HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 225-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Repor
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 8, 2006 CMR: 225:06
TRANSMITTAL OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council:
o
Review and consider comments provided by members of the Planning and
Transportation Commission regarding the outcomes to be achieved by the
restructuring plan for the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment E) to implement a
reorganization in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, as
follows:
a. Amend the Table of Organization as provided in Attachment E.
b. Adopt a resolution (Attachment F) amending the Compensation Plan for
Classified Personnel (SEIU).
c. Adopt a resolution (Attachment G) amending the Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Employees.
Direct staff to prepare a status report with the assistance of the City Auditor in one
year after implementation of the restructuring plan, including metrics from the
Citizen Survey, processing time, and level of service.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2006, staff submitted a plan to City Council to restructure the Department
of Planning and Community Environment. The plan (CMR 164:06) included information
on vacancies in the department and outlined the process undertaken to develop strategies
to improve service. Also included were descriptions of specific organizational and
225:06 page 1 of 8
staffing changes recorvanended by the City Manager and his multi-disciplinary
committee, along with a commitment from staff to work with Council, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Attorney to develop governance changes
related to improving operations.
At the March 13 meeting staff asked Council to approved the required personnel changes,
including filling key vacancies such as the Chief Planning and Transportation Official
and Deputy Director, noting that these positions remained unfilled despite aggressive
recruitment efforts. Staff also described working with Council and the Planning and
Transportation Commission to discuss governance issues at a later date.
Following discussion about the plan, Council referred the reorganization plan to the I~C,
with a request to return to City Council no later than May 1, 2006.
A staff report was presented to the PTC describing
restructuring plan on April 19 2006 (Attachment A).
meeting included:
four outcomes related to the
The outcomes discussed at the
1. Integrate land use and transportation planning
2. Make the Development Center experience more customer-friendly and create a
problem-solving orientation within the rules.
o Provide general management support for the department, which will allow the
Director to ensure policy follow up, help staff focus on technical work, and
continue process improvements.
4. Enhance PTC role as a deliberative body for land use and transportation planning.
Minutes of the meeting, including public comments, are included as Attachment B.
The City Auditor provided written comments via e-mail (Attachment C), which were
made available to the PTC and public at the meeting, identifying three issues from the
2003 Audit of the Development Review Process addressed in the restructuring plan, and
indicating that the plan "...proposes to build on what’s already been done and pursue
additional streamlining efforts." Other comments point out that the restructuring plan
"continues to emphasize.., important coordination and customer service issues" and
"continues to address these concerns through management support."
DISCUSSION
The t~C discussed the restructuring plan and outcomes at a special meeting on April 19,
2006. There were five members of the public who spoke at the PTC meeting. Their
comments, followed by those of Commissioners, are summarized below.
225:06 page 2 of 8
Public Comments
Issues
¯
raised by the public included:
concern regarding the role of the Deputy Director as an ombudsman being an
excessive amount for one person to take on, and qualifications for that position;
¯concern that the City would provide an ombudsman, rather than applicants hiring
their own;
¯a recommendation that the Commission insist on technical expertise and
background for each position hired at the City;
¯concern that the restructuring aimed at reducing or removing the public voice, and
the importance of public participation;
¯the importance of an individual who understands all the issues associated with
transportation;
¯concern that the plan would remove the Director from the substance of planning
issues; and
¯concern that the public is treated as an audience or spectators.
Commissioner Comments
The discussion began with clarification regarding full public participation regarding
possible changes to the role of the I~C at future meetings of both the PTC and City
Council. Chair Burr requested that staff provide copies of the 1998 Zucker Study and
2003 Audit mentioned in the City Auditor’s letter for Commissioners to use at follow up
meetings.
Organizational Chart
The organizational chart was discussed, specifically the functions and work products of
the Transportation and Planning Divisions. After a brief overview of the functions of
Advance Planning, Current Planning, and Transportation, the discussion moved on to
similarities and differences between skills required of those in the Planning and
Transportation Divisions. Commissioner Garber observed there are similarities in terms
of the requirement "to create forward-looking planning documents for the community,
produce studies, and maintain existing functions and to find ways of changing and
operating them". Staff described the need for similar analytical skills in both work
groups, but different technical credentials for a licensed traffic engineer, for instance,
than a planner responsible for implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
There was also some concern regarding Code Enforcement’s placement on the
organizational chart. Staff explained the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing
conditions the t~C, Architectural Review Board, and City Council place on projects.
225:06 page 3 of 8
Code Enforcement belongs in the Planning Division, and will be returned to that group
once the staffing related to the restructuring plan is in place.
The Commission requested more labels on the organization chart, to better reflect interim
assignments and job duties of staff.
Span of Control
Commissioner Bialson asked if span of control would change under the plan. Staff
responded that two management positions were being converted to non-management, and
an increase in higher-level general management support aci:oss department lines would
help supplement technical expertise in each area. Vice-Chair Holman asked how well
coordination across these areas works now, and how a management change would
implement better coordination. The response was that reporting to the same manager
facilitates collaboration, as in the case of the Advance Planning and Current Planning
managers, who both report to the Chief Planning Official. The restructuring plan
incorporates Transportation in that same reporting structure, to achieve similar benefits.
Integrating Planning and Transportation increases the span of control of the Chief
Planning and Transportation Official (CPTO). Folding Special Projects into Advance
Planning increases the span of control of the Advance Planning Manager.
Customer Service
Commissioner Lippert opened the area of discussion related to the term customer and
customer service. Several commissioners concurred that terms such as public service or
citizens is more appropriate for this department.
Other "customer" topics related to improving service at the Development Center, based
on resolution 31 of 34 of the Auditor’s recommendations. Staff distiiaguished between
improvements in the planning process, the focus of the 2003 Audit, and potential
improvements in the building permit process. Many people seeking a building permit for
an addition to their home may do so only once in their lifetime, and therefore are
unfamiliar with building codes and the permit process. The focus of future improvements
would be on helping nonprofessionals, such as a homeowner, to understand how to
comply with the codes, to be more of a resource. Commissioner Bialson concurred,
suggesting staff work to make homeowners "as knowledgeable as some of our more
knowledgeable developers".
Commissioner Cassel noted that it is confusing to the public "that so many different
departments actually work in the Development Center". Commissioner Garber
recommended focusing on the process, the procedure, and the purpose; and customer
satisfaction will then follow at the Development Center. Chairman Burt recommended
that the CPTO, along with the Director and Deputy Director, "would have valuable
225:06 page 4 of 8
insights" for improvements at the Development Center, and that "the improvements in
that area would be a collaborative effort of senior management".
Integration of Planning and Transportation
Several commissioners were supportive of the plan to integrate land use and
transportation planning, stating there is increased management functionality by having
those two organizations together, and citing the similarity to merging of the two areas
under the t~C. Commissioner Lippert commented "the integration of transportation and
planning together is paramount in terms of how to make this community better. The two
elements really need to work together in a seamless plan." Commissioner Holman had a
different view, voicing concerns on the proposed integration, and suggested it be
considered on an interim basis, to be reviewed in six months.
Addressing a concern about ensuring continuity of transportation operations if
Transportation and Planning are integrated, staff explained that a transportation engineer
would be assigned to traffic operations regardless of structure, but that it would be
helpful if that staff member could do that work in the broader context of land use
planning.
Qualifications
Professional expertise and qualifications in the reorganization plan was another area of
discussion. Commissioners questioned how planning processes might be improved with
oversight by a Deputy Director without a background in planning. Staff responded that
the plan vests expertise closer to the staff level, moving general management and non-
technical duties away from technical experts. Significant time is dedicated to responding
to constituent concerns and questions, coordination, routine meetings, budgets, and
supervision of non-technical staff. These tasks can be taken up by a more generalist
management position. This, in turn, frees up time for technical experts to be more
effective in their respective areas of expertise.
Commissioner Cassell noted a non-technical manager is often needed to get things done,
though she also expressed concern about qualifications. Commissioner Holman stated
"the Deputy Director should have experience in land use and transportation to be able to
conduct effective public meetings and to represent the Planning Department."
Commissioner Sandas stated her support to try the Deputy Director role as proposed, then
make changes in the future if necessary.
Delegated Authority
This led to a discussion of Director’s hearings, such as Individual Review, and whether
the Deputy Director would either conduct or have the Director’s authority to sign off on
recommendations made at these hearings. Staff’s response was that the authority
associated with Director’s decisions lies solely with the Director, as defined in the City’s
225:06 page 5 of 8
Municipal Code. Conducting the hearing, however, was a function that could be
performed by the Deputy Director. Staff suggested this was under consideration to create
appropriate separation between the hearing officer and the staff reviewing projects and
preparing reports. Commissioner Lippert did not want the Deputy Director as a surrogate
to the Director’s authority, but also stated "I think it is a really great idea to have
somebody in management able to help assure that the workflow proceeds."
Commissioner Holman raised a concern related to the Deputy Director responding to
technical questions. The response was that not all questions require technical expertise,
such as the earlier request to provide copies of the reports mentioned in the Auditor’s
letter. Also, managers would continue to assign staff to respond to technical questions,
appropriate to individual technical expertise. Additionally, the Director will remain
actively involved in issues, and in understanding how the organization works and
matching resources to needs as a way of leveraging all levels of staff.
Staff Participation and Perspective
Commissioner Sandas asked about staff participation and perspective. Staff described
participation in the plan development by the City Manager and the Director’s
management team. He also described a series of meetings with each workgroup where
clarifications and concerns were discussed. In summary, staff expressed concerns about
transition given the elimination or retirement of managers, and changing roles of others.
Availability of technical expertise in transportation was a concern, as was future career
advancement for building inspectors.
Enhance PTC Role
Severffl Commissioners .expressed support for further discussioriand public participation
in those discussions regarding potential changes to the I~C’s role in deliberations.
Commissioner Bialson expressed sympathy for "public concern about the public having
less input into a lot of the process," and wanted to be sure members of the public
understood that these topics would be discussed at future meetings. She also commented
"Many developers and knowledgeable public members know how to work through the
system as it presently exists, so any time we talk about changing it we are uncomfortable.
It needs to be changed. I think Staff has started with a very good approach."
Commissioner Garber mentioned the need to discuss Palo Alto’s "process", noting there
is a limited tolerance for restrictions, and that there is also a need to work toward efficient
functioning of government.
Commissioner Sandas commented she is "looking forward to discussions at the May 17
retreat", and that the PTC can look for creative ways for the public to provide input so the
community doesn’t feel shortchanged in the process. Commisionner Sandas completed
225:06 page 6 of 8
her comments with "Let’s go for it. Why not try this? If it doesn’t work we can come
back and do this again."
STAFF RESPONSE
Staff has modified its recommendations to respond to a number of the PTC comments.
For instance, professional certification within two years of employment will be added to
the hiring criteria for the Deputy Director position. The organizational chart has been
modified to include more descriptive labels, and staff agrees that there are better terms
than "customer" to describe the public the department serves. Staff will also be mindful
of public and PTC comments on the governance section, and is looking forward to a
discussion with Commission members at the May 17 retreat. Copies of the Zucker report
and the 2003 Development Review audit will be provided in advance, as requested, to
give Commissioners the historical context for their discussion.
Staff also agrees with the need for a status report on the outcomes of the reorganization.
A December 2006 status report would leave enough time to find incumbents for new and
existing vacant positions, and to see some preliminary results. One year later, a second
status report would show more substantial long-term effects of the reorganization. The
winter timing would permit the use of the City Auditor’s annual Service Efforts and
Accomplishments report to measure progress. The report contains several appropriate
metrics of the plan’s success. The Citizen Survey questions (page 5.3 of the February
2006 report) show the percentage of Palo Altans who rate the quality of land use planning
and new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent. Turnaround times for minor
applications and the average number of days to issue building permits reflect the
department’s response to routine applications, such as single-family home remodels or
additions. Transportation metrics are also available, such as the percentage of people
who consider traffic congestion a major or moderate problem. In addition, when the new
Chief Building Official is hired, then again nine months later, staff will survey
Development Center users. The purpose of the surveys will be to measure service quality
improvements, and to reveal existing strengths in the work staff does every day.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: April 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment B: April 19, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment C: Memo from Auditor "Planning Department Restructuring Proposal"
April 11, 2006
Attachment D: March 13, 2006 City Council Minutes
Attachment E: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Exhibit A Changes to the 2005-06 Table of Organization
225:06 page 7 of 8
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by
Resolution No. 8452, By Changing an Employee Classification
Exhibit A 2005-06 Budget SEIU Compensation Plan Changes
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the
Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and
Council Appointees Adopted by Resolution No. 8554 to Add one new
Classification and to Change One Classification
Exhibit A 2005-06 Budget Management!Professional Compensation
Plan Changes
Updated Organization Chart
Letter from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HIgAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Steve Emslie
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Director of Planning and Community
E~A~ BgI~~ST~~nment
City Manager
225:06 page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Steve Emstie
Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:
April 19, 2006
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
Restructuring Plan for the Department of Planning And Community
Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) comment on the
outcomes to be achieved by the restructuring plan proposed for the Planning and Community
Environment Department, for transmittal to City Council, as outlined below.
1.Integrate land use and transportation planning.
2.Make the Development Center experience more customer-friendly and create a problem-
solving orientation within the rules.
3. Provide general management support for the department, which will allow the Director to
ensure policy follow up, help staff focus on technical work, and continue process
improvements.
4. Enhance PTC role as a deliberative body for land use and transportation planning.
BACKGROUND
"The process of governing is transforming itself in truly fundamental ways: public workers are
retiring in record numbers at every level, employees are facing increasingly complex problems
that require collaboration and creative problem solving skills, and bureaucratic rules necessary
for accountability and fairness inhibit the very discretion so critical for public servants to do their
jobs well." (Stephen Goldsmith, "Management Matters", Management Insight, Feb 1, 2006.) In
Palo Alto, increasing complexities of land use and transportation planning necessitate
collaboration across disciplines and stakeholders. In addition, the need for accountability,
fairness, and good customer service relative to an intricate set of federal, state, and local
regulations remains a key concern for the community and staff.
City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 9
City Council has directed staff to evaluate, and where appropriate, increase the span of control of
managers throughout the organization. There is also the need reduce costs where possible, to
enable the city to meet its goals for infrastructure funding and cost containment.
The City Manager and Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment are
committed to the forgoing. The cumulative effect prompted the formation of a multi-disciplinary
committee of executive staff to design a restructuring proposal that would utilize existing
vacancies, reduce costs where possible, and most importantly, improve operations and
management oversight.
Specific staff changes recommended by the City Manager based on the work of the committee
were described in a staff report submitted to City Council on March 13, 2006 (CMR 164:04).
This report will discuss the goals of the proposed staff changes and introduce potential
governance changes to facilitate the targeted outcomes. The City Council has asked the PTC to
review the proposed restructuring plan. Comments and recommendations made by the PTC,
along with comments provided by community stakeholders will be transmitted to City Council
for further discussion in May, 2006.
Scope of review
There are two major components to the restructuring plan: organizational changes and process
changes. Organizational changes, including staff assignments, job descriptions, and department
structure, fall under the purview of the City Manager and City Council. The Charter of the City
of Palo Alto assigns to the City Manager the duty to "[c]oordinate the work of personnel
administration in the departments under his or her control..." Charter, Article IV, Section
6(m). The City Manager must also recommend changes to the basic organization plan of
departments, subject to approval by City Council (PAMC 2.01.140(7)).
Although organizational changes fall outside the responsibility of the PTC, the Commission is
charged with "...providing advice on any matter pertaining to land use planning and
transportation systems affecting the city." (PAMC 2.20.050). One of the outcomes of the
proposed restructuring is the merger of the Planning and Transportation Divisions. The PTC has
been asked to provide advice to the City Council due to the policy implications of the proposed
merger. The reasoning and goals of leveraging staff expertise in these two areas is described
under the report section titled Outcomes.
The second part of the restructuring plan relates to governance changes in the City’s entitlement
processes. The proposed reorganization plan is designed to continue the process improvements
completed to date, including increasing the role of the PTC in evaluating quasi-judicial
applications. Staff recommends expanding the streamlining efforts approved by Council in 2004
by updating processes dealing with Subdivision maps, Site and Design Review, and Prescreening
applications. Staff requests the Commission review the "Outcomes" section of this report, and
provide comments and suggestions for transmittal to City Council as they relate to land use,
transportation systems, and governance. Restructuring components that relate to staffing or
organizational changes are provided for background and context only. A timeline for full
consideration of all of the issues related to the proposed reorganization is included at the end of
this report.
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 9
DISCUSSION
To facilitate PTC review, an overview of the department follows, including what the department
does well, in recognition of the progress made to date in response to the 2003 audit of the
development review process, and to ensure that something that "works" doesn’t get fixed.
Department Overview and What Works Well
The Planning and Community Environment Department is currently composed of three
divisions, Planning, Transportation and Building, with 54.5 authorized FTEs, and an annual
budget of approximately $9 million. Permit, grant, and other service revenues range from $4 to
$5 million per year. The mission of the department is to provide the Council and community
with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning,
transportation, housing and environmental policies, plans and programs which maintain and
enhance the City as a safe, vital and attractive community. These activities occur within an
environment of competing needs and engaged civic involvement.
It is important to acknowledge the many things that work well. For instance, despite two
vacancies in the Transportation Division (Chief Transportation Official and one Transportation
Projects Manager), implementing the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor trial is on schedule, inter-
departmental work has not ceased on the citywide upgrade to traffic signals, shuttle operations
continue (including seasonal modifications), and neighborhood traffic calming projects are
underway for College Terrace, Louis Road, and Pepper Avenue, as well as the Maybell/Donald
bicycle boulevard. In the Planning Division, community development block grant funds were
allocated for the upcoming year, including $ lmillion for acquisition of an affordable housing
project. The E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines, the Mayfield Development Agreement, The
East Meadow Design Charrette, a demographic Community Profile of the City, numerous
complex BMR agreements, and a preliminary study of alternatives at the Palo Alto golf course
were also completed over the past year. In the past two years staff implemented the Construction
and Demolition Debris Diversion (C&D) program, worked with the Architectural Review Board
to reinstate the Architectural Achievement Awards, and presented monthly training sessions on a
wide variety of topics. Planning Districts, established in January 2004, have enabled staff to
focus expertise in eight geographic areas of town and assisted in expediting initial" review of
projects.
At the Development Center about 18,000 visitors are assisted; 3,000 building permits are issued
(62% over the counter); and 300-350 planning applications are processed each year. Building
activity in Palo Alto generates close to 1,000 inspections per month, facilitated by a new wait list
to reduce waiting times for inspections. Building permit applicants can now choose from
credentialed outside plan check firms, reducing turn-around times for building code review of
their projects. Customers can also find information more easily on the new Development Center
web page, which includes current information from all departments and access to permit,
inspection, and plan check status 24-hours perday via the internet.
An example of collaborative problem solving is the Individual Review program established in
2001, with 491 applications processed through 2005. A small percentage (1%) of these decisions
has been appealed. One reason for the low rate of appeals is significant effort on the part of staff
to facilitate communication and mediate concerns as single story homes are replaced with or
expanded to 2 story homes in Palo Alto neighborhoods. A key streamlining improvement
City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 9
relates to the creation of the "standard staff review process" for Variances, Conditional Use
Permits and Neighborhood Preservation Exceptions, in that only one application has been
appealed to Council since the streamlining went into effect, and the process enables these
appeals to be placed on the consent calendar for removal only at the discretion of three Council
members. Community outreach has been improved via monthly newsletters and weekly
bulletins on active planning entitlement projects, and improving the Accela and GIS data
mapping systems to assist staff and the public at the Development Center.
Finally, the Special Projects / Zoning Ordinance Update team brought to Council major public
projects including the Opportunity Center planned community, the Matadero Creek Bypass
channel, a photo-voltaic installation at the MSC site, and has worked diligently toward Council
adoption of zoning chapters after significant community outreach on auto dealerships, Office,
Research and Manufacturing districts, Single Family and Low-Density Residential, and
Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development.
The results of these changes support improved community participation. In the City Auditor’s
2004-05 report on service efforts and accomplishments, she noted that 46 percent of residents
rate planning services good or excellent, while 56 percent rate the overall quality of new
development in Palo Alto as good or excellent. Meanwhile, 55 percent of those surveyed rated
code enforcement services good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 73rd percentile
compared to other jurisdictions. The audit report also notes progress in the area of traffic
congestion. Per the 2005 Citizen Survey, "...58 percent of respondents considered traffic
congestion to be a major or moderate problem in Palo Alto, a decrease from the 64 percent who
thought so in 2003."
The department has been quite responsive to recommended improvements. The City Auditor
issued a report on the development review process in November 2003. The most recent status
report (Sept 8, 2005) indicates that the department has completed or resolved 31 of the 34
recommendations made by the Auditor. The remaining recommendations are in process. Key
improvements resulting from this audit include expanding use of cross-departmental reviews via
the Development Review Committee, assigning a single point of contact for status of
applications, and streamlining the outside plan check option for review of building permits.
OUTCOMES
The reorganization plan proposed for the department of Planning and Community Environment
is designed to continue the process improvements completed to date. Within the resources
authorized by City Council, and responding to Council direction to increase spans of control
where appropriate, staff has identified the following outcomes to be achieved by the restructuring
plan:
1.Integrate land use and transportation planning
As a "built-out" city, most development in Palo Alto consists ofredeveloping existing sites, such
as Alma Plaza, Hyatt Ricky’s, and 901 San Antonio Road. Land use and transportation issues
are inextricably linked in evaluating new or increased intensity of uses throughout Palo Alto.
The restructuring plan reflects the need to integrate project review, rather than treating land use
and associated traffic impacts as distinct. Integrating transportation and planning staff leverages
existing expertise, as planners and transportation engineering staff collaborate more closely on
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 9
projects and their on-site and off-site traffic impacts. Moreover, increased collaboration will
enhance the department’s capacity and expertise to assess long range and cumulative land use
issues.
The collaborative approach worked well with the Stanford/Mayfield Development Agreement
and EIR. Another example of how well this can work is the Charleston!Arastradero Corridor
trial project. Engineering staff from Transportation and Public Works have been working closely
with planners to implement the first phase of the trial this summer. Likewise, evaluating
potential Pedestrian Transit Oriented Districts requires collaboration of both land use and
transportation planners.
This restructuring will not change the focus or responsibility the transportation section has for
traffic engineering and traffic operations, parking management, alternative transportation
programs or safe routes to school and traffic calling projects. There will be projects that will
exceed the capacity of planning and transportation staff. In these instances staff proposes to
secure the necessary outside expertise via project specific contracts. The benefits of this
approach include keeping a core of expertise in-house, while keeping long-term staff costs down
by hiring additional experts only on an as-needed basis.
2.Make the Development Center experience more customer-friendly and create a
problem-solving orientation within the rules.
The restructure adds additional management expertise and customer service resources to the
Development Center (DC). The Deputy Director’s role will be that of ombudsman for DC
customers with responsibility to further streamline permit processing, conduct focus groups and
promote customer feedback. Experts, such as the Chief Building Official, Fire Chief, and Chief
Planning and Transportation Official will continue in their roles to manage implementation of
city, state and federal regulations. Enhancing customer service within the regulatory framework
will be a focus for the new Chief Building Official. The Deputy Director’s perspective will be to
step back and view how the whole process affects DC customers, and to find ways within the
regulatory framework to improve service from the customer’s point of view. For instance_,.the
Deputy Director can develop a comprehensive training program for all Divisions of the Planning
Department, and can act as the liaison to other departments represented at the DC to provide
customer service training to improve the experience residents and business people have with
staff from multiple departments at the DC. Clarifying priorities and performance standards, such
as turn-around times for all departments supporting project review, is another area of potential
improvement.
3.Provide general management support for the department, which will allow the
Director to ensure policy follow up, help staff focus on technical work, and continue
process improvements.
In her 2003 report the Auditor recommended "investing in supervision - to the extent possible,
limit the operational workload of planning division managers in order to provide supervision and
support to Planning Division staff." Previously the Chief Planning and Chief Transportation
Officials provided technical guidance to their respective staff, managed projects such as the
Intermodal Transit Center and Coordinated Area Plan for the South of Forest Area, coordinated
cross-department projects, provided technical expertise to the Planning and Transportation
Commission, and addressed community concerns. The management component of the
City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 9
restructuring plan invests in supervision by segregating these duties. The Deputy Director will
be dedicated to community outreach and cross-departmental initiatives, tasks currently
performed by planning and transportation managers, as well as providing general management
support in areas such as budget management, training programs, and interdivisional coordination.
Experience in both land use and transportation planning will be a part of the selection criteria for
the Chief Planning and Transportation Official, so this individual can provide management
support for planning and transportation managers, as well technical expertise as to staff, the
general public, City Council, boards, and commissions.
4. Enhance PTC role as a deliberative body for land use and transportation planning.
To provide responsive customer service under the City’s current resource constraints, staff, the
City Council, and the City’s appointed boards and commissions must find efficiencies wherever
possible. As noted above, the City Council approved recommendations developed by staff and
the P&TC to consolidate and streamline several review processes in May 2004. The proposed
reorganization plan would enable staff to pursue further streamlining efforts, both internally, and
in its public review processes.
With the additional management capacity provided by the reorganization, staff proposes
pursuing several changes to the City’s review processes. Staff recommends these as possible
topics of discussion for the P&TC retreat on May 17:
¯Creating efficiencies in the Site and Design review process by having the Director take
action on P&TC and ARB recommendations, subject to appeal to the City Council’s consent
calendar, or alternately, by putting the recommendations of the P&TC and ARB on the City
Council consent calendar for final action.
¯Exploring the use of the City Council consent calendar to make the City’s subdivision
process more efficient.
¯Combining P&TC study sessions with community meetings for projects with citywide
policy implications.
¯Reforming the prescreening and preliminary review processes to permit more flexibility for
staff. Currently, prescreening processes are highly constrained; staff must request approval
by the City Council to hold any prescreening. Permit staff to hold prescreening hearings
with the P&TC or with a joint meeting of the P&TC and ARB without first obtaining
Council permission.
¯Permitting property owners to amend the uses for Planned Community (PC) districts with a
Conditional Use Permit, with a hearing in front of the P&TC and decision by City Council
at the request of any concerned party. The full PC amendment process would still be used
for major redevelopment to the site, but the impacts associated with simple changes of use
could be addressed through a use permit.
¯Simplifying the Planning fee schedule. The current fee schedule is overly complicated, with
fees charged for each individual type of permit. A reformed fee schedule that charges fees
based on the level of review required, as opposed to the type of permit or permits required,
would be more efficient.
¯Setting notice and turnaround times through a Director-submitted, Council-approved policy,
rather than in the ordinance. This would enable the City to more easily modify notice
requirements and performance standards take advantage of new technology or respond to
changes in the regulatory or business environment. When the Director becomes aware of
City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 9
improvements that could be made to the Department’s noticing requirements or processing
timelines, he or she would recommend a change to the policy to the P&TC, and the
recommendation would go on the Council consent calendar. Currently, any such changes
require an ordinance change, making it cumbersome to implement changes. The following
types of requirements should be included in guidelines, rather than an ordinance:
-Notice mailing radius for discretionary review projects
-Forms of notice required (e.g. mailing, electronic, site posting)
-Notice content (e.g. address, CEQA determination, description)
-Permit processing timelines (deadline to return comments, deadline to issue a decision,
deadlines for scheduling hearings)
-Length of time notice is required (14 days, currently)
-Which types of decisions require public notice
-Use a forum similar to the Development Review Committee for Building Permit pre-
meetings, where applicants can ask questions and get help creating construction plans
that conform to the competing regulations administered by various City departments.
TIMELINE
In summary, the restructuring plan includes staff changes which require review and authorization
of the City Council. The plan also includes proposed changes to how policies are implemented,
such as closer collaboration between land use and transportation planning and increased
customer service focus at the Development Center which merit review by both Council and the
PTC. Finally, staff recommends the PTC and City Council consider continuing to streamline
entitlement processes over the next few months. A timeline for these matters is depicted below.
Proposed Restructuring Plan Timeline
April 19, 2006
May 8, 2006
May, 2006
May-June, 2006
May 17, 2006
June, 2006
July, 2006
September, 2006
December, 2006
PTC reviews, comments and make recommendations to City Council on
outcomes to be achieved by the proposed restructuring plan.
Council reviews plan, recommendations, and public comment
Council adopts or amends plan.
Implementation of plan will begin by filling vacant positions.
Restructuring plan is included in FY2006-07 budget considered by the
Finance Committee and City Council.
PTC retreat to discuss the specifics of proposed governance changes such
as streamlining entitlement processes.
Follow up discussion of streamlining, at PTC discretion.
PTC recommends ordinance changes to Council.
If adopted, ordinance changes become effective.
Staff reports to PTC and Council on status and results of restructuring plan
to date.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action is not subject to environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 9
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Organization Charts
Prepared by:Steve Emslie
Director Planning & Community Environment
Department Head Approval:
STEVE EMSLIE, DIRECTOR
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 9
Current
Attachment A: Organization Charts
Proposed
City of Palo Alto Page 9 of 9
Attachment B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings
Planning and Transportation Cotnmission
Verbatim Minutes
April 19, 2006
DRAFT EXCERPT
Restructuring Plan for the Department of Planning and Communitv Environment -
Planning and Transportation Commission review and comments on proposed outcomes to
be generated by the Restructuring Plan of the Department of Planning and Community
Environment for transmittal to City Council.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Thank you, Chair Burt and members of the Planning
Commission. I have a few brief comments and will be available to take questions based on the
comments of the report. I would like to also introduce Heather Shoop who is the department
Administrator sitting to my fight who I would like to acknowledge her terrific work in preparing
much of the background material that is in front of you tonight. Then also of course our City
Attorney, Don Larkin, who is in the building.
First of all I would like to say why we are here. I think the reports points out that the genesis of
the restructuring and reorganization plan fell out of a City Council assignment that was given to
the City Manager to look at the Planning Department and address a variety of issues regarding
efficiency and service demands placed on us primarily through the development review process.
We have provided by way of background the proposed organizational changes that are scheduled
to go to the City Council on May 8, 2006. Council, under the City Charter has the review and
approval authority over the budget which contains the City’s Table of Organization because the
reorganization does propose changes to that Table of Organization those changes are required to
have Council review and approval under the City Charter.
We have also listed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission desired outcomes as a result
of the reorganization and really ask the Planning Commission to provide us with their review and
feedback on those outcomes. Those will be reported to the City Council on May 8 when they
consider the reorganization plan.
So now a little bit on the why, why are we here? First of all, there are major vacancies in the
department, which started out with three major vacancies and has grown to five. The Chief
Planning Officer was vacated last June when Lisa Grote took a promotion to become the
Community Development Director of San Mateo County. Joe Kott left to take a job in the
private sector in November. We also had a retirement of our City Traffic Engineer, Ashok
Aggarwal, after many, many years of very dedicated City service. We had the Planning Manager
of our Special Projects Team, John Lusardi, move out of state to take a position in the city of
Scottsdale, Arizona. Then Fred Herman announced his retirement again after nearly 30 years of
service to the City and that is to take effect in July of this year.
Page 1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
1 As I mentioned a lot of the focus is on improving our service to our various customers and there
2 is an acknowledgement that we do sometimes have a variety of customers and we are dedicated
3 to providing the service to all our customers both the applicants and those who are interested in
4 what the applicants might be proposing. They all deserve and should receive the best quality
5 service we possibly can deliver. There are always areas and ways of improving how we do that
and this is a primary focus of the reorganization is to provide that orientation for our variety of
stakeholders.
This is also an acknowledgement of the need to provide more general management support to
support the technical work of our staff. The department in my opinion as someone who has
direct involvement on a day-to-day basis could certainly benefit from the general management
support that a deputy position would provide and allowing our technical staff to apply their
technical skills more exclusively. In the past we have demanded and required our technical staff
to also use a fair amount of their time and energy in dealing with the more general management
issues of the department.
Lastly and not least, we see that this is an opportunity to take a significant step in better aligning
and integrating our land use planning efforts and our transportation planning by integrating those
two teams into a single division we feel we can be more proactive in returning to this
Commission and to City Council and to the public more integrated transportation policies that
are closer connected to our efforts and our transportation and our land use efforts. We hear fairly
frequently in these Chambers questions and concerns regarding the better prediction of
transportation issues as it relates to incremental development change that happens. Better
equipped to deal with our Comprehensive Plan especially as we embark on the next item as well
as integrating aggressive transportation issues and development projects at a very early stage and
being able to communicate also at the very earliest possible stage to our applicants concerns
related to traffic, transportation and alternate modes and integrating those as the Commission
knows as early in the process is a primary indicator of the likelihood of success of returning with
better recommendations. So we feel very strongly that the leverage that we would obtain by
merging our two teams and sharing that discipline across department lines would give us
leverage and the ability to prepare more proactive and more comprehensive recommendations
and less last minute and more reactive recommendations regarding our variety of develop issues
that do face us.
So with that I am going to conclude my comments and ask if there are any clarifications. I do
want to point out that we did put at places an email that we received from the City Auditor,
Sharon Winslow, discussing the aspects of the reorganization as it aligned with the 2003 audit of
the development process and an indication of how this does align in a positive way with her
observations made back in 2003. That is at your places for you to read and there are also copies
available at the back of the Chambers.
Chair Burt: Thank you, Steve. Don, would you like to help give us some guidance on the scope
or the purview of the Commission this evening on this topic?
Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: I would be happy to. The Commission has a
somewhat limited role in the discussion partly because the Council has absolute discretion over
Page 2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 job descriptions, Table of Organization, and the City Manager has sole authority over the
2 Administrative Service and over personnel decisions. The legal term is ~Council-manic
3 Interference," but the description is in the code which states that neither the Council nor any of
4 its committees or members shall direct, request or attempt to influence either directly or
5 indirectly the appointment of any person to office or employment by the City Manager or in any
6 manner interfere with the City Manager or prevent the City Manager from exercising individual
7 judgment in the appointment of officers and employees in the Administrative Service. However,
8 there is something of a conflict in the code which also provides that the Planning and
9 Transportation Commission shall as requested by the City Council, the City Manager or the
10 Director of Planning and Community Environment provide advice on any matter pertaining to
land use planning and transportation systems affecting the City and so it doesn’t foreclose the
opportunity for the Planning Commission to get involved in addressing many of the issues raised
by the restructuring.
I have come up with a few subjects that are clearly within the Commission’s purview and this is
not intended to be an exhaustive list but some of the subjects that would be subject to the
Commission’s review include requesting clarifications on items that are in the Staff Report. The
Commission should make recommendations regarding the integration of the Planning and
Transportation functions in the department. The Commission may make recommendations on
required capabilities of the department for example identifying areas of expertise that are
necessary to have in-house in the department without identifying the individuals that would be
potentially filling those areas of expertise.
Then finally one of the other areas that would clearly be within the Commission’s purview
would be to make recommendations regarding the streamlining provided in the Staff Report as
well additional suggestions with the one caveat that we are planning on having more extensive
discussions those items either at the Retreat or future study sessions or both on some of the
streamlining items that are mentioned in the Staff Report. But in terms of actually looking at the
ones that have been identified and making comments on those and identifying new items that
could be addressed at a future Retreat or study session would be clearly appropriate.
Chair Burt: Thank you, Don. Do Commissioners have questions of the Staff before proceeding
to hearing from the public? Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: Actually I don’t think I have to ask the questions before we hear from
the public.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: I have several questions that pertain to clarification of Attachment, A
which is the organization chart at the end of the Staff Report. My questions really pertain to the
top of that attachment which is the current organizational chart. My first question is when did
that chart become effective? Do we have a date or an approximate date?
Mr. Emslie: The most recent change to that was made in the budget of last year.
Page 3
1 Commissioner Garber: Relative to creating a transportation department with an entity unto itself,
2 when did that occur?
3
4 Mr. Emslie: I don’t have that.
5
6 Commissioner Garber: Ten years ago?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Emslie: I think longer than that. I think it was when the Planning Commission added
Transportation.
Commissioner Garber: No, when the ....
Mr. Emslie: We could look it up but I believe it is at least ten or 15 years plus. It has been with
us for a long time.
Commissioner Garber: But then prior to that it did not exist?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, it didn’t exist until it came into existence.
Commissioner Garber: Was there something that caused it to come to be created?
Mr. Emslie: I don’t know. This is going back into the dark recesses of time.
Commissioner Garber: Pre-SE.
Mr. Emslie: Probably pre a lot of people who are alive today.
Commissioner Garber: I am confused a little bit by, even though they are in common use now,
some of the titles that are in these boxes. For instance ’Planning’ the green box, planning_is an
activity. Transportation however is not an activity it is a classification or a type of activity.
Presumably transportation is about planning of transportation. Yes?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, that is its primary focus. There are actual implementation functions of the
Transportation Department, the Division has assigned to it in terms of signal operation so there is
a technical operational side to that as well that would not typically fall within the definition you
gave of planning. It has been largely associated with planning for many years.
Commissioner Garber: Then specifically, planning, which is a very general term really is
specific to land planning or land use planning?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, there are other aspects of planning that are housed in there housing being one
of those that is on a par with land use planning but it does have very specific skills that are
outside of what we ask of a land use planner. We also do administrative work and planning the
running of the community development block program and the government grants also fall
within that.
Page 4
1 Commissioner Garber: Let me ask the question this way. Let me just add for the Chair I am
2 going to take a little bit of time here but if you need to interrupt me for time or other questions
3 please do so and I will try and be as succinct as I can. If you could just articulate in a couple of
4 words some of the products that these two boxes produce for the land planning box and the
5 transportation planning box.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Emslie: Well, they each produce a variety of products. If we want to just go very quickly if
we are going through the planning box we can talk about each of the areas. There is Advance
Planning delivers recommendations regarding updates to our Comprehensive Plan. They are
responsible for updating the studies in demographics that analyze trends. They report out on
monitoring that is required under the code. For example they do an annual vacancy in
Downtown that is required under our ordinance. That also is the area that has our housing and
CDBG programs so they will make recommendations regarding disposition of the housing funds,
expenditure of those funds on creation of public housing and affordable housing. That just gives
you an example of those areas.
Special Projects that is primarily engaged with the zoning code update. Then they will also
provide the planning and environmental analysis for City initiated construction projects. The
Children’s Library is an example of where Special Projects Planning has been involved in
providing the land use analysis and compliance with City land use policy for a City initiated
project.
Then Current Planning is probably the one you are most familiar with because this is the area
that will come to you most frequently and these are the recommendations on precise
development proposals and entitlements. Then it also does contain the sustainability
coordination which implements the City’s construction and demolition ordinance.
Transportation is divided into areas of producing reports and recommendations on transportation
items not just vehicular transportation which is contained in our Comprehensive Plan but also
non-vehicular transportation items through pedestrian and bicycle. An example of a work
product would be the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, which was recently adopted by the City
Council and prepared by this division. For ease I will say that they also do provide the traffic
analysis for development projects. So the Current Planning Staff is required to consult with the
Transportation Staff on development projects for their recommendations and questions regarding
the traffic impacts of development projects. So that would be a work product. They are also
responsible for upgrading and maintaining the City’s traffic signal system. So they will work
with the Public Works Staff who actually does the field work but they will get the inputs from
our Staff in analyzing and changing traffic signal hardware and traffic operations. They are
provid!ng basically the intelligence that goes into the implementation through our more bricks
and mortar department that is in Public Works. We also respond to citizen complaints. When
traffic concerns come in, the need for additional traffic control devices, red curbs, stop signs,
safety hazards and so forth. That division also contains the City’s commute program that runs
our internal City employee commute check program to track people who commute and the
number of days a month are sufficient to participate in this. They also work with the exterior
community, our business community and our school community in encouraging the use of
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
alternative modes of transportation. I am sure I left a lot out but that gives you a flavor of what’s
happening in those two boxes.
Commissioner Garber: It absolutely does, thank you. It sounds going through this each one of
these products are reports or study in nature. I believe importantly also in the planning box there
is also a permitting activity that they participate in relative to projects. I heard your yes. In
general both of these boxes operate functionally in similar realms. They both have to create
forward-looking planning documents for the community. They have to maintain the existing
functions and they have to find ways of changing them and operating them. Are there
differences between the people that are actually, the qualities, the attributes of the people that
work in these two that are significantly different from each other or are there similarities?
Mr. Emslie: There are both. There are similarities in that we look for the same analytical skills
as we would in planning and in applying our transportation, being able to assess anticipated
change conditions and be able to then synthesize those into recommendations. They both deal
primarily with either the immediate future in terms of what is going to happen with a specific
project that can change a certain environment as well as the long range. They both have that
area. There are some differences in that there are technical skills that are asked of both in terms
of some of their knowledge base. For example in planning there is a need for expertise and
implementation of for example the California Environmental Quality Act that you wouldn’t
necessarily need to ask a transportation person to understand and vise-versa a traffic engineer
may have a certain credential that is through the states issued a license to be able to practice and
have some level of expertise in a more technical area. So there are some very specific technical
skills that are not shared.
Commissioner Garber: If I consider myself a Planner could I apply for a job in either one of
these boxes?
Mr. Emslie: You could in the ones that are more technical we would look for having the basic
education and credentials in that but I think there are very similar attributes and analytical
abilities are a primary concern of ours.
Commissioner Garber: There is one other thing I want to ask before I sum the last topic here.
When you look at an org chart it has a box and sometimes that is also assumed to have some sort
of physical characteristic. Do these people actually work all together or are they actually
intermixed or you had mentioned that there is collaboration between these two boxes, is there
actual physical separation, are they all together? How do they on a day-to-day basis how do they
actually operate with each other?
Mr. Emslie: The current arrangement, both the Planning and Transportation boxes are located on
the fifth floor but they are in distinct locations and the two groups are organized separately. In
fact Planning and Transportation are on different sides of the building. To the extent we are
working all together yes, but they tend to be organized more in their division location.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: But you had mentioned that they do work, even though they have a
physical separation and they clearly are shown separate on this page, you mentioned that they do
collaborate and are required to collaborate.
Mr. Emslie: They are required to collaborate and a lot of their work is shared.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have two questions. The first is with regard to the Code Enforcement
Officers. They are presently under Special Projects but from you describe Special Projects being
that seemed a little odd place. So I am wondering if I understand correctly what a Code
Enforcement Officer does.
Mr. Emslie: We have two Code Enforcement Officers. The City has many different Code
Enforcement Officers so it sometimes can be a little confusing we understand that. Our Code
Enforcement Officers are responsible for primarily enforcement of codes as it applies to private
property. Compliance with the zoning and building codes and also they are responsible for
monitoring and enforcing conditions that this Commission and the ARB and the City Council
will put on projects. They will ensure compliance with those conditions when the project is
complete and any ongoing conditions they will monitor on a regular basis to ensure that they
continue to be applied.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. That makes it a little more understandable to me why we
took them out of Special Projects. An overall question, as the proposed chart would exist does
that reduce the number of people who would be considered to manage one person or two people?
In other words, have you created fewer management positions or have we stayed the same?
Mr. Emslie: We have again tried to consolidate more people under fewer managers obviously by
reducing the number of divisions from three to two. But because we are adding more general
management support at the higher level it is not a significant change in the number of managers.
Commissioner Bialson: But are there fewer managers who only oversee maybe one other
employee or zero employees?
Mr. Emslie: I am sorry I misunderstood the question. There is a net reduction of two but we are
adding back the higher-level general management support across the department lines to help
supplement the technical skills of the subject matter expertise.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Steve, under the current organization under Planning there is the Advance
Planning Department and the Special Projects Department and the Current Planning Department.
Physically those are located separately certainly especially the Advance Planning and Current
Planning are located in different areas of the fifth floor. The same thing applies to
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Transportation. They generally speaking are in another part of the fifth floor. So I guess what I
am looking for is does it work well now? For instance is Advance Planning working well with
Current Planning? Is there good interface there? I am not asking personalities. Is there good
interface and good coordination between those two divisions of the Planning Department? The
reason I am asking is because I am trying to get to if there is a perception that there would be an
improvement by bringing the Transportation Department under one person, just their physical
separation. I am trying to find out what the correlation is here and why a physical separation and
management would implement or not implement better coordination.
Mr. Emslie: Because Advance Planning and Current Planning report to the same manager I
would say that that facilitates collaboration and encourages that because there is one person that
can monitor the activities of those two particular areas. That is not the case with Transportation
because that is in a separate division. So even though they may be physically separated that the
fact that they are reporting to one manager helps facilitate collaboration.
Vice-Chair Holman: And so under the current structure both Planning and Transportation report
to the Director. So the same model exists, as I read it. In other words, both those departments
report to the same person.
Mr. Emslie: Well, what I was referring to is that currently in the top box you have Current
Planning and Advance Planning reporting to the Chief Planning Official. That is a person that
would have better coordination that would facilitate the collaboration between those two
divisions. We are trying to achieve that same facilitation of collaboration by incorporating
Transportation into that same structure.
Vice-Chair Holman: I am not trying to beat a dead dog here but there is a person, a position, that
both of those departments report to. So would the coordination not happen at that level? In
other words, wouldn’t the coordination just happen at a different level?
Mr. Emslie: I think the higher up you go the less coordination because the broader the range. So
we are trying to push down at levels closer to the work, more familiarity with the work, and a
closer contact than roll it up. I think it is easier to do that at a lower level than roll that up to a
higher level and have basically the one person. There is more activity in that area that - I see
that the Chief Planning and Transportation Official under the changed model provides more
leverage because that person is monitoring a broader range of activities to be able to report to the
Director rather than the Director having to be involved in more day-to-day operations and not
necessarily being able to be available and present to provide the kind of guidance and oversight
of those functions. I think it is better done at a closer level.
Chair Burt: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks, Pat. Steve, I just have a question about the span of control of
managers throughout the organization. You talk about that in the background in your report.
Can you just demonstrate for me what exactly that would look like to increase the span of control
of the managers considering that we are really not decreasing the management pool by more than
one person?
Page 8
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2 Mr. Emslie: Well, we are decreasing the management pool by two and by reducing that we are
3 focusing most of our managers, and I can’t say exclusively all, in direct supervision roles. The
4 problem with the span of control as has been identified by the Auditor is that we have classified
5 managers that don’t have supervision. The City uses this as a way to kind of acknowledge a
higher level of expertise and more complicated, more policy recommendation basis. This does
remove managers that don’t have or maybe have very few direct reports to them. Is it a dramatic
change? No. It is more at the edges since we are only losing two managers.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Do you want me to wait until later for my questions?
Chair Burt: That is up to you.
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll wait then.
Chair Burt: Okay. So at this time we have four members of the public who have submitted
cards to speak and each member will have up to five minutes to speak. If anyone else wishes to
speak if they could bring their card forward that would be appreciated. Our first speaker is Sheri
Furman to be followed by Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto: Hi five minutes means I don’t have to rush through this. The
intention of this restructuring plan is good and I want to make clear that I have the utmost respect
for Steve’s abilities and dedication to the community, to this job and everything. The things I am
going to say are not about personalities they are about the process and consequences. So I just
want to be very clear on that from the outset.
Of the many items in this plan I would like to comment on two tonight for your consideration.
The first is the role of the Deputy Direct, that is no surprise, and the second is the enhanced role
of the Planning and Transportation Commission. On the Deputy Director role reading through
this plan I find that Deputy Director is to act as ombudsman for the Development Center
customers with responsibility to further streamline permit processing, conduct focus groups and
promote customer feedback, view how the whole process affects the Development Center
customers, find ways within the regulatory framework to improve service from the customer’s
point of view, develop a comprehensive training program for all divisions of the Planning
Department, act as the liaison to other departments represented at the Development Center,
clarify priorities and performance standards, perform community outreach and cross-
departmental initiatives, provide the general management support in areas such as budget
management, training programs and inter-divisional coordination. Now it seems to me this is an
awful lot for one person to take on. I am a little concerned about how one can successfully
perform all these duties. All of these were mentioned in the report.
Another concern is I see that the experience in both land use and transportation planning will be
part of the selection criteria for the Chief Planning and Transportation Official however they are
not criteria for the Deputy Director. I suggest that you ask for a specific job and experience
Page 9
1 description for the Deputy Director position and once you have that then you can look at
2 qualified candidate. We have kind of put the cart before the horse here in how we are going
3 about filling this position. Again, it is not a matter of personality it is that if somebody is to do
4 all these things I do believe they should have experience in these areas especially with people
5 like me coming before you in Palo Alto.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
Then on your enhanced role this item is about much more than expanding your role it is also
about the public’s right to be heard. This report states that, "The proposed reorganization plan
would enable staff to pursue further streamlining efforts both internally and in its public review
processes." My concern is that many of these efforts seem aimed at reducing or removing the
public voice. Some of the items I would like you to consider include having the Director take
action on PTC and ARB recommendations with those recommendations only on the City
Council Consent Calendar for final action. Council does not usually like to pull items from the
Calendar thus making it harder for us to voice our concerns to Council.
What are the implications of combining Planning and Transportation Commission study sessions
with community meetings for projects with citywide policy implications? We will be limited to
speaking for just the two to five minutes that we are here on a topic or will there be a true
discussion? It is not clear to me in this report.
A third item is permitting property owners to amend the uses for Planned Community Districts
with a conditional use permit. While it says the full PC Amendment process would still be used
for major redevelopments on the site I am unclear what constitutes major redevelopment. For
example, could Alma Plaza retain its PC under this and thus not have to have a review? It is
coming before you in a week. Again, that is another one I am not clear on. I agree with
increasing complexities of land use and transportation planning especially in a built out city like
Palo Alto. Necessitate collaboration across disciplines and stakeholders and I understand the
need to reduce costs. However, many of the items in this plan seem aimed at reducing the
public’s role in the process. When we talk about customers we are not just talking about those
who use the Development Center. We, as residents of Palo Alto are also the customers. It is we
who live with the results of planning issues and I believe we therefore have a legitimate role in
voicing our concerns on these issues. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Adam Atito.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in College Terrace. Since Frank Benest
became City Manager the City Manager’s Office hired some highly paid public relations staff.
To me these were highly paid spin-meisters that as far as I could see did not contribute much to
the necessary functions of City Hall. The one addition to the City Manager’s Office that did
provide a real and tangible service to the public was Victoria who pleasantly provided the public
with information about who to contact and how to contact people at City Hall. But when it came
time for across the board budget cuts who got cut from the City Manager’s Office? Not the
highly paid PR people. It was Victoria. Similarly in the Planning and Transportation
Department when it came time for across the board budget cuts who got cut in the Planning and
Transportation Department? Why, it was the person who provided the public with the best, most
direct, most tangible, most appreciated and most pleasant service, even though he was the lowest
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
person on the totem pole and I assume the person with the lowest salary. I am talking about Alan
Krever. Now I don’t have anything against the Interim Deputy Director personally but I don’t
see how his background, education or experience provides him with the skills necessary to
replace the positions formerly held by Joe Kott and Lisa Grote. On the other hand the Director
of Planning and Community Environment does come from a planning background. I suppose it
could be argued that the Planning Division could operate without a Chief Planning Official
because the Director has the skills to fill in for that role. However, I do not think anyone can
reasonably argue that the Director can fill in for the role of Chief Transportation Official nor can
the Interim Deputy Director fill that role.
If the Planning and Community Environment department wants to trim its operating budget I
would suggest leaving the position of Chief Planning Official open for now and concentrate on
filling the Chief Transportation Official position formerly Joe Kott’s position. For heaven’s sake
try to get Alan Krever to come back. There should be enough money left over to do that.
As far as community relations and enhancing customer service, which supposedly the Deputy
Director is supposed to do, Alan Crevor is the best person that Planning and Community
Environment ever had, at least in the last eight years that I have been interacting with City Hall.
Alan came at such a bargain price. I hope you do not recommend approve the restructuring plan.
I also second Sheri Furman’s concerns about the proposed changes to the Planning
Commission’s role. Thanks.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Adam Atito to be followed by Emily Renzel.
Mr. Adam Atito, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I am a member of the Human
Relations Commission and also I am the husband of recently resigned Traffic Engineer, Heba E1-
Guendy. Tonight I am speaking on my behalf as an individual and not representing the HRC. I
am here also to echo the statement about Steve Emslie. I value his community involvement and
his leadership within the City. My speaking tonight is not-against Steve personally but against
what I see in front of me.
Based on what I heard from the city lawyer that the needs of the Planning Commission or the
City Council have the right to endorse any personnel changes within the City but what we can
focus on as a community, as a Planning Commission and City Council is having the technical
expertise we need to run our City. I think we have the right to do that because at the end of the
day we are going to pay the salaries, pay the benefits, pay for the cost of their mistakes. So I will
argue to insist on having the technical background or the expertise we need for each of those
positions.
Deputy Director, Planning and Transportation Chief, Transportation Manager, we need to know
what kind of expertise those positions will be filled with. We don’t care about the personality we
need to know who is going to fill it and what kind of expertise they have, what kind of
background they have because at the end of the day we are paying the cost. So I will argue to
take a look at this.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Also, the argument was presented to the City Council that we went out and could not find the
right candidate to fill this job. We went out locally. The City of Menlo Park just recently hired a
qualified applicant for the Chief Transportation. City of Fremont, City of Alameda, tons of cities
went out and got a qualified applicant. The City of Palo Alto pays as much or probably a little
bit hirer than those other cities to get the right applicant.
We did something strange here within our city. We usually in the private sector companies will
find what we need, what kind of qualifications we need for each job and we go out and seek
applicants for the job. What we did in Palo Alto is we found the personnel, the three people to
fill the three positions, we have the already lined up then we created the positions for them. Is
that the way we are going to run our city? Just customize the position to fit certain individuals?
I hope not.
With that said I hope when the consideration is done to interview the right candidate for this
position there will be some emphasis and be inclusive, no snobs in our cities, no discrimination
should be allowed women or against anybody. So I would like to offer the recommendation
beside the technical expertise to have the person who has the personality to fit within our city,
within our culture. For God’s sake we have a Governor who cannot pronounce the name of the
state. So to have a manager to discriminate against women is not right and I hope that is not
going to be acceptable to you or by the City. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Emily Renzel to be followed by Herb Borock.
Ms. Emily Renzel, Palo Alto: Just by way of background I served six years on the Planning
Commission and 12.5 years on the Council so I have a little bit of planning history and planning
expertise in my background. I would first like to say I concur with everything Sheri Furman had
to say and most of what Bob Moss had to say in his letter to you.
I was rather concerned i didn’t get the Staff Report for you until tonight but on page sik they
enhanced the Planning and Transportation Commission role. I absolutely agree with Sheri
Furman it does much more than that and has many places where currently there is opportunity
for the public to participate in the planning process that is being short circuited in the interest of
efficiency. I think in the long run that will not be efficient and will be causing problems for you.
Some of these things sound a little innocuous like allowing the Staff to use a conditional use
permit to change a use on a PC. Well, PCs typically aren’t just the physical building. They are
how that building operates and what happens in it. So the use can be just as important as the
building. So something like that is a major change not just a little change in efficiencies. I could
down these one by one but I think Sheri did a pretty good job of hitting the highlights of those
concerns. I think you should look at those very carefully. I would note that that whole section if
it is in the CMR to the Council I didn’t see it. It might be in a general statement of enhance the
role of the Planning and Transportation Commission but it is not fleshed out as it is in the report
that you have tonight and I think it is quite alarming with respect to public participation, which
has been a fundamental part of our planning process. I think that in recent times some
developers in particular have tried to promote things that will take the public out of the process
in the name of efficiency. I guess I would remind you that we have laws to govern our zoning
and our planning because physical development of this city is around for a long time and it is
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
really important how that happens. The people who live in the community often understand that
much better than an outside developer who might be coming in for the first time or live in
Woodside and not care what happens to us as far as the fallout of a given project. So I think it is
really important for you to consider that public role as an important part of the planning process.
As I looked at this organizational chart and I may say something really outrageous here but I
looked at it and I said, well, what does Steve Emslie do? He has an Administrative Assistant, an
Executive Secretary, four Staff Secretaries and five staff and an Administrator and a Deputy
Director. It is sort of like pulls him out of the process. I think that is not appropriate. I am kind
of alarmed at that. I think the Director of Planning should be the Director of Planning and a
Deputy Director who has some PR functions and has the line function with the rest of the staff
seems to me is removing the Director from the substance of the planning issues. So I would
raise real concerns about that. I think I share some of the same concerns with respect to
designing the job around a particular individual rather than designing the job and then looking
for someone who has the right characteristics for it. I also know from long experience that the
transportation issue is a big, big area of all of our physical planning. The automobile has just
turned everything on its head. It relates in every way like how fast our intersections flow, how
much cut-through traffic there is in neighborhoods and on and on. I think it is absolutely
essential to have someone in that role that understands those issues and has dealt with them and
knows how that interfaces with the public in general.
I guess I am done so thank you very much.
Chair Burt: Emily, just one quick clarifying question if I might ask. When you were referring to
the structure of the proposed org chart where you looking at the one that was attached to the
March 13 Staff Report to Council or the one that is in the Staff Report to the Commission this
evening?
Ms. Renzel: It was the March 13 and I do know that the dotted line got made solid but
nonetheless why should it all be filtered through a Deputy Director? That makes me real
nervous.
Chair Burt: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you had the latest one.
Ms. Renzel: I was here at the Council meeting and saw that change. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thanks. Our final speaker is Herb Borock.
Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Burt and Commissioners. This item has been
presented to you as a change in an organization chart but I believe that is really a smokescreen
for the other issue, which is changing the rules to take the public out of the process of changing
the rules. That is currently to change the rules you need an ordinance passed by the Council that
is subject to referendum. Here are suggestions being made to have Staff have the right to change
the rules.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I believe that form follows function so you first have to figure out what kind of planning
department you want to have. In general there is a tension between those who earn a living by
turning in applications and developing properties and who own land for that purpose versus the
public generally who are not making money off a particular development but who are effected,
sometimes adversely, by those development. They are not all customers. There are no
customers at the library although they have been called that we don’t pay to go to the library.
When you go to the Development Center and pay you may be called a customer but most people
in Palo Alto don’t do that although they are affected by developments. So you really have to
consider both and both should be named in any kind of Staff Report so you can create that
balance. The problem over the past few years is that only one side seems to be of interest to the
Council and Staff and the public are more treated as an audience or labeled customers or become
spectators.
I have been following the Planning Department for 35 years so I can answer Commissioner
Garber’s questions about organization and I am surprised that you don’t have any of that history
before you including the history of the Zucker Study that led to the third frontline planning
manager in the Planning Division and that led to the change in the philosophy that we got from
Ed Gawf and Steve Emslie in the departments they have been running under City Manager Frank
Benest compared to the way the department was run before. Prior to that time we created a
professional planning department that subscribed to the principles of the American Planning
Association and its professional subset the American Institute of Certified Planners whose
principles to which we aspire for the AIC our overall responsibility is to the public. Our primary
obligation is to serve the public interest and we therefore owe our allegiance to a conscientiously
attained concept of the public interest that is formulated through continuous and open debate.
We shall achieve high standards of professional integrity, proficiency and knowledge. The
Zucker Study followed the departure of four people from the Planning Division including Chief
Planning Official, Nancy Lytle. Many more people, there has been a wholesale departure in the
last few years. Mr. Emslie only mentioned people at the top but virtually everyone I thought
would report to John Lusardi or Current Planning and Special Projects had left~ The other .......
divisions used to be in the Public Works Department and they were moved over to Planning.
That is Transportation in fact an artifact of that was Transportation for the longest time remained
in the southwest corner of the sixth floor where the Public Works Department was also on the
sixth floor.
Personalities are important because they divert your attention from what is really happening. I
suggest that when I heard a year ago that Lisa Grote was leaving that the City Manager should do
what he did elsewhere and eliminate the position. Instead he increased it to a Deputy Director. I
predicted at the budget hearings before the Council that after a decent interval that the current
Director would leave, his five-year vesting I think is next February, and that the Deputy Director
would get promoted because the Deputy Director was already chosen and then the position
would be eliminated. If Andy Coe’s successor at Stanford in Community Relations, Jean
McCown, were switched with him I would still have the same objections. She has more
planning experience, a land use planner, a planning commissioner, a city council member and
also she has what is being asked for here and that is an advocate for developers. Right now you
have to pay people on the outside like Jean McCown or Jim Baer to come and be an ombudsman
for an applicant. Maybe in San Francisco you have to bribe someone to do it but here we are
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
suggesting to institutionalize it and somehow say that the public generally is a customer just the
same as an applicant. You are being asked to change the rules. You need to implement the
current rules, the ones that were just advocated recently and adopted for streamlining. I don’t
think in terms of public noticing they have ever been implemented. Thank you.
Chair Butt: Thank you. Before we get started with Commissioner questions I just wanted to
offer a couple of clarifications. A couple of the speakers expressed concern about the section
regarding the prospective changes to the Planning Commission role. What are here are Staff
suggestions for possible topics at a Planning Commission Retreat. There is nothing here tonight
that in any way would be adopted as a change and in fact the process would go to first whether
the Commission even wants to discuss these items at a Retreat, discussion at a Retreat and if any
of these are then ones that the Commission wishes to agendize for future meetings there would
be full public participation in the process. Then ultimately those are City Council decisions on
any changes and not Planning Commission decisions. Don.
Mr. Larkin: To more specifically answer one of the concerns from the public that these changes
would ultimately have to be made by ordinance so that it would be referendable.
Chair Burt: Right, so it would have complete and full public process for any of those changes.
One other thing that did occur to me as a result of seeing the letter from our City Auditor, Sharon
Erickson, we have new Commissioners who have not necessarily received some really important
materials whether for tonight’s discussion as background reference materials or for some future
discussions. I am not sure whether they received the 2003 City Auditor’s Report on the
department and then even fewer Commissioners have the Zucker Report from 1998. One of
them has it. Then we have the 1998 Zucker Report which probably most of the Commission
doesn’t have and it is eight years old and maybe less material but still it is even used as partof
the Auditor’s reference. So those would be things that would be good for us to have in our
follow up discussions.
Commissioners, who would like to first ask questions before we go into discussion? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I notice that in one of these reports I think it was the Council report when
they listed the problems that existed they didn’t list communication between Transportation and
Advance Planning Staff. They listed as a problem an issue between coordination with the
Transportation, Public Works and Infrastructure Development. I don’t see how this deals with
that particular problem in any way.
Mr. Emslie: The proposed restructuring enhancing the communication to external departments,
is that the question?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes.
Mr. Emslie: The idea is by being able to better incorporate transportation initiatives which often
involve building of some things, Homer Tunnel, traffic calming, there is an element of
transportation that involves physical construction. Being able to have that be dealt with at an
earlier stage when the planning of that starts rather than as that project gets fully formed and gets
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
committed is a desired outcome. Perhaps it is not fully explained in the Staff Report but I do
believe that we would get better early integration of Public Works concerns who although they
are not responsible for building or pay for the transportation issues they will be responsible for
maintaining it. So the idea is to be able to get those at an earlier stage to Public Works. That is
the goal in merging the Transportation and Planning together is earlier notification and
integration of the maintenance concerns.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: I took a look at some other communities that I was familiar with and
where Planning and Transportation were located. Are there precedents other than Palo Alto for
where Planning resides within the larger Planning organization?
Mr. Emslie: You mean Transportation?
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I’m sorry.
Mr. Emslie: Yes, there are a variety of models. A lot of it is driven by staff and community size.
The cities closer to Palo Alto’s population, we did a quick survey but basically my experience is
that in majority of those cases the Transportation resided within another discipline. Many times
it is in Public Works with an engineering function, engineering in terms of traffic engineering
and civil engineering related to the review of developments. It does occur also within Planning
and there are some cities, and I believe that Redwood City has their transportation component in
their Community Development Department. But largely it does reside in a separate or under a
different department and that is primarily one that is more bricks and mortar oriented. As one of
the speakers mentioned that was changed in Palo Alto and I would agree with that change that I
think the planning orientation with transportation is a much desirable outcome and comports
more closely with our community values.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In the report here several times it mentions customer. Why use the word
customer? Implied in that is fee for service or fee in return for getting something back for that.
Whereas something like public or citizens has the implication of everyone is entitled whether
you pay a fee or not.
Mr. Emslie: I agree. I think that the term customer maybe more of a vestigial terminology that
is no longer applicable or no longer in vogue. I think in the 1980s and 1990s there was a lot of
attention placed on government acting more like a private business and we had a lot of
reinventing government and a lot of things. I think that is where that term was used as we tried
to create some similarity with what’s happening in the private sector. I don’t think it is an
appropriate term. I think it is better to refer to it as service in general because that doesn’t imply
someone is paying for it and it allows us to apply our service to a variety of stakeholders. So it is
a good suggestion and I think phasing that out of our lexicon is probably a good idea.
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Lippert: Then I have a question for the City Attorney. With regard to the
expanded role of the Commission are there any items in there or any triggers that would require a
Charter Amendment?
Mr. Larkin: No, we were cognizant of the fact that previous attempts at Charter Amendments
have failed. So we tried to craft solutions that would not take away Council’s ultimate authority
but could streamline the process. We tried to craft those so that they would be consistent with
our current Charter.
Chair Burt: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: Back to the combining of the land use and transportation positions in the
outcome section of your report the last paragraph of item one states that this restructuring will
not change the focus or responsibility. The Transportation section has four traffic engineering
and traffic operations, etc., etc., etc. How can that be ensured? You state that it won’t happen
but what are the assurances that will keep it from?
Mr. Emslie: A primary function of that is being done at a traffic engineering level and that
function will happen whether it is in a separate division or if it is part of another division. So we
do have the dedicated expertise, in fact that is not a vacancy that we have to fill. The person who
does our traffic operations you have known is David Stillman and is very much employed with
us and that is going to continue to happen whether he is in Transportation or Planning. I just
think that it would be helpful for David to also be able to do that work in a broader context of
land use planning because that I think would help inform his work too of trends and the work
that Current and Advance Planning is doing. I think there is information that would be very
helpful in him applying his operational work over the course of a year.
Commissioner Sandas: Another question I had has to do with some really good news here. It
says that the most recent status report from September 8, 2005 indicates that the department, I
guess that would be the Building Department, has completed or resolved 31 of the 34
recommendations made by the Auditor. Congratulations, I think that is fantastic. It says the
remaining recommendations are in process. So in light of that information what is it that the
Deputy Director would need to do to ensure better customer service as it were?
Mr. Emslie: The audit focused on what was called the planning process and that is the
entitlement process, it largely involved exploration of how the Architectural Review Board was
interacting with its stakeholders. There are other areas and I can give you some examples of
those. I think there are ways of improving our building counter. Once the entitlement process is
finished, when you are done with it, it goes into a whole other process. In fact we issue really
thousands of those permits from big projects that you will be involved with to home additions
and single-family homes. So there are a lot of areas that I think that we can improve in getting
information to someone who may do an addition once in their life and may not be versed in that.
I think we can make a lot more progress in assisting the nonprofessional applicant which we
have a lot of we just see the professional ones here but there are thousands more of the
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
homeowners. So I think there is a great deal of area that we can make some headway in and that
is one example of where we can continue to make some improvements.
Commissioner Sandas: Then finally in seeking a Chief Planning and Transportation Official we
are calling for somebody who experience in both land use and transportation planning as part of
the criteria for selecting that individual. Just quickly what is the likelihood that we will find
somebody who can fit that bill?
Mr. Emslie: I am going to refer back to my answer earlier to Commissioner Garber. There are a
lot of the same analytical skills and applications that are applied both to planning and
transportation planning they have many of the same attributes. So I think the likelihood is fairly
good that we could find someone that does have those joint abilities.
Just to say that it is in smaller cities where it is less compartmentalized and I have worked in
smaller cities where you have to be the traffic manager, you don’t have dedicated traffic
engineers. You have to work with maybe outside expertise so a planner will learn very quickly
how a traffic impact analysis is put together, what levels of service means and how that affects a
project. So we as planners do get a significant amount of exposure to traffic engineering.
Chair Burt: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: During the Director’s Review Process there is a process where the
Director does have a hearing. Generally the Director himself does not always appear. It is often
times the Current Planning Manager or the Advance Planning Manager or one of the Director’s
deputies. Would the Deputy Director in this case have any "authority" equal to that of a
professional like the Current Planning Manager or the Advance Planning Manager in terms of
conducting these hearing, number one and number two, in the Director signing off on for
instance ARB recommendations, being able to sign off on those recommendations or would that
authority solely lie with the Director?
Mr. Emslie: The authority solely does lie within the authority of the Director. I do review all
Director’s Decisions and ARB decisions and I review the letters that go out on those. But one of
the efficiencies that we are hoping to achieve with this and clearly if we do get our personnel
changes in place I would like to seriously consider the Deputy Director acting on my behalf. He
would not supplant the authority it still would rest with the Director that is part of the code and
that is part of the Charter and nothing in this would change that. But there are some legal issues
that have presented complications to how we conduct our Director’s Hearings. These are
relatively recent changes to the law that affect who can be involved with Director’s Decisions.
We have had to use a rotating schedule because you may not have a direct supervisor reviewing
and conducting a hearing of someone who reports to them directly because the Deputy Director
would be separate from that and would meet that legal test and provide that separation. It is
something that I am considering, yes.
Commissioner Lippert: As a follow up to that how does this become further complicated say if
the Director had a conflict of interest and had to recuse himself from actually acting on a Board
recommendation?
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Emslie: They would recuse themselves as required and a suitable delegate would be found
that would meet the legal test. It would depend on the individual circumstances who that
substitute would be.
Commissioner Lippert: So would that fall on the Deputy Director in this case or would it fall
back onto the Chief Planning and Transportation Official?
Mr. Emslie: It would depend on the nature of the conflict and the nature of the circumstances
but it is possible that it would fall back on the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer, yes. It
is possible depending on where that case happened to originate from.
Commissioner Lippert: One other question when you finish.
Chair Burt: I have a follow up. I just want to make sure I understood the previous answer.
Were you saying that you are envisioning the prospect of the Deputy Director filling in and
conducting the Director’s Hearings on occasion?
Mr. Emslie: That is something I am considering. I can’t say that that’s actually going...I would
like to get the personnel changes in place and evaluate the strengths of the individual candidates
as they get inculcated in their position. Think of the Director’s Hearing as data collection. It is
knowing procedure. It is knowing how to conduct hearings, take testimony, use the Robert’s
Rules to be able to make sure that all sides are heard and to collect that data for a
recommendation. Still the authority does rest with the Director even though the function of
delegating that to someone else to collect the data the code does allow us to do that.
Chair Burt: It has been my experience that as outcomes of the Director’s Hearings have come to
the Planning Commission and those hearings have been directed by.senior staff members who
are not the Director there was a role of professional expertise and technical expertise that had to
do with interpretations of important guidelines such as I recall the Home Improvement Exception
and we had extensive follow up discussions based upon historic knowledge and technical
interpretation of those guidelines. You seem to be describing the hearing as more of one in
which it would be a procedural leadership that would be provided by the substitute to the
Director. I am asking isn’t there also a technical role?
Mr. Emslie: The streamlining in response to the 2003 Audit diminished the number of Director’s
Hearings. So primarily the Director’s Hearings are now oriented towards Individual Review.
t-l~s and variances and use permits have gone to an appeal base so actually we don’t use a
Director’s Hearing for resolution of those. Those come to the Planning Commission without a
Director’s Hearing. If you remember the idea with that was to make sure that we did broader
notification to neighbors to get a better understanding of issues at an early stage. Rather than
make a Director’s Heating an interim step we bring it right to the deliberative body, the Planning
Commission that would forward their recommendation to City Council. So many of the hearings
you are referring to are now coming to you on appeal. I think for the most part the Individual
Review is the one area of major Director Hearing involvement.
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Burt: Thank you. Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I have a question about a term that is used a couple of times in the Staff
Report to the Commission. That is the term ’problem solving’ and it is used, "Make the
Development Center experience more customer friendly" and I have the same concerns about
that as the Director knows and as Commissioner Lippert has already expressed. "... and create a
problem solving orientation within the rules." Could Staff explain what really is intended by
that? Can you vet what is intended?
Mr. Emslie: Again, this relates more to the implementation more of the application of the
building code. As I mentioned a vast majority of our customers are not ones that will come
through these chambers but are people who may once or twice in their life do something as a
homeowner to add-on or improve their property who may not be as sophisticated or as
knowledgeable. We like to be able to help them identify issues and code issues rather than just
point them out to them. We like to be able to go an extra step to be able to help them understand
the reason for a particular code variance and perhaps offer ways that they might consider being
able to comply with that. Rather than just pointing out the errors we like to be able to also help
the ones who may not be as proficient or knowledgeable about the code and be more of a
resource for them. That would enable homeowners to be able to fix up and maintain properties
more readily without having to hire outside expertise and things like that to be more of a
resource in implementing the code.
Vice-Chair Holman: So let me expand on that just a little bit. I agree there are folks who have
never been through a planning process before and need some assistance in understanding code
and such. If there is a focus on this how does the reorganization or how does any process going
forward differentiate between that kind of an applicant and an applicant who is very familiar
with city processes? Staff might have a tendency under this kind of focus it would seem to spend
a large amount of time trying to resolve issues with a very seasoned developer. So how would
Staff suggest that there is a discernment between the two kinds of applicants?
Mr. Emslie: Well, they don’t have a certain look or uniform. I think that we ask our Staff to
employ judgment and time allocation. There is always a balance of making sure that you don’t
spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with one customer over another. So we would ask our
Staff to use judgment in applying that. I think Staff who work the counter are proficient enough
to understand those who may have greater understanding and be able to meter their time
accordingly. I have worked the counter and I think you get a sense pretty quickly of who is
struggling and a lot of times they will tell you right up front that they don’t know what they are
doing but are trying to add a bathroom. So it is often pretty clear as to where you are going to be
able to help out the most. I think it is an important attribute to be able to focus on providing the
kind of service and resource that is necessary to help understand and appreciate something that
paid professionals do almost intrinsically.
Vice-Chair Holman: Another question is looking at the job description of the Deputy Director
there isn’t a requirement for land use or transportation experience. For my personal land use I
spent many years in management in design and advertising. It is very, very process oriented and
you look for all efficiencies that you can because as in any business time is money. However, in
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
watching people come in and in my own trial and error sometimes the expertise was essential to
having an efficient process. So perhaps Staff would like to explain how someone who doesn’t
have as a requirement of background planning and transportation how they are going to come up
with process efficiencies that are grounded in code, Comp Plan, environmental requirements. I
am seeing a disconnect there and maybe Staff could address that.
Mr. Emslie: As I mentioned at the outset the idea is to vest our expertise closer to the Staff level
at the Division. So in those areas where we have high expectations for technical expertise what
we were finding is that by having less management support for our technical expertise in the
current structure they were being called upon to spend significant amounts of their time on non-
technical issues. Our Chief Planning Official spent a great deal of time dealing with general
management issues, budget preparation, department coordination, attending standing meetings,
supervision of non-technical staff, support staff and the like. So we are trying to provide the
kind of management support that would enable us to apply the technical and this individual
would also need to work with our Building Division. So it is not just planning there are other
areas that they would be involved with that would enable the technical expert to be able to focus
more of their time and attention and applying those skills without having to divide their
attentions if you will on non-technical, management related issues, which are significant
amounts. There is communication, getting our packets out, responding to correspondence,
dealing with daily constituent concerns and questions, there is a great deal of area that are not
related to our application of our technical skills that could be taken up by having a broader more
generalist management position. That is the point of this.
Vice-Chair Holman: Along the same line of conversation. One of the purposes of this is to free
up the Director’s time to be able to deal with more policy problems, discussion and proposals.
So one of the proposals is that the Deputy Director would conduct and be the representative if
you will to public meetings. Again, with the absence of the requirement of planning and
transportation experience I am wondering how that person is going to represent the Planning and
Transportation or Building Department at those meetings because the public in this community is
as familiar sometimes I think with the code as any of us and maybe even some of the younger
planners perhaps. So how is the office, the Deputy Director in this case, going to be able to
respond and represent and answer questions in that kind of environment?
Mr. Emslie: Well, I think that we would expect anyone to come in to become very familiar with
our own processes. We do have some unique process we have developed and honed I think
review over the years very specific to our needs to provide the adequate checks and balances and
opportunities for discussion and disagreement and resolution and consensus. So we have fairly
well defined and articulated processes that aren’t comparable to another city per se. Someone
coming from the outside no matter how many years of experience is going to have to become
familiar with our own unique process. I don’t think each city has a PC process for example that
comes close to our PC process at all. I am familiar with other cities and I know for sure that it is
vastly different than what some other cities will do. So someone is going to have to get familiar
no matter what background they have with our own individual processes. I had trouble learning
our own processes and I have 27 years of experience and am still learning the intricacies and the
vagaries of our process. So it is something I would acknowledge would have to be an acquired
skill. ! think there is going to have to be an application of judgment. You pay me to provide
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
some judgment and if I feel that based on the skill level that I have assessed they are not capable
of being responsive to the particular issue at any given time they won’t be assigned to do that.
As you know I great deal of community outreach and working with communities in a variety of
settings and I fully intend to continue to do that. In fact by freeing up some of the ...it is not just
so I can concentrate on policy development but that is true I would like to be able to do more of
that but allow me to be able to interact more in the community on a more informal basis, more
discussion, more field trips, more community meetings, more questions and answers, working
with community leaders making sure they understand the basis for...these are all things that I
continue to want to be able to apply and apply more. Some of the more immediate day-to-day
issues that have to be dealt with kind of the crisis du jour, the little fires that have to be put out
that do not relate to a technical issue but more about communication and information I am not
having to do so I would be able to hopefully have as great if not more exposure to the
community. So it is an element of judgment in this like in all things.
Vice-Chair Holman: I am happy to pass the mike on but I will have more questions.
Chair Burr: Okay. Lee and then Dan.
Commissioner Lippert: Embodied in both org charts that you have here we have two types of
review. We have ministerial review which is basically you follow rules. A good example of that
is the Building Code, you follow the Building Code you get your approval. In the Planning side
of things we have some ministerial kind of things and we do have some discretionary review that
is reviews that are done by generally our Boards or Commissions. In the report here it had
mentioned very briefly, and I will just use this as an example, allowing Staff judgment in terms
of changing conditional use on PCs. Where does that fall? Would that fall in ministerial or
would that fall into the basis of discretionary review and how would that be handled?
Mr. Emslie: Again, the list is not intended to have thought out all the issues.
Commissioner Lippert: I understand I am just using that as an example.
Mr. Emslie: It would not be ministerial. A use permit would always reside in the discretionary
category and the Charter will require that if Staff exercises discretion at that point that it would
always be appealable through the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Chair Burt, will the questioning end and go to comments, in which I will
withhold?
Chair Burt: I would like to take a big step backwards. We have talked a lot about the
importance of problem solving in some of these roles. There are best problem solving
methodologies and what I saw in the original Staff Report from the City Manager to the Council
went through and initially identified goals and then subsequently identified problems which to
me is out of sequence. What you want to do is first identify the problems and then translate
those into a series of objectives. Having said that there were a lot of problems stated in that
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
report which I personally disagreed with and found to be very problematic toward where we are
now. The Staff Report that the Planning Commission received seems to have refined some of
the goals and in a way that I think is a constructive direction but there is no problem definition.
So we are left with somewhat of a disconnect between a prior set of problem statements and a set
of goals for instance one of the goals is to integrate land use and transportation planning. I think
that is a good goal and I think that is one of the most constructive ones. But I think that it is
important that we, if that is one of the goals, that it be explained why that is a problem. So one
of my recommendations will be that in whatever goes forward to the Council that there be a
refinement in the problem definitions before making the recommendations on what goals we are
trying to solve. I have heard it characterized as we often fall into the ready, fire, aim approach to
problem solving. So I want to make sure we aim before we fire.
The other question I have is that one of the goals that is stated is to free the Director for policy
follow up, staff focus on technical work and continue the process improvements. But then on the
organizational chart it is listed that direct reports to the Director are the Administrative Assistant
and the entire administrative staff and the Code Enforcement Officers. Can you comment on
why it would be organized in that way? It seems like the Administrative Assistant and staff
would be naturals to go to a Deputy Director especially if the Deputy Director is not one who is
necessarily going to provide technical expertise. I am unsure what would be the best
organizational structure for the Code Enforcement reporting but it seems directly to the Director
would not be the best.
Mr. Emslie: Thank you for the opportunity to explain that. The Code Enforcement Officers as
you can see in the current condition reporting to the Special Projects Manager well that position
is vacant so we couldn’t have a group that didn’t have some management oversight. So we had
to make an interim assignment to the Administration function. There is a manager in the
Administrative Department that is able to supervise that. Because of the current shortfall and the
vacancies in staff could not assign that to one of the two remaining planning managers either
current or advanced their plates are over-full. I think as I mentioned those two individuals would
probably run me over in the garage if I gave them any more work to do. So that is a temporary
assignment and I think once we get the positions in place it would be our goal to move that back
into a planning function once they have the support of a Chief Planning and Transportation
Official in place.
As far as the Administrator goes they are really part of the administrative team that the Deputy
and myself would rely on for the administrative support that that team gives. So I think that it
could work equally well if the administrative team were assigned to report to the Deputy
Director since his or her management would be broader and thus the support of the
administrative staff would provide that capacity and support that.
Chair Burt: Well, just a couple of follow up comments. Who the administrative staff supports is
different from who they report to and who has that management responsibility. Based on the
goals that are stated in the Staff Report I find a contradiction between the management
responsibility of the administrative staff going directly to the Director versus that staff
supporting the Director and the rest of the department. I will just leave that alone for the
moment.
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other thing that I think I realize from your description of why the org chart is written the
way it is I think we have some mislabeling here. We have a top half that is written as current but
it is not really the current. It is what was designed a year ago. Then we have the bottom one that
is a hybrid between what is current and what is proposed. What you described was what is
current but the bottom half is intended and described as proposed. So proposed to me would
mean after you fill these positions that the rest of this chart indicates what would then be the
organizational structure. So based on what you described I think I am hearing that you have
these reporting to you right now on an interim basis until you fill the Deputy Director and the
prospective Chief Planning and Transportation Official’s roles. At that time those would be
reassigned in the organizational structure. So before this goes to Council depending on the
outcome our recommendation either I just have renamed current as something that reflects that
this was the intended structure a year ago and proposed be truly what’s proposed or if you have
to add a third one which is what your current really is then go ahead and do that.
Mr. Emslie: I think we could do that with some expanded labeling with some interim
assignments. I think that is a very good point we appreciate that feedback.
Chair Burt: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: I just have another couple of questions about how you go to this place.
Were the staff involved, staff below you and the management level, in creating the new
organizational chart? If not, what is the general consensus? What does the staff say about this?
Mr. Emslie: Well, the management team in the department participated at all phases at this from
the inception once the City Manager initiated this project. So my management team, each one of
the division heads and our administrative managers were involved in this. Then each area was
consulted specifically on their particular expertise. Then I have personally met with each and
every workgoup to go over this, answer questions and there were some clarifications that came
out of those. So I have had personal outreach to each and every one of the workgroups in the
department on a one-on-one basis.
Commissioner Sandas: What have they said? What has sort of been the general feeling?
Mr. Emslie: Well, there is a broad range of opinions depending on particular areas of expertise.
If I can summarize eliminating managers was identified as a concern because that eliminated or
reduced climbing ability. So that is an area that we can focus on with staff development and
other ways. One thing I wanted to point out is by putting different expertise together, that that
gave people exposure to different elements of planning and transportation planning so that can
broaden their skill set which helps in their development. So putting disciplines working together
that is a benefit.
The Transportation Division was concerned because I wanted to be able to make sure that they
continue to have the technical resources to be able to... and we were able to address that by the
City Manager committing Transportation Engineering can be got on an ad-hoc basis. There are
plenty of very well qualified firms, firms that work with us that will be able to go out so we don’t
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
have to develop the infrastructure and have the person in place and have all the overhead costs
without being able to go get the expertise on an as needed basis. So it was important to hear that
and be able to point that out to them.
The Building Division was concerned about the transition of their leaders eminent retirement and
how that was going to be handled and maintaining an ability for them to develop into specialty
areas. All of our inspectors are "combination inspectors" which means they can inspect all
aspects of a building. It is very important that we do that so that we don’t...many cities have
specialty inspectors and that’s all they do and that can often cause problems because you have
conflicts between the person who might do the electrical inspection and then the plumbing may
not agree and it is not a good thing to have. Then we do want to give them the ability to be able
to develop as particular expertise that is feedback I’ve heard and that is something that we will
continue to work on to be able to provide that opportunity for advancement and development of
skills.
So that gives you kind of a general flavor of what I was hearing from the different divisions.
Chair Burt: Can we just have a couple more questions then I think we will take a break before
returning for comments. Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I have a couple of sort of lower-level questions and then I have a broad-
based question. On page 4 of 9 of the current Staff Report it talks about Code Enforcement in
the second complete paragraph. That 55 percent of those surveyed rated Code Enforcement
services as good or excellent. I presume that there had to be a calculation then of how many
code enforcement complaints there had been and how that might rate compared to other
communities. The reason I am asking that question is because code enforcement complaints
would tend to lead me to think that there might be implementation problems at the staff level or
inconsistencies or lack of technical expertise. Can Staff comment on that? I should have asked
that question beforehand and I apologize for not doing so but I imagine that information is
available.
Mr. Emslie: Well, this isn’t based on a direct correlation to the number of complaints and we
don’t know that the sample was involved in a code complaint or not. This isn’t a sample of
people who have had direct involvement with Code Enforcement. That is what I understand
your question to be. This is every year the City Auditor does a general survey. They have their
own sample of citizens. They are not based on our particular users it is a broader cross-section.
So I would imagine some of that has had experience in being involved with a complaint and
some have not. But I can’t tell you the number of those in that because it is a sample that the
City Auditor devises independent of us.
Vice-Chair Holman: I find that an interesting basis for taking that survey. The org chart for the
proposed Planning and Transportation Official, there is one thing I want to not forget. Again,
without the Deputy Director having planning and transportation experience I am needing some
guidance or instruction on how there wouldn’t be a logjam created at that Planning and
Transportation position. As I look at the proposed org chart the two people who are responsive
to Planning Commission questions as they come up would be the Chief Planning and
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Transportation Official and the Director, the Deputy Director does not have that expertise. That
would apply to the public too to somewhat of a lesser degree. So I am wondering how there is
not going to be a logjam and how it could accomplish also the goal of freeing the Director’s
time. Let me clarify, a logjam of questions and issues going to that individual.
Mr. Emslie: Not all your questions are technically based. In fact several of them that came up
tonight would be the ability of the Director to be able to provide. Getting the reports to you that
you asked for that doesn’t require technical expertise and requires a familiarity with our
organization and how that works and making sure that you get that. So we would be able to
make the assignments based on...and we do this all the time with you. If you ask a question you
don’t know which staff person it is going to go to and who is going to be responsible for that
follow up. It is our job to be able to assign that to the appropriate area. So I think we would be
able to make the assignments whether it is the Deputy or the Chief Planning and Transportation
Official or someone maybe even below that. It is our familiarity with the management of the
organization that enables us to be able to put the fight person on the fight request. So that would
still happen. So I don’t think that that would reduce or increase the amount of time or create a
logjam.
Regardless I am still going to be very actively involved. The freeing up of the time doesn’t
remove my involvement from the issues. It enables me to be able to be ...there are lots of issues
in Palo Alto, a lot more than I can feel comfortable being involved with to the extent that I need
to be. So I have to make decisions as to what issues I am going to be involved with and which
ones I just can’t because there is not that amount of time. The freeing up of my time enables me
to take on and be more actively involved with a broader set of issues. So I can be more actively
involved in directing and providing feedback and support to Staff and answering their questions
in that area. So I can report to you that it enables myself to be more of a team member by getting
involved in a broader set of issues because I am not dealing with a lot of the day-to-day minutia,
I don’t want to use that word but in every organization there are issues that are immediate and
need attention on a fairly responsive basis that don:t always require a technical skill. It is more a
matter of communication and putting people together. A lot of what I do is making sure the fight
people get matched up. It is an organization that is a little bit nameless and faceless to people
and they are confused that they are interacting with us. First of all, I am very empathetic to that.
I don’t want people to be confused. I want them to be able to get to the right person so we spend
a lot of time doing that. That doesn’t require expertise. It requires understanding of the
organization and how our organization works and where the particular resources are and
matching them up to the needs. I would not agree that this going to create a logjam. I think it is
a way of leveraging my ability to be as actively involved and I think, as you know, there is no
job too small that I won’t get involved with and work with all levels of staff. We are really very
collaborative. I try to foster a very collaborative culture where I have an open door policy so
people can come in and ask me questions. I reserve an hour at the end of my day every day so
that anyone in the staff no matter what from all levels can come in and sit down and talk over
whatever problem that they have. This is still going to continue. So I really believe this a way to
leverage our service to the community and not take away.
Vice-Chair Holman: My last question and the broad-based question that I alluded to is it would
seem to me that any reorganization in a planning and transportation department and building
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
department to an extent too of course should be focused around the purpose of a planning and
transportation department. The purpose as is stated in our Staff Report tonight is on page 3 of 9
under the second full paragraph under Department Overview and What Works Well says the
mission of the department is to provide the Council and community with creative guidance on
and effective implementation of land use development, planning, transportation, housing and
environmental policies, plans and programs which will maintain and enhance the city as a safe,
vital and attractive community. These activities occur within an environment of competing
needs and engaged involvement. Having read that and also having read on page 3 of 10 of the
CMR that went to Council number two on that page it says as listing some of the problems or
issues that are trying to be fixed it says, at both the Planning and Transportation Commission and
City Council levels the Commission and Council often expect that staff analytic work answers
any and all questions instead of acting on less than perfect information and thus moving projects
along. My question is I find that the mission of the department as described in the Staff Report
to the Commission and the statement that is made as an issue to be fixed in the CMR to the City
Council from my perspective both miss the basic purpose of a planning department and that is
that it would be grounded in implementation of city code, environmental review and the city’s
comprehensive plan. The reason that I am taking somewhat issue with these is because it seems
quite subjective and open to judgment when we do have a set of guidelines that are spelled out.
So can Staff respond to why the focus and the basic premise is not stated as clearly as what at
least I perceive to be the role of a planning department based on AICP code and such?
Mr. Emslie: You are sharing a personal different belief. I wouldn’t try to dissuade you from that
but we feel that what we put here reflects in a broader sense and does encompass the specific
implementation of the Comp Plan and codes does fall within that broader definition. So we think
that we often have the need to look outside sometimes of that particular area especially as we are
required to look down the road and anticipate and make recommendations that may go beyond
that. When we embark on the next item that we are going to talk about this evening we are going
to about embarking on the Comp Plan. That requires use of a broader perspective because we
are -looking at updating and changing those policies. So I think that our language, and I am
referring to the language in the Planning Commission Staff Report, provides a broader range that
does encompass the issues that you mentioned.
Chair Burt: If I might, just out of fairness state that I think that the Comp Plan implementation
and the codes and probably they are inclusive of the environmental requirements is encompassed
in the mission statement where it talks about implementation of the policy, plans and programs.
I think that is the language that to me would capture your concern, Karen, but that is just a
personal comment.
I think we have two quick questions? No? Dan, you can ask it as a question or a comment after
we come back, how’s that for a deal? We are going to take a break for about eight or ten
minutes.
I think Dan had questions and/or a comment. If you would like to go forward.
Commissioner Garber: Questions and I will reserve comments for when the questions close. In
the 2004-2005 Service, Efforts and Accomplishments Report there is a report on the Advance
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Development Review. The benchmarking measures here are planning applications
completed. Those planning applications completed do they represent work by both the
Transportation and the land planning functions?
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: In the Draft Capital Improvement Program for 2006-2011 there are
several non-infrastructure management plan projects in there some of which have to do with
transportation others have to do with planning. My question here is on volume. Does the traffic
planning function have more or less work product that it needs to produce than the planning
function?
Mr. Emslie: In terms of Capital Improvements?
Commissioner Garber: In terms of their products, the reports that they create regardless of what
they may be. I am thinking real simple, real gross here.
Mr. Emslie: No, I don’t think there is a discemable difference.
Commissioner Garber: Are there less people assigned to the traffic planning function than there
are to the land planning function?
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: That would suggest that there is more work on the planning side than on
the traffic side not that it is less important but I am just asking.
Mr. Emslie: I am trying to understand the question. On a per planner basis I think their outputs
are fairly similar in terms of what product they are being asked to prepare. Because we have
larger numbers of planning applications but transportation may also be involved with those.
Commissioner Garber: Got it. Contributes as needed.
Mr. Emslie: Correct.
Commissioner Garber: But they are unequal.
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: Finally in Attachment A, the organization chart, the organization chart
represents essentially reporting relationships as opposed to functional ones in that the person
who ultimately fulfills the planning directorship or Chief Planning Official role and the person
that fulfills the Chief Building Official role and the Chief Transportation Official role or however
they are referred to report then to the Director if that is where the solid line goes. The people
underneath report to there, etc. It is reporting relationships as opposed to describing the
functional activity. The importance here is that any particular person in there depending on what
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
they are involved with will end up taking on different functional roles within the organization
regardless of what box they are in. That is a yes?
Mr. Emslie: Maybe a qualified yes because ....
Commissioner Garber: Let me give you an example. If I am a traffic engineer but a planning
application comes in which is really under the purview of the land planning group there is an
expertise that is needed so they are brought in, i.e., outside the walls of their box to perform
services for the planning group, yes?
Mr. Emslie: Yes but there is also a grouping of area of specialty in this.
Commissioner Garber: Certainly, that is unique to that discipline.
Mr. Emslie: Correct.
Commissioner Garber: Yes, understood.
Mr. Emslie: That is based on perhaps the requirement for the amount of interaction that is
necessary.
Commissioner Garber: Which is precisely the point that I think I am trying to understand which
is that collaboration occurs not driven by the reporting structure but driven by the project
structure, etc.
Mr. Emslie: I think a great deal of it is influenced by the reporting structure. I have seen that
and seen negative examples of that in the way this organization is currently described.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you very much. No more questions.
Chair Burt: Phyllis would you like to start on comments?
Commissioner Cassel: it doesn’t have to be me to start now but it is just as we get towards the
end I just can’t keep going forever.
Chair Burt: Now we do have an issue here and maybe I should turn to Steve for a moment. You
are asking for comments so we may or may not be making a motion as a Commission. No
motion.
Mr. Larkin: I don’t believe a motion would be required. So if you wanted to make a motion to
pass on the comments to City Council that is okay but not necessary.
Chair Burt: Okay. So only if the Commission had some consensus that they wanted to put into a
motion would we use a motion otherwise it will be comments from the Commission. Phyllis you
are welcome to start if you like. You are on the far left side.
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Cassel: Well, I have I guess some concerns as we have been hearing down the
line with this Deputy Director position and what that person will be doing. I recognize that
someone is often needed and often helpful who is not in direct line technical work to get things
done. I know we have experienced stuff that should have been done or could have been done for
us ahead of time that hasn’t been done simply because people got very busy and so they didn’t
check that everything was out properly or noticed properly and we have had meetings that have
been delayed because of proper notification wasn’t done and we couldn’t hold the public hearing
and things of this sort. I presume this person will be doing that kind of thing.
On the other hand, I am concerned about the qualifications. I don’t go out and act as a nurse
without having an RN. On the other hand I have been able to get some positions without my
Bachelor of Science Degree in nursing but with a Bachelor of Science Degree actually it is an
undergraduate degree in urban planning. But that related field has allowed me to take some
Head Nurse positions and lower level supervisory positions. I could not work way up into a
Deputy Director’s position without going back and getting that Bachelor of Science Degree. So I
know that you can do related fields and do well and at the same time I am concerned about the
job description not including things that need a great deal of detailed expertise. So I don’t know
right where the balance is I am not the person who writes up that job description. But that is a
concern that I have.
As a Commissioner I never experienced the disconnect between Transportation and Planning that
apparently Steve or other people seem to have felt. I experienced good coordination, good
cooperation and have had a very positive experience with that. I have experienced what was
expressed as a concern in the report and that is a lack of coordination between Transportation,
Public Works and I am not sure about the Infrastructure Development that Public Works has to
schedule things. Things like stuff that we have talked about and recommended. The
Transportation Commission or someone has to implement things as simple as yes, we are going
to have sidewalks and only repair them that have relatively similar colors or textures from the
new stuff to the old stuff and it just deesn’t happen. So I know there is some disconnect there
but I know that is also a difficult relationship but I don’t see anything in here that tries to deal
with that. I am not quite sure how the Deputy Director will actually do that. That may take
some direction from an even higher level than this department to make that kind of thing work.
We haven’t talked about the Building Department because that is not really what we are doing
but I think what appears to the public to be difficult in that department is very much a fact that so
many different departments actually work in that Development Center. It is very, very hard for
individuals to understand that. I needed a gas meter and you would think I would have it all
figured out and I can’t tell you how backwards we did it. The people at the planning center were
very nice, they were very helpful, I have no way of knowing if I am going in and they don’t
know me or they are being nice because they know me. The Public Works Department and the
Utilities are very different departments and if I hadn’t worked here I don’t think I would have
ever figured that out. So some of what is going on there is just plain confusion as to why you
have to talk to all these different people. We set in place a process it was set in place for better
coordination and I have no idea how effective that is but I am sure that for the public this still
seems confusing after you have seen three people and you wonder why. Everyone is trying very
Page 30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29..
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
hard to help I have not had any experiences when everyone is not trying very hard to help. It is
just why did I end up talking to three different people?
1
2
3
4 So I guess those are my basic areas. My experience is I don’t care what you make the boxes
5 look like, where the lines go or how they are either the team wants to work together and they are
6 qualified and they are skilled and they trust each other and they work together or they don’t. I
7 have worked in a number of different organizations at a number of different places and I have
8 seen lots of different boxes and I have sat down with people and tried to devise proper boxes and
9 then re-devise them five years later and then re-devise them five years later. If people don’t want
10 to work together they aren’t going to work together. If they are going to work together they are
going to pitch in and work together. You just can’t have too many people under one person and
not too few.
Chair Burt: Okay. Who would like to go next? Dan, go ahead.
Commissioner Garber: How much time do we have? Item number one, Integrate land use and
transportation planning. I support the integration of those two functions into one department and
I do that for the following reasons. The emphasis on the org chart is in many ways I think the
last thing that should be considered. The design of organizations needs to be considered in many
different ways before you ever get to an org chart. I suspect I am speaking to the choir here and
that you spent a lot of time going through those things looking at your volume, looking at your
resources, looking at the need, looking at the processes, etc. So we are discussing, spending a lot
of time on the effects of that as opposed to the causes. So in terms of volume it makes sense to
me that they are one because in fact their volumes are unequal and that there is an efficiency to
be realized as a result of that. There is an increased management functionality by having those
two organizations together which will create a higher use of a matrixed organization. You have
different people performing different roles. You have people that have to end up relating with
different groups of people and organizationally if that is all happening in box that is a better
thing. Stepping back the conceptual move that was made in I believe it was 1999 to pull, I think
the most important thing there was that it pulled the process of transportation planning out of the
bricks and mortar was as both the Director and others have mentioned this evening a very good
thing and speaks to the value that this community places on that activity. I do not believe that
combining those two functions will lessen its visibility or its impact that that planning function
has on the community.
Two, Make the Development Center experience more customer friendly and create a problem-
solving orientation within the rules. If there is a Mark Twain expert in the room please raise
your hand but I believe it was Mark Twain that talked about the difficulty of capturing bullfrogs.
If you look at the bullfrog you will never be able to catch it. The way to do it is to focus on
something else while approaching the bullfrog. That allows you to get close enough to get it.
Customer satisfaction is that bullfrog. What is important is to focus on the process, the
procedure, the purpose, and customer satisfaction will follow.
Three, Provide general management support for the department, which will allow the Director to
ensure policy follow up, help staff focus on technical work, and continue process improvements.
The Director this evening has spoken about a variety of topics one of the most important has
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
been the interest and responsibility the Director has to the public and that the Director has yet to
have the opportunity to perform in a way he believes would be satisfactory to the public. One of
the things that I was looking for when I first asked the questions about what the products were
that the functions of the Planning Department produces I didn’t hear in the initial list but heard
again and again and again in the proceeding discussion is one of the most important products that
it produces. I am using manufacturing jargon here, which is inappropriate, but hopefully you
will take the analogy. That is meetings and interactions with the community. The Planning and
Community Environment Department operates at a variety of different scales. It operates on the
scale of the individual both the citizen, and I appreciate Commissioner Lippert’s discernment of
that as a critical understanding of who it is we are dealing with there, it operates at the level of
the project which is the individual be it a citizen or a representative, a developer, a commercial
entity, etc. but that operates entirely at the project level. The responses that need to be
strengthened there obviously have to do with process, procedure, methodology, etc. because that
organization is essentially responsive to the needs of its citizens, etc. that address it and come to
it for permissions. At the level not of the project but of the program and the community is the
auspice of the Planning Commission. There the organization that has been in place and the
organization that has been proposed are missing a key function in these boxes I believe. That
function is often answered in the corporate world by any number of different titles, any number
of different groups that often go by the name of Government Liaison or Director of Public
Information. That person operates as the assigned go between that organization and its
community. The reason that that is usually made as a separate chair or office or title or role is to
in fact give it visibility such that energy, time, etc. will be focused on it. The Staff Report talks
about how the Deputy Director would take on some of those roles however in my mind the role
that is being described there is way too limited. The role really needs to be more about some of
the things that the Director this evening has spoken about which is the entity that is to be
responsible for reaching out into the community on a proactive basis as opposed to on the project
scale is a reactive process. The unit of measure at the program, at the City level is not the
individual but it is the neighborhood. Recognizing what those neighborhoods are, interacting
with them, keeping them up to speed, getting them involved with decisions before they reach the
Commission is key and represents a very important part, strategy, potential efficiency to the way
the Commission operates and does its business. That is a box that I see as missing in terms of
what the organization as a whole does to represent the values of the community.
Item number four, Enhance the Planning and Transportation Commission’s role as a deliberative
body for land use and transportation planning. On the whole I support that I don’t have any
specific comments to it.
More things may enter my mind as we go but that is my basic comments at the moment.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I also sort of am not sure I will get everything out at one
time but please try to go through this with me. It seems to me that we start this evening and this
deliberation with what the City Council directed Staff to do and that is stated on the first page of
the Staff Report. That is to evaluate and where appropriate increase the span of control of
managers throughout the organization with some awareness of the need to reduce costs I see that
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
as what we should assist Staff in accomplishing. I recognize that countering that is sort of a
tension of dislike of change. We know what the structure is at the present time. We sitting here
and many developers and knowledgeable public members know how to work through the system
as it presently exists so any time we talk about changing it we are uncomfortable. What we have
got to start with is an acknowledgement and it sounds like Council has done that that what we
have now is not working. It needs to be changed. It needs to be altered. I appreciate the
Auditor’s bringing that up to our attention. So we have to embark on a course of making some
changes. I think Staff has started with a very good approach.
I will short of shotgun some of my comments. I am very concerned about the lack of
qualifications that the Deputy Director will seemingly need to have. I understand the need to
reduce the pressure on Steve and others who are technically knowledgeable and their time their
resources. But having a Deputy Director without the qualifications of having worked in a
planning department for a number of years is a concern for me. I like the idea that that
individual would be somewhat of an ombudsman but I still have a concern about that. So that is
my first point.
The second with regard to folding in Transportation into Planning I am in favor of that. Just as
we became the Planning and Transportation Commission when we used to be the Planning
Commission was a recognition of how appropriate it is to combine those functions. Doing so has
been a long time coming.
I am sympathetic to Commissioners and public concern about the public having less input into a
lot of the processes. I think part of that was because it was not understood that we will fully vet
that suggestion at future meetings but we have got to recognize that we do have a problem right
now. The Palo Alto process as it is called is costing this City and its citizenry a great deal. I
think that whatever we can do to make the public’s input into the process of governance as
effective as we can without allowing it to put the brakes on totally the function and efficient
functioning~of government is something we should work towards.
Let me just flip through my notes just for a second so I don’t have to but in somewhere else.
One of the Commissioners mentioned a logjam possibly being created by the organizational
chart with the Deputy Director being placed as they are. I for one think we have a logjam now. I
think it is keeping our technically knowledgeable and sophisticated staff from operating and I
would like to see us work towards getting it resolved. Again, having the Deputy Director
knowledgeable and able to act as an interface with the public is what I am concerned about.
Hopefully that way the crisis du jour will take less of Steve’s and other Planning Department
people’s time.
I also recognize that we on the Planning and Transportation Commission and perhaps the City
Council as well need to recognize that sometimes we can’t ask for perfect and complete
information before we make decisions. Human decisions usually don’t come from complete
information and even if they have it they tend not to consider it all. We just don’t have the
ability to do that at all times and meet the requirements that are imposed by the law or by
economic necessity.
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I understand the need to respond to customers and the use of that term when it comes to issues
regarding the Development Center. I think that that is something that we do need to work on.
While the "developer" boogieman was sort of raised I know of a great number of people who
have gone to the Development Center who are homeowners like myself or small retail business
owners who find that their little venture in Palo Alto starts with a great deal of expense that they
did not anticipate because of the regulations that we have that they are just at a loss as to how to
respond to. So we do need to have the Development Center work with those people and do
whatever we can to make them as knowledgeable as some of our more knowledgeable
developers.
At this time I can’t think of anything else but if I do I will let you know.
Page 34
ATTACHMENT C
From: Erickson, Sharon
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:30 PM
To; Benest, Frank
Cc; Emslie, Steve
Subject; Planning Department restructuring proposal
Frank,
As we discussed, the restructuring plan for the department of Planning and Community Environment
addresses several key issues that were also raised in the 2003 Audit of the Development Review
Process:
Investing in supervision and management support - The 2003 audit recommended limiting, to the
extent possible, the operational workload of Planning Division managers in order to provide
supervision and support to Planning Division staff. Supervisory review and consultation is important
to ensuring the quality and consistency of planning reviews. This was a follow-up to issues raised in
the 1998 Zucker report which recommended providing managers with management training, and
reducing their operational assignments so that they could spend more time managing and
supervising. The current restructuring plan continues to address these concerns by providing
management support.
Enhancing the role of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) - The audit recommended
streamlining the review and appeal processes, and specifically recommended that the City Council
consider delegating primary responsibility for some items to the PTC with ratification by a majority
vote of the City Council on its consent calendar when necessary. The proposed restructuring plan
proposes to build on what’s already been done and pursue additional streamlining efforts.
Making the Development Center experience more customer-friendly - The audit pointed out that
coordinating work among staff from various departments was an issue for Development Center
customers, and that better coordination of staff from various departments was desirable. The audit
also recommended improving customer service, clarifying priorities and performance standards, and
providing customer service training. Since that time, staff has implemented a virtual development
center on the web; provided additional technical and customer service training; and improved and
clarified its customer service standards. The proposed restructuring plan-continues to emphasiz#
these important coordination and customer service issues.
Sharon
Sharon Winslow Erickson, City Auditor
Office of the City Auditor
250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2629 Fax: 650.329.2297
sharon, erickson@cityofpaloalto, org
http ://www. city.palo, alto. ca. us/a uditor
Attacl~ ment 1)
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
AND BROADCAST ON KZSU. 90.1 FM
Regular Meeting
March 13, 2006
Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Human Relations
Commission ...................................................................................3
Appointment of Three Members for 4-Year Terms and Two Members
for 2-Year Terms to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee ..................3
ORAL COMMUNICA~ONS "..3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..3
Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2005 ........................................4
Approval of an Enterprise Contract with SCS Field Services in the
Amount of $131,868 for Landfill Environmental Control Systems
Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting Services ................................4
Resolution No. 8597 Amending the Expense Reimbursement Policy for
City Council Members, Board Members and Commissioners .................4
6.Analysis of an Independent Police Auditor Program .............................4
Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request by Martin Parissenti, BKF
Engineers on Behalf of Tall Tree Partners I, LLC for a Tentative Map for
a Proposed Mixed-use Infill Development at 260 Homer Avenue [05-
PLN-00383] ...................................................................................
Public Hearing: 2005-06 Adjusted Budget - Second Quarter (Q2)
Financial Results, Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement
Program Status-from the Finance Committee Meeting of February 7,
2006 and Consideration, Among Other Items, Mid-Year Changes to the
2005-06 Municipal Fee Schedule, Including Adoption of New Fees, and
Increasing Existing Fees, Rates or Assessments ................................ :-9
Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2005-06
for Reorganization of the Department of Planning and Community
Environment, Including Changes to the Table of Organization ..............10
10.Mayor Kleinberg Appointment of an Additional Member to the Police
Building Blue Ribbon Task Force .......................................................15
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM
CONFERENCES ...............................................................................16
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m ........................17
03/13/2006 2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
Present:Barton, Beecham,Cordell,
Kleinberg, Morton
Absent: Mossar
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1.Selection of Candidates to be
Commission
met on this date in the Council
Drekmeier, Klein, Kishimoto,
interviewed for the Human Relations
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Cordell, to interview
all the candidates for the Human Relations Commission.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
2.Appointment of Three Members for 4-Year Terms and Two Members
for 2-Year Terms to the Storm Drain Oversight Committee
Mayor Kleinberg announced the City Clerk would pull the first three names of
the applicants for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee, who would serve on
the 4-Year Terms and the last two names to serve on the 2-Year Terms.
City Clerk Rogers pulled the names of Rod McNall, John Tarlton, and Richard
Whaley to serve the 4-Year Terms; and Stephany McGraw and John Melton to
serve the 2-Year Terms.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Don Letcher, 788 Rengstorff Avenue, Mountain View, spoke regarding the citizen
complaint process.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding leaf blowers.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Beecham, to adopt
the minutes of January 30, 2006.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
03/13/2006 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Klein, to approve
Item Nos. 3 - 5 on the Consent Calendar.
Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2005
Approval of an Enterprise Contract with SCS Field Services in the
Amount of $131,868 for Landfill Environmental Control Systems
Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting Services
o Resolution 8597 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Expense Reimbursement Policy for City Council
Members, Board Members and Commissioners"
MOTION I~ASSEI) 8-0, Mossar absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
6. Analysis of an Independent Police Auditor Program
City Manager Frank Benest said on December 20, 2005, the Council directed
the City Manager, City Attorney, and the Police Chief to explore hiring a
Police Auditor to review internal investigations and citizen complaints due to
allegations of police misconduct. Three options were presented to the
Council for consideration along with recommendations ’from the City
Manager.
City Attorney Gary Baum said the first and second options were for an
individual be selected by, and report to, the Council. The first option would
require a Charter amendment and would allow the Police Auditor to make
personnel recommendations. The second option would not allow the Police
Auditor to be involved with specific personnel recommendations but could
make non-specific personnel recommendations and policy recommendations.
The individual would be retained and hired by the Council and would be a
Council Appointed Officer (CAO). The third option would be for an individual
to be selected by, and report to, the City Manager, who would not be
allowed to make specific personnel recommendations, be able to sit in on
Internal Administrative investigations (IAs), but could not participate in
Internal Affairs investigations.
Don Letcher, 788 Rengstorff Avenue, Mountain View, recommended the
Police Auditor report directly to the Council and not to the City Manager or
the Police Chief. The separation would create fairness in getting an outside
03/13/2006 4
perspective and not based on the liability of the City in a lawsuit.
Adam Atito, 3181 Louis Road, was in favor of a Charter amendment to have
the Auditor report directly to the Council.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, questioned how long the lack of
police oversight would continue.
Mark Petersen-Perez, 434 Addison Avenue, addressed the need for an
Independent Police Auditor to provide unbiased reviews on legitimate citizen
complaints.
Council Member Cordell asked whether the Independent Police Auditor’s
findings were made public in the Santa Cruz Police Department Model.
Police Chief Lynne Johnson said findings were generic as far as dispositions
but did not violate state law.
Council Member Cordell asked whether the Auditor’s internal finds were
publicized if they were appropriate and the recommendation not sustained.
Ms. Johnson said that was correct.
Council Member Cordell suggested adopting the Santa Cruz model with
modifications. The Police Auditor’s position should be on an "as needed"
basis only and not salaried. The individual should be Council appointed,
report directly to the Police Chief, not required to review policies &
procedures nor be involved in a community outreach program.
MOTION: Council Member Cordell moved, seconded by Barton, for the City
Council to hire an independent contract police auditor whose job would be to
review internal investigations and citizen complaints of police misconduct,
and to report to the City Council and make recommendations to the Police
Chief. Furthermore, for this to be a one-year pilot program. The Police
Auditor would provide generic quarterly reports to the Council.
Council Member Drekmeier asked Council Member Cordell to clarify what she
meant by a non-salaried position.
Council Member Cordell said it meant having an independent contractor,
hired by, and reporting to, the City, but not be a salaried position.
Council Member Morton did not feel there was a need for the position. The
City did not have a history of serious complaints, which required changing
the City Charter nor having to redirect tight funds. The Council had the
03/13/2006 5
ability to hire an outside investigator or to refer issues to the District
Attorney. Having to redirect funds would impose another financial burden
on the City that would impact the delivery of services. He did not support
the motion.
Council Member Cordell asked her motion to include the position be a one-
year pilot program and asked whether the proposal required a Charter
change.
Mr. Baum said the proposal did not require a Charter amendment but was a
hybrid of the options presented.
Council Member Barton agreed with the clarification of the motion.
Council Member Klein supported the motion. He said he was sensitive to
budget increases and in comparison to the Santa Cruz model, the estimated
cost would be less than $50,000 per year and was a nominal expenditure for
public safety. Public safety did not only mean assuring less crime, but to
provide fair treatment to the citizens in the community. Hiring an
Independent Police Auditor sent a message the City had a check point, had a
trustworthy Police Department, and the organization’s desire to have the
Police Department move forward in a positive way in treating citizens
appropriately.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said positive changes had been made in the
investigation process and asked whether other changes had been made in
the Policies and Procedures.
Mr. Benest said the Council approved installation of the Mobile Audio Video
(MAV) system and a study session was scheduled in a few weeks to discuss
the Council’s involvement with policies regarding an External Panel Review.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto supported the motion. She felt implementation of the
program was a positive step in moving forward and she was in favor of a
one-year trial program.
Council Member Beecham supported the motion. He addressed the public’s
comment regarding lack of corrective action in Police Department errors.
The Police Department had made a number of changes to ensure all officers
knew what was expected of them. The installation of the MAV system gave
assurance to all who came in contact with the police force of what occurred
during an incident.
Mayor Kleinberg said the staff report (CMR:154:06) stated the Police Auditor
could provide reports to the Council and publicize general data and
03/13/2006 6
background of the police department’s performance. She asked how the
success of the program would be measured since obtaining information
legally had strict limitations.
Council Member Cordell said the Police Auditor would be liable in reviewing
every misconduct case and to survey the improvement of the people’s
attitude in the community. She addressed feelings and attitudes of people
of color, who lived in and came through the community and how those
issues could be measured by a survey. The "Yes" Program would be
implemented in the summer of 2006, where 50 to 100 young people of color
would come to Palo Alto from East Palo Alto (EPA) five days a week. The
program would include an evaluation of police interactions that may have
occurred. The Police Auditor would provide quarterly reports to the Council.
Mayor Kleinberg supported the motion. She said Palo Alto was a community
with excellent services and the program would be important to anyone who
worked, lived, or visited Palo Alto. She recommended adding to the motion
that staff would return to Council with various forms of reports from other
police auditors, as well as how to measure success.
Council Member Cordell suggested adding success measures to the job
description. Another way to measure success was the heightened sense of
security and integrity the community felt towards the police. For clarification,
she said the Police Auditor would make recommendations to the Police Chief,
but would be hired and accountable to the Council. The Auditor’s generic
quarterly reports, allowed by law, would be made public.
Council Member Barton said the reports would help the Council give direction
in areas where improvement was needed, and help determine renewal of the
program.
Council Member Beecham said to be cautious of the expectations of the
program. He did not feel accurate measures could be obtained from issues
coming from a small percentage of the population. He said emphasis should
not be made on the number of complaints but on how the complaints were
handled.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Morton no, Mossar absent.
Council Member Cordell asked when the position would be filled.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said it depended on whether the
Council wanted staff to bring back a proposed job description or not.
Council Member Cordell wanted to see a job description.
03/13/2006 7
Mayor Kleinberg said once a job description was established the Council
would conduct the interviews and requested a schedule for the interviews.
Ms. Harrison said the job description would be brought back quickly with a
tentative hire date for June 1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request by Martin Parissenti, BKF
Engineers on Behalf of Tall Tree Partners I, LLC for a Tentative Map for
a Proposed Mixed-use Infill Development at 260 Homer Avenue [05-
PLN-00383]. This map is required in order to Merge Five Parcels into
One Parcel (Approximately .71 acres) for a Mixed-use Development
with Commercial Office use on the Ground and Second floors, and Four
Residential Condominium Units on the Third Floor. An Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the SOFA CAP Including this
Project.
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said the
hearing was a Tentative Map request consistent with the joint Historic
Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) boards that
reviewed projects in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area. The project
had several hearings and modifications were made. The HRB/ARB decision
was not appealed and determined to be final. The item was a follow up to
consolidating five parcels, which existed in the proposed project area.
According to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), a Tentative Map approval
by the Council was required when four or more .lots merged:-
Council Member Morton stated his firm provided accounting and tax services
to businesses in the general area but no action taken tonight would meet the
threshold that would require him to not participate.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the
proposed Tentative Map to merge five parcels (approximately.71 acres) and
create one parcel for a mixed-use development with commercial office use
on the ground floor and second floors, and four residential condominium
units on the third floor, based upon the findings and conditions contained
within the Record of Land Use Action.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
8.Public Hearing: 2005-06 Adjusted Budget - Second Quarter (Q2)
Financial Results, Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement
Program Status from the Finance Committee Meeting of February 7,
2006 and Consideration, Among Other Items, Mid-Year Changes to the
03/13/2006 8
2005-06 Municipal Fee Schedule, Including Adoption of New Fees, and
Increasing Existing Fees, Rates or Assessments.
Ordinance 4897 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2005-06 to Adjust
Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the
Recommendations in the Midyear Report"
Resolution 8593 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and
Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Adopted by Resolution
No. 8554 to Change Four Classifications"
Resolution 8594 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU)
Adopted by Resolution No. 8452, by Changing Two Classifications"
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said the 2005-06 Second Quarter (Q2) Report had
been discussed at the Finance Committee Meeting on February 7, 2006, and
an amendment to the report was put at places, which reflected an
elimination of one proposed re-classification. Council Member Morton would
not participate in the City Attorney’s Office request of $100,000 for litigation
expenses related to the collection of utility user tax due the City of Palo Alto
due to his ownership in Telecom stock. Staff presented the budget
adjustments made to revenues, expenditures, Municipal Fees, and to the
Table of Organization and Compensation Plan. Additions were made to the
sales tax, increases in property tax, a $1;1 million payback from the State,
an overage in expenditures which included overtime, and $1.5 million in
surplus was projected for the end of the year. Other items discussed at the
meeting were Service Employee International Union (SEIU) reclassification
issues and changes to the Community Garden Fee.
Council Member Barton said the report indicated Police and Fire overtime
expenditures with savings in unfilled positions but he could not find where
the savings were shown in the report.
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said savings would be reflected in
the year-end report.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve
the City Attorney’s Office request of $100,000 for litigation expenses related
to the collection of utilities users’ tax due to the City of Palo Alto.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Morton not participating, Mossar absent.
03/13/2006 9
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Beecham, to adopt a
Budget Amendment Ordinance, which includes:
1. Proposed midyear adjustments to the 2005-06 Budget for the
General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Internal
Service Funds, and Capital Improvement Fund.
2.New or amended 2005-06 Capital Improvement Program Project
Descriptions.
3.Amendments to the 2005-06 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule.
4.Amendments to the 2005-06 Table of Organization.
5.Resolutions to the 2005-06 Compensation Plan.
Furthermore, to eliminate the proposed reclassification of the 1.0 FTE
Coordinator, Library Programs, to Business Analyst as described on page 7
of the City Manager’s Report (CMR:135:06). This revision results in changes
to the following report attachments: Attachment 1, including Exhibit A
(General Fund Summaries - 1 and General Fund Details - 2) and Exhibit d
(Table of Organization - 3 of 7, Library Department) and Attachment 4,
including Exhibit A (2005-06 Compensation Plan Changes for Management/
Professional Personnel).
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
J
Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2005-06
for Reorganization of the Department of Planning and Community
Environment, Including Changes to the Table of Organization ~.
Approve a Resolution Amending the Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees
Adopted by Resolution No. 8554 to Add Two New Classifications and to
Change One Classification
Approve a Resolution Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified
Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 8452, by Changing An
Employee Classification
City Manager Frank Benest gave a presentation as outlined in the staff
report (CMR:164:06). Staff asked the Council to approve the required
personnel changes in the reorganization plan and to authorize filling the two
vacancies in the department for the Chief Planning and Transportation
Official and the Deputy Director. He said staff would be returning to Council,
at a later date, to discuss a better working relationship with the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) and governance issues. Staff felt the
P&TC should have more decision-making authority consistent with the
03/13/2006 10
department’s streamlining efforts. Staff recommended a change to the
proposed organizational chart to reflect a solid line reporting relationship
from the Director to the Planning and Building Divisions and a dotted line
reporting relationship from the Deputy and the Divisions. The Director
would have the ultimate authority over the Division, and the Deputy Director
would assist the Director to oversee the division’s functions. He clarified the
two issues before Council: 1) recommendation dealing with the
reorganization plan to focus on personnel issues; and 2) to go to the P&TC
to discuss their role in governance and finally to return to the Council in May
for further discussion.
Phil Plymale, Chapter Chair Palo Alto Chapter SEIU Local 715, disagreed with
the reorganization process and spoke regarding the lack of communication
with affected staff employees. He said the plan was submitted with no
employee or community input. He asked the Council to direct the City
Manager to take back the proposal and work with staff and the community
to work on an acceptable plan.
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, endorsed Mr. Plymale’s comments. She
said changes to the Municipal Code could have long-range impacts on
everyone involved, including the public, and public input should be included
in the reorganization process.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, raised concern regarding land use
planning. She said the Planning Department was responsible for regulating
all land use. She addressed the staff report’s discussion to have the Planning
Department staff work with Public Works to ensure all projects ran smoothly
meeting all City requirements. She urged the matter be referred to the
Policy and Services Committee for review.
AI Larsen, 930 Paradise, spoke regarding residents and contractors
experiencing long delays in getting needs met through the Building Division
in an efficient method. He asked the Council to be cautious when
reconfiguring and cutting back on staff since long delays cost residents
money.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, raised concerns regarding the merging of
traffic with land use. He felt the proposal should be discussed with the
Policy & Services Committee prior to Council’s approval.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, addressed issues in the Planning Department
and the transition of staffing from officials of the American Institute of
Certified Planners (AICP) demonstrating skill and integrity to a situation
where people were ordered to answer in writing their reports.
03/13/2006 11
Planning Commissioner Paula Sandas, 2140 Columbia Street, had concerns
regarding the disappearance of the Transportation Division and asked the
Council to not lose sight of traffic and transportation issues in the
reorganization plan.
Adam Atito, 3181 Louis Road, said the staff report did not include job
descriptions and he questioned the qualifications and managerial expertise
of individuals filling the positions.
Mr. Benest asked the record to show clarification to the SEIU
representative’s comments regarding lack of communication with affected
employees. He said on December 21, 2005, a discussion took place
between the leaving Planning & Transportation Director and Managers
regarding the Deputy Director requirements. Seven employees were
present. On January 11, 2006, managers participated in the Deputy Director
interview process. On February 7, 2006, there was a memo to staff
regarding vacancies in reassigned staff and a prelude into the restructuring
mode. On February 14, 2006, Management met regarding the reorganization
and retirements within the Department. In February and March 2006,
various meetings were held with Planning and Transportation Managers
regarding the reorganization. On March 9, 2006, there was closure of the
Development Center from 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. in order to provide staff with an
overview of the reorganization and the staff report was sent via e-mail by 3
p.m.
Council Member Cordell clarified the Council had directed the City Manager
to return to the Council with a reorganization plan to ensure the Planning
and Transportation Department ran smoothly. The task was completed and
presented to the Council at this evening’s meeting. The process did not ask
for the Manager to hold public hearings and return to the Council with public
input. The two issues being reviewed were the reorganization and
governance issues. The main focus this evening was to focus exclusively on
the reorganization plan and to decide whether to go forward with the plan or
not.
Council Member Morton concurred with Council Member Cordell’s comments
and asked to accept staff’s recommendation.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, to Amend
the Table of Organization, as provided in Attachment A, with a solid line
between the Director and the Planning & Transportation and the Inspection
Services and a dotted line between the Deputy Director and the Planning &
Transportation and Inspection Services.
Council Member Barton said there was confusion in the wording of the staff
03/13/2006 12
report. The intent was not that staff was unfriendly, but the confusion from
staff on how they react to the rules in which they worked. He asked the
issue be set aside and to focus on the reorganization plan being presented to
the Council.
Council Member Beecham addressed the public’s concern regarding the
governance issue and the Council’s relationship to the P&TC and their
relationship to the public and staff. He clarified the City Charter stated the
P&TC would advise the Council. The P&TC did not have decision-making
authority but he favored giving them the authority to help streamline the
process. He spoke of the Planning Department Managers ultimately having
to complete work due to lack of staff, the Council and the community’s high
demand on the Department’s output. He viewed the reorganization plan to
have a higher span of control and hoped it would allow the Deputy Director
to manage and ensure that staff worked on the same objectives. He
supported the motion.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto did not feel sufficient time was allowed to review the
plan or to have community and stakeholders’ input. Traffic and housing were
the two top issues in Palo Alto. If Palo Alto was to continue to change and
grow successfully, a yeomen’s job would need to be put in transportation to
accommodate changes in land use. She was in favor of combining land use
and transportation under one Chief Planning & Transportation Official but
was concerned about downgrading the transportation skills. The current
Transportation Division staffing consists of one planner and several
engineers which resulted in a lack of planning.
Council Member Drekmeier spoke of concerns he had received regarding the
Transportation Division issues, the slow hiring process, assurance that the
Deputy Director had a background in Planning and Transportation, and
customer friendly issues. He understood the need to move quickly in filling
the position, but expressed that better products come about through
discussion. He asked what the impact would be to slow down the process
and consider other buy-ins to the issue.
Mr. Behest said staff was willing to have discussions and engage the public
with governance issues, but he expressed the need to go forward with the
hiring process. The position had been open for nine months. To slow down
the process would jeopardize losing a qualified candidate and could mean
recruitment for the fourth time.
Council Member Klein shared Vice Mayor Kishimoto’s and Council Member
Drekmeier’s concerns and felt the idea needed to be vetted by the Council
and the P&TC.
03/13/2006 13
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to refer the Department of Planning and Community Environment
reorganization to the Planning & Transportation Commission and request the
item return to Council for discussion no later than May 1, 2006.
Council Member Cordell said she sensed the frustration of the City Manager,
Council Members and the public. She shared Vice Mayor Kishimoto’s concern
regarding the Transportation element. She raised concerns regarding the
Deputy Director’s duties and questioned whether the recruitment was to find
an individual to focus on improving the department’s interaction with the
customers, facilitate collaboration and oversight for the entire department,
in addition to having expertise in land use and planning and transportation.
She supported the substitute motion.
Mayor Kleinberg asked whether the current organizational structure included
the Chief Planning and Deputy Director Position.
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said it did. It
was a combined position, approved by the Council to upgrade the Chief
Planning Official to oversee the two divisions. The current proposal was a
request to divide the position since it had not been filled.
Mayor Kleinberg said she wanted the Deputy Director to have expertise in
planning, building, and transportation. She addressed combining the
transportation and the planning official duties and how it would affect land
use and building decisions. She understood governance would be discussed
at a later date, but felt some of the issues were not only for P&TC review.
There were major issues regarding the Council’s role, involvement, and
interaction with the various staff members. The Council had to be
comfortable as a policy-making body in order to move forward in a positive
way. She supported the substitute motion.
Council Member Morton viewed the Deputy Director’s position to provide
senior management support and to not add professional enrichment duties.
It was difficult to fill in with professional duties and manage at the same
time. He was not in favor of having the public’s help in designing the
Planning & Transportation Department. Under the Charter, it was the City
Manager who performed the task. He did not support the substitute motion.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked what geographical area the recruitment process
covered.
Mr. Benest said the recruitment process was not limited to Statewide
coverage. The process was difficult and three attempts were made in finding
a qualified candidate.An executive recruitment firm was hired and had
03/13/2006 14
suggested the recruitment be limited to the Bay Area due to the City’s
inability to offer a salary to compensate for high cost in housing. Secondly,
the City had a reputation about being difficult and challenging in dealing with
planning issues.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said it would be beneficial in the future to present a
proposal to the Council to allow time to digest the material and make
suggestions.
Council Member Drekmeier asked the maker of the motion to include a due
date of when the reorganization plan should be returned to the Council for
discussion.
Council Member Klein asked to include in the substitute motion "no later
than May 1, 2006".
Council Member Barton said to refer the reorganization chart to the P&TC
was a form of micro-management by delegation. The organizational chart
had policy components, but was not a policy, and to ask a policy-body to
comment on something that was not a policy was bad management of time.
Council Member Klein said the organizational chart had policy implications
and should be vetted by the P&TC. He did not feel it was unreasonable to
postpone making a decision on such an important issue.
Mayor Kleinberg said several policies were outlined, which were the
foundation for the reorganization chart. It contained fundamental issues on
the delivery of the City’s government in keeping with policies and the
Compensation Plan (Comp Plan) adopted by the Council.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-3, Barton, Beecham, Morton no, Mossar
absent.
AT THIS POINT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED AND RECONVENED AS THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
CORPORATION
COUNCIL MATTERS
10.Mayor Kleinberg Appointment of an Additional Member to the Police
Building Blue Ribbon Task Force
03/13/2006 15
MOTION: Council Member Cordell moved, seconded by Beecham, to appoint
Dave Ross as an additional member to the Police Building Blue Ribbon Task
Force.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
City Attorney Gary Baum noted the agenda had been revised to reflect the
legal requirements of AB1234 to report City funds spent outside the Palo
Alto area while attending conferences.
Council Member Beecham referred to Item No. 5 regarding protocols for
spending monies needing approval of the Mayor requesting clarification of
approval by e-mail with copy to City Clerk.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to
amend protocols to bring Item 5 back for reconsideration.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Barton, to clarify
that the protocols are changed so the Mayor can give approval for
reimbursement of expenses with a copy to the City Clerk.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said certain eligible activities were not being approved
by staff due to past precedence and changes to the policy should be
considered.
Mayor Kleinberg said Council Members received a small compensation and
the public was unaware of the number of events Council Members were
asked to attend and not compensated for. She suggested eligible costs be
referred to the Policy and Services Committee.
Council Member Beecham asked whether expense reports needed to be
written or verbal.
Mr. Baum said State law implied oral reports. He said verbal was the first
choice and written was second if Council Member was absent or unable to
provide the report at the next meeting.
Council Member Beecham clarified State law was precise that reports be
given at the next meeting.
03/13/2006 16
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Drekmeier, to refer
the issue of Council travel and meeting expenses to the Policy and Services
Committee.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Morton no, Mossar absent.
Council Member Cordell presented an update on the "YES" program and
noted she will give progress reports.
Council Member Drekmeier reported there will be a rally in the Civic Center
Plaza on Saturday at noon by the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center against
the war in Iraq.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
03/13/2006 17
Attachment E
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 FOR
REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIROhIMENT, INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE TABLE OF
ORGANIZATION
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto
finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2005
did adopt a budget, including a table of organization for fiscal
year 2005-06; and
B. The 2005-06 adopted budget includes a table of organization
describing the staffing for each department of the City including
the Planning and Community Environment Department; and
C. Retirements and vacancies among the management staff of the
Planning and Community Environment Department has created an
opportunity to implement staffing adjustments that will restructure
department operations, improve reporting relationships, and expand
the supervisory span of control as recommended in the Auditor’s 2004
report; and
D. The staffing adjustments are shown on Exhibit A to this
ordinance and will: reclassify !.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
Transportation Projects Manager to Transportation Manager;
reclassify 1.0 FTE Engineering Technician II to Engineer; eliminate
1.0 FTE Transportation Projects Manager; add 1.0 FTE Associate
Engineer; reclassify !.0 FTE Chief Transportation Official to Chief
Planning and Transportation Official; eliminate 1.0 FTE Manager,
Planning; add !.0 FTE Building/Planning Technician; eliminate 1.0
FTE Deputy Director, PCE/Chief Planning Official; and add 1.0 FTE
Deputy Director, PCE; and
E. The budget, including the table of organization must be
amended to make and fund the staffing adjustments; and
F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2005-06
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. The Table of Organization is hereby amended to
reflect the changes shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to
adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that this is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Planning
Community Environment
and
Director of
Services
Administrative
Exhibit A
2005-06 Table of Organization
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06
Adjusted Adjusted Adopted Budget Adjusted
Budget Budget Budget Change Budget
GENERAL FUND
Planning and Community Environment
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Administrator, Planning & Comm. Env.1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Associate Engineer (3)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 4.00
Building Inspector Specialist 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00
Building/Planning Technician (5)3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Chief Planning and Transportation Official (4)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Chief Transportation Official (4)1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00
City Traffic Engineer 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Coordinator, Transp. System Mgmt.1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.50
Deputy Director, PCE (6)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director, PCE/Chief Planning Official (6)0.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00
Director, Planning and Comm. Env.1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Engineer (2)2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
Engineering Technician II (2)1.00 1.00 2.00 -1.00 1.00
Executive Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Manager, Planning (5)3.00 3.00 3.00 -1.00 2.00
Managing Arborist 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Office Specialist 3.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Planner 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00
Plan Checking Engineer 3.00 4.00 3.00 0.00 3.00
Senior Planner 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00
Staff Secretary 4.80 4.80 4.80 0.00 4.80
Supervisor, Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Transportation Projects Manager (1) (3)1.00 1.00 2.00 -2.00 0.00
Transportation Manager (1)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Footnotes:
(1) Reclassification of ! .0 FrFE Transportation Projects Manager to Transportation Manager.
(2) Reclassification of 1.0 FTE Engineering Technician II to Engineer.
(3) Drop 1.0 FTE Transportation Projects Manager and Add 1.0 FFE Associate Engineer.
(4) Reclassification of 1.0 FTE Chief Transportation Official to Chief Planning and Transportation Official.
(5) Drop 1.0 FI’E Manager, Planning and Add 1.0 FFE Building/Planning Technician.
(6) Drop 1.0 FTE Deputy Director, PCFJChief Planning Official and Add 1.0 VI~E Deputy Director, PCE.
1 of 1
Attachment F
** NOT YET APPROVED * *
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL (SEIU)ADOPTED BY
RESOLUTION NO.8452,BY CHANGING ONE
CLASSIFICATION
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION i.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of
Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the
Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU), adopted by
Resolution 8452,is hereby amended by changing one employee
classification, as set forth in Exhibit ~A," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, effective July i, 2005.
SECTION 2.The Director of Administrative Services is
authorized to implement the amended compensation plan as set
forth in Section i.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore,
no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Director of Human Resources
060503 cs 8260261
* * NOT YET APPROVED * *
EXHIBIT A
2005-06 Budget SEIU Compensation Plan Changes
Planning & Community Environment
Job Classification Title Step Top ~tep Approx. Hourly
Code,Monthly Annual
Engineer
332 (Reclass from Eng Tech 5 $7,566 $90,794 $43.65
II)
060503 cs 8260261
** NOT YET APPROVED **
Attachment G
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL AND
COUNCIL APPOINTEES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO.
8554 TO ADD TWO NEW CLASSIFICATIONS, MODIFY ONE
CLASSIFICATION AND AMEND COMPENSATION OF ONE
CLASSIFICATION
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION I. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of
Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the
Management Compensation Plan, adopted by Resolution No. 8554, is
hereby amended to add two new classifications, modify one
classification and amend compensation of one classification, as
set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, effective July i, 2005.
SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is
authorized to implement the amended compensation plan as set
forth in Section i.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore,
no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Director of Human Resources
060503 sm 8260206
** ~OT YET APPROVED **
EXHIBIT A
2005-06 Budget Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes
Planning & Community Environment
Job
Code
OO7
010
Classification Title Grade
Code
25
Chief Planning &
Transportation Official
(New Classification)
Deputy Director PCE/Chief
Planning Official to
Deputy Director, PCE
(Planning & Community
Environment)
(Add/Drop)
Transportation Manager
(New Classification)
Manager, Planning
(Change in compensation
from grade code 32,
$105,456)
25
Control
Point
$10,499
$10,499
Approx.
Annual
$125,986
$125,986
Hourly
$60.57
$60.57
008 31 $9,019 $108,222 $52.03
$108,22231051$9,019 $52.03
060503 cs 8260206
Attachment H
DIRECTOR
Steve Emslie
Administrative Assistant Administrator
1 Executive Secretary *2. Code
* hlterim assignment: will be reassigned
to Planning after vacancies are filled.
Deputy Director
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
Chief Planning and Transportation Official
1 Arborist
Advance Planning Current Planning
Manager Manager
Transportation
Manager
3 Senior Planners
Housing
G1S
Senior Planner
5 Planners
-- CDBG
Histodc
GIS
ZOU
Planner
3 Senior Planners 2 Transp Engineers
3 Planners 1 Assoc Engineer
1 Sustainability Coord 1 Engineer Tech
1 Plan Tech ,5 Commute Coord
8 staff 8 staff 4.5 staff
122 Hamilton Ave
Pa)o A~to, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 324-3121
Fax: (650) 324-1215
info@paloaltochamber.com
wWw.paloaltocha mber.com
May 3, 2006
06 MAY -L., AN 9:22
Attachment I
80ARD OF
DIRECTORS
Chair
John W. King
Alhouse King Realty
Vice Chairs
Shad ClenardSpago
Rick Hosea
Rositer Relocation So.icesJean McCown
Stanford University
Robert Roskoph
Roskoph Assodates EC.
Scott Taylor
Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP
Past Chair
John Barton
John H. Barton l], ArchiteCt
Jim Balboni
Otis Elevator Company
Jo CaffaroLudle Packard Children’s Hospital
and CliniCs
Sunny Dykwel
Alain Pioe~ P, ea~tors
Sidney Espinosa
Hewlett-Packard CompanyBarbara 6ross
Garden Court Hotel
Carroll Harrington
Harrington Design
Stephen Levy
Center for the Continuing Study
of California EconomiCs
Joe MartignettiVentana Property Sewices
Hal MickelsonHewlett-Packard Company
Bud Mission
Roche BioscieoceJudy ParisMid-Peninsub Bank
Roxy Rapp
Roxy Rapp & Company
Jim Rebosio
Tne Sheraton & Westin Polo Alto
Mark Sabin
AP Review Group
Julie Stern
Stern Morgage Company
Heather Trossman
Heather Trossman Architecture& Planning
Lee wieder
Access Land Development Services,Inc.
Mayor Judy Kleinberg
Members of the City Council
City of Polo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Polo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Restructuring Plan for the Department of Planning and Community
Environment
Dear Mayor Kleinberg and Council Members:
City Manager Frank Benest and Planning Director Steve Emslie have presented
you with a recommended plan for the restructuring of the Planning Department.
The Chamber of Commerce Government Action Committee and the Board of
Directors received presentations regarding the plan. The Chamber is not offering
advice about the best means of achieving the stated goals below or about any of
the specific details of the Department’s proposed future organizational structure.
Goals:
--make the Development Center more customer-friendly, with a problem-solving
orientation within the rules
--enhance management coordination between the Departments
--integrate land use and transportation planning
--enhance the role of the Planning & Transportation Commission by making more
than an advisory body to the City Council, but one that can make final decisions
depending upon the type of decision-making areas defined by the City Council.
We do concur that these are important goals. Successful implementation of
them into objectives that can be measured would be of great benefit to
businesses and residents who need to interact with and/or obtain decisions from
the permit and entitlement processes for which the Planning Department is
responsible.
In the end, what matters to the community is the City’s success in achieving
measurable objectives. Businesses and residents will and should look to the
City’s leadership to be accountable for the results you are setting out to
accomplish.
Respectfully,
Sandra Lonnquist .-....
CEO/President
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
President & CEO
Sandra Lonnquist