Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-13 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 13, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................81-116 1. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Harza Engineering Company for the Study and Design for the Arastradero Dam, Embankment Spillway and Creek, and Trail Improvements; change orders not to exceed $9,700......81-116 2. Payment to San Francisco Estuary Institute for City of Palo Alto=s Share of the San Francisco Bay Monitoring Program81-116 3. Resolution 7645 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1997-98 81-117 4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the Proposed Guidelines for Preparation of the 1997-98 Interim Operating and Capital Budgets.................81-117 5. The Finance Committee=s Retention of the Revised Audit Plan81-117 6. City Council Minutes of the Sand Hill Road Public Hearings81-117 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 37...............................81-117 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding an application for a preliminary parcel map to subdivide a vacant 21,000 square-foot parcel into two 10,500 square-foot single-family parcels for the property located 679 Maybell Avenue............................81-124 9. The Finance Committee re Public Building Infrastructure Management Plan (Module 1)............................81-124 10. The Finance Committee re the 1995-96 Financial Summary Status Report and Budget Closing.............................81-126 01/13/97 81-114 11. Evaluation of Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan81-128 12. Audit of Code Enforcement.............................81-136 13. City Council=s Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed at the Special City Council Meeting of Saturday, January 18, 1997 81-142 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........81-143 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m............81-143 01/13/97 81-115 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:43 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michael H. Wollenweber spoke regarding nutrition. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding the Sand Hill Road proposal. Louise Lyman, 3945 Louis Road, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, spoke regarding Stanford projects. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding a request for an opinion of the Attorney General on whether the proposed Sand Hill Road extension and the connection between El Camino Real and Palo Alto Avenue/Alma Street were regionally significant roadways. Pat Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, spoke regarding the Stanford project. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding neighborhood protections in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zones adjacent to Residential (R-1) Zones. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 6. 1. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Harza Engineering Company for the Study and Design for the Arastradero Dam, Embankment Spillway and Creek, and Trail Improvements; change orders not to exceed $9,700. 2. Payment to San Francisco Estuary Institute for City of Palo Alto=s Share of the San Francisco Bay Monitoring Program 3. Resolution 7645 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1997-98 4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the Proposed Guidelines for Preparation of the 1997-98 Interim Operating and Capital Budgets. 01/13/97 81-116 5. The Finance Committee=s Retention of the Revised Audit Plan 6. City Council Minutes of the Sand Hill Road Public Hearings MOTION PASSED 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 37 Council Member Schneider asked about other options discussed on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:113:97) indicating "The average service conversion cost per customer is $4,035. The property owners have been offered the option of financing their service conversion costs over a period of ten years." Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said residents in Underground Utility District 37 (District 37) had the option of paying everything up front to a contractor or taking out a personal loan. The staff report (CMR:113:97) discussed a loan provided by the City. Council Member Schneider asked about the interest rate on the City's loan. Senior Power Engineer Jim Thompson said the interest rate was based on .5 percent above the bond rate. Mr. Mrizek said the rate would be .5 percent above the bond rate the week at which the bond was applied for. Council Member Schneider asked for an example. Mr. Mrizek said the bond rate had been in the range of 7 percent the prior week but would be determined at the time the loans were made. The range could be anywhere between 6.5 to 7.5 percent. Council Member Schneider asked whether the agreement for the proposed acquisition of Cable Co-Op would be affected. Mr. Mrizek replied no. Council Member Rosenbaum asked staff to respond to the letter the Finance Committee had received from Robert Harrington. City Manager June Fleming said staff would review the letter at the table and would respond after the public had spoken. 01/13/97 81-117 Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Paul Pease, 816 Embarcadero Road, spoke about the high cost of undergrounding, with average costs between $2,500 to $4,500. Even though some of the wires would be removed, the high-tension wires would not be removed along Embarcadero Road. He also questioned the involvement of Pacific Bell. Bob Harrington, 1802 Fulton Street, expressed concern about District 37 (letter on file in City Clerk's Office). Steve Ross, 1770 Fulton Street, supported the establishment of District 37 which would assist in averting storm damage, downed lines, etc. Two of his neighbors had already expressed a willing-ness to host the two transformers necessary for the project, the size of which it was hoped could be reduced. The flush under-grounding of cable television outlets was supported. Bernice Loeb, 2120 Middlefield Road, supported undergrounding with two reservations: 1) The $3 charge for cable television of which she was not in support; and 2) the expense which would be difficult for some to pay, suggesting the very old telephone wires could be reinstalled resulting in a reduced cost or City electricians could assist in installation of some of the project. Joan Reed, 763 Coastland Drive, spoke against the underground conversion because of the high cost and because she did not want cable television. Paying interest on an unwanted loan was an additional hardship. She asked about the neighborhood which had been removed from the map. Barry Syrett, 1881 Fulton Street, spoke against the underground project primarily based on the price to the homeowner. The cost quoted in the questionnaire had been $1,000 to $5,000, averaging around $2,000, but had doubled, querying the same favorable response had the responders been informed of the higher cost. He opposed the $3 per month cost of undergrounding the cable televi-sion box. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. Mrizek responded to Robert Harrington's letter, acknowledging first that trees were a premium in the neighborhood. The City had done much undergrounding and were very conscious during trenching to bypass tree roots, with the City Arborist called out to direct the contractors. On no occasion during undergrounding had a tree been lost. Regarding Cable Co-op and the flush mount vaults, City staff had recently spoken with Cable Co-op who had indicated the only installations were pedestals. Regarding Pacific Bell's contribution to undergrounding, all of the City's Utilities, Pacific Bell, and Cable Co-op shared in the costs of trenching, conduits, etc. The total cost was over $2 million, with $800,000 being paid for by the telephone company. The cost issue was a concern of all residents and an issue which City staff had 01/13/97 81-118 encountered in the past. Customers were responsible for installa-tion of service from the property line to the electric or telephone connectors or meters, which was a varied cost. The estimates sent out to property owners had been based on past estimates of actual costs of other underground districts. The reason for higher costs was unknown except possibly the properties were larger or the cost to circumvent patios, etc., would cost more. The cost estimates given were to provide property owners with the best cost estimate. A contractor might come in with a lower cost. The suggestion for reducing the cost by having a City electrician assist in installa-tion, while something the City would be pleased to provide, was impossible because the City's linemen and crews were very busy with the normal routine of work and would not be able to take on an additional work load. The site chosen for the transformer would be landscaped and an attempt would be made to hide as much of the padmounted transformer as possible. Attempts would be made to find smaller boxes. The neighborhood not included in District 37 was one which had already been undergrounded many years prior. Staff and Council had discussed the 60 kV lines along Embarcadero Road at the past two meetings on the project during which time staff had explained that because of the very high cost of undergrounding 60 kV, $.75 million for 2,000 to 3,000 feet compared with $2 million for the entire underground district, made it impossible. No other underground district had undergrounded the 60 kV lines, as described in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Council Member Schneider asked for some way to assure residents in District 37 that the $4,035 cost was not out of line with other neighborhoods. Mr. Mrizek said staff could examine the cost estimates to compare with the previous underground districts and footage of the trenching and service from the property lines to the homes to determine whether the dollars per foot were equivalent or what had made the costs higher. Council Member Schneider asked whether a smaller padmount apparatus was being sought and, if found, would be used, whether there was a potential for Cable Co-op to replace the unsightly larger boxes with smaller boxes, and whether it would be at a cost to the neighborhoods. Ms. Fleming said Cable Co-op already knew of the City's interest in the flush pads. Council's interest would be communicated to Cable Co-op and, if possible, would be incorporated into the project. City Clerk Gloria Young said to ameliorate the problem, Cable Co-op had begun working with a landscape architect. Council Member Schneider asked whether the padmounts were generally located in the parking strip which was City property. Mr. Mrizek replied yes. 01/13/97 81-119 Council Member Schneider noted members of the audience in disagree-ment with Mr. Mrizek's response. Mr. Mrizek said the apparatus would be located on a parking strip if one was located at the property. If no parking strip was available, the apparatus would be located in the two-foot strip behind the sidewalk. Council Member Schneider clarified the arborist would be working with the contractor to hide the apparatus. Mr. Mrizek said the City's landscape artist would be utilized for the padmounted transformer and the electric facilities, but not for Cable Co-op facilities. Council Member Schneider asked for clarification about the landscape artist for the Cable Co-op facilities. Ms. Young thought Marge Able had been involved with Cable Co-op in working with the neighborhood to ameliorate the view of the pedestals. Council Member Schneider encouraged staff to look into the issue. Mr. Mrizek said staff would investigate. Vice Mayor Andersen asked how the $3 per month billing would occur since Cable Co-op would not be sending residents a bill. Mr. Mrizek said City staff had discussed the flush-mounted installation with Cable Co-op who had indicated it had never provided the flush mounted boxes and would only be providing the pedestals, i.e., the $3 issue was moot. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that no flush mounted Cable Co-op boxes would be installed in District 37. Mr. Mrizek replied yes. Council Member Kniss asked about areas in which the City had already undergrounded, how it had affected the aesthetics of the neighborhoods, the real estate values, and the eventual cost savings in the area of tree trimming. Mr. Mrizek said residents in the undergrounding program in Palo Alto had generally expressed concern about disruptions. However, after completion of the projects, negative comments had not been heard. The aesthetics were much better after an undergrounding. Property values might have increased somewhat because of overhead lines being removed. The Utilities Department would save costs in the area of tree trimming. In District 37, most poles were in the backyards so once the poles were removed, the Utilities crews would not have to disrupt homes to trim trees. The City also planned to 01/13/97 81-120 offer to replace the pole with a plant for residents with backyard poles. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the percentage Pacific Bell contributed to the undergrounding effort had been reduced. Mr. Mrizek replied no. Pacific Bell was charged for its share of the trenching and facilities. The City paid nothing toward Pacific Bell's installation. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the survey taken in the neighborhood had included a formal process for receiving formal objections. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council was not required to formally overrule any protest, such as would be true with an assessment district. Council would need to consider any protest or evidence presented in deciding whether the public interest was served by the undergrounding district. The PAMC provisions went back to a 1965 policy determination that undergrounding was in the best interest of the City. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue the item for one month to a date to be determined by staff to allow time for the staff to review the financing of the undergrounding, to meet with Cable Co-op staff, to meet with the neighbors regarding the costs, and to gain support for the plan. Council Member Fazzino expressed concern about the disparity between the figures given to residents and current estimates, which was significant. Questions existed about the City's relationship with Cable Co-op. The current time was appropriate for providing much more information to the community about the City's 100-year undergrounding plan which had been established in the 1960s. Strong support was given for the plan, which had enjoyed tremendous public support over the years. However, opposition over the past few years had increased on the part of neighbors which, to some degree, related to the lack of understanding or appreciation for the City's long-term goals and benefits of such a program. The City should communicate its long-term goals and objectives to the community prior to moving ahead. Staff should also determine whether the cost of the proposal could be reduced and whether a formal meeting with neighbors could be organized. A very formal procedure should be in place with respect to meeting with neighbors to obtain a level of support. Ms. Fleming asked for clarification about the assignment with regard to financing, i.e., refining the cost was one thing, but presenting another financing plan was another. Council Member Fazzino wanted to provide staff with as much flexibility as possible. Staff needed to determine whether the cost for the project was actually 100 percent more than initially 01/13/97 81-121 anticipated. If the cost was 100 percent more, the neighbors should be contacted to determine the level of support and identify any possible financing alternatives to make the plan more manage-able. Mr. Mrizek said the first step staff took in initiating an underground district involved a letter to property owners to explain that the City would be in the area. The series of letters to the property owners which followed included information concerning what the previous service conversions had paid and was exactly what staff had done with District 37. Estimates were not made by staff until the time of presentation to Council, when staff returned to each property owner with information of the cost estimate. The reasons for the increase probably included longer footage, etc. Staff had not altered the cost from the time the first contact had been made to the final estimate of service. Council Member Fazzino clarified a much greater disparity existed between the two contacts. Mr. Mrizek agreed. Vice Mayor Andersen opposed the motion. Undergrounding had not been established merely to satisfy a neighborhood, but was a public good. The $2 million was being spent to underground 227 residents, representing a considerable investment on behalf of the City. The investment was not just to satisfy a neighborhood, but because it satisfied the need of the entire City. The City had a long-standing commitment to underground the entire community. The approach was very systematic and had been established to put a public good to benefit private property owners. The cost was directly correlated to the size of the lot. He would be surprised if anything else was found, except for the slight increase in costs in bidding. In neighborhoods where undergrounding had already been installed, residents had been very pleased because of the increase in property values, increased safety, increased aesthetics, and better looking trees. District 37 would benefit greatly from the undergrounding. A 71 percent tentative interest represented was a fairly good indication that a majority of the neighborhood would be in support of undergrounding. After undergrounding had been in place for five years, a great deal of support would be expressed. If the staff recommendation failed to move forward, he hoped the neighborhood would be sufficiently educated to be willing to see the undergrounding move forward. Council Member McCown opposed the motion. It was difficult to separate major infrastructure programs between individual situa-tions and the broader community. A homeowner who was not worried about a power pole in their backyard saw no pressing need to remove it, however, it was only one pole in a much larger system. Many other backyards represented a great need for replacement. The process of entering backyards to replace old power poles was much more intrusive. The purposes of undergrounding needed to be considered in the broader context. Mr. Harrington's very 01/13/97 81-122 thoughtful letter had focused on important issues, pointing out that the City's Utilities Department had held an informational meeting on September 26, 1996, in the community center and that the neighborhood itself had organized another meeting, at which City staff attended. The Utilities Department had been responsive to requests for additional information and was well able to keep the project moving forward with the same spirit of responsiveness to questions and provision of information. The one-month delay was unnecessary and continuing with the policy for implementation on a Citywide basis was important. Council Member Kniss expressed concern about the fact that one-third of the neighbors were still questioning undergrounding. Although in support of the one-month delay, she still supported moving forward with the program on a long-term basis. She urged staff to find an alternative financing method. Overall, she supported undergrounding. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Andersen, McCown Αno.≅ 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding an application for a preliminary parcel map to subdivide a vacant 21,000 square-foot parcel into two 10,500 square-foot single-family parcels for the property located 679 Maybell Avenue. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the Public Hearing at the request of the applicant to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 18, 1997. MOTION PASSED 8-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 9. The Finance Committee re Public Building Infrastructure Management Plan (Module 1) Council Member Schneider said the Public Building Infrastructure Management Plan (the Building Plan) consisted of a series of modules which had identified a significant need for public building infrastructure work over the next ten years. The City's facility inventory consisted of over 100 structures, including theaters, fire stations, structures, garages, and the Civic Center with a combined total of 1.1 million square feet, 680 square feet represented occupied buildings and 37 smaller unoccupied buildings which represented an additional 20,000 square feet. Of the 100 buildings, 70 structures would require replacement of major building components. Staff had identified an unfunded need of $31 million over the next decade for repairs, replacements, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, and seismic upgrades. Electrical system improvements could increase the figure. Staff had been directed by the Finance Committee to explore the implica-tions of using Certificates of Participation (COPs) to finance an 01/13/97 81-123 augmented building replacement program and to create an infrastruc-ture sinking fund. More information on the issue had been provided in the staff report (CMR:104:97). Staff would present a plan for implementing an accelerated building rehabilitation plan during the 1997-98 budget process. During the November 19, 1997 meeting, the Finance Committee had also received public input and spent time discussing a proposal at the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for a joint library at Gunn High School. MOTION: Council Member Schneider for the Finance Committee, moved to: 1) direct staff to proceed with the initial exploration of the use of Certificates of Participation for the purpose of fast-tracking the building program and 2) direct staff to explore the use of a Sinking Fund in the 1997-98 Budget. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about staff's recommendation to consider debt financing through the COP. Page 4 of the staff report (CMR:466:96) under Fiscal Impact indicated "the report identifies an unfunded infrastructure need of over $31 million. For illustration purposes, if all $31 million in improvements were approved and debt-financed, the additional debt service would be about $2.6 million per year." If the obligation ran for 20 years, the City would be obligated to pay $2.6 million for 20 years. With pay-as-you-go financing over 10 years, a $31 million debt represented a payment of $3.1 million per year. He queried spending $2.6 million over 20 years as opposed to $3.1 million over 10 years. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison admitted debt financing was much more expensive than pay-as-you-go. Staff had recommended debt financing for consideration because the building's infrastructure module was only one of several modules which would be presented to the Finance Committee and was the only one, at that point, appropriate for debt-financing. Although the City was fortunate to have a good pay-as-you-go program, it was not unlimited. The City had major unfunded needs at a scale comparable to buildings in the parks area, traffic area, streets, sidewalks, pathways, medians, etc. Council Member Rosenbaum said unlike a general obligation bond, COPs would not produce a new source of revenue. The number of dollars would remain the same. If one sold $31 million of COPs, the $2.6 million cost per year remained. Bringing up potential costs for other items which might occur was not relevant. Ms. Harrison said staff never intended to propose funding the entire building infrastructure of $31 million with COPs. In the follow-up staff report (CMR:104:96), staff had sought something along the lines of a $10 million Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which was much more reflective of some of the major projects that would arise over the following one to two years. The consultant's report had examined the City's current assets with no expansion of services, no new facilities, etc. In addition to the project in the consultant's report, a number of potential CIP projects, i.e., 01/13/97 81-124 Mitchell Park renovations, Children's Theater, public safety building, etc., would also need to be handled through debt-financing. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the ability to handle the City's infrastructure needs would require finding an additional revenue source. Absent the additional revenue source, the pay-as-you-go or COP were equal except for the long-term higher cost with COPs. MOTION PASSED 8-0. 10. The Finance Committee re the 1995-96 Financial Summary Status Report and Budget Closing Council Member Kniss said the 1995-96 Financial Summary Status Report and Budget Closing (Year-End Report) highlighted the City's fiscal performance for the first year of the Mission Driven Budget (MDB). Fiscal year 1995-96 had been a good year and the General Fund had finished the year with a surplus of $6 million and a Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) balance of $20.4 million, which a first for the City. The surplus had been primarily driven by strong revenues. The Enterprise Funds, with the exception of the Storm Drain Fund, had also turned in sound financial results where revenues had exceeded expenditures. The major contributor to the General Fund's performance was sales tax receipts at $2.7 million above the adopted budget, the result of which meant parking continued to be a problem in the Downtown area. Sales tax revenues had been driven by a strong local economy, particularly in the retail, restaurant, and new automobile areas. The University Avenue and El Camino Real areas showed solid gains. Another strong revenue source had been the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) at $.5 million above the adopted budget. Somewhat offsetting the otherwise bright picture was the decline in revenues from the so-called Utilities Users Tax (UUT). While the General Fund picture appeared bright, there were numerous and significant demands on City resources in the future. The first module of the City's infrastructure plan had identified $30 million in building infrastructure needs over the next 10 years. Other possible future needs included implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Golf Course Master Plan, commitment for joint care of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) playing fields which included ramping up funding to include CIP work in 1997-98, more funding for a joint PAUSD/City library, initiation of a family resource center, implementation of the Library Master Plan, and support of the community center at Cubberley given declining UUT revenues. In addition to the funding needs cited, the City faced potential erosion of revenue sources from such events as closure of another phase of the landfill and utility deregulation which threatened the Utility's ability to make equity transfers. The Utilities funds had turned in strong financial results in 1995-96 which had made a great difference in the City's end product. Reserves in the Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, and Refuse Funds had closed above the maximum reserve balances. The Year-End Report had brought a message of cautious optimism. The City had formerly gone 01/13/97 81-125 through lean times and was fortunate to currently be able to discuss new services and programs. Many Council Members had been in office through the lean times and would never have dreamed of seeing a surplus of $6 million with a reserve balance of $20 million. MOTION: Council Member Kniss for he Finance Committee moved to: 1) approve the Ordinance Authorizing Closing of the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96; 2) reappropriate funds into the 1996-97 operating budget; and 3) close various completed capital improvement projects and move the balances to the appropriate reserves. Vice Mayor Andersen said the City's financial status was extraordi-nary. One of the issues Council had anticipated were the many cuts which would have to be made. San Jose, a city 50 times larger than Palo Alto, had seen an $8.5 million surplus over budget. The PAUSD was currently seeking ways to cut $2.6 million from its budget over the following two years and was in a bare-bones situation. The difference was the funding process. Real challenges faced local agencies in terms of funding. Agencies totally dependent on property taxes faced difficulties while and sales tax revenues greatly assisted others. Palo Alto was very fortunate in having some very small debts while seeing an extraordinary boon in the Silicon Valley. City Manager June Fleming agreed the City faced an extraordinary time with such a surplus. However, Council needed to realize it had made some difficult decisions which had allowed the City to see such a surplus. Approving a number of new programs would have been very easy for Council, however, through very strict budget guidelines Council had directed staff to keep the budget intact. Although funds were currently available, the "fickle winds of finance" meant funds would not be available in future years. No recommendations would be made to institute new programs or services which would challenge the City's ability to fund in future years. Such a large surplus for a city the size of Palo Alto would not be seen in future years. Ordinance 4395 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Closing of the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 11. Evaluation of Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan City Manager June Fleming would not participate in the item because of the location of her residence and Deputy City Manager, Adminis-trative Services Emily Harrison would handle the item in her stead. 01/13/97 81-126 Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said staff had recommended implementation of a modification of the existing trial Traffic Management Plan (Trial Plan) which would include all of the elements of the Trial Plan with the exception of the median installed at Chaucer on Palo Alto Avenue. Staff recommended removal of the median. Items which would remain and become permanent included the road bumps, the circle at Lytton and Fulton, the median at Guinda at Lytton, and the modifications at University Avenue. Mayor Huber declared the public hearing open. Darrell Benatar, 881 Lytton Avenue, spoke in support of staff's efforts in response to his initial request for attention to the traffic problem in the Lytton area that had resulted in reduced traffic which had shifted to Hamilton Avenue. Council was urged to remove the median on Chaucer Avenue while approving the remainder of staff's recommendation. Council was also asked to direct staff to consider further action to reduce traffic such as no left turns, etc. He thanked Council for having taken action on a difficult issue. Jozef Zabdyr, 279 Willow Road, Menlo Park, encouraged the City to allow traffic to flow freely between city lines, emphasizing that redirecting traffic to another area's streets was unethical and undemocratic and that the traffic devices were unsightly and manipulating. Efforts should be made to move traffic across town from El Camino Real to Highway 101 within its city limits without redirecting traffic into Menlo Park, e.g., 32,000 vehicles traveled along Willow Road daily with single-family residential homes, one-third of which came from Palo Alto. In 1965, plans had been established for Sand Hill Road to flow through to the Dumbarton Bridge to accommodate growth, but had not been pursued. A fair study was requested which would not discriminate against certain individuals. Zenona Zabdyr, 279 Willow Road, Menlo Park, said Willow Road had become an unhealthy place to live because of the amount of traffic, for which Palo Alto was partially responsible. Bernard Bouyssounouse, 840 Hamilton Avenue, thanked the City for working to keep the neighborhoods largely residential but thought all barriers should be removed to bring a greater balance between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues. He encouraged staff to find a way to move traffic from El Camino Real and west to the 101 freeway and Dumbarton Bridge. Rather than encouraging people to enter Palo Alto from El Camino Real by having two lanes to University Avenue, only one lane should be provided. The entire area should be examined, with keeping the Lytton Avenue/University Avenue/Hamilton Avenue areas residential. Jon Richards, 1031 Hamilton Avenue, spoke about the high volume of traffic during commute hours at Hamilton and Chaucer Avenues, encouraging removal of all impediments to traffic until a regional 01/13/97 81-127 or area-wide study had been conducted on traffic control. The problem was greater than one street or area. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO. 11 Dimitri Rotow, 789 University Avenue, expressed appreciation to City staff for informing residents of the plan. Council was urged to establish a mandate to protect the historic continuity of University Avenue, maintain the historic linkage between the elegant residential neighborhoods in Crescent Park and the vibrant Downtown, encourage pedestrians to travel between the residential areas and Downtown, keep University Avenue two-lanes, encourage visitors to Palo Alto to traverse the historically interesting, visually elegant part of University Avenue, remove the four-lane traffic plaza at University Avenue and Middlefield Road, and direct staff to make it a more pleasant place to walk. Ed Sterbenc, 765 University Avenue, agreed with the comments made by Mr. Rotow, expressed additional appreciation to staff for listening to resident's concerns, and expressed support for speed bumps, etc., to reduce speeds. Concern was expressed for the four-lane striping of University Avenue between Fulton Street and Lytton Gardens. Backup in traffic was better than higher speeds and less safety for children. He asked Council to consider directing staff to find ways to preserve safe traffic flow through Hamilton, University, and Lytton Avenues. Harlon A. Pinto, 1845 University Avenue, commended Council and City staff for dealing with traffic problems in the Lytton neighborhood. Removal of the parking lane between Guinda Street and Fulton Street in front of single-family residences was questioned. City staff was encouraged to improve the bicycle lane access and narrow the lanes, consistent with greater safety. The possibility of solving a regional traffic plan had been missed, i.e., converting the Chaucer Bridge to a pedestrian/bicycle path and developing its potential as an inter-community park could have reduced traffic in the Lytton neighborhood and University Avenue, and encouraged Menlo Park residents to pressure their own city council to improve its arterials. Joe Prendergast, 560 Chaucer Street, spoke against the concept, encouraging a regional study of traffic. The process had not been given sufficient thought. Charles Junkerman, 565 Chaucer Street, agreed with Mr. Benatar for having invoked the value of fairness. Diverting traffic from one street to another was unfair. He supported removal of the median. Fairness could only be accomplished if traffic-calming devices on the Chaucer Street side of University Avenue were installed. Eric Doyle, 322 Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park, commended staff for advising removal of the barrier on Chaucer Street. Donald Day, 01/13/97 81-128 Menlo Park's Transportation Manager, was quoted as saying "The Willows residents considered themselves residents of a greater local neighborhood community that transcends city limits and includes the Lytton neighborhood and downtown Palo Alto," agreeing with other speakers who encouraged a broader look at the traffic problem, the only approach which would be agreeable to all. Max Crittenden, 190 East O=Keefe #3, Menlo Park, disagreed with the implication that the high volumes of traffic on Palo Alto streets were caused by Menlo Park residents. Menlo Park residents felt unwelcome in Palo Alto and had ceased frequenting restaurants there. Menlo Park residents were also concerned about Willow Road traffic. Council was urged to approve the staff report and work on a regional solution. Daniel Heller, 428 Fulton Street, agreed with former speakers about the unfairness of shifting traffic. He supported traffic calming devices and the restriping of University Avenue. Nancy Bjork, 555 Chaucer Street, supported the staff recommendation to remove the barrier. Either all traffic devices should be removed or every street should be given the devices, creating a balance. Kirsten Keith, 322 Oak Court, Menlo Park, spoke in support of the staff recommendation to remove the barrier. Channell Wasson, 423 Chaucer Street, endorsed the staff recommenda-tion to remove the barrier. E. Gary Smith, 459 O=Connor Street, Menlo Park, supported the staff recommendation to remove the barrier and encouraged Council to strongly consider the recommendation given by other speakers to work with other city councils for a regional traffic solution. Mayor Huber declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Fazzino asked about the University Avenue restriping issue and the four lanes along part of University Avenue. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said the improvement had been included in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (Citywide Study). The restriping had been included in the neighborhood study in order to increase the capacity of the westbound lanes which might reduce shortcuts through neighborhoods. Initially, the improvement had been from Middlefield Road to Guinda Street, however, after a conversation with a resident, the improvement changed to start from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street and not all the way to Guinda Street. Mr. Overway said Alternative 5 in Attachment 1 of the staff report (CMR:103:97) indicated a two-block section rather than the one-block section which had actually been implemented, since it had 01/13/97 81-129 been the original proposal but not the way Council had approved it. Staff had never proposed restriping the block between Guinda and Fulton Streets. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff had only restriped one block from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street. Mr. Overway replied yes. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had noted any change since the restriping. Mr. Aggarwal said staff had observed the cuing on University Avenue in the westbound direction would not go as far as before. Staff had also run level-of-service calculations prior to the change and, while the level of service had remained unchanged, the overall delay had been reduced as a result of the improvement. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the delay in turning had been reduced without additional capacity given to University Avenue. Mr. Overway said staff had added capacity to the intersection. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the capacity at the intersec-tion turning from Middlefield Road to University Avenue had been increased without an increase in traffic on University Avenue. Mr. Aggarwal said the restriping had not resulted in any changes to traffic volumes on University Avenue. Council Member Fazzino said Council had approved a project several months prior which had allowed for left turns at Lytton Avenue from Middlefield Road which had put more traffic into the Lytton neighborhood and seemed inconsistent with what the City was trying to do with the neighborhood. He asked about the traffic signal change and the impact on traffic volumes on Lytton Avenue, Fulton Street, or Guinda Street, acknowledging staff had been trying to prevent cuing along Middlefield Road. Left turns on Lytton Avenue had become as easy as left turns on Middlefield Road. Mr. Aggarwal said a change had been made in the traffic signal operation. Prior to the change, all traffic moved simultaneously in both directions. As a result, the City had seen a large number of left-turn accidents at the intersection. The traffic signal operation had primarily been changed to allow vehicles moving northbound on Middlefield Road to make a left on Lytton Avenue without colliding with vehicles traveling southbound on Middlefield Road. Two solutions had been available to staff as a solution to the problem: 1) providing left-turn pockets, for which Middlefield Road had insufficient space; and 2) splitting the signal so all northbound vehicles moved while southbound vehicles were stopped and vice versa. The main emphasis behind the improvement had not had as much to do with operational efficiency or operation of the intersection as much as the number of accidents. Since making the 01/13/97 81-130 change, the number of accidents had been reduced. In terms of the impact on the neighborhood, the left-turn volumes prior to the change and in November 1996 had been compared and the left-turn volume from Middlefield Road into the neighborhood had not increased. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff would continue to work on traffic calming devices in other parts of the neighborhood if the staff recommendation was approved. Mr. Overway said staff had no plans to continue work on calming devices in the Lytton neighborhood. Council Member Fazzino asked about similar traffic calming devices for other streets to address concerns of residents. Mr. Overway said the concerns had been primarily related to Chaucer Street and some thought had been given to putting a narrowing choker in the block between Palo Alto and University Avenues. Also, the information contained an alternative showing a road bump. Either were possibilities, however, the aesthetics might not be acceptable. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt a modified Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan that would remove the median on Chaucer Street at Palo Alto Avenue and make all of the other elements permanent. The modified Plan would contain the following elements: a. A traffic circle at the intersection of Lytton Avenue and Fulton Street; b. A traffic median on Guinda Street at Lytton Avenue; c. Road bumps on Palo Alto Avenue(2) and Guinda Street(1); and d. An additional westbound through lane on University Avenue. Further, that the restriping on University Avenue not extend beyond Fulton to Guinda Streets and that a staff report be returned to the City Council within six months on the traffic situation on University Avenue regarding restriping. Council Member Fazzino understood the concerns of neighbors who had not been given traffic calming devices. Over the coming months, the City should consider ways in which to develop an area-wide plan to address the concerns of the entire community, not just certain neighborhoods. Council had acted in good faith to address real problems a few years prior when the Trial Plan had been approved. The initial concern had not been an attempt to address "nasty Menlo Park residents" trying to drive through Palo Alto streets, however, a level of traffic and traffic speeds had been created which were unacceptable. In retrospect, the median barrier had been a mistake and had resulted in a significant impact on neighbors such as illegal U-turns, etc., and the barrier should be removed. Traffic calming devices were appropriate, particularly in attempting to reduce speeding. Traffic should be allowed to flow and not be 01/13/97 81-131 stopped from moving through one neighborhood causing a diversion of traffic into another neighborhood. Seeking ways to control speeds was entirely appropriate. Concern was expressed about University Avenue and the changing nature of the road. Mr. Aggarwal's statements and arguments for restriping were appreciated, however, he was concerned about the impact of restriping on traffic value and speeds. The change on one block addressed a specific cuing problem, beyond which entered the problem of increasing traffic value. Vice Mayor Andersen said the noble experiment had been partially a result of Council not listening to staff in the first place. Staff's analyses of the issues had been important and should have been given greater consideration, i.e., staff had indicated the City had areas of greater speed and accident problems and had recommended initially that nothing be done in the Lytton neighbor-hood. His tie-breaking vote in favor of the change was regretted. A lesson should be learned from the project. Neighborhoods should be more carefully analyzed before speed bumps, etc., were in-stalled. He hoped the process was more carefully followed in the future. Council Member McCown said the process had been extremely interest-ing and in many ways the experiment had been much more modest than some had accused the City of doing. The City had attempted to alter one single turning movement at one intersection, i.e., the left turn from Palo Alto Avenue across Chaucer Street to the bridge. After viewing the correspondence from residents of Menlo Park, and even though available from a number of other streets, the change had been viewed as if the bridge had actually been removed. Menlo Park residents had viewed the change as an attempt to cut off the Menlo Park community to Palo Alto, which was an indication of how intensely the issues had been experienced. Some members of the Palo Alto community, while studying the issue, had advocated closing off the bridge as a solution. Council had wanted to examine how traffic had redistributed itself as a result of the change and, if an unfair redistribution were seen, it would have to be reconsidered. The data had shown that the degree of redistribu-tion as a result of effecting the turning movement had been unacceptable. Staff's recommendation acknowledged the potential outcome of the test and was clearly the right decision. A speaker had noted that Palo Alto Avenue, because of its character and the kinds of speeds, was perceived as an unsafe street and why traffic calming devices were appropriate. Evaluation of the effect of calming devices on other streets was also appropriate. Staff was thanked for sticking with the project and being a good source of information for the community. Council Member Wheeler appreciated Vice Mayor Andersen's comments. She had opposed placement of the barrier while supportive of the other elements of the Trial Plan at the time of the initial vote, not because she was present, but because of fears the device would result in the impact which had actually resulted on surrounding neighborhoods, including Menlo Park neighbors. She supported the 01/13/97 81-132 motion. Some of Council Member Fazzino's comments and concerns were extremely valid and she supported staff returning with an informational report in six months. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff also be directed, after the removal of the barrier, to conduct a traffic count study to determine the impact of the removal on Lytton, Chaucer, and Hamilton Avenues. Council Member Wheeler shared Council Member McCown's concerns that the City be very careful that when traffic calming devices were installed, an attempt should be made to avoid pushing traffic into other areas. A good information base would be necessary to ensure correct decisions were made in the future. Council Member Kniss supported the motion and Council Member Wheeler's addition. Closing or rediverting traffic, as the City had done in the 1970s, could no longer be done. Since that time, traffic had become different, worse, more trips taken, and patterns had changed. Any attempts to attack traffic problems in one area would result in the City hearing from adjacent areas within a very short time. Regional traffic solutions were difficult; however, once the City had completed its Comprehensive Plan, it would probably have a clearer view. Avoiding the micromanagement business was difficult for Council. The neighborhood was commended for being understanding. Council Member Rosenbaum had been on Council when streets had been closed in the 1970s, which had taken a great deal of study, but had not resulted in moving traffic from one street to another. Staff had indicated the cost for the traffic circle at Lytton Avenue and Fulton Street was $37,000. Council had never been given informa-tion concerning the cost of the generic circles, querying whether the $37,000 was the generic cost at which staff had arrived. Mr. Overway said the $37,000 had been part of the Council review of the generic traffic circle one year prior. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the City had plans corre-sponding to the $37,000. Mr. Overway said staff had a plan to build a traffic circle of a certain size with certain landscaping upon which the $37,000 was based. Staff was proceeding with the further design of the permanent Addison Avenue/Bryant Street traffic circle, for which Council had already approved funding. The process involved deciding whether to landscape or include an art element, pursuant to the neighborhood. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Council would be able to see what the $37,000 would purchase before completing the traffic circle. 01/13/97 81-133 Mr. Overway thought so. The cost for the permanent improvements would be fed into the CIP process, which would take some time. Council Member Schneider supported the modified plan. Council would probably be sitting in the Chambers for many years with other neighborhoods going through the same exercise. She hoped the work on the Lytton neighborhood would become the model for future exercises. She hoped the plan would work well. Staff was commended for its knowledge about traffic engineering. Mayor Huber supported the motion. The Trial Plan had been an experiment which had demonstrated Council's willingness to try something to solve problems. Much time had been spent on the issue with Council disagreeing with the City's Traffic Engineering staff and had finally coming to the conclusion that City staff was right. Examining the issue six months after removal of the barrier would remind and extend the time period for Council not to attempt engineering. Mr. Overway said the permanent installation of the circles would be funded by the upcoming CIP. Sufficient funds remained in the approval for the Trial Plan to remove the median. MOTION PASSED 8-0. 12. Audit of Code Enforcement City Auditor Bill Vinson said the objective of the report of the Audit of Code Enforcement from the City Auditor (the Audit) had been to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the City's code enforcement program. The scope of the Audit had included obtaining understanding of the operating procedures and practices and performing detailed testing of transactions to evaluate the City's compliance with the procedures. The detailed testing had included the examination of a sampling of code enforcement cases and reviewing all open cases as of March 1996. Code enforcement officers were very important, especially as they worked coopera-tively with property owners to correct situations. However, some property owners were not cooperative and failed to take action to correct code enforcement violations. Such lack of action had a detrimental impact on the community and was unfair to the vast majority of residents and property owners who maintained their properties in accordance with City rules and regulations. In such instances, code enforcement personnel should be decisive in the handling of complaints and should utilize the available forms of code enforcement to ensure timely resolution. Based on the results of the Audit, his conclusion had been that the overall effective-ness and efficiency of the program required significant improve-ment. The conclusion was based on the lack of prompt investiga-tion, follow-up, and resolution to complaints involving dangerous and substandard conditions, as well as complaints involving property maintenance issues. The conclusion was based on an incomplete and inadequate documentation of cases a lack of monitoring of complaints with conditional requirements. Recommen- 01/13/97 81-134 dations had been given to staff for establishing the essential controls and procedures to manage and monitor code enforcement activities. However, to be effective, the controls and procedures must be coupled with an increased involvement and oversight by all levels of management. While the response to the findings addressed many of the concerns, the City Manager and Director of Planning & Community Environment (the Director) were encouraged to continue involvement in the activities and development of an effective and efficient code enforcement function. City Manager June Fleming said staff's response to the Audit was contained within the documentation before Council. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether staff's procedure in response to calls from citizens with complaints included a follow-up call. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said staff would not directly communicate with the complainant. Any corrective action would be obvious and complainants often wanted their names and addresses kept anonymous. Vice Mayor Andersen thought on some occasions the complainant actually came directly to Council requesting a response. Mr. Herman agreed. Sometimes a complainant would call back within a few weeks seeking information about the status. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether a procedure was in place to ensure that people who had registered a complaint and desired follow-up could receive such information. Mr. Herman said currently no procedure was in place to ensure such a response. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the procedure mentioned in the Staff Response to Recommendation 1.4 on page 3 of Appendix A of the Audit, "The current practice is that the supervisor notifies the CBO if issues require his attention, or which are sensitive in nature. The CBO routinely uses professional judgment in deciding when to notify the Director of Planning & Community Environment, the City Manager, the City Attorney and other concerned City departments of important or sensitive issues." Mr. Herman said the procedure was in correlation to his own experience. Having dealt with the issues as long as he had, he was fairly astute in knowing when the Director, City Manager, and/or Council needed to become involved in an issue. Staff tried to ensure each was fully informed prior to receiving a telephone call. The review of such cases would be excessive and burdensome and the Director, City Manager and/or Council would not want to be interrupted that often. If a member of the public contacted the City Manager or Director, 99 percent of the time staff would have already informed them about the issue. Only a very small percent-age of calls, if any, slipped through. 01/13/97 81-135 Ms. Fleming said staff's policy delegated authority to Mr. Herman as the Chief Building Official (CBO). Staff had not been asked to implement a form indicating the ongoing status of all the dangerous or reported as dangerous and substandard building complaints which had been lodged, partially because of the staff the City had to work on such issues, which was being used in the most efficient way in terms of addressing the issues rather than in preparing reports. When serious cases arose, staff understood the City Manager would be notified and would follow procedure to forward on to the City Attorney's Office, if necessary. In part, the procedure recognized the limitations of the City Attorney's Office and Planning Department to respond. The issue was one of delegation and leaving decisions where most efficiently and effectively made, while using the available resources as best as possible. Mr. Vinson respectfully disagreed. The Audit recommendation stood as presented. Problems had been found primarily with dangerous and substandard conditions in an informal process. From a record-keeping standpoint, inadequacies had been noted. Mr. Fleming had understood the recommendation. Vice Mayor Andersen asked when staff would finally take a stand of "busting" someone or determining it was time to use the enforcement power of the law, i.e., whether the City had a limited or a lengthy time frame established. City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained that the difficulty in doing both the audit and the code enforcement work, and responding to the Audit, was there were many times the phrase "it depends" would apply. The City Auditor had made an effort to identify areas where judgment calls could be made and then areas where documentation supporting the judgment calls would be useful. In terms of "busting" someone and the factors involved in bringing an action to resolve a dangerous building problem, were extremely complex and depended on 1) the severity of the condition which, in terms of management reporting, Mr. Herman would be the source of expert testimony to sustain whatever legal action the City took; 2) the likely remedies such as whether the offender was an applicant to the City's Planning Department seeking approvals or a transient situation where a building whose use had been amortized and reused in the immediate future would all be taken into account; 3) neighborhood concerns such as a building with trespassers which put people at risk; 4) whether the building was historic; 5) whether the owner had the financial wherewithal to do anything; and 6) the amount of vandalism or life-safety threats. Code enforcement, like any criminal prosecution, was full of judgment and discretion. Although not to say documentation and following procedures was unnecessary, there was no way to come up with a set of canned rules which would put the process on auto-pilot, and which would not be just. The justice aspect came in exercising discretion at appropriate points along the way. Some procedural issues went beyond the scope of the audit and the response alluded to a study session at some point to bring Council into the picture. Council 01/13/97 81-136 should keep in mind that it was necessary for much judgment to be exercised. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding monitoring of compliance with conditional requirements on page 13 of the City Auditor's Report, that discussed the recommendation made during the City's organizational review to hire an additional code enforcement officer. The policy decision was Council's concerning the necessity of having conditions of project approval monitored and enforced. The intense level of development in the City, as indicated in the draft Comprehensive Plan, would indicate the need for balancing with the resources and policy direction to staff of the importance of code enforcement activity for condition monitor-ing. The percentages used in the Audit were questioned because of the disparity with the Mission Driven Budget (MDB) figures. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke in support of the City Auditor's recommendations. Entitlements should be given, however, the responsibility which went with the entitlements should be respected. Tools should be given to code enforcement officers to better perform their jobs. She queried how many years of educating violators, which seemed the department's only current policy, was acceptable before something would be done. The department's policy lacked enforcement unless the violation was dangerous to someone's health. Council Member McCown thought the Audit was useful. Ultimately, the question was how the City could obtain code compliance. Of the recommendations contained in the Audit, she asked which were the most important to implement or had already being implemented because of the improved ability to achieve the ultimate purpose. Mr. Herman said the Audit was somewhat dated at the current time, since it had been started in November 1995. The majority of the recommendations staff considered relevant had already been implemented. The new forms and complaint logs were in place. Staff had not agreed with the level of review in all of the review steps, but the majority had been implemented for some time. Council Member McCown asked whether the complaint log had turned out to be a useful way to track the status of complaints and making information available to the community about actions which had been taken. Mr. Herman replied yes. Previously, the City had only one code enforcement officer, so it had been easy to find out what was going on. With the additional officer, a better job of recording and tracking cases was necessary. Vice Mayor Andersen appreciated the work the City Auditor had conducted, which had been helpful. The responsiveness of the City Manager and staff to the recommendations was also appreciated. He expressed concern for the extent to which the City had been able to respond to some of the conditional use permits and some of the 01/13/97 81-137 other areas which needed follow up. He asked whether staff anticipated returning with a set of recommendations to more comprehensively deal with some of the issues, i.e., whether more staff would be necessary, coordinated efforts on the part of the City Attorney's Office, etc. Ms. Fleming said staff had made a real attempt in taking a comprehensive view of issues. The area of code enforcement was only one piece around which many other issues existed that might need to be examined in terms of enforcement, i.e., how to enforce, how aggressive, staffing requirements, etc. Internal support would be necessary to accomplish more, taking a cooperative effort with the City Attorney's Office which would place a higher workload in that area. Concern was also expressed about protection from a legal standpoint. All of the pieces of the code enforcement issue had to be brought together to determine which pieces, if Council decided more staffing should be placed into it, should be handled. City staff took a more educational, conciliatory, participatory approach to the piece of code enforcement Council had just examined and which the Audit addressed. Although the process had worked for the most part, nothing worked all the time, as was the case with the current process. If Council wanted more to be done, existing staff would be unable to handle an increased work effort. She was reluctant to present Council with an increase in just one area. Mr. Calonne admitted to some defensiveness on his part. The good news was that there was extreme sensitivity on the part of staff regarding the importance of dealing with code enforcement in a way which would meet the standards of fairness, equitable application of the law, and reliable enforcement. The Audit touched on only one fragment of the picture. Staff had begun to identify ways in which to address the entire picture in order to make sense to Council and in a way which would not be a simple ad hoc tacking on of resources here and there without some overview. The core analysis of code enforcement was contained in the Key Plans for 1997-98. He and Ms. Fleming had preliminarily discussed returning with some form of additional organizational review to provide Council with meaningful options for staff to recommend restructur-ing. Although staff was united in its desire to do something because of its importance, the issue to keep in mind was that perhaps staff was more critical or pervasive in its analysis of what needed to be rearranged and examined than the Audit had been designed to address. A study session had been discussed as the means of doing so, which could still be accomplished. The concern had been that staff would return to Council with questions without the empirical or organizational review information it desired to present. Council was asked to provide staff with some sense of the relative weight the concern bore. Changes would require signifi-cant cost and was not something staff had approached lightly over the past few years. Vice Mayor Andersen saw the need for feedback for which Council was not prepared to give. The problem was essentially a management issue of which he, as a policy maker, was unable to see the big 01/13/97 81-138 picture. Staff might provide better documentation of the big issues, perhaps in the form of a study session. He was interested in seeing the types of recommendations staff would have in terms of the big picture before moving into the budget sessions to determine whether it was something Council wanted incorporated into the budget. Mr. Fleming said the Audit, as presented, should not be considered nonbeneficial simply because she was unable to respond to each recommendation. The Audit had been helpful, had been given from an auditor's viewpoint, and was an outside, independent view of what staff was doing, which met Council's intent and purpose. The Audit then had to be viewed from a city manager's viewpoint, in terms of the organization. The Audit had provided additional information to process and consider and a different point of view as she made bigger decisions about the bigger organization and how it should operate. The City Auditor nor Council should feel that just because everything in the Audit had not been accomplished that it had not been valued or of assistance. Mr. Vinson appreciated the City Manager's comments. As staff considered a broader code enforcement program, the same fundamental management tools which had been recommended in the Audit were the same management tools which should be carried forth regardless of what was being enforced. He hoped what had been provided in the Audit would be a good basis for reporting, monitoring, tracking, and evaluating the effectiveness of a program. No action required. 13. City Council=s Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed at the Special City Council Meeting of Saturday, January 18, 1997 RESULTS OF THE VOTING FOR INTERVIEWS VOTING FOR ANDERSON: Andersen, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR EAKINS: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR FREEDMAN: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR HAILE: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR INDERGAND: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR MOSSAR: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR OJAKIAN: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, 01/13/97 81-139 Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Grant Anderson, Sandra Eakins, Andy Freedman, Elster Haile, Litsie Indergand, Dena Mossar, and Victor Ojakian had received five or more votes and would be interviewed on Saturday, January 18, 1997. MOTION: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to set the time of the first interview on Saturday, January 18, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. and that the length of each interview will be up to 30 minutes. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber announced the Finance and Policy and Services Committee assignments. Finance Committee Micki Schneider, Chairperson Liz Kniss Dick Rosenbaum Lanie Wheeler Policy and Services Committee Jean McCown, Chairperson Ron Andersen Gary Fazzino ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 01/13/97 81-140