This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

The Alma Plaza Learning Curve: Implementing Reform [Part 5 of 5]

Spurred by a colleagues memo in 2010, a city council subcommittee moved to address good government issues.

The following guest opinion is part of our weeklong coverage of transparency within local government as part of Sunshine Week 2012.

In their March 2010 colleagues memos, three council members called for an amendment to city policy to require an earlier release of staff reports and related materials for city council meetings (i.e., "the packet”).

Not long afterward, they were greeted with a surprise.

Find out what's happening in Palo Altowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Working rapidly and in sync, City Manager James Keene and City Clerk Donna Grider seamlessly moved the packet release date ahead one day, from Thursday to Wednesday. This created an expanded 5-day window for examination of the staff report prior to a council hearing.

The changeover occurred prior to the first Policy & Services Committee meeting scheduled to address the colleagues memo.

Find out what's happening in Palo Altowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The implementation also met the literal wording of the colleagues memo, which did not specify how much earlier the packet release date should be.

The campaign planks of two of the colleagues memo authors, Greg Scharff and Karen Holman, had called for the release date to be moved ahead much further.

As a possible model, San Jose, in an outgrowth of its Sunshine Reform Task Force and follow-up open government initiatives, had adopted in 2008 a much wider window. Release of staff reports would be a minimum of 10 days prior to the council meeting, and a minimum of 14 days prior to the meeting for any staff report that included an expenditure of over $1 million.

In follow-up discussions at the Policy & Services Committee, the city manager’s office recommended deferral of further steps until the implementation of a forthcoming, new agenda management system.

The agenda management system was implemented later in 2010, but to date there has been no further progress on widening the packet-availability window, at least not as expressed in the public record.

New Policy on Late Submittals

At the end of July, Curtis Williams, Palo Alto's Director of Planning & Community Environment, attended the committee’s discussions on late submissions, an area in dire need of reform and also identified in the March council colleagues memo.

Council member Karen Holman asked Director Williams what he had in mind as a deadline for final submittals from applicants to staff. He replied that one day prior to release of the staff report was a good start. Holman said she was not comfortable with one day and suggested five. Williams replied that in that case the word “substantial” should be used in relationship to the submitted changes. The final qualifying wording became “significant.”

Holman made a motion. It passed 4-0 with council and subcommittee members Yiaway Yeh, Gail Price, and Nancy Shepherd voting in the affirmative.

The essence of a new city policy on late submittals had been crafted. But it would require an excursion to the council, a second committee configuration, and more than another year for final approval.

It is now codified as follows:

In order to allow for adequate Staff review and analysis, and to ensure public access to information, all plans, correspondence, and other documents supporting planning applications being heard by the City Council must be submitted to staff not later than noon five working days prior to the release of the Council Agenda Packet. If any correspondence or other information is submitted after this deadline to Council Members or staff, and Staff determines additional review is needed Staff will reschedule the item for a future Council meeting.

What caused the hold ups to approval? Much of it was due to council members' misunderstanding that the policy would be interpreted to apply to communications beyond planning application materials and to people outside the applicant team.

It does not. The public, neighborhood groups, interested parties, and, yes, applicants can continue to write to or otherwise communicate with council members.

But applicants or their agents are not to submit changes to their planning application to council members. If they do, a sentence to the council procedures was added to deal with it:

If a Council member receives planning application materials from a project applicant, he or she shall notify the City Clerk and the City Manager as soon as possible.

Trips to the Pit

In matters not addressed in the colleagues memo, one particularly irritating set of perceived transgressions that was raised by the public was the seemingly free access that applicants and their agents have to staff during meetings.

During council hearings, some applicants easily move to the defined and partially enclosed area bounded by the the speaker’s podium (i.e., “the pit"). Sometimes they lean in to have discussions with staff, sometimes they enter the area, sometimes notes are passed to staff. One one occasion that I witnessed, once such note was relayed up to the council dais.

This issue was addressed by the committee via a new procedure, now also part of the written council procedures:

No person shall enter the staff area of the Council dais without the permission of the Presiding Officer or appropriate Council Appointed Officer

Now What?

So what will be the overall impact of these good government changes, the heightened awareness from Sunshine Week, and other activities, such as l?

A first test was last Monday. Did you attend or watch the council hearing on Lytton Gateway? It was a notable evening, and I’m not talking about the end result.

The crowd was large, the amount of letters, emails and speaker cards substantial. Many of the public comments were well-throughout and insightful.

Council members, in turn, made disclosures before the public spoke.

The applicant team was kept within its allotted time period for presentation. During follow-up questions, a council member firmly addressed an applicant team member who had veered off point.

A city commission was corrected by a council member for providing an incorrect vote on a hearing she had attended.

A number of council members asked probing questions of staff, revealing new information, clarifying others, and eliciting spots where preparation was not adequate.

A last-minute agreement between the applicant and some neighborhood representatives was revealed by other members of the public. A council member confirmed it was not a part of the staff report or earlier proposal. In effect, it was a late submittal. Another council member stated that therefore a final decision could not be made that night.

You could hear a pin drop for a very long time in the four and a half hour meeting. The silence broke as the hour neared midnight and members of the applicant team, not getting their way as they may have been accustomed, gathered behind the last rows of the audience talking it over while the hearing continued.

It was a meeting with many notable moments from a good government perspective. The question now is last Monday evening's sunshine continue to nurture and grow.

As fate would have it, next Monday night brings us "Edgewood Plaza," the second major PC in a row before the council. Be sure to watch and keep your barometer on the level of transparency and fairness.

READ MORE:

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?