|
Coryn Campbell, Neighborhood and Community Resources Manager, presented the staff report.
Discussion was held regarding the current process and timeline for developing staff reports. Councilmember Fowler suggested that the deadlines for staff reports stay as they are now, but that they would appear on the agenda one meeting later than they are now scheduled, extending the time between report preparation and consideration by Council.
Planning Officer Ryan discussed the difference of public notification between land use matters and other types of matters coming before the Council. She noted that official notification to the public occurs much earlier with land use matters, allowing the public a considerable amount of time to be made aware of what is being developed that will ultimately go to the Council for its consideration.
Director Paternoster commented that moving action on a matter to a later date, while giving the public one more week to study the issue, also would delay approval for the applicant by that length of time.
Councilmember Fowler asked how long it takes for a typical land use application requiring Council approval to go through the process.
Planning Officer Ryan responded that it varies widely, but could be as short as eight weeks.
Councilmember Fowler asked how many project have been presented recently of the type that could be processed in eight weeks.
Planning Officer Ryan stated that there have been quite a few such developments. She stated that an example of an eight-week project that would have to come before the Council is a simple four-to-eight-unit-development that has a Plan Development Rezoning associated with it.
Councilmember Fowler noted that the City has set a policy determining certain turnaround goals for certain types of projects; he asked if this policy would have to be revised in order to add one week to the process.
Planning Officer Ryan stated that it may have to be reexamined; she noted that appeals are another issue that would have to be addressed.
City Manager Chan stated that early involvement through the board and commission process is one way staff provides information to interested parties. She referred to Alternative E on page 12 of the report related to earlier distribution of certain types of reports to be a vehicle by which information could be disseminated earlier. She suggested that in some circumstances, one week advance notice may not be sufficient.
Councilmember Hamilton referred to the option related to staff reports being placed online in PDF format. She stated that this format does not offer the search capabilities of the currently used format.
Communications Officer John Pilger noted that currently, the staff reports are posted on the Internet in HTML format which is very time consuming to produce. He stated that many cities are now using PDF format because it is more efficient. He stated that search capabilities could be set up for PDF documents, but this is also labor intensive.
Councilmember Miller complimented Neighborhood and Community Resources Manager Campbell for a very comprehensive agenda report and stated that it is her opinion that providing information to the Council and to the public one day earlier will be very helpful. She asked if this were the appropriate time to discuss placing notification on the agenda of when a meeting was going to be adjourned in memory of someone.
City Attorney David Kahn stated that the subject before the Council this evening is timelines for noticing and distribution of Council items rather than structure of the agenda. He suggested that the matter of adjournment in someone’s memory be agendized for another meeting.
Assistant City Manager Walker commented that before Council makes a decision on this matter, he wanted to emphasize the importance of any change being made on a six-month pilot basis which would provide an opportunity to evaluate the process at the end of the pilot period to address any unintended consequences that may occur.
Mayor Chu opened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m.
Werner Gans stated that he thinks earlier distribution of staff reports on certain items, such as those related to rates and major developments would be helpful. He indicated that this distribution occurring five working days, not five calendar days, in advance of the Council meeting would be sufficient. He noted that he did not think this early distribution would have to apply to all reports.
There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak, Mayor Chu closed the public hearing at 9:12 p.m.
Mayor Chu asked City Clerk Katherine Chappelear if she had any comments to make on this subject at this time.
City Clerk Chappelear stated that she has been involved in the development of the staff report being considered this evening and would make every effort to implement any changes required based Council’s direction.
Councilmember Lee asked if Council approved the staff recommendation to move notification up one day, could that be implemented soon after the 2005 election rather than waiting until July 1, 2006.
Discussion was held regarding adjustments that would have to be made for an earlier implementation. Assistant City Manager Walker and Planning Officer Ryan reiterated their concerns, noting that additional resources may be required in order to implement these changes.
Councilmember Hamilton asked if the draft staff reports currently provided to Council on certain subjects are available to the public.
Assistant City Manager Walker stated that once a draft report is completed and made available to a board or commission, it is available to the public. He clarified that draft reports that are prepared ahead of time are available to the public, but are not put online until the Friday prior to a Tuesday meeting.
Moved by Councilmember Lee that Council adopt Alternatives A, B, C, I, and J. He further moved that Alternative E be adopted, and that staff make its best effort to implement this Alternative, but that it not be made mandatory during the trial period.
Alternatives included in the motion are as follows:
Alternative A – Council directs the public noticing of Council meeting agendas for regularly scheduled meetings five days in advance (on Thursday preceding a Tuesday meeting). Implementation beginning July 1, 2006 for a trial period of six months.
Alternative B – Council directs the distribution of hard copies of approved reports to Council five days in advance (on Thursday preceding a Tuesday Council meeting). Reports to be available at established City public access sites on Friday morning. Implementation beginning July 1, 2006 for a trial period of six months.
Alternative C – Council directs the online posting to the City’s web site of approved staff reports for regularly scheduled Council meetings five days in advance (on Thursday preceding a Tuesday meeting). Phased implementation beginning no later than July 1, 2006 for a trial period of six months.
Alternative E – Council directs distributing reports on certain types of issues earlier. For example: reports involving major land use issues, general plan amendments, fee increases, or service reductions. Staff to develop a list of specific types of reports or issues, corresponding distribution timelines, and an implementation schedule, for Council approval in January 2006.
Alternative I – Council directs distributing final reports earlier if they are ready and approved in advance of their due date. Staff to develop guidelines for early release of reports. Implementation beginning July 1, 2006 for a trial period of six months.
Alternative J – Council directs adding contact information to the Tentative Council Meeting Agenda Calendar posted on the City Web site so that members of the public can more easily make inquiries regarding pending agenda items.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Councilmember Howe asked the maker of the motion how “major” would be defined in Alternative E.
Councilmember Lee noted that the Alternative includes direction to the staff to develop a list of specific types of reports or issues that would be subject to early distribution.
Councilmember Howe stated that the amount of information provided to the Council has greatly increased since he became a Councilmember; that this proposal is a step toward providing the information earlier; that he hopes that, after the trial period, staff will report to Council that information can be provided one week in advance of the Council meetings.
Councilmember Fowler offered a friendly amendment that Alternative C related to online posting of approved staff reports be changed to require the posting to occur 11 days in advance of a Council meeting rather than 5 days in advance of a Council meeting.
Councilmember Lee stated that he would not accept the friendly amendment because of the confusion that may occur with multiple agendas being prepared at the same time. He suggested that after implementation of the proposed Alternatives, Council could address additional timeline changes in the provision of staff reports.
Councilmember Fowler stated he is making his aforementioned friendly amendment into a formal amendment.
Councilmember Fowler’s amendment failed for lack of a second.
Councilmember Hamilton offered a friendly amendment that would require that whatever format is used for posting agenda-related information on the City’s Website be searchable.
Councilmember Lee accepted the friendly amendment.
Mayor Chu expressed his concern that Council make technological decisions without adequate information, and suggested that the agenda-related information being posted on the City’s Website be as searchable as feasible, given technological limitations.
Councilmember Hamilton stated that she does not wish to legislate the method for implementation, only that the current level of searchability be maintained.
City Manager Chan asked for clarification that, if the motion on the floor passes, the staff would report back to the Council if significant resource changes are required to implement the subject Alternatives.
Councilmember Fowler stated he would not be supporting the motion because he does not believe it results in the public being given adequate time to understand the issues.
Vice Mayor Swegles asked if the maker of the motion is going to respond to City Manager Chan’s comment about potential impacts on resources.
Councilmember Lee stated that he would expect staff to advise Council if the proposed Alternatives resulted in a significant impact on the City’s resources.
Vice Mayor Swegles stated he would not support additional funding to accommodate implementation of the proposed Alternatives.
Mayor Chu asked the maker of the motion to separate this issue into two motions; one addressing the technology issue and one addressing the number of days’ notice issue. He stated that he would not support the motion if the language of the friendly amendment related to searchability is included.
Councilmember Lee asked staff to clarify the technology issue.
Communications Officer Pilger stated that he does not know at this time what the impact on staff would be to post this information earlier and maintain the same level of searchability.
Councilmember Lee stated that he respectfully declines Mayor Chu’s request to separate the matter into two motions because he feels that the same level of searchability should be maintained.
Councilmember Lee suggested that the friendly amendment be amended to require keeping the agenda-related information that is on the City’s website as its current service level of searchability.
Mayor Chu and Councilmember Hamilton agreed.
Motion carried 6-1, with Councilmember Fowler dissenting.
|