HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3887
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3887)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 6/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Action Items for 2013 Council Priorities
Title: Review and Discuss Action Items for 2013 Council Priorities
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review action items for the 2013 Council Priorities
(included as Attachment A) and provide feedback to staff.
Background
On February 2, the City Council held its annual retreat and selected three priorities for 2013: 1)
Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and
Livability, 2) Infrastructure Strategy and Funding, and 3) Technology and the Connected City.
Each year, Council also identifies key action items or projects that are recognized as having
particular strategic importance to advancing the priorities. Throughout the year, staff reports
on the progress of projects to the Council and community. At the Council’s February retreat,
staff provided a list of potential projects based on Council members’ advanced input on
priorities and the common themes that emerged. Due to time constraints, Council was unable
to complete their discussions. It was anticipated that Council continue its discussion at a second
retreat to be held in the spring of 2013.
Discussion
Attachment A provides a list potential action items for each of the three Council priorities. The
City Manager developed the list with input from staff. The list is comprised of a majority of the
projects provided to Council at the February 2 Council Retreat with some updates and
additions. Staff is seeking Council’s review and any recommended changes and/or additions to
the list of projects.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Timeline
Staff will provide periodic updates to the Council on the Council priorities and the progress and
milestones for each of the projects. A final report will be provided with the annual wrap-up
presented to Council and the community in December 2013.
Attachments:
Attachment A. 2013 Council Priorities Action Items (PDF)
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes (PDF)
Attachment A. 2013 Council Priorities Action Items
Page 1 of 3
The Council identified the following three priorities for 2013. Below each priority is a list of
action items on the staff work plan.
The Future of Downtown and California Avenue: Urban Design, Transportation, Parking, and
Livability
1. Housing Element (HE)
2. RHNA Allocations
3. Comprehensive Plan
4. Cal Ave/Fry's Concept Plan
5. One Bay Area Plan
6. The District Formerly Known as the “Arts and Innovation District” (27 U)
7. Future of the Julia Morgan Hostess House
8. Mayfield Housing (Stanford)
9. Downtown Residential Permit Parking (RPP)
10. Lot P Parking Garage Proposals
11. Attendant Parking Trial
12. Parking Code Changes (TDR & Exemptions)
13. City Hall TDM
14. Cal Ave Streetscape Project
15. One Bay Area Grant Projects
16. Stanford/COPA Trail Programs
17. Caltrain & High Speed Rail Issues
18. Downtown Development Cap Evaluation
19. Emerson Ground Floor Retail Rezone
20. Grand Boulevard Design Standards for Sidewalk Widths and Building Setbacks
21. Art Policy: Private Commercial Developments
22. US Post Office
Related Action Items that have Staffing Impact on Downtown/Cal Ave. Priority
23. Mt. View/San Antonio Center
24. Maybell Affordable Housing
25. Edgewood Plaza
26. 2755 El Camino Real Office (VTA Lot)
27. Crescent Park Neighborhood Parking
28. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
29. Living in Vehicles
30. CPI Study
31. Support Services
Recruit and fill Director of Planning and Chief Building Officer positions
Conduct succession planning with Public Works, Utilities, Planning and Development
Center departments, identify successors and create individual development plans
Attachment A. 2013 Council Priorities Action Items
Page 2 of 3
Infrastructure Strategy and Funding
1. Infrastructure Financing & Potential 2014 Infrastructure Finance Measure (progress
towards decision)
2. Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Opening
3. Cubberley Community Center (Community Process Completion; Lease Decision)
4. Public Safety Building: Potential Public‐Private Partnership (395 Page Mill Project)
5. Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
6. City Street Repair Program
7. City‐Wide Park Master Plan
8. Municipal Services Center Facilities Study
9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
10. Newell Street Bridge
11. Support Planning and Coordination on SF Creek JPA
12. Golf Course Renovation
13. Energy Compost Facility
14. Main Library
15. Streetlights Assessment
16. Bridges Assessment
17. LATP Site Development
18. Waste Water Treatment Master Plan
19. Completion of Water Storage Reservoir, New Well, and Park Improvements at El
Camino Park
20. Achieve Conceptual Agreement with all Parties on a Second Transmission Line
Connection to Palo Alto
21. Completion of the Gas Pipeline and Sewer Inspection Safety “Crossbore” Program
Technology and the Connected City
1. Palo Alto 311 Mobile App
2. Wi‐Fi Deployment at Cogswell Plaza
3. CitiCamp Palo Alto
4. Palo Alto Smart City Apps Challenge
5. Enterprise‐class WiFi for City buildings
6. Community Apps Challenge & Palo Alto Mobile App
7. Virtual Library Branch
8. Dark Fiber Network and City‐wide Fiber to the Premises
9. Emerging Technology Program
10. Wireless Communications (DAS)
11. Design Commercial Customer Connect (Smart Meter) Pilot Program to Complement the
Recently Approved Residential Customerconnect Pilot Program for 300 Residential
Customers
12. Implement New Utilities Emergency Outage Management System
Attachment A. 2013 Council Priorities Action Items
Page 3 of 3
13. Emergency Services: Silicon Valley Resilient Network: Solar‐Powered Wifi to Keep
Community Connected After A Major Earthquake, etc.
14. New Computer Aided Dispatch System with the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos
15. New Records Management System with Los Altos and Mountain View
16. Implement FLIR Thermal Imaging Cameras in the Foothill’s to Create Early Warning &
Notification of Fires (Fire)
17. Implementation of Cloud Based Construction and Demolition Building Permit
Management Program
18. Pilot Electronic Plan Check Program
19. Open Permit Data in Near‐Real Time to Promote Applications that Promote
Transparency and Citizen Engagement
20. Deploy a New Development Center Website.
21. Evaluation of SAP for City’s Technology Infrastructure
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 25
Special Meeting
February 2, 2013
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at the Palo Alto Art
Center at 8:30 A.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Absent:
Mayor Scharff announced the first part of the meeting would concern Priority
setting. In the past, the Council had broader Priorities that were similar to
goals. The Council wanted Priorities that required particular, unusual and
significant attention and that were achievable within three years. Following
that discussion, the Council would discuss guiding principles, core values and
meeting management.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Art Kramer felt parking in Downtown was the main issue. Two parking
garages had more than 200 available parking spaces. He suggested the
Council provide parking placards to merchants, so that merchants could
issue them to their employees.
1. Discussion and Possible Adoption of Council Priorities for 2013.
Council Member Klein reported the Council adopted a new process for setting
Priorities. In the fall of 2012, the Council issued a notice regarding the
Priority setting process and requested suggestions from the public. That
notice set forth the new definition of Priority. Each Council Member and
Council Member-elect were asked to submit three proposals for Priorities for
2013. He, Council Member Schmid and the City Manager grouped the
suggested Priorities into categories. Each Council Member would have the
opportunity to discuss the categories.
Council Member Schmid noted everybody had a chance to provide input
before the meeting. The first part of the meeting allowed public comment
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
and Council Member comments regarding proposed Priorities. The second
half of the meeting allowed Council Members to shift, change, adjust or
move Priorities. The process would end with a vote to rank Priorities.
Council Member Klein explained that the process was changed, because
many people felt Council Members were not properly prepared in the past.
Finances would not qualify as a Priority, because it had to be considered
every year. The Council requested Priorities are items it could accomplish in
three years. Additional new rules were having no more than three Priorities
for a year, and no Priority would remain on the list of Priorities for more than
three years.
James Keene, City Manager noted much of the conversation was a matter of
semantics. Priority and category might not be the correct terms. Over the
past few years, the Council acknowledged the difficulty in differentiating a
Priority from a guiding principle. The Council considered environmental
sustainability a guiding principle or core value. The Council needed an in-
depth retreat regarding guiding principles and core values, and suggested
meeting by April 2013 for that discussion.
Mayor Scharff explained the Council would continue to address issues that
were not Priorities. If an issue was not placed on the Priority list, the
Council would address the issue as needed.
Council Member Kniss hoped the Council would determine core values before
setting Priorities and taking action. It seemed as though a number of these
issues fit together and could have been placed in a single category. She
inquired whether the topics were separated because Council Members noted
them separately or was the goal to list as many topics as possible.
Mayor Scharff indicated Council Members would have six minutes to state
their preference for placing Priorities in categories.
Mr. Keene stated the Council would make those adjustments after the break.
Molly Stump, City Attorney reported that any time an item came before the
City at the Staff level or to the Council for decision, Staff needed to
determine if Council Members or key Staff would have economic interests
that could be impacted by the decision. A number of Council Members and
key Staff had economic interests of one type or another in or near
Downtown, which was a potential Priority. Staff analyzed that situation
under the applicable legal standards and determined that all Council
Members and Staff could participate in the current discussion. There were
some potential projects that were not intended to be the focus of discussion.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
For both Brown Act and conflict purposes, she encouraged the Council to
avoid a detailed discussion of individual projects and focus on overall
Priorities and direction. Staff would revisit conflict analysis as particular
items come to the Council. At some point, one or more policy makers could
have a disqualifying conflict. At that point, the legal procedure was for that
person to recuse himself and take no part in the decision. Staff would
address that issue if it arose in the future.
Jeff Hoel felt Staff's position with regard to fiber to the premises evolved
from supporting to not supporting fiber to the premises. It was time for a
new approach to allow for more public input.
Richard Brand believed planning was important. The Council should consider
comprehensive planning, and the secondary and tertiary effects of
development. Housing was a major issue for the Council. A comprehensive
plan was critical to development of issues and preparing for Council
meetings.
Andy Poggio supported fiber to the premises, because the City was taking a
risk by not doing anything; it would attract start-up businesses and retain
existing businesses; it could earn revenue similar to the other utilities; for-
profit corporations should not dictate the City's actions; and additional
bandwidth provided more capabilities such as three-dimensional printing.
Ray Bacchetti, Project Safety Net Steering Committee requested the Council
continue an emphasis on youth well being. Progress had been significant,
but there was more to do. The Project Safety Net vision needed more time
to operate at the front of the City's consciousness. With the Council's
emphasis, youth well being would take its place among the core values
much sooner.
Jill O’Nan, Vice Chair of Human Relations Commission (HRC) stated the
Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) impacted many of
the issues on the Council Priority list. Over the past ten years, Council
funding had been maintained or cut. She encouraged the Council to
increase HSRAP funding to keep the community healthy and vibrant.
Herb Borock recommended the Council set dark fiber business as a Priority.
The dark fiber utility was different from the other utilities in that it was not
subject to Proposition 218. The Council should consider the dark fiber
business itself rather than implementation of it. Dark fiber business should
be the head of the technology Priority with other technology items flowing
from it.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Burt stated the lists had a mixture of Priorities, core values,
and actions. He suggested Infrastructure Strategy and Funding as a Priority,
because Infrastructure alone was a subject. There was a need for a strategy
and funding over the next three years. Technology was a subject; therefore,
he suggested Technology Innovation as a Priority. Technology Innovation
would improve efficiency in City government; reduce costs; improve City
services; conserve resources; and allow fiber to the premises. His third
Priority concerned the subject of Downtown. The Council discussed
neighborhood parking issues, parking garages, traffic, a development cap,
Downtown transportation demand management (TDM) programs, and the
Intermodal Center at 27 University Avenue. Trying to make one of those a
Priority was not appropriate. His core values for the City were sustainable
City finances, emergency preparedness, environmental sustainability, youth
well being, valued quality of life, and civic engagement.
Council Member Klein welcomed Council Member Burt's delineation of core
values; and agreed that once core values were established, they would not
be on the Agenda in the future. In response to Council Member Kniss'
question, he, Council Member Schmid and the City Manager used their best
judgment to determine the categories. One purpose of the meeting was to
refine the descriptions. His first Priority was Downtown and Parking,
because the community told the Council to focus on that. He heard the
community talk about Infrastructure, and hoped to have a revenue measure
on the ballot in 2014 in order to develop many of the needed projects. He
would include Cubberley as part of Infrastructure. His third choice for a
Priority was Science and Technology or Technology and the Connected City.
Technology determined how the City would respond to the 21st century.
The Council and community needed to work harder to think about
maintaining the City's reputation as a vibrant technology center. Council
Members would have the opportunity to refine the wording and definition of
the categories.
Council Member Berman felt Infrastructure was an important Priority. Topics
not analyzed by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) should
be considered. The Council was moving toward a revenue-generating
measure; therefore that met the new definition of Priority. Cubberley should
be a part of the Infrastructure discussion. He was wary of narrowing the
topic into only a revenue-generating measure in 2014, because that might
not include other important Infrastructure aspects that the Council needed
to consider. His second Priority was Land Use and Transportation with an
emphasis on parking, but that would fit under Downtown and Parking.
Parking, traffic, and planning of new development were aspects of the
Downtown issues. Those issues impacted residents' quality of life and the
Council needed to address them in a comprehensive manner. He removed
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
his third Priority, City Finances, from consideration, because that was a core
value rather than a Priority. He had a few ideas for a third Priority, but he
wanted to hear the conversation before deciding. With respect to reducing
the number of Priorities from five to three, he believed the Council should
move to three Priorities in the following year.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt Priorities were items in the Council's work plan for
the next one to three years. She requested Downtown Districts be inserted
under Downtown and Parking, but fiber to the premises remain where it
was. She wanted to move her Priority of Making the Connection to
Downtown Districts and Parking, because the public needed to make
connections to public benefits from development projects. Recent
developments had challenged the charm of Palo Alto. Connectedness should
be part of Downtown Parking and public benefits. She wanted to ensure
regulations made that connection. The exploration of undergrounding or
submerging/trenching Caltrain should be added to Connections, because
Caltrain assisted the east-west connection of Palo Alto. She was uncertain
where the following topics should be placed. Funding HSRAP grants was
critical. The Council needed to separate Staff's work on community events
from work with HSRAP non-profit agencies and friends groups. Leadership
Palo Alto needed to become sustainable; and she wanted the City to make
that connection with them. Core values included civic engagement,
education, environmental sustainability, youth and family, and innovative
and research.
Mr. Keene inquired whether the transit and shuttle components should be
removed from the Connecting category and moved to the Downtown issue.
Vice Mayor Shepherd responded yes. She also wanted Downtown and
Parking changed to Downtown Districts and Parking.
Mr. Keene asked if architectural standards, connections to public benefits,
undergrounding Caltrain, and HSRAP should be placed in the Connections
category.
Vice Mayor Shepherd did not see a category that addressed them
specifically. She requested trenching be added to Infrastructure but not with
the Infrastructure Committee.
Council Member Klein noted Vice Mayor Shepherd had offered more than
three Priorities.
Mayor Scharff indicated a discussion of the number of Priorities would be
held later in the meeting.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Mr. Keene stated other topics could be presented that would align with Vice
Mayor Shepherd's comments and that would result in new Priorities or
categories. He suggested the remainder of the Council speak before making
a final determination.
Council Member Kniss felt Palo Alto was a special community in that
residents had similar core values. The core values defined the residents of
Palo Alto. While campaigning, she heard citizens state the major problems
were traffic, condition of streets and sidewalks, bike safety, Downtown
parking, Cubberley, fiber to the home, and the Council giving too much
credence to developers. She wanted to know how Kansas City and
Chattanooga dealt with fiber to the premises, because Palo Alto could learn
from other cities. Her Priorities included Infrastructure; although, she was
not sure how it was defined. She supported more attention to streets and
sidewalks as part of Infrastructure. She was committed to technology and
passionate about health. She wanted to see more topics dealing with overall
health.
Council Member Schmid stated Priorities should make a difference within a
year. Downtown was growing dense, and parking and traffic problems had
increased. This year, the Council should seriously consider the issues of
density through a development cap, parking study for the Downtown, and
traffic density in the area. His first Priority was Downtown Parking. Part of
the Downtown Priority would be sidewalks, streetscape, art, and mandatory
retail on the ground floor for Downtown. His second Priority was working in
partnership with private, faith-based organizations on the issues of
homelessness, vehicle dwelling, below-market-rate housing, youth well
being, and senior housing. Third, the Infrastructure issue had three
important aspects: daily Infrastructure of streets, sidewalks, and buildings;
an opportunity at Cubberley to create a viable future; and Technology
including fiber to the premises.
Council Member Holman agreed with Council Member Burt that
Infrastructure should be Infrastructure Strategy and Funding. In the
category of Downtown and Parking, traffic had to be the key element.
Livability and urban design could be grouped with Healthy
Communities/Healthy Cities for a third Priority. She referenced the World
Health Organization's Healthy Cities Program. She proposed that the Council
set four Priorities, and her fourth Priority would be Technology
Council Member Price revised her list to remove Environmental
Sustainability, because it was part of the core values. The Council would
have a meaningful discussion of core values in the future, because core
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
values should be the foundation for the discussion of Priorities and action
items. She proposed the Council consider crafting a Mission or Vision
Statement encompassing all adopted plans. She suggested Downtown
Districts and Parking be changed to Downtown Districts: Urban Design and
Transportation. Within that category were parking, the Cap Study and other
parking strategies, a vision of the Downtown Districts, traffic and mobility.
She concurred with comments by Council Member Schmid regarding
Infrastructure, and would include the issue of civic facilities. Technology fit
within Infrastructure. Technology was a means to achieve greater goals,
utility, and vision for the City. The third item was the issue of youth well
being. She favored the general concept of Healthy Communities, but viewed
it as Community Health and Youth Well Being. Community Health and Well
Being was the only topic that dealt directly with people. Work performed in
this area had broader applicability to the health, mental health, and
behavioral health of citizens.
Mayor Scharff supported Infrastructure as the first Priority. Infrastructure
meant acting on the IBRC report, preparing for a possible revenue bond, and
Cubberley. Infrastructure concerned creating a sustainable Infrastructure
plan into the future. Before the Council asked the public for a bond
measure, it had to demonstrate a commitment to a sustainable
Infrastructure program. The Downtown area was very important as a
second Priority, and he supported the inclusion of California Avenue.
Walkable streets, livable neighborhoods, and increased enjoyment of
commercial areas could be included in the Downtown Districts. The third
Priority should be Technology, because technology could enhance the City's
job performance and interaction with citizens. Focusing on technology for a
few years would reap broad dividends. HSRAP was a worthy goal, but
removing it from the budgetary process was a mistake. He expressed
concern that having a fourth Priority would dilute the Council's focus, given
the extent of issues under Infrastructure and Downtown Districts.
Mr. Keene noted Council Member Kniss had stated she had one Priority
remaining. Staff was unclear about all of Vice Mayor Shepherd's Priorities.
Council took a break from 10:40 A.M. to 11:06 A.M.
Mr. Keene noted Council Member Holman identified four Priorities and
Council Member Kniss identified two. Council Members took action that
eliminated the other category, unless Council Member Kniss' third Priority fell
there. The Council had two issues to discuss: inclusion of livability and
urban design in the Downtown category, and the actual titles for the
categories.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Keene to indicate the top three Priorities at
the current time.
Mayor Scharff indicated that all nine Council Members wanted Infrastructure
and Downtown and Parking. There were issues around titles. Technology
and the Connected City appeared to be the third Priority; however, the
Council needed to discuss having three or four Priorities.
Mr. Keene reported nine Council Members supported Infrastructure, nine
Council Members supported the Downtown category, six Council Members
supported Technology and the Connected City, and three Council Members
supported Healthy Communities/Healthy Cities. The only variation was
Council Member Holman had four Priorities and Council Member Kniss had
two Priorities.
Council Member Holman clarified that she suggested Livability and Urban
Design could be collapsed under Healthy Communities/Healthy Cities, just as
Mayor Scharff suggested it could be collapsed under Downtown.
Council Member Price felt the Council had not resolved the issue of whether
Technology was a subset of Infrastructure or freestanding.
Mayor Scharff suggested the Council discuss Infrastructure as a whole.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd
to name Infrastructure as a Council Priority for 2013.
Council Member Kniss believed that nine Council Members speaking to the
topic indicated it was a Priority. The Council had to define Infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the Council only needed to decide on a name
for the Infrastructure category, and inquired whether the Motion should
state a name.
Mayor Scharff believed the Council could name the category Infrastructure,
acting on the IBRC report, preparing for a possible revenue measure, or
have a sustainable Infrastructure plan.
Council Member Kniss suggested Infrastructure was the Priority, and Council
Member Klein's comments were action items for Infrastructure. It seemed
cleaner to leave the name as Infrastructure and to discuss action items at
the appropriate time.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Burt wanted to avoid a subject as a focused Priority for a
one to three year period. Actions which were granular were different from a
Priority describing actions to be taken in one to three years. Two
alternatives were suggested, one of which was Infrastructure Strategy and
Funding.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to name the Priority “Infrastructure Strategy and
Funding.”
Council Member Schmid recalled Council Member Price's comment regarding
inclusion of Technology in Infrastructure. Most action items under
Technology dealt with communications.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member Price to add Technology as a subcategory of Infrastructure Strategy
and Funding.
Council Member Schmid stated the potential action items under
Infrastructure included buildings, streets, sidewalks, and many of the
utilities. A rich sense of Infrastructure would include streets, sidewalks,
buildings, Cubberley, and fiber to the premises.
Council Member Price viewed Technology included facilities and the means to
advance technology goals. Technology did not warrant a separate category.
Technology was a logical and related item under the broad category of
Infrastructure.
Council Member Klein did not support the Amendment. Infrastructure and
Technology were two very different things. Staff listed proposed action
items as potential item actions. The Council had not adopted those action
items. Infrastructure was hard items; buildings rather than electrons.
Infrastructure dealt with the here and now; Technology was moving into the
future. This Amendment would create a category that was too large, and
nothing would be accomplished. The Council would not be well served to
combine the two.
Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed with Council Member Klein. Technology was a
stand-alone category, given the focused interest defined as a Priority.
Including Technology within Infrastructure would burden the category.
Council Member Burt recalled one of the Council's problems in previous
years was attempting to assign an action to a single Priority. Fiber to the
premise did have a hardware component, so it could be argued that fiber to
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
the premise belonged under Infrastructure. It was important to consider the
purpose of technology areas as opposed to the particular project that would
implement it. There would be some overlap with physical parts, but
Technology did not belong under Infrastructure. Keeping Infrastructure and
Technology separate was more appropriate while acknowledging that some
actions would fulfill both Infrastructure and Technology.
Council Member Kniss wanted to keep the Motion clean. She agreed with
Council Member Klein's comments regarding hard versus soft components.
Technology was difficult to define.
Council Member Berman disagreed with Council Member Price's comments.
The category would be jumbled if Technology was combined with
Infrastructure. Technology and Infrastructure should be separate.
Council Member Holman felt Technology fit under Infrastructure, because of
terminology and the physical components of Technology. When the Council
considered funding options, having these together would help the Council
prioritize and gauge the community's willingness to support a bond measure.
Jeff Brown inquired whether Council Member Burt requested that the Priority
category name be shifted from Infrastructure to Infrastructure Strategy and
Funding.
Mayor Scharff answered yes, and his Amendment was accepted by the
Maker.
Mr. Brown inquired whether the new name meant action items would be to
develop a strategy and culminate in acceptance of a strategy or a funding
source rather than completion of Infrastructure projects.
Mayor Scharff replied no. The category was broader than that.
Council Member Burt explained the category did not replace Infrastructure
projects contained within the Capital Improvement Program. The Priority
was a focus beyond the Infrastructure plan.
AMENDMENT: 3-6 Berman, Burt, Klein, Kniss, Scharff, Shepherd no.
Council Member Schmid stated the process was different, because Council
Members were voting on each Priority as it was presented rather than
determining a list of potential Priorities before voting on them. He preferred
to discuss each potential Priority prior to deciding which Priorities he
favored.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member Price to postpone selecting Council Priorities on any single item until
the full list of Council Priorities is agreed on.
Council Member Berman requested a clarification of the process for
determining Priorities.
Mayor Scharff explained the Council would vote on Infrastructure as a
Priority, and then voting on the other issues raised by the City Manager.
Discussion and voting would move from Infrastructure to Downtown, and
then to a third Priority. The Council would also vote on whether or not there
should be four Priorities.
Council Member Berman reiterated that at some point the Council would
vote on three or four Priorities.
Mayor Scharff agreed.
Council Member Price supported Council Member Schmid's comment.
Council Member Schmid noted the Council voted no regarding consolidation
of Technology and Infrastructure. Some of the other categories might be
consolidated. He wanted to know which categories were consolidated or
redefined before making a final selection of Priorities.
Council Member Price felt Council Member Schmid's method was a rational
and logical method for proceeding.
Council Member Klein suggested the Council vote on all of Priorities pending
a final decision, and then have one vote at the end.
Mayor Scharff would accept the approach of using a parking lot for
temporary approvals as used during Finance Budget Hearings.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded
by Council Member Price to make Motions regarding individual Priorities hold
until a final Motion can be made adopting the list of 2013 City Council
Priorities as a whole.
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice
Mayor Shepherd to name “Infrastructure Strategy and Funding” as a Council
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Priority for 2013 and to make Motions regarding individual Priorities hold
until a final Motion can be made adopting the list of 2013 City Council
Priorities as a whole.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Council Member Kniss clarified that Priorities would be placed in a parking
lot, and then the Council would select the top Priorities at the end of
discussion.
Mayor Scharff added at some point the Council would vote on the number of
Priorities. Infrastructure was in the parking lot as a Priority, and the Council
would have to vote to remove Infrastructure from the parking lot if the
Council did not want it as a Priority.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to establish as a Council Priority for 2013, subject to the final vote,
“The Future of the Downtown Districts.”
Council Member Burt indicated the Motion covered both the Downtown and
California Avenue areas. The term Districts was broad enough to encompass
the related issues of neighborhood parking, parking garages, traffic,
Downtown Cap Study, TDM and transit, development of the 27 University
Avenue Intermodal Center, and PCs (Planned Community), as well as the
issues around California Avenue.
Council Member Schmid understood the discussion of Downtown centers to
include sidewalks, ground floor retail, public spaces, art, and streetscape.
Mayor Scharff reported some of those items were included, and inquired
whether that was part of Council Member Schmid's second.
Council Member Burt stated the Council should not attempt to delineate
actions. The topics he mentioned were for reference only at this point in
time. The topics were not incorporated into the Motion, but they were likely
to be areas of consideration.
Mayor Scharff asked if that was his reason for omitting parking from the list
of actions.
Council Member Burt reported that was his reason for not speaking to any
particular action. The Council would address actions later.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Mr. Keene suggested the Council reference the fact that actions would be
discussed later.
Council Member Klein felt the name was wrong, because citizens did not talk
about Downtown Districts. They talked about Downtown and California
Avenue.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change the language “Downtown Districts” to
“Downtown and California Avenue.”
Council Member Klein questioned whether to include California Avenue. In
reality the Council would spend more time on Downtown than on California
Avenue. He did not believe the Council would treat them equally.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to change “The Future of Downtown and California Avenue” to
“Downtown and California Avenue Districts: Urban Design and
Transportation.”
Council Member Price stated that wording would clearly align action items.
The Council was discussing current issues as well as planning for the future.
The revised name provided a statement as to the kinds of issues that would
fall within it as action items.
Council Member Schmid understood the original Motion contained the Future
of Downtown Districts, but he did not hear that in the Amendment.
Council Member Price indicated he was correct. She did not consider current
and future as part of the action items within the Priority.
Council Member Schmid clarified that the Motion omitted the term future.
Council Member Price agreed.
Council Member Holman supported the inclusion of California Avenue.
Amending the Priority name was much clearer and provided the original
points of Downtown and Parking. Transportation covered both parking and
traffic.
Council Member Kniss would have included parking, and noted traffic and
parking consistently came up during the campaign.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded
by Council Member Price to add “Parking.”
Council Member Price said that transportation included traffic mobility and
parking strategies.
Council Member Burt believed Priority names should not attempt to describe
everything included in it. The problems were present, but the actions were
about the future. The Priority concerned contending with today's problems
while looking to the future. He would not support the Amendment. Parking
was a key Priority.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the Future of Downtown Districts referred to the
demise of Downtown, but that was not the intention. She asked Council
Member Burt to repeat his wording.
Council Member Burt accepted into the primary Motion the title The Future of
Downtown and California Avenue.
Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the other title addressed issues more
specifically; however, she was concerned about the Urban Design
component.
Mayor Scharff indicated The Future of Downtown was broad and forward
thinking. The Urban Design and Transportation title omitted several issues.
He would accept either title.
Council Member Kniss suggested the Council agree the Priority title was a
problem, park the Priority, and request Staff provide a potential title for
Council discussion. She wanted to work consensually rather than voting on
everything.
Mayor Scharff preferred to vote, because it was hard to move forward
consensually.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by
Council Member Burt to make this a City Council 2013 Priority pending the
final vote, and to have the City Manager work on the specific verbiage over
lunch and have Council revisit when reconvened.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Berman, Klein, Schmid no
Mr. Keene explained one purpose of a Priority was to express to the public
the items that were important. A Priority was also meant to inform the use
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
of resources during the course of the year. He suggested a simple Priority
title with subheadings between the title and action steps.
Mayor Scharff announced a discussion of whether to have three or four
Priorities.
Council Member Holman recommended the Council discuss the third and/or
fourth Priorities before discussing whether to have three or four Priorities.
Mayor Scharff opened the discussion on Technology.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Klein
that Technology and the Connected City be a City Council Priority for 2013.
Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer supported the idea of a
Connected City. This could bring more community into enriching Palo Alto's
democracy if done in the right way. If the community's expertise was used
to help build applications, then the cost of developing technology and
delivering innovative technologies could be reduced. The Connected City
Priority was well aligned with the brand of Palo Alto, which was moving
forward with the best technology and what it could do for individuals and
society.
Council Member Kniss noted Palo Alto was branded as a high tech city. This
would be a good Priority to have for the next two to three years.
Council Member Klein stated the City had not considered technology in an
organized and coherent way. Palo Alto's economy would be increasingly
technological. This is playing to our strength. This was a method for Palo
Alto to continue to grow without imposing the burdens of traffic and parking.
Council Member Berman agreed with Council Member Klein's comments, and
supported this as a Priority. Connected City was a confluence of Palo Alto's
present and future. The Council should take advantage of the opportunity
and momentum to make the City better and to make services less expensive
and more efficient.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt networking connected the community and
accessed opportunities to make life better. The connection between civic
engagement and technology was a method for citizens to reconnect with the
city. The Connected City should include people over the age 50 or 60. She
suggested an alternative title of Networked City.
Council Member Kniss preferred Connected City.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Burt agreed fully with the thrust of Connected City being a
Priority. Technology was a subject. The Council meant information
technology, but technology also included clean technology, medical
technology, and transportation technology. Technology did not describe
information technology. An alternative would be Innovation and Information
Technology as the Priority.
Council Member Kniss requested time to consider his points.
Mayor Scharff indicated the discussion could return later.
Council Member Kniss stated Palo Alto Technology sent a clear message
when discussing a Connected City.
Mayor Scharff understood Council Member Kniss did not accept the change
in title.
Council Member Burt suggested the Council revisit the title when discussing
Priorities in the parking lot.
Council Member Schmid agreed with comments made about the Connected
City and its importance for the future. The Council had not discussed
Healthy Communities, yet it was being asked to vote on the third Priority
without knowing if there would be three or four Priorities. He found it
difficult to vote on this Priority.
Council Member Holman continued to support having four Priorities. In the
past, the Council considered weighted voting. She inquired whether the
Council would have the opportunity for weighted voting.
Mayor Scharff answered no, unless the Council chose to have weighted
voting.
Council Member Holman supported Technology as Priority, and inquired
whether a vote for Technology would be a vote against Healthy
Communities/Healthy Cities. She suggested the Council consider weighted
voting and whether to have three or four Priorities after the break.
Mayor Scharff wanted to finish this Motion first. The City had not invested in
technology, and technology would be important to the City in terms of
productivity and moving the City forward.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Price inquired whether the Motion would place the Priority of
Technology and the Connected City in the parking lot.
Mr. Keene explained that Council Members were not bound by their vote at
this stage. Council Members could vote differently when the parking lot was
revisited.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Council Member Holman suggested the Council discuss the other potential
Priority, because Staff needed time to work with it.
Mayor Scharff stated the Council would adjourn for lunch and continue the
discussion afterward.
Council took a break from 12:16 P.M. to 12:45 P.M.
Mr. Keene announced the Art Center Director would lead a tour of the Art
Center at the end of the Retreat.
Council Member Burt added a Teen Leadership Program was being held
concurrently in the Art Center.
Mayor Scharff opened the discussion to the final Priority of Healthy
Communities.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Price that “Healthy Communities” be a City Council Priority for 2013.
Council Member Holman agreed with Council Member Price's comment that
this was the only Priority dealing with people. She read from the Healthy
Cities Initiative. This Priority provided the Council with a focus for the other
Priorities and a means to measure the Council's actions. There were many
things the Council could do to support a Healthy Community.
Council Member Price stated this Priority spoke to the human condition. The
City generally did not provide direct services; however, it had the capacity to
support non-profit and community-based organizations. The City needed to
include a Priority that addressed living conditions and aspirations of the
members of the community. Many items contained in the Packet were
related to physical well being. The Council should be mindful of behavioral
health issues. Healthy Communities served as a Priority and as a reminder
of the additional work that was needed. The Council had a social
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
responsibility to take political action and/or to provide resources to improve
the community.
Council Member Burt believed a portion of the Healthy Communities was
contained in the youth well being initiatives. Quality of life might be
included in this Priority. These were important issues, but he was unsure
whether he would support adding Healthy Communities to the Priorities.
However, it was important to include it in the discussion.
Council Member Klein would not support the Motion. The Council should
have three Priorities, and the three Priorities previously included in the list
were more important. While he supported some of the individual programs,
he did not believe they were Priorities. If Healthy Communities was
considered a Priority, then it should be refined because the topics were the
responsibility of other agencies.
Vice Mayor Shepherd considered Healthy Communities to be a core value
rather than a Priority. The Finance Committee could determine how to
restructure funding for HSRAP. She would not support Healthy Communities
as a Priority.
Council Member Kniss questioned whether the Council wanted to vote on
more than three Priorities as it had not agreed on the Priorities. She
expressed concerned that Healthy Communities would be lost if it was not a
Priority. It was a core value and should be an inherent part of how the
community operated. She would not support the Motion.
Mayor Scharff clarified that a Substitute Motion to limit the number of
Priorities to three was in order.
Council Member Kniss did not wish to move that at the current time.
Council Member Schmid stated the reason for making Healthy Communities
a Priority was a decline in City funding for social services. The City provided
funding, property, and zoning for social services. This Priority dealt directly
with people and supported the community. He supported Healthy
Communities as a Priority.
Council Member Holman agreed in essence Healthy Communities was a core
value. Healthy Communities was broader than a Priority in that it defined
areas of action. In that way, it was a Priority.
MOTION FAILED: 4-5 Berman Holman, Price, Schmid yes
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Mayor Scharff reported the Council had three Priorities in the parking lot;
therefore, a vote was in order.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Klein
to have three Priorities versus four for 2013.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the Council would vote on having
three Priorities and then vote on the Priorities in the parking lot.
Mayor Scharff answered yes.
Council Member Burt inquired about the Motion on the floor.
Mayor Scharff indicated the Motion was to have only three Priorities for
2013.
Council Member Burt asked if the Motion was to vote on the specific
Priorities.
Mayor Scharff answered no.
MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Holman, Price, Schmid no
Mayor Scharff opened discussion regarding the Priorities in the parking lot.
Council Member Kniss requested the City Manager restate the Priorities.
Mr. Keene reported the Council would adopt Priorities and ultimately identify
action items for each Priority. The concept was to have action items for
topics rather than including topics in the Priority title in order to understand
the range of the Priority.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to have weighted voting on the three Priorities.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether the Motion was to have Council Members
vote by ranking their first, second, and third Priorities.
Council Member Schmid responded yes. A first place vote would award
three points to the Priority, a second place vote would award two points, and
a third place vote would award one point.
Council Member Price felt this process would help shape Staff's work plan
and share the Council's thinking with the community.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Klein would not support the Motion, because it created
unnecessary division among the Priorities. The Priorities had relatively equal
weight; although, some would require more work than others.
Mayor Scharff agreed with Council Member Klein. The Council did not need
to indicate which Priority was more important.
Council Member Berman believed all the Priorities were important, and did
not want a competition to occur among the Priorities.
MOTION FAILED: 2-7 Price, Schmid yes
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd
to approve the three Council Priorities “Infrastructure Strategy and Funding,
the Future Downtown and California Avenue Districts: Urban Design,
Transportation, Parking, and Livability, and Technology and a Connected
City.”
Council Member Klein reiterated the titles of the Priorities.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the intention of the Motion was to
collapse Livability and Urban Design into the Downtown and California
Avenue Districts.
Mr. Keene indicated that was the intent.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
2. Discussion of Guiding Principles and Core Values.
James Keene, City Manager reported the Council indicated this would be a
brief discussion, with an in-depth discussion to follow in March or April 2013.
Mayor Scharff felt the current discussion would best serve the Council by
framing the discussion for the later Retreat.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss
to postpone this Item and have an “in-depth discussion of guiding principles
and core values” at the second Retreat.
Vice Mayor Shepherd liked the process for setting Priorities. There was not
sufficient time to have a substantive discussion of core values.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Kniss felt a discussion of core values was important. She
looked forward to an extensive discussion of core values at a later time.
Council Member Schmid indicated it was helpful for Council Members to
suggest three Core Values prior to the Retreat.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER to have Council Members send three suggestions in writing to the
Mayor.
Council Member Burt requested that a subcommittee synthesize suggestions
for core values.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER to return to the Policy and Services Committee to develop a
process.
Council Member Holman was unsure why only three suggestions for core
values should be submitted.
Vice Mayor Shepherd had not limited the number of suggestions to three.
Mayor Scharff noted Council Member Schmid requested three suggestions.
Vice Mayor Shepherd did not wish to limit suggestions to three.
Council Member Schmid withdrew the limit of three suggestions. Policy and
Services Committee could determine the process.
Jeff Hoel stated the Council was identifying chronic Priorities as core values.
The Council should choose one term, either core values or guiding principles.
The community's core values included education, transparency in
government, innovation, controlling its destiny, taking prudent risks, and
leadership.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
3. Discussion and Potential Action Regarding Meeting Length and Other
Meeting Management Matters.
Council Member Klein reported Council Members had attempted to shorten
and increase efficiency of meetings. There was some success through
having shorter and more direct Staff presentations. The Council had little
control over the amount of time consumed by public speakers. Limiting
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member comments earlier in the Retreat demonstrated that Council
Members could limit their remarks. Many government agencies limited the
length of time their elected officials could speak. The Mayor properly
enforced the rule of ending meetings at 11:00 P.M. absent unusual
situations. Beginning meetings earlier was not a solution. The goal of the
memorandum was to open discussion with no expectation of Council action.
Council Member Kniss inquired whether the three-minute time limit for
certain situations could be changed.
Donna Grider, City Clerk reported the time limit was located in the Council
Procedures and Protocols. The time limit for Oral Communications was three
minutes up to 30 minutes.
James Keene, City Manager inquired whether Council Member Kniss was
inquired about the time limit for the Council or the public.
Council Member Kniss answered for the public. She inquired whether the
Mayor could alter the time limit for public speakers on an Agenda Item.
Molly Stump, City Attorney stated the Chair had wide discretion to control
the Council's portion. The public needed to be provided an opportunity to
speak, and the method to limit that was to reduce the amount of time to 2
minutes or even 1 minute.
Council Member Kniss disagreed with Council Member Klein's comment
regarding beginning meetings earlier. She assumed Staff would rather work
through the dinner hour and end earlier. The Council's attention began to
wander after 11:00 P.M. Most of the public was finished with Council
meetings by 11:00 P.M. If an Agenda Item had been discussed in
Committee, then it should not need an extensive discussion at the Council.
Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the problems she observed were informing
the public about information contained in the Staff Report; Council Members
wandering outside of questions during the questioning period; questions and
comments not pertaining to the Agenda Item; and revising Motion language
when the revision would not alter Staff's work product.
Council Member Price suggested Council Members focus on making
thoughtful and brief comments related to the core issue. People's work
schedules determined when meetings could begin. She did not enjoy
PowerPoint presentations, and suggested Staff highlight key concepts rather
than reading each slide. The Council should consider time limits for Council
Members in order to work more efficiently.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Council Member Schmid noted the number of meetings exceeding six and
seven hours in 2012 far exceeded the length of meetings in 2008. Seven
hour meetings were not productive for the City or citizens. Limiting the
question period was the most appropriate area for change. Submitting
questions and receiving responses in advance of Council meetings would
save time. Because the Council had the Staff Report and the public had
access to it, Staff presentations could be limited to a certain amount of time.
A voluntary time limit on Council Members expressing their positions on and
interpretation of issues would be helpful. The Council should not focus time
limits on the Council's decision period. Limiting public participation and
comments was the last place for change.
Council Member Burt encouraged Colleagues to study the Council Procedures
and Protocols, which answered some of the comments made today. The
Procedures and Protocols could be changed within the year. Agenda Items
with a unanimous Committee vote moved to the Council's Consent Calendar
without discussion. Council Members did use the question period for
commentary. It would be good to supplement the question period with
written questions and responses that could be made available to the public.
Having nine Council Members added to the difficulty of focusing meetings.
He suggested the Council begin to discuss the number of Council Members.
One problem with reducing the number of Council Members was
representation on Committees. The use of Council liaisons would liberate
more Council time for obligatory responsibilities.
Council Member Holman stated Agenda management was a critical
component of meeting length. Typically, the Council received good Staff
Reports; however, sometimes the Staff Reports generated questions instead
of answering them. Staff presentations should provide enough information
so that the public understood Council actions. Placing time limits on Council
Members was problematic, because Council Members with expertise would
have more to add to the dialog. The most important component and critical
aspect of meetings was Council actions.
Council Member Berman would not favor reducing public comment, because
local government must be available and responsive to its residents. It would
be interesting to have a conversation regarding the number of Council
Members. It was the Council Members' responsibility not to comment on
each issue.
Council Member Klein expressed concern about the length of meetings,
because people's attention and efficiency decreased with six and seven hour
meetings. Of the meetings called before 6:00 P.M. in 2012, 16 extended
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
beyond 11:30 P.M. Council Members did not have to speak on each issue.
They could simply state they agreed with a previous Council Member's
comments. The Council should have a Motion on the floor before discussion
opened. Perhaps the Mayor or Council Members could call a point of order.
He suggested the Mayor have the authority to note when Council Members
spoke too long. Council Members needed to move the previous question
more often in order to end debate. He was concerned about the length of
meetings and deciding issues when the public could be present. Significant
issues should be decided in the 7:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. timeframe. Having
Motions on the screen and Council Members correcting language of the
Motions was slowing down the meetings.
Council Member Price disagreed with Council Member Klein regarding having
Motions on the screen. Council Members were following the language
better; however, the process could be refined.
Mayor Scharff indicated the question period should be limited to questions
rather than opinions. For issues of strong community concerns, he usually
held the question period first, followed by public comment, and then
Motions. Most Council Members could speak in less than five minutes. As
Mayor, he wanted the ability to suggest Council Members end their
comments. The Chair had to balance the situation with efficiency. He felt
three Council Members should be required to remove an Item from the
Consent Calendar. The Council Policy and Procedures indicated that allowing
a Council Member to speak a second time meant the remaining Council
Members could also speak a second time. He would like to have discretion
to allow a short question without worrying about the remaining Council
Members speaking.
Council Member Kniss inquired about the Council's method for placing
Agenda Items on the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Scharff reported if the Committee had four votes supporting the
Agenda Item, then it was placed on the Consent Calendar. He would not
follow that process in unusual circumstances. More Agenda Items could be
placed on the Consent Calendar if only three Committee votes were
required.
4. Wrap-Up and Next Steps
James Keene, City Manager reported Staff would schedule a follow-up
Retreat with the Council. The Council's direction was to have a focused
discussion on action items for the Priorities and a discussion of core values.
Staff would refine Council comments in order to prepare for the action items.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 25
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes: 2/2/13
Staff would consider developing a publication for the public to provide more
body and texture to the Priorities.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 P.M.
Attachment B. 2-2-2013 Council Retreat Meeting Minutes