispute or potential minor inconsistency as to process. He did not believe that meant that the component that dealt with governance was any the less important. He agreed with Council Member McCown that in many ways the section was evolutionary rather than revolutionary in terms of its content. A person could even argue that the process was overriding and that governance defined what the end product would be. There was a qualitative difference between what was put in the Comprehensive Plan about the substance of what the community was and a section or chapter on process which defined how the Council got from one point to another. He did not want to trip over a chapter or supplement en route to the substance in the document.
05/28/96 79-217
Council Member Fazzino believed the way Palo Alto went about making decisions was just as important as the decisions which were made. Palo Alto had always been a laboratory of democracy since its inception. Earlier town hall debates centered around how decisions were made and who would be involved in making those decisions. He believed an element, chapter, code, or rambling comments regarding governance should be given the same standing as any other element of the Plan. He also agreed with Council Member McCown that the City had operated that way for many years and nothing was new. He did not believe the designation of the Governance Section as an element would provide legitimacy for every public comment that was made. He argued that given all the attention the Council had paid to the language and the outstanding job that the public, Council, Planning Commission and staff had done and the recognition of the importance of involving the community to tremendous degree in the public policy making, that the section deserved to be called an element. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the amendment. It was the intent of the P&S Committee that the Governance Section be included as an element in the Plan unless staff concluded that the consistency problem was insurmountable. In a sense it was a procedure problem that was similar to what happened with the Citywide Transportation and Land Use Study of 1989 where the Policy and Services Committee had asked staff to work on the study. Staff had come back with something that was different from what the P&S Committee intended. There was also confusion about whether the motion was a Committee recommendation or a staff recommendation. The P&S Committee wanted the section to be an element but for it to be considered from a legal standpoint. He was surprised that the City Attorney indicated it could be done as an element and that he could develop some language because that was not indicated in the staff report. He suggested in the future that the form of communication be different on those issues. Council Member McCown said implicit in the intent of the motion was that the City Attorney would be asked to do what the P&S Committee discussed which was to work on incorporating language which had not been done yet as part of pursuing it as an element. Council Member Rosenbaum said that was his understanding as well. The City Attorney might decide after further review that the risk was too great to make the section an element. At that point, the Council could take action based on that advice. Council Member Andersen agreed with the comments of Council Members McCown, Fazzino, and Rosenbaum and would support the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-4, Andersen, Fazzino, McCown, Rosenbaum, Αyes,≅ Huber absent.
05/28/96 79-218
Mayor Wheeler commended both the P&S Committee and staff for their work on the section. She was concerned about the inconsistency between some of the language in the first two paragraphs under the Vision Statement on page 2 of Attachment I and Goal 1, Policy B and
Program B1, and the Council=s setting up additional advisory bodies to the Council. The one criterion left from the several that were discussed both in the draft Plan and at the P&S Committee meetings was that if there were a committed constituency, then a commission or committee could be formed. She did not believe that was the intent, and she asked staff to broaden the language. Three or four committed constituencies appeared at the P&S Committee meetings, three or four appeared before the Council, and there had been a report from the City Manager which indicated the City was not in a position at the present time to move forward with additional commissions. She asked staff not to place the Council in a bind by espousing a philosophy that could not be carried forward. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Mayor Wheeler re Cancellation of June 3, 1996, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of June 3, 1996. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:35 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 10. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 10. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are 05/28/96 79-219
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.
05/28/96 79-220