los altos city council jan 10, 2012 complete packet of agenda files 1 to 11

8/3/2019 Los Altos City Council Jan 10, 2012 Complete Packet of Agenda Files 1 to 11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/los-altos-city-council-jan-10-2012-complete-packet-of-agenda-files-1-to-11 1/111

City Council MinutesDecember 13, 2011

of 6

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF LOS ALTOS, HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011, BEGINNING AT 7:00P.M. AT LOS ALTOS CITY HALL, ONE NORTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD, LOS ALTOS,

CALIFORNIA

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Mayor Carpenter, Councilmembers Casas, Fishpaw, Packard and Satterlee ABSENT: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Carpenter led the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

Mayor Carpenter reported that no action was taken in the closed session meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Satterlee pulled item numbers 6 and 9. Members of the public pulled item number15.

Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, seconded by Councilmember Packard, theCouncil unanimously approved the Consent Calendar with the exception of item numbers 6, 9 and15, as follows:

1. Council Minutes

Approved the minutes of the November 22, 2011 regular meeting.

2. Opportunity Study/Plaza Seven Postponement

Postponed further consideration of the Downtown Opportunity Study and a parking facility onPlaza Seven until final resolution of the Safeway project on First Street.

3. First Street Streetscape/Monoliths

Directed staff to not install the three monoliths at the First and Main Street intersection as shown inthe First Street Streetscape plan and directed the Public Arts Commission to consider the existing pedestal at the Chevron station at First and Main as an appropriate venue for the placement of apublic art piece.




of 6

4. Sewer Collection System Upgrade, Project 12-10 and Annual Sewer Repair, Project 12-04

Authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for an amountnot to exceed $71,900 for design and construction support services for the Sewer Collection SystemUpgrade, Project 12-10 and the Annual Sewer Repair, Project 12-04.

5. 2012 Supplemental Local Law Enforcement Services Funding

Approved the 2012 Supplemental Local Law Enforcement Services Funding (SLESF) allocation of $100,000 to partially fund one full-time Police Officer position.

6. City Council Norms and Procedures

Pulled for discussion (see page 4).

7. Appointment of Public Arts Commissioners

Affirmed the appointment and terms of Public Arts Commissioners and created two vacantpositions (one term to expire in 2013 and one in 2015).

8. 2012 City Council Assignments

Accepted the Mayor’s appointments to local and regional boards and Council Committees for 2012.

9. 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule


10. Investment Policy Adoption Fiscal Year 2011-2012

Adopted a newly-updated Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 as recommended by theFinancial Commission.

11. Investment Portfolio Report – September 30, 2011

Accepted the investment portfolio report.

12. Annual Sewer Root Foaming, Project 12-06

Awarded a contract for the Annual Sewer Root Foaming, Project 12-06 to Duke’s Root Control,Inc. in the amount of $149,403.50 and authorized the City Manager to execute a contract on behalf of the City.




of 6

13. Appointment of Community Representative to HCDAC

Appointed Marie Young to a 4-year term expiring in 2015 as the City of Los Altos community representative to the Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee.

14. 2012 City Council Goals

Adopted the 2012 City Council Goals.

15. Community Center Master Plan Outreach Materials


DISCUSSION

16. 2012 Senior Commission Work Plan

Senior Commission Chair Karen Jenney provided the report.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Packard, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, theCouncil approved in concept the goals of the 2012 Senior Commission Work Plan and directed theCommission to work with staff to further evaluate and refine the Work Plan and return the Plan toCouncil.

17. Prioritization of Senior Questionnaire Recommendations

Senior Commission Chair Karen Jenney provided the report.

No action was taken.18. Project Update – The Terraces of Los Altos at 323 and 373 Pine Lane

Rae Holt, Executive Director of The Terraces at Los Altos, presented the project update andanswered Council questions.

No action was taken.

19. Library Services Negotiations with the County

Councilmember Packard presented the report. Councilmember Casas disclosed ex partecommunications with Los Altos Hills Councilmember Jean Mordo.

Motion: Councilmember Casas moved the following: While we continue to support the examinationof all our alternatives to provide library services to our residents, including the separation from SantaClara County Library System, we are willing to explore what changes can be accomplished throughthe negotiations with the member cities. To this effect, we appoint Ron Packard to represent Los Altos in this endeavor. Councilmember Packard seconded the motion.




of 6

Councilmember Satterlee expressed concerns about the proposed negotiations and the potential foralienating the Library District Joint Powers Authority Board.

Action: The motion passed 4-1, with Councilmember Satterlee dissenting.

20. Traffic Issues in Vicinity of Main Library

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Packard, seconded by Councilmember Casas, theCouncil unanimously continued this item to January 10, 2012.

21. Community Survey on Downtown

Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter presented the report.

Public Comments:

Los Altos resident Sue Russell expressed opposition to content and cost of the proposed survey.She encouraged the Council to consider changes in demographics in Los Altos in future years, andfurther, to consider an on-line survey with an emphasis on educating the community.

Los Altos residents Rita Held Cartalano and Gerry Madea expressed support for a survey andprovided suggestions regarding the questions asked.

Motion: Motion made by Councilmember Packard, seconded by Councilmember Satterlee, to 1)authorize a survey of City of Los Altos residents focused on downtown Los Altos, 2) appropriate$25,000 to fund the survey in FY2011-2012, and 3) appoint an ad hoc Council subcommitteeconsisting of Mayor Carpenter and Councilmember Satterlee to manage the project.

Action: Councilmember Satterlee offered an amendment that the questions come back to Council

for public review. The amendment was accepted. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously.

ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

6. City Council Norms and Procedures (taken concurrently with item number 9)

9. 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule (taken concurrently with item number 6)

Councilmember Satterlee noted a conflict between the Council Norms and Procedures and theMunicipal Code as it relates to cancelling meetings and scheduling special meetings. CouncilmemberSatterlee and Mayor Carpenter recommended other changes to Sections 3.1, 4.1 and 4.3 of the

Council Norms and Procedures.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Packard, seconded by Councilmember Casas, theCouncil unanimously directed staff to bring back the 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule forapproval by Resolution and to consider modifications to Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code asit relates to establishing other dates, times and locations for Council meetings.

The Council further directed staff to bring back the changes to the Council Norms and Procedures.




of 6

Mayor Carpenter called for a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting resumed at approximately 9:15 p.m.

15. Community Center Master Plan Outreach Materials

Councilmember Packard recused himself due to a potential financial conflict of interest (owns

property within 500 feet).

Assistant City Manager Walgren presented the report.

Councilmembers provided feedback on the materials.

Public Comments: Los Altos residents Gerry Madea (submitted written comments), Lou Cartalano(submitted written comments), Jim Jolly and Robin Chapman (submitted written materials) objectedto the distribution of the Master Plan outreach materials.

Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, seconded by Councilmember Casas, theCouncil accepted the Master Plan outreach materials, with the expectation that Mayor Carpenter will

work with staff to finalize the materials by a 4-0 vote (Councilmember Packard absent).

COUNCIL REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Council Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw reported that he attended the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) ElCamino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Policy Advisory Board meeting on December 9, 2011. Healso reported that the 60th Anniversary of Incorporation Planning Committee will meet on January 5,2011.

Councilmember Packard reported that he attended the Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Luncheon on December 2, 2011 and that he presented a status report on the Safeway project at the Chamber of Commerce Business Roundtable on December 5, 2011.

Councilmember Satterlee reported that she has been reappointed to the League of California CitiesEmployee Relations Committee.

Councilmember Casas reported he attended the tree planting for Patty Rosewater in RedwoodGrove on December 13, 2011.

Mayor Carpenter reported that a Council ad hoc committee will meet with the Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on December

15, 2011. She announced the annual Fun Run in downtown Los Altos on January 1, 2012, the 60th

Anniversary of Incorporation Planning Committee meeting on January 5, 2012 and that a delegationfrom Los Altos will be visiting the Sister City of Shih-Lin, Taiwan in January. She also reported thatshe attended the Joint Volunteer Awards Luncheon on December 2, 2011 and the Chamber of Commerce Business Roundtable on December 5, 2011.




of 6

Council Appointee Reports:

City Attorney Houston reported that she will present amendments to the Sign Ordinance in January.

City Manager Schmitz reported that the First Street Streetscape project should be completed by the

end of January 2012.

Future Agenda Items:

At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Fishpaw, the Council requested a study session in January toreceive a report on the VTA El Camino BRT project.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Carpenter wished everyone happy holidays and adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. incelebration of the City’s 60th year of incorporation.

Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR

Jon Maginot, DEPUTY CITY CLERK



MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012

TO: City Council

FROM: J. Logan, Assistant City Manager

SUBJECT: Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended BestPractices

RECOMMENDATION: Endorse the Santa Clara County City Manager’s AssociationCompensation Recommended Best Practices Report.

SUMMARY :

Estimated Fiscal Impact:

Amount: None

Budgeted: N/A

Public Hearing Notice N/A

Previous Council Consideration: N/A

CEQA Status (If Required): None

Attachments:

1. Cities Association of Santa Clara County letter dated November 21, 2011 2. Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended Best

Practices adopted September 14, 20113. The League of California Cities City Manager Compensation Guidelines approved

September 17, 2010

J. Logan, Assistant City Manager Date

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Date



January 10, 2012Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended Best Practices Page 2

BACKGROUND:On November 21, 2011, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County sent a letter, Attachment 1, to Santa Clara County City and Town Mayors and Councils urging each

jurisdiction to consider support of the “Santa Clara County City Manager’s AssociationCompensation Recommended Best Practices” adopted on September 14, 2011, Attachment2. The Cities Association Board voted to endorse the paper with the understanding thepaper is intended to be used as a guideline and is not binding on any city nor carries any regulatory effect.

The “Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended BestPractices” report supplements a previous position paper on pension plans recommended by the Manager’s Associations in both Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The Los Altos City Council endorsed the Guiding Principles for a revised pension system on March 9, 2010.Many of these pension reform guidelines have been achieved in the City of Los Altos.

DISCUSSION: The “Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association Compensation Recommended BestPractices” is a policy position paper on issues of local public agency compensation and is asupplement to the July 9, 2009 policy statement paper on local government retirementbenefits. The September 14, 2011 policy paper provides recommended Guiding Principlesto member cities, towns and their city managers and city councils. In addition to thesepolicy guidelines, the Santa Clara County City Manager’s Association also endorsed thespecific “City Manager Compensation Guidelines” adopted by the League of CaliforniaCities to address unique issues of manager/CEO compensation, Attachment 3.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

ALTERNATIVES:Receive as information only without endorsement.



ATTACHMENT 1

or SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Cities Association of Santa Clara County

505 West Olive Avenue, Suite 749

Sunnyvale, CA 94086

November 21, 2011

Dear Santa Clara County City/Town Mayors and Councils;

On Thursday, November 10'h, the Cities Association Board of Directors reviewed the "Santa Clara County

City Managers Association (SCCCMA) Compensation Recommended Best Practices" and the attached

league of California Cities "City Managers Compensation Guidelines." The Cites Association Board voted

to endorse the paper with the fol lowing understanding: the SCCCMA's recommended best practices

paper is intended to be used as a guideline. Good faith collective bargaining and other local procedures

may impact the application of the paper's general principles in any given jurisdiction and with respect to

any particular position.

The paper supplements the previous position paper on pension plans of the Santa Clara County City

Mangers' Association and the San Mateo County City Manager's Association. This paper was endorsed

by the Cities Association in September of 2009 and forwarded to membership cities for consideration.

The recommendations in the Compensation Best Practices paper are not binding on any city, nor do

they constitute an agreement or carry any regulatory effect.

The Cities Association of Santa Clara County strives to enhance the quality of life for people of our

county. As President and on behalf of the Cities Association Board of Directors, I urge each jurisdiction

to consider support of the "Santa Clara County City Managers Association Compensation Recommended

Best Practices" in its own policies related to employee compensation to promote continued

collaboration amongst the cities of our county.

If you have any questions, please contact Cities Association Executive Director Raania Mohsen. We look

forward to continuing our work with you to ensure positive action for the people of Santa Clara County.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,~ t i s L f I ~Melinda Hamilton

Mayor, City of SunnyvalePresident, Cities Association of Santa Clara County

CC: Santa Clara County City Managers Association

Cities Association Board of Directors



~ /0, 7k?/2.C ~ ATTACHMENT

anta Clara County

City Manager's Association

Compensation Recommended Best Practices

INTRODUCTION:

The issue of public sector compensation, including executive compensation, has been

the focus of substantial public discussion and debate because it is critical to a

foundation of trust and confidence in local government. The debate has grown more

important due to: the "Great Recession" and its impacts on the tax revenue needed

to sustain public agencies, the affordability of many public benefit plans, and the

revelation of unethical and illegal practices in the City of Bell.

This position paper is designedto

review, at a policy level, a varietyof

issuesassociated with local public agency compensation. It is not intended to be an in depth

review, but rather to serve as a compilation of issues and topics that can be pursued

by individual agencies or groups of agencies in collaboration. As such, it is offered as a

tool for elected and appointed officials in the region to work with each other and

collaboratively with employee groups in addressing this important public policy issue.

This paper supplements the previous position paper on pension plans of the Santa

Clara County City Manager's Association and the San Mateo County City Manager's

Association.

RECOMMENDED GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

The provision of efficient and effective local public services is essential to the well

being of all communities. A careful balance needs to be maintained in order to avoid

either the degradation of public services as a result of not having a sufficient number

of appropriately skilled staff members or the over commitment of scarce resources to

compensation levels higher than necessary to attract and retain qualified staff. The

following guiding principles are recommended to our member cities and their city

managers and city councils:

• The fundamental value and importance of the work of cities and other public

agencies needs to continue to be recognized. The effective provision of public

services is essential to an orderly and well functioning society and the quality of

l ife in each of our communities.

- I -



• It is essential that public agencies be able to attract and retain skilled

employees who are able to provide important public services in an efficient and

effective manner consistent with the principles of democratic governance.

• The supplyof

talented, dedicated and committed employees needsto be

maintained in order to assure the provision of effective public services.

• The importance and value of professional public management to the provision

of efficient and effective public services should be understood and recognized.

• The efficient use of limited public resources, for compensation and all other

purposes, must be emphasized and reinforced.

• Both the short and long term costs of compensation decisions need to be

carefully analyzed prior to decision-making.

• "Total compensation" (the total cost of all components of compensation)

should be considered when comparing compensation levels and when

evaluating long-term affordability.

• Budget decisions regarding compensation should be made in the context of

total compensation costs being fully disclosed and transparent to the public.

• Compensation needs to be maintained at levels viewed as reasonable andappropriate by the community.

• Compensation levels need to be reasonably competitive and comparable with

other similar public agencies as well as private sector employers for those

positions that are directly comparable.

RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION POLICY GUIDELINES & PRACTICES:

In order to implement the preceding principles, the following guidelines and practices

are recommended by the Association for consideration by its member agencies. It is

recognized that both collective bargaining and civil service regulations add varying

degrees of complexity to implementing many of these recommended policies. It is

also recognized that our agencies vary considerably in regard to current practices and

- 2 -



that some of these principles have already been instituted to one degree or another

in some agencies.

• Recognizing that all public agency compensation is funded from public resources,

it is critically important that all final decision-making be made in a transparent and

public fashion with clarity in regard to the short and long term impacts of any

proposed changes. Governing board actions should be clearly noticed andproposed changes need to be clearly described.

• The short and long-term impacts of any proposed compensation modifications

need to be carefully calculated and publicly disclosed.

• "Total compensation" should be calculated and considered when undertaking

compensation comparisons or determining the appropriateness of adjustments.

• The term of labor agreements should not be so long as to make it difficult to adjustto changes in economic conditions in a timely fashion.

• Compensation should be sufficient to attract and retain appropriately skilled

employees and be reasonably comparable to similar employees in other public

agencies. Since in many cases public agency employees are drawn from a labor

pool consisting of both public and private sector employees, appropriate

comparability to the private sector should be maintained where appropriate.

Compensation levels should not be unnecessarily higher than required to attract

and retain employees simply to maintain comparability with other public agencies.

• Members of the association should work together to achieve a common

understanding regarding reasonably consistent total compensation calculation

methodology.

• Compensation formulas that guarantee a position above mean/median or that

automatically tier off other agencies should be avoided in that they can

unreasonably escalate compensation costs.

• Pension benefits should be reasonable and affordable over the long term.Adjustments to formulas should be pursued when necessary to avoid

unsustainable costs, limit divergence from the private sector benefit levels and to

avoid encouraging premature retirements. Other changes consistent with the

association's previously issued pension policy paper should also be pursued.

- 3 -



• Employees should pay the full employee share of pension obligations and

potentially a portion of the employer share.

• Post employment costs in addition to pension costs, such as medical coverage,

need to be carefully evaluated prior to implementation and carefully monitored.

"Pay as you go" for current costs is not an advisable manner to fund such

obligations. Long term actuarial analysis need to be undertaken with benefit

changes or funding plans implemented to fund such obligations.

• The practice of paying off sick leave, vacation or other leave balances (yearly or

upon separation from service) needs to be carefully evaluated in regard to fiscal

sustainability and reasonableness. The cost impacts of these provisions should be

fully disclosed and transparent.

• Costs for benefits of current employees, especially health insurance, need to becarefully managed. Benefit levels need to be examined to determine

reasonableness versus "market" and to manage costs. Employees should share in

the cost of benefits in an amount sufficient to provide an incentive to help manage

costs and benefit levels.

• Premium pays/specialty pays can dramatically increase compensation costs for

oftentimes marginally justifiable reasons. Such pay practices should not be

expanded and should be reduced to the greatest extent possible.

• Job descriptions/categories should be reasonably broad to allow flexibility and

efficiency in the assignment of employees without incurring additional "out of

classification" payroll costs.

• Layoff policies need to be designed, or amended, to minimize the adverse impacts

that occur through "bumping" procedures.

• Practices of granting "automatic" step increases should be amended to consider:

performance; number of steps; time interval between increases; amount of

increase per step.

• Traditional compensation practices should be evaluated recognizing the needs and

desires of the current generation of workers. Such evaluations should include

- 4 -



recognition that employees may, to an increasing degree, have a number of

employers and may move back and forth between the public and private sectors.

• The practice of an agency temporarily hiring back its retired employees can often

be the most cost effective way of meeting service and performance needs cost

effectively. Such hires can also, at times, be necessary to assure the maintenance

of critical services, particularly when special expertise is needed. However, thepublic perception regarding such practices needs to be carefully considered when

taking such action.

RECOMMENDED CITY MANAGER/CEO COMPENSATION GUIDELINES & PRACTICES:

In addition to the overall compensation policy guidelines and practices noted above,

we endorse the specific "City Manager Compensation Guidelines" adopted by the

League of California Cities to address the sometimes unique issues surrounding city

manager/CEO compensation.

Recommended:

Santa Clara County City/County Management Association

Compensation Policies Sub-Committee

Ed Tewes, Morgan Hill

Dan Rich, Campbell

Tom Haglund, Gilroy

Debra Figone, San Jose

Kevin Duggan, Mountain View

Adopted by Santa Clara City/County Management Association

September 14, 2011

- 5 -



ATTACHMENT 3

ApprovtdStpltmber /7, 20/0

The League of California Cities

City Manager Compensation Guidelines

Overview

Under the council-manager ronn of city government prevalent in California the city council is

responsible for the legislative function of the city, including establishing policies, passing local

ordinances, approving the budget, and setting the overall goals and vision for the city. City

managers a re the chief executive officers of the city and are responsible to the council and the

residents (or the effective and efficient delivery of city services and the implementation of all

council policies and goals. It is a partnership that requires the involvement and commitment of

both the council and the manager.

In today's highly complex society city managers are required to be experienced and knowledgeable

in public safety. budgeting, legislative affairs, human resources. organizational development.

community and economic development, public works. community services and cultural activities.

City managers are expected to use their skills and abilities to support the city council and to ensure

city residents receive quality and efficient city services. It is vital that they maintain the trust of their

city councils and the citizens they serve . City managers serve at the pleasure of the city council andoperate under a code of ethics through their professional organization (leMA) that governs their

conduct and ensures the highest level of integrity.

The standard praclice for establishing the compensation of city managers should be reasonably

based upon market conditions, transparent, and tied to experience and salaries at comparable

agencies. Compensation should be based on the city manager's job requirements, the complexity

of both the make-up of the city organization and community, the leadership needed, Jabor market

conditions, and the organization's ability to pay. In addition to these factors, there are ethical

considerations about what is j u ~ 1 : and fair. The salaries public employees receive impact public

perception and trust.

The roJlowing guidelines are a combination of best practices and provisions of state law. They are

intended to guide city councils in negotiating a city manager's compensation package and/or

contracts, bu t they should no t be interpreted as requirements that must be precisely foUowed.

They may a lso be used by city councils or oty managers seeking to renew or amend currentcontracts. These guidelines support city councils in exercising reasonable judgment in

determining at a local level the most appropriate terms of employment for the city manager.

Compensation Guidelines for City Managers

A starting point in any sowry negotiation should be to:

• Determine the requirements of the job and the experienceneeded to successfully perform the

job duties.

• Examine market conditions to learn what comparable publicseclor executives earn. A best

practice wouJd be to gather information using pre-determined comparable benchmark

cities/agencies.

Understand the services provided by the City along with the nature of the current issues in the

City organization and in the community, and then compare these with the City Manager's

expertise and proven ability to resolve those issues. City Manager's compensation should be

set in relation to other top managers i n the organization recognizing the highest level of

responsibility and accountability of the position.Identify the City's current financial position, its ability to pa)', and the existing policies toward

compensation relative to market conditions.

- 6 -



The individual's credentials, experience and expertisemay be used as factors to set salary.

• In areas where cost of Jiving is high and the Council wants the manager to reside in the city,

salary negotiations may take into account this unique situation. In addition, other unique andspecial circumstances may be taken into consideration, such as difficult recruitment markets

and the particularly challenging needs of the public agency.

Compensation changes:

Benefits and salary increases should be comparable to those that city managers receive within

the designated benchmark cities or regional market area.

o For cities that provide across-the-board cost of living adjustments (COLAs) a

consistent and pre-determined measure for establishing the annual COLA should

be followed. Many organizations use a local CPI for a specific timeframe along

with expected salary increases of their benchmark agencies.

o Annual increases should be consistent with those being made available to other

employees within the organization.

o Provisions regarding consideration o[periodicmerit adjustments or pay (or

performance should be pre-determined.

• City managers should avoid taking steps regarding their own pension that would serve tosolely profit them. Examples include dramatically increasing salary thereby leading to pension

spiking. Reconunending or implementing single highest year to determine retirement benefits

is not recommended.

• City managers should not pu t their personal compensation interests ahead of the good o( the

overall organization and that of the citizens.

Transpartncy=

• Citym anagers should provide their total compensation package to the Council when

requesting compensation changes so that the CityCouncil has a comprehensive view of the

City Manager 's compensation. Issues related to City Manager compensation must be

considered and approved in a public meeting.

• The salary plan and salary ranges for city positions, including the City Manager, should be

publicly accessible on the agency's web5ite.

• City managers should receive a single salary that recognizes aU duties and responsibilities

assigned rather than different salaries [or different assignments.

General Compensation Practice Guidelines

• Each local gove rnment should establish bendunark agencies which are determined using set

criteria, which may include, but are not limited to the foHowing:

o Gose geographic proxlmity

o Similar with regard to rile number and nature of rile services prOVided

o Similar i n employer size/population size

o Other similar employers in the immediate area

• Each local governmentshould develop appropriatecompensation levels that are in line with

their labor market. Doing so will enable thecity to establish and maintain a reputat ionas a

competitive, (air, and equitable employer as wel las a good steward of public funds.

When considering any salary or benefit changes, the immediate and anticipated long-term

financial resources of the organization always should be taken into account.

Ensure public notice is provided and any adjustment in the terms and conditions of the City

Manager's compensation is approved at a regularly scheduled public meeting.

City Manager CompensationGuidelines, Page 2

- 7 -



January 10, 2012 Amendment to the List of 2012 City Council AssignmentsPage 2

BACKGROUND:

On December 13, 2011, the City Council approved Mayor Carpenter’s recommendations forCouncil assignments to local and regional boards and Council committees for 2012. After

notifying the local agencies of the Council’s reorganization and committee assignments, anoversight was discovered. The appointment of a representative and an alternate to the SantaClara County Cities Association Legislative Action Committee was inadvertently left off thelist.

DISCUSSION:

Councilmember Packard has been the City’s representative and is currently serving as theCommittee Chair. Councilmember Packard is willing to continue serving in this capacity. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council formally approve the appointment of Councilmember Packard as the representative and Mayor Carpenter as the alternate.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Appoint other member/s of the City Council to serve as the representative and/or alternate.




Attachment #1 2012 City Council Assignments, as amended

Regional Boards Council Committees

Mayor Carpenter

Santa Clara County Cities

Association BoardSanta Clara County Cities

Association SelectionCommittee

Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board

Santa Clara Valley WaterCommission

Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative ActionCommittee – Alternate

Personnel Committee (thru

2013)Redwood Grove60th Anniversary of

Incorporation

Mayor Pro TemFishpaw Chamber of Commerce – BusinessRoundtableCommunity Health Awareness

Council Association of Bay Area

GovernmentsSanta Clara County Emergency

Preparedness CouncilSanta Clara County Housing and

Community Development Advisory Committee

Valley Transportation Authority – Policy Advisory Committee – Alternate

City/Schools Issues (thru 2013)60th Anniversary of Incorporation

Stevens Creek Joint CitiesForum – Alternate

Bus Barn Theater Ad Hoc

CouncilmemberCasas

Los Altos Sister Cities Board of Directors

Lower Peninsula Flood Protectionand Watershed Advisory Committee

City/Schools Issues (thru 2012)Redwood Grove

CouncilmemberPackard

Los Altos/Los Altos Hills JointCommunity Volunteer AwardsCommittee

North County Library Authority

(thru 2012)Santa Clara County Cities

Association Legislative ActionCommittee

Chamber of Commerce – BusinessRoundtable – Alternate

Los Altos Sister Cities Board of Directors – Alternate

Personnel Committee (thru2012)

Lincoln Park CommitteeBus Barn Theater Ad Hoc




CouncilmemberSatterlee

Valley Transportation Authority – Policy Advisory Committee

Valley Transportation Authority El

Camino Real Rapid TransitPolicy Advisory Board

North County Library Authority (thru 2014)

Association of Bay AreaGovernments – Alternate

Santa Clara County Cities Association Board – Alternate

Santa Clara County Cities Association SelectionCommittee – Alternate

Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Council – Alternate

Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board – Alternate

Stevens Creek Joint CitiesForum

As a matter of information, Kitty Uhlir was appointed by Council to serve as the Council’srepresentative to the Los Altos School District Citizens Advisory Committee on Finance fora term through February 2015.



A G E N D A R E P O R T


TO: City Council

FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Amendment to the List of 2012 City Council Assignments

RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Councilmember Packard as the City’s Representative to theSanta Clara County Cities Association Legislative Action Committee and Mayor Carpenter as the Alternate.

SUMMARY :

Estimated Fiscal Impact: N/A

Amount: None

Budgeted: N/A

Public Hearing Notice: N/A

Previous Council Consideration: December 3, 2011 and December 13, 2011

CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. 2012 City Council Assignments, as amended

Lee Price, City Clerk Date





BACKGROUND:

On December 13, 2011, the City Council approved Mayor Carpenter’s recommendations forCouncil assignments to local and regional boards and Council committees for 2012. After

notifying the local agencies of the Council’s reorganization and committee assignments, anoversight was discovered. The appointment of a representative and an alternate to the SantaClara County Cities Association Legislative Action Committee was inadvertently left off thelist.

DISCUSSION:

Councilmember Packard has been the City’s representative and is currently serving as theCommittee Chair. Councilmember Packard is willing to continue serving in this capacity. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council formally approve the appointment of Councilmember Packard as the representative and Mayor Carpenter as the alternate.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Appoint other member/s of the City Council to serve as the representative and/or alternate.




Attachment #1 2012 City Council Assignments, as amended

Regional Boards Council Committees

Mayor Carpenter

Santa Clara County Cities

Association BoardSanta Clara County Cities

Association SelectionCommittee

Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board

Santa Clara Valley WaterCommission

Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative ActionCommittee – Alternate

Personnel Committee (thru

2013)Redwood Grove60th Anniversary of

Incorporation

Mayor Pro TemFishpaw Chamber of Commerce – BusinessRoundtableCommunity Health Awareness

Council Association of Bay Area

GovernmentsSanta Clara County Emergency

Preparedness CouncilSanta Clara County Housing and

Community Development Advisory Committee

Valley Transportation Authority – Policy Advisory Committee – Alternate

City/Schools Issues (thru 2013)60th Anniversary of Incorporation

Stevens Creek Joint CitiesForum – Alternate

Bus Barn Theater Ad Hoc

CouncilmemberCasas

Los Altos Sister Cities Board of Directors

Lower Peninsula Flood Protectionand Watershed Advisory Committee

City/Schools Issues (thru 2012)Redwood Grove

CouncilmemberPackard

Los Altos/Los Altos Hills JointCommunity Volunteer AwardsCommittee

North County Library Authority

(thru 2012)Santa Clara County Cities

Association Legislative ActionCommittee

Chamber of Commerce – BusinessRoundtable – Alternate

Los Altos Sister Cities Board of Directors – Alternate

Personnel Committee (thru2012)

Lincoln Park CommitteeBus Barn Theater Ad Hoc




CouncilmemberSatterlee

Valley Transportation Authority – Policy Advisory Committee

Valley Transportation Authority El

Camino Real Rapid TransitPolicy Advisory Board

North County Library Authority (thru 2014)

Association of Bay AreaGovernments – Alternate

Santa Clara County Cities Association Board – Alternate

Santa Clara County Cities Association SelectionCommittee – Alternate

Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Council – Alternate

Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board – Alternate

Stevens Creek Joint CitiesForum

As a matter of information, Kitty Uhlir was appointed by Council to serve as the Council’srepresentative to the Los Altos School District Citizens Advisory Committee on Finance fora term through February 2015.





TO: City Council

FROM: Michelle Bocalan, Junior Engineer

SUBJECT: Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05

RECOMMENDATION: Award a contract for the Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05 toPresidio Systems, Inc. in the amount of $144,337 and authorize the City Manager to execute

a contract on behalf of the City.

SUMMARY :


Amount: $300,000 (Sewer Enterprise Fund)

Budgeted: Yes

Public Hearing Notice: None

Previous Council Consideration: None

CEQA Status (If Required): Exempt

Attachment:

Jim Gustafson, Engineering Services Manager Date

Russell J. Morreale, Finance Director Date




January 10, 2012 Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05Page 2

BACKGROUND:

Project 12-05 was adopted as part of the 2011-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) totelevise portions of the sanitary sewer system within the highest priority mains. The Sanitary

Sewer Master Plan recommends video inspection of the sanitary sewer mains on a scheduleof approximately one fifth of the system every year. This fiscal year, staff will be televising the sewer trunk main lines that range from 24” to 42” lines which will include the use of sonar equipment. This is a new requirement introduced into the City’s specification toprovide enhanced detection of pipeline sags.

Funds were also approved in this CIP to integrate the sewer video information we receivefrom these annual sewer video projects into the City’s Geographic Information Systems(GIS) database. Staff is currently processing the 2008, 2010 and 2011 sewer video databasesinto the City’s GIS site, MapGuide. The videos and logs received from the databases arebeing linked to each sewer pipe segment on MapGuide which enables all staff to view the

information and video of sewer pipes. Staff also plans on processing this year’s sewer videodatabase into MapGuide. Overall, this procedure will help make research and informationaccess more efficient in regard to the City’s sewer lines.

DISCUSSION:

Bid Results: The following bids were received on December 15, 2011:

No. Bidder Base Bid

1 Presidio Systems, Inc. $144,337

Engineer’s Estimate $ 134,915.50

Staff is recommending award of the contract to Presidio Systems, Inc. of Livermore,California in the amount of $144,337. Though staff sent plans and specifications to fivecontractors, Presidio Systems, Inc. was the only contractor to submit a bid. The othercontractors were not able to submit bids due to their current work load, lack of equipmentor they couldn’t meet the bid submittal deadline. Since Presidio Systems, Inc. bid wasreasonably close to the Engineer’s estimate, staff believes the bid is responsive. PresidioSystems, Inc. has no deficiencies against its general contractor’s license, and the license has anine-year history. There are no safety violations for Presidio Systems, Inc. listed in theOSHA database. Presidio Systems, Inc. has performed similar work successfully for severalcities including Emeryville, San Mateo, San Ramon and for the East Bay Municipal Utility

District.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The approved budget for this project is $379,000. Award of the base bid can beaccomplished within the approved budget as shown below.



January 10, 2012 Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05Page 3

Item Proposed Project Budget

Contract award amount $144,337

Sewer video linkage $101,874

Contingency $35,000

Construction inspection $15,000

Printing $3,789

Total Estimated Expenses $300,000

ALTERNATIVES:

Alternatives include rejecting the bid and re-bidding the project or postponing the project.Neither of the alternative courses of action is recommended because staff believes it isimportant to follow the sewer video schedule recommended in the Master Plan, and the bidappears reasonable.





TO: City Council

FROM: Jon Maginot, Deputy City Clerk

SUBJECT: City Council Norms and Procedures

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the amended City Council Norms and Procedures.

SUMMARY :


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: October 26, 2010; December 3, 2011; December 13, 2011

CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. City Council Norms and Procedures

Lee Price, MMC, City Clerk Date




January 10, 2012City Council Norms and ProceduresPage 2

BACKGROUND:

At the Council Retreat on December 3, 2011, the City Council discussed changes to the

Council Norms and Procedures. The Council further provided comments and direction atits regular meeting on December 13, 2011 and directed that the changes come back foradoption.

DISCUSSION:

In addition to the changes Council reviewed on December 13, 2011, Mayor Carpenter andstaff have proposed amendments. Changes to the Norms and Procedures are summarized,as follows:

Section 2.1: Clarifies when the Council reorganization is to take place;

Section 3.1: Clarifies that Council Assignments recommended by the Mayor will be ratifiedby the full Council;Section 3.4: Adds a new section to define two standing Council Subcommittees (Personnel

and City/Schools Issues);Section 4: Amends Commission and Committee responsibilities and expectations;Section 6.7: Allows for completion of Ethics Training online;Section 8: Includes revisions regarding scheduling and cancelling meetings to ensure

consistency with proposed changes in Ordinance 2012-376 (agenda item #6);and

Section 8.5: Clarifies public comments at special meetings, in accordance with the Brown Act.



Council Norms and Procedures Amended October 26, 2010January 10, 2012

CITY COUNCILNORMS AND PROCEDURES

COUNCILMEMBERSLouis Becker Valorie Cook Carpenter

David Casas Jarrett Fishpaw Ronald D. PackardMegan Satterlee


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/los-altos-city-council-jan-10-2012-complete-packet-of-agenda-files-1-to-11 30/111 2

COUNCIL NORMS AND PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: GENERAL1.1 Purpose1.2 Values1.3 Review

1.4 Ralph M. Brown Act

SECTION 2: MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM SELECTION PROCESS2.1 Reorganization2.2 Election of Mayor2.3 Election of Mayor Pro Tem2.4 Councilmembers Serving After a Break in Service2.5 Appointment of Vacancy

SECTION 3: COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES3.1 Responsibility 3.2 Instructions and Expectations

3.3 Reporting 3.33.4 Standing Subcommittees

SECTION 4: COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES4.1 Responsibility 4.2 Problem Solving 4.3 Instructions and Expectations4.4 Appointment4.5 Reappointment

SECTION 5: AD HOC COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES5.1 Instructions and Expectations

5.2 Reports5.3 Redirection

SECTION 6: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS6.1 Attendance6.2 Correspondence6.3 Regional Boards6.4 Response to Public6.5 Proclamations6.6 Reimbursement6.7 Ethics Training

SECTION 7: COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF7.1 City Manager7.2 Agenda Item Questions7.3 Complaints7.4 Staff

SECTION 8: MEETINGS8.1 Open to Public8.2 Broadcasting of City Council Meetings8.3 Regular Meetings 8.38.4 Cancelling Meetings



8.48.5 Special Meetings8.58.6 Closed Sessions8.68.7 Quorum8.78.8 Minutes8.88.9 Adjourned Meetings

SECTION 9: POSTING NOTICE AND AGENDA

9.1

Posting of Notice and Agenda9.2 Location of Posting

SECTION 10: AGENDA CONTENTS10.1 Mayor’s Responsibility 10.2 Description of Matters10.3 Availability to the Public10.4 Limitation to Act on Only on Items on the Agenda10.5 “Timing” of Agenda10.6 Order of Agenda10.7 Change in Order of Business10.8 Items Not Requiring a Staff Report

10.9 Items Requiring a Staff Report10.10 Attempts to Minimize Conflicts of Interest

SECTION 11: PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS11.1 Role of Mayor11.2 Rules of Order11.3 Appeal Procedures11.4 Applicants11.5 Staff and Consultant Reports11.6 Public Comment11.7 Motions11.8 Reconsideration

11.9 Discussion11.10 Councilmember Respect

SECTION 12: CLOSED SESSIONS12.1 Purpose12.2 Rule of Confidentiality 12.3 Breach of Rule of Confidentiality 12.4 Agenda12.5 Permissible Topics12.6 Rules of Decorum12.7 Conduct of Meeting

12.8

Public Disclosure After Final ActionSECTION 13: DECORUM

13.1 Councilmembers13.2 City Employees13.3 Public13.4 Noise in the Chambers

SECTION 14: VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES

APPENDIX A: ROSENBERG’S RULES OF ORDER (SIMPLE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES FOR THE 21st CENTURY)



SECTION 1. GENERAL

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of these Norms and Procedures is to promote communication,understanding, fairness, and trust among the members of the City Council and Staff concerning their roles, responsibilities, and expectations for the management of the businessof the City of Los Altos.

1.2 Values. Respect for each Councilmember’s interpersonal style will be a standard of operation.Courtesy and respect for individual points of view will be practiced at all times. AllCouncilmembers shall respect each other’s right to disagree. All Councilmembers shallpractice a high degree of decorum and courtesy. When addressing the public in any way, allCouncilmembers shall make certain their opinions are expressed solely as their own, and do

not in any way necessarily reflect the opinions of any other Councilmember

1.3 Review. The City Council shall conduct a review of this document biennially, or whenever anew Councilmember has been seated or Council deems necessary, to assist Councilmembersin being more productive in the management of the business of the City. A new Council willconsider the document within three months of its first regular meeting. All members of theCouncil will sign the document.

1.4 Ralph M. Brown Act. All conduct of the City Council, Commissions, Committees andSubcommittees shall be in full compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SECTION 2. MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 Reorganization. In non-election years, Tthe reorganization of the Council shall occur at thesecond regular meeting of November. During an election year, the seating of new Councilmembers shall occur at the same meeting that the Council reorganizes, which will beheld following the certification of election results.

Seating preferences on the dais shall be made by the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and then by seniority of the rest of the members, in that order. If two members have equal seniority basedon year elected, then the member with the higher vote count in their most recent election isconsidered to have higher seniority.

A community reception honoring the incoming and outgoing Mayor and Councilmembers willbe held immediately following the reorganization meeting.

2.2 Election of Mayor. Only Councilmembers elected by the voters may serve as Mayor. Thosepersons who are appointed to the City Council under the following circumstances may alsoserve as Mayor. If the number of persons who have been nominated for City Council does notexceed the number of seats to be filled at a Municipal Election, Council may either: (1) Appoint to the office that person or persons who have been nominated; or (2) Appoint to theoffice an eligible elector or electors if no one has been nominated.

The term of office shall be one year. The Councilmember must have served at least 23months to be eligible for Mayor. A majority vote of the Council is necessary to designate the

CITY OF LOS ALTOSCITY COUNCIL NORMS AND PROCEDURES



Mayor. If there is at least one elected Councilmember with a minimum of 23 months of service who has not served as Mayor, he or she shall be designated Mayor before those whohave already served as Mayor.

If there are two or more such members who have served more than 23 months and havenever served as Mayor, the one having served the longest time on the Council shall bedesignated as Mayor.

In the event there are two or more members, who have never served as Mayor and haveserved the same length of time, the one who received the greatest number of votes at his orher election or re-election to the Council shall become Mayor.

In the event there are two or more members, both of whom have served as Mayor, haveserved the same continuous length of time, and have been re-elected to the Council, the one who received the greatest number of votes at his or her re-election to the Council shallbecome Mayor.

In the event three new members are elected to the Council, then an exception to Sections 2.2and 2.3 will apply, allowing the immediate appointment of a Mayor Pro Tem without the

normal 11 months of prior service, and the following year such person may be appointed asthe Mayor without the normal 23 months of prior service. Any member re-elected to theCouncil after a break in service will be treated in the normal sequence for appointment asMayor Pro Tem and Mayor, without regard to such person’s service prior to the break inservice.

The Mayor may be removed from office, for cause, by a 4/5ths affirmative vote of themembers. The person is to be advised of the proposed cause for removal at least 72 hoursbefore the action is taken.

2.3 Election of Mayor Pro Tem. Only Councilmembers elected by the voters may serve as MayorPro Tem. Those persons who are appointed to the City Council under the following

circumstances may also serve as Mayor Pro Tem. If the number of persons who have beennominated for City Council does not exceed the number of seats to be filled at a MunicipalElection, Council may either: (1) Appoint to the office that person or persons who have beennominated; or (2) Appoint to the office an eligible elector or electors if no one has beennominated.

The term of office shall be one year. The Councilmember must have served at least 11 monthsto be eligible for Mayor Pro Tem. A majority vote of the Council is necessary to designate theMayor Pro Tem. If there is at least one elected Councilmember with a minimum of 11months of service who has not served as Mayor Pro Tem, he or she shall be designated MayorPro Tem before those who have already served as Mayor Pro Tem.

If there are two or more such members who have served more than 11 months and havenever served as Mayor Pro Tem, the one having served the longest time on the Council shallbe designated as Mayor Pro Tem.

In the event there are two or more members, who have never served as Mayor Pro Tem andhave served the same length of time, the one who received the greatest number of votes at hisor her election or re-election to the Council shall become Mayor Pro Tem.

In the event there are two or more members, both of whom have served as Mayor Pro Tem,have served the same continuous length of time, and have been re-elected to the Council, the



one who received the greatest number of votes at his or her re-election to the Council shallbecome Mayor Pro Tem.

The Mayor Pro Tem may be removed from office, for cause, by a 4/5ths affirmative vote of the members. The person is to be advised of the proposed cause for removal at least 72 hoursbefore the action is taken.

2.4 Councilmembers Serving After a Break in Service. The time of continuous service for any elected member of the Council who previously served on the Council prior to a break inservice shall be considered to have started at his or her election after their break in service.

2.5 Appointment of Vacancy. In the event of a vacancy of office or the death or resignation of any Councilmember, the Council shall appoint a new Councilmember within thirty (30) daysafter a vacancy or the death or the resignation becomes effective, unless the Council by resolution decides to instead call a special election. In the event of appointment, applicationsfor appointment shall be made available to the public, and the Council will hold a specialCouncil meeting devoted to this matter during which each applicant will have ten (10) minutesto make an oral presentation, followed with any questions from Councilmembers.

On completion of the presentations, each Councilmember will then be entitled to cast a ballotby voting for three candidates. The ballot voting by all the Councilmembers shall then betallied by the City Clerk and confirmed by the City Attorney. The three candidates with thehighest number of votes will be considered the finalists, to be announced by the City Clerk. Inthe event there is a tie for third place, then those candidates who tie for third place will all beconsidered finalists.

The Council shall then hold another special Council meeting devoted to this matter during which each finalist will have fifteen (15) minutes to make an oral presentation, followed withany questions from Councilmembers. On completion of the presentations, eachCouncilmember will then be entitled to cast a ballot by voting for one candidate. The ballot

voting by all the Councilmembers shall then be tallied by the City Clerk and confirmed by theCity Attorney. If four or fewer applications are received, only one special meeting may be heldfor the selection.

The candidate with the highest number of votes, as announced by the City Clerk, will beconsidered the appointee to fill the balance of the term of the Councilmember who has vacated his or her office, died or resigned. In the event of a tie for first place, the Council willtake successive ballot votes until there is a candidate with the highest votes. An appointeeshall not be eligible to serve as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem unless subsequently elected by thepeople at a General Municipal Election or Special Election.

The Council, by majority vote, retains the right to alter these procedures and/or to reopen the

application process. All ballots shall be public records and contain the vote of every memberpresent.

SECTION 3. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES

3.1 Responsibility. The Mayor shall appoint Councilmembers to standing and ad hocsubcommittees as required to accomplish the work of the Council, subject to affirmation by the Council at its next regular meeting . It will be the responsibility of these subcommittees toinform and make recommendations to the Council and submit them to the Council for a vote.Staff shall work with and support Council subcommittees as required.



3.2 Instructions and Expectations. The Council shall make certain that all Council Subcommitteesare properly instructed on their responsibilities and performance expectations.

3.3 Reporting. Council Subcommittee members are to keep the Council informed of the work andprogress of their subcommittee. These reports or minutes shall be made in writing whenever arecommendation is made to the Council.

3.4

Standing Subcommittees. Two standing subcommittees of the Council exist: the CouncilPersonnel Committee and … tthe City/-Schools Issues SubCcommittee.

The Council Personnel Committee consists of two members of the City Council and isresponsible for conducting interviews of applicants for the Youth Commission and making recommendations to the City Council regarding the appointments; developing recommendations for filling unanticipated vacancies on City commissions and committees;making recommendations for reappointments to City commissions and committees; andconducting, in cooperation with staff, annual training for all members of City commissionsand committees. The Committee meets as needed.

The City/Schools Issues Committee consists of two members of the City Council and two

members of the Board of Directors of the Los Altos School District (School Board). Thepurpose of the subcommittee is to facilitate communication between the Council and theSchool Board on issues of mutual concern by both legislative bodies, as directed by the City Council and/or School Board. Meetings are open to the public and are generally heldquarterly.

SECTION 4. COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

4.1 Responsibility. The Council will appoint residents of the community to the City’s standing commissions and committees. These commissions and committees should respect the publicand staff and shall take seriously their responsibility for reporting to the Council. Each

Commission is to keep a rotation schedule for representation at City Council meetings by oneof its members. Attendance is required when a Commission has an item of interest on theCouncil agenda, to be available to answer Council questions. Representatives are expected toreport back to their Commission at their next meeting . The City Clerk will distribute theCouncil agenda via email to all commission members on the Friday preceding a Tuesday meeting.

4.2 Problem Solving. All commissions and committees will accept responsibility to initiateresolution of problems as quickly as possible. Leadership for the resolution of problems shallrest in the chairperson.

4.3 Instructions and Expectations. The Council shall make certain that all commissions and

committees are properly instructed on their responsibilities and performance expectations. This will include the issuance of the Council-approved Board and Commission andCommittee Handbook and an mandatory annual orientationtraining session for all new members, which will be presented by staff and the Council Personnel Committee. EachCommission shall hold an annual joint meeting with the City Council to discuss Commissiongoals, accomplishments and work plans.

4.4 Appointment. Commission and Committee applicants (except for the Youth Commission) will be interviewed by the Council in accordance with City Policy prior to being voted on by the Council in a noticed public meeting. The preferred method for interviewing applicants isindividually, but may be by small panels, whichever is more reasonable based on the number



of applications. Applicants are individually considered by separate motion and second andappointed by a majority vote of Council. The voting process is repeated until all seats arefilled. Council retains the ballot process option when two Councilmembers request thatmethod for selection. The written ballot consists of a list of applicants on which one mark ischecked next to the preferred candidate. This is repeated until all vacancies are filled. Ballotsshall be signed.

Two members of an immediate family, or persons residing in the same household, shall not beallowed to serve simultaneously on the same commission or committee. Spouses of Councilmembers are not eligible for appointment to any commission or committee.

Youth Commission applicants will be interviewed by the Council Personnel Subcommittee, which will make recommendations to the Council based on the interview. Appointment willbe by Council vote.

4.5 Reappointment. At their request, commission and/or committee members will be consideredfor reappointment after serving a partial term and/or one full term of service. They may beinterviewed by the Council Personnel Subcommittee, which will make a recommendation to

the Council for reappointment. Members should have performed acceptably; specifically, themember should have attended at least 8075% of the regularly scheduledcommission/committee meetings over the life of their term, complied with Conflict of Interest Code and Ethics Training requirements as well as demonstrated being prepared formeetings and participated in discussion. No person shall be reappointed to a commission orcommittee for more than two full consecutive terms. Reappointment shall occur in the samemeeting as new appointments are made.

SECTION 5. AD HOC COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES

5.1 Instructions and Expectations. The Council shall make certain that all Council appointed adhoc Committees and Task Forces are properly instructed in their assigned scope of work and

responsibility. The expected output of their effort shall be clearly defined.5.2 Reports. Ad hoc Committees and Task Forces are responsible for keeping the Council

informed about issues being considered, and their progress. This is to be accomplished by meeting minutes distributed in the Council weekly packets or through oral reports to Council. Ad hoc Committees and Task Forces are responsible for advising the Council of any need forinformation or more specific instructions.

5.3 Redirection. Ad hoc Committees and Task Forces shall obtain Council concurrence beforethey proceed in any direction different from the original instructions of the Council.

SECTION 6. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

6.1 Attendance. City Councilmembers acknowledge that attendance at lawful meetings of the City Council is part of their official duty. Councilmembers shall make a good faith effort to attendall such meetings unless unable. Councilmembers will notify the Mayor or the City Clerk if they will be absent from a meeting.

6.2 Correspondence. With some exceptions, proposed correspondence from individualCouncilmembers/Mayor on City stationery shall be sent to the Council in draft form prior torelease. Draft letters shall be included in the weekly Thursday packet for review. Absent any objection from any Councilmember by the following Monday, the letter will be mailed. If there is any objection, the originator of the letter may have it placed on a future agenda fordiscussion as to whether or not the letter is to be released.



On occasion, there are urgent requests from the League of California Cities forcorrespondence concerning legislation directly affecting municipalities. Assuming there isagreement between the Mayor and City Manager that the League’s position corresponds withthat of the Council, the Mayor may send a letter without first obtaining Council review.

Councilmembers may use City letterhead for routine, discretionary correspondence (i.e. thank you notes, etc.) without prior consent of the Council.

6.3 Regional Boards. The role of the Council on regional boards will vary depending on the natureof the appointment. Representing the interests of Los Altos is appropriate on some boards;this is generally the case when other local governments have their own representation.Examples might be serving on the Santa Clara Valley Water Commission or County Emergency Preparedness Council. Other appointments, such as Library J.P.A. and the Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors are broader in nature; these boards depend ontheir members taking a more regional approach.

The positions taken by the appointed representatives are to be in alignment with the positionsthat the Council has taken on issues that directly impact the City of Los Altos. If an issueshould arise, that is specific to Los Altos, and the Council has not taken a position, the issue

should be discussed by the Council prior to taking a formal position at a regional board, toassure that it is in alignment with the Council’s position.

Council representatives to such various boards shall keep the Council informed of ongoing business through short oral or written reports to the Council.

Councilmembers shall make a good faith effort to attend all regional meetings that require aquorum of the appointed members to convene a meeting. Attendance should not be less than8075% of all scheduled meetings. If a Councilmember is unable to attend, he/she shouldnotify his/her alternate as far in advance of the meeting as possible so as to allow the alternateto attend.

6.4 Response to Public. It will be the responsibility of the Mayor to ensure a response is providedto all public correspondence for service requests addressed to the Council. Staff shall respondto all requests for services and provide a copy of such correspondence to the Mayor.

6.5 Proclamations. Proclamations are discretionary public announcements directing attention to alocal resident, organization or event. The Mayor without formal action of the Council may issue proclamations. Requests for proclamations should be submitted at least one week inadvance. This would allow s each mayorthe Mayor to decide if a proclamation should beissued in his or her discretion. , but atAlternatively, the Mayor’s, at his or her discretion, may refer a requestthe proclamation to Council.

6.6 Reimbursement. The reimbursement of expenses is limited in the following manner: Lodging costs in conjunction with a conference or other official activity may not exceed the maximumgroup rate published by the conference or activity sponsor, if lodging at the group rate isavailable at the time of booking. If not, the member shall be reimbursed for lodging at up tothe maximum of the group rates, or rates established by the Internal Revenue Service.

Meals may be reimbursed at either reasonable and actual expenses or standard rates asestablished by the Internal Revenue Service.



Members shall use government group rates for travel, when available. If not available,members may be reimbursed according to the standard rates established by the InternalRevenue Service.

Any other actual or reasonable expenses shall be reimbursed at IRS rates, or as set forth in IRSPublication 463, or at such other rates as specified in the policy. Any additional expenses thatfall outside the scope of this policy may be reimbursed only if approved by the City Council, at

a public meeting, before the expenses are incurred.

Any request for the reimbursement of expenses shall be accompanied by an expense form andreceipts to document the expenditure. These documents are public records subject todisclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Brief written reports must be given on any outside meeting attended at the expense of the City at the next regular council meeting. Reimbursement is conditioned on the submission of thisreport to the legislative body.

6.7 Ethics Training. Any member of the City Council and commissions, or advisory committees

formed by the City Council, shall receive at least two hours of ethics training in general ethicsprinciples and ethics laws relevant to his or her public service every two years. New membersmust receive this training within their first year of service. Members shall attend training sessions that are offered locally in the immediate vicinity of Santa Clara County or by completing online a state-approved public service ethics education program.

An individual who serves on multiple legislative bodies need only receive two hours of ethicstraining every two years to satisfy this requirement for all applicable public service positions.

The City will use an ethics training course that has been reviewed and approved by the FairPolitical Practices Commission and the California Secretary of State.

The City Clerk is required to keep ethics training records for five years to document and provethat these continuing education requirements have been satisfied. These documents are publicrecords subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

SECTION 7. COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF

7.1 City Manager. City Councilmembers are always free to go to the City Manager to discuss any subject. Issues concerning the performance of a Department or any employee must bedirected to the City Manager. City Councilmembers shall not meet with groups of management employees for the purpose of discussing terms of employment or establishing employee policy. Direction to City employees, other than the City Manager, or City Attorney or City Clerk , is the prerogative of the City Manager. In passing along critical information, theCity Manager will be responsible for contacting all Councilmembers. The City Manager may delegate this responsibility to Department Heads.

7.2 Agenda Item Questions. The Council shall not abuse staff, nor embarrass staff in public. If aCouncilmember has a question on a subject, the Councilmember should contact the City Manager prior to any meeting at which the subject may be discussed. This does not restrictCouncilmembers from asking questions during a Council meeting.

7.3 Complaints. Councilmembers shall encourage people to file all complaints directly with theappropriate staff member. Staff shall ensure that all people receive a response.



7.4 Staff. Councilmembers may ask Department and Division Heads for information. Thisinformal system of direct communication is not to be abused.

SECTION 8. MEETINGS

8.1 Open to Public. All meetings of the City Council whether regular, special, or study sessions,shall be open to the public, unless a closed session is held as authorized by law. All meetingsshall be noticed as required to allow action to be taken by the Council.

8.2 Broadcasting of City Council Meetings. Whenever possible, taking into consideration thenumber of participants and room availability, all Council meetings noticed for action shall bescheduled in the Council Chambers to allow for web streaming and simulcast on the City’sGovernment Access Channel. The final decision shall be the responsibility of the Mayor.

8.3 Regular Meetings. The City Council shall conduct its regular meetings at the time and placeestablished by resolutionordinance. At the first regular meeting in January, the City Council will approve the schedule of meetings for the calendar year, which in addition to the regularmeeting schedule, may include the cancellation of regular meetings and the addition of specialmeetings and study sessions. This practice does not, however, preclude the Mayor or a

majority of the members of the City Council from calling additional meetings pursuant toSection 8.5, if necessary.

It will be the custom to have a recess at 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shallannounce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hourafter which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may beconsidered by majority vote of the Council.

8.4 Cancelling Meetings. Any meeting of the City Council may be cancelled in advance by majority vote of the Council. The Mayor may cancel a meeting in the case of an emergency or when a majority of members have confirmed in writing their unavailability to attend a meeting.

8.45 Special Meetings. A special meeting may be called at any time by the Mayor or by a majority of the City Council in accordance with the Brown Act.at a duly noticed regular meeting of theCity Council. Written notice of any such meeting must specify the purpose of the meeting andmembers making the call. Notice of the meeting must be given in accordance with law. TheMayor may limit public comments at special meetings to only those relevant to itemsdescribed on the special meeting notice/agenda.

The City Council may hold study sessions or joint meetings with other boards, commissions,committees, or agencies as deemed necessary to resolve City business, and will be coordinatedby the City Clerk. Study sessions are scheduled to provide Councilmembers the opportunity

to better understand a particular item. While Council may legally take action at any noticedmeeting, generally no formal action is taken at study sessions.

8.56 Closed Sessions. The City Council may hold closed sessions at any time authorized by law, toconsider or hear any matter, which is authorized by law. The Mayor or any threeCouncilmembers may call closed session meetings at any time.

8.67 Quorum. Three (3) members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum and shall besufficient to transact business. If less than three Councilmembers appear at a regular meeting,



the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of the Mayor, any Councilmember in the absenceof the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, or in the absence of all Councilmembers, the City Clerk orDeputy City Clerk, shall adjourn the meeting to a stated day and hour.

Business of the City Council may be conducted with a minimum of three members being present; however, pursuant to the California Government Code, matters requiring theexpenditure of City funds and all ordinances and resolutions must receive three affirmative

votes for approval.8.78 Minutes. Staff shall prepare minutes of all public meetings of the City Council. Copies shall be

distributed to each Councilmember. Closed session minutes, if any, shall be approved by allCouncilmembers and kept in strict confidence.

8.8 9 Adjourned Meetings. The City Council may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, specialor closed session meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment andpermitted by law.

SECTION 9. POSTING NOTICE AND AGENDA

9.1 Posting of Notice and Agenda. For every regular, special, or study session meeting, the City

Clerk or other authorized person shall post a notice of the meeting, specifying the time andplace at which the meeting will be held, and an agenda containing a brief description of allitems of business to be discussed at the meeting. This notice and agenda may be combined ina single document. Posting is to be according to law.

9.2 Location of Posting. The notice and agenda shall be posted at City Hall in a place to which thepublic has unrestricted access during at least normal business hours and where the notice andagenda are not likely to be removed or obscured by other posted material, and to the City website.

SECTION 10. AGENDA CONTENTS

10.1 Mayor’s Responsibility. The Mayor is responsible for running a timely and orderly meeting. The Mayor, in consultation with the City Manager and his or her designee, and the City Clerk shall organize the agenda.

10.2 Description of Matters. All items of business to be discussed at a meeting of the City Councilshall be briefly described on the agenda. The description should set forth the proposed actionto be considered so that members of the public will know the nature of the action underreview and consideration. Items that must be acted upon before the next Council meeting willbe asterisked in order to indicate priority.

10.3 Availability to the Public. The agenda for any regular, special, or study session meeting, shallbe made available to the general public as soon as it is practical after delivery to the members

of the City Council.10.4 Limitation to Act on Only on Items on the Agenda. No action shall be taken by the City

Council on any item not on the posted agenda, subject only to the exceptions listed below:

A. Upon a majority determination that an “emergency situation” (as defined by State Law)exists; and

B. Upon determination by a 4/5 vote of the full City Council, or a unanimous vote if lessthan a full Council, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need to



take the action came to the attention of the City Council subsequent to posting of theagenda.

10.5 "Timing" of Agenda. Staff and/or the Mayor will "time" the agenda as a way for the Councilto maintain a sense of how much time can be committed to any one item without going pastan established ending time for the meeting.

10.6 Order of Agenda. The prescribed order of the agenda for Regular Meetings of the Council

will be as follows: Roll Call, Pledge of Allegiance, Special Items, Public Comment (limited to15 minutes, at the Mayor’s discretion, and remaining speakers at the conclusion of thebusiness agenda), Consent Calendar, Public Hearings, Discussion & Public Interest Items, Additional Public Comments (if needed due to number of speakers at the beginning of themeeting), City Council Reports (limited to one minute per Councilmember), Future AgendaItems (limited to one minute per Councilmember), and Adjournment.

10.7 Change in Order of Business. The Mayor, or the majority of the Council, may decide to takematters listed on the agenda out of the prescribed order. All items removed from the consentcalendar should be considered prior to the last item of the meeting. Councilmembers shall begiven the opportunity to ask questions about Consent Items for clarification without having

them removed.10.8 Items Not Requiring a Staff Report. Any two members of the City Council may have any

matter that can be legally agendized placed on the agenda of the City Council by requesting the same of the City Manager or his/her designee by 5:00 p.m. the day before distribution of the packet. Any background materials or information relating to this matter should beprovided to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council as part of the agenda packetsfor the meeting. Also, any two members of the Council may place an item on the agenda by indicating their desire to do so under that portion of the City Council agenda designated,“Future City Council Agenda Items.”

10.9 Items Requiring a Staff Report. Any three members of the City Council may have any such

matter that can be legally agendized placed on a future City Council agenda by indicating theirdesire to do so under that portion of the City Council agenda titled “Future City Council Agenda Items.”

10.10 Attempts to Minimize Conflicts of Interest. There is an advantage if all Councilmembers canparticipate in the business and decision-making of the City Council. As such, it is the policy of the City to attempt to limit the scope of any agenda item so as to avoid, to the extent possible,any actual or potential conflict of interest by any Councilmember, and, depending on thescope and significance of the agenda item, to take prompt and reasonable steps to investigateif a conflict actually exists or can be legally avoided.

SECTION 11. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

11.1 Role of Mayor.

A. The Mayor shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. Itshall be the duty and responsibility of the Mayor to ensure that the rules of operationand decorum contained herein are observed. The Mayor shall maintain control of communication between Councilmembers and among Council, staff and public.

B. Communication with Councilmembers

1. Councilmembers shall request the floor from the Mayor before speaking.



2. When one member of the Council has the floor and is speaking, otherCouncilmembers shall not interrupt or otherwise disturb the speaker.

C. Communication with Members of the Public Addressing the Council

1. The Mayor shall open the floor for public comment as appropriate.

2. Councilmembers may question a person addressing the Council at the conclusion

of the person’s comments or upon expiration of the person’s time to speak.

3. Any staff member with an item on the agenda will be available to the City Councilto answer questions arising during discussions between Councilmembers andamong Councilmembers and members of the public.

4. Members of the public shall direct their questions and comments through theMayor.

11.2 Rules of Order. The City Council adopts no specific rules of order except those listed herein. The City Council shall refer to Rosenberg’s Rules of Order , as a guide for the conduct of meetings, with the following modifications:

1. A motion is not required prior to a general discussion on an agenda item. A pre-motion discussion allows the members to share their thoughts on the agendizeditem so that a motion can more easily be made that takes into account whatappears to be the majority position.

2. All motions, except nominations, require a second.

3. A motion may be amended at the request of the maker and the consent of theperson who seconded the motion. Such a procedure is often used toaccommodate concerns expressed by other members.

4. A motion to amend may still be used.

The Mayor or Presiding Officer has the discretion to impose reasonable rules at any particularmeeting based upon facts and circumstances found at any particular meeting. These latter rules will be followed unless objected to by a majority of the City Councilmembers present.

11.3 Appeal Procedures. Appellants shall be given the opportunity to speak first. Appellants andapplicants responding to appeals may be given a total of up to 10 minutes each to presenttheir positions to the City Council prior to hearing public comments.

11.4 Applicants. Persons bringing to the City Council a request for approval shall be given a total

of up to 10 minutes to present their positions/input prior to hearing public comments. Anextension can only be granted by consent of a majority of the Councilmembers.

11.5 Staff and Consultant Reports. Staff and consultant reports will be given a limit of up to 10minutes. Staff is to assume that the Council has read all materials submitted. Council shall begiven an opportunity to ask questions of staff prior to hearing public comments.

11.6 Public Comment.

A. Persons present at meetings of the City Council may comment on individual items onthe agenda at the time the items are scheduled to be heard. In addition, comments may



be offered on items not on the agenda under that portion of the agenda identified forPublic Comment.

B. The limit for speakers will be 1 to 3 minutes, depending on the number of speakers. If there are 10 or fewer requests to speak on any agenda item, the limit for each speaker will be 3 minutes. Speakers are not allowed to delegate their time to another speaker. The Mayor may limit the time to be spent on an item and may continue the item, with

the approval of the majority of the Council, to a future meeting at his/her discretion. The Mayor may also, at his/her discretion, allow additional time for one individual tospeak on behalf of a large group.

C. To address the City Council, each speaker is requested to fill out a Speaker Request Slipbefore discussion on the agenda item begins, with the name and address of the speaker,and the subject or subjects upon which the speaker wishes to address the City Council. The request to speak slips shall be turned into the City Clerk before the item is heard by the City Council. Once the first speaker starts on any item, no further request to speak slips for that item will be accepted.

D. Upon addressing the Council, each speaker shall first state his or her name and address

of residence.

E. Councilmembers may ask questions of persons addressing the Council. However,Councilmembers shall not enter into a debate with any member of the public.

F. Upon conclusion of the Public Comment section for any item, the Mayor may provideCouncilmembers and/or staff with an opportunity to respond to statements made by the public.

G. All Councilmembers shall strive to listen to all public discussion as part of the Council’scommunity responsibility. In this regard, individual Councilmembers should remain

open-minded to informational comments made by the public.

H. The Mayor has the right to ask a member of the public to step down if over the allottedtime or comments are irrelevant.

11.7 Motions. It will be the policy of the City Council for the Mayor to provide Councilmembersan opportunity to ask questions of staff, comment on, and discuss any agendized item in orderto help form a consensus before a motion is offered. Questions by Councilmembers shouldnot be used to circumvent public comments; questions to the public should go through theMayor. After such comment, the Mayor or any Councilmember may make a motion. Beforethe motion can be considered or discussed, it must be seconded. Once a motion has beenproperly made and seconded, the Mayor shall open the matter to full discussion offering thefirst opportunity to speak to the moving party, and thereafter, to any Councilmemberrecognized by the Mayor. Customarily, the Mayor will take the floor after all otherCouncilmembers have been given the opportunity to speak.

If a motion clearly contains divisible parts, any Councilmember may request the Mayor ormoving party divide the motion into separate motions to provide Councilmembers anopportunity for more specific consideration.

Tie Votes: Tie votes shall be lost motions. When all Councilmembers are present, a tie vote on whether to grant an appeal from official action shall be considered a denial of such appeal,unless the Council takes other action to further consider the matter.



If a tie vote results at a time when less than all members of the Council are present, the mattershall be automatically continued to the agenda of the next regular meeting of the Council,unless otherwise ordered by the Council.

11.8 Reconsideration.

A. Request for Reconsideration.

1. Request by a member of the public.

Notwithstanding Rosenberg’s Rules of Order , a request for reconsideration may bemade by a member of the public to the City Council at the next regular meeting of the City Council or at any intervening special meeting of the City Council.

2. Request by a member of the City Council.

Only a member of the City Council who voted on the prevailing side may requestreconsideration. The request may be made at the same meeting or at the next

regular meeting of the City Council or at any intervening special meeting of the City Council.

3. The member of the public or City Councilmember making the request should stateorally or in writing the reason for the request, without dwelling on the specificdetails or setting forth various arguments.

B. Motion to Reconsider Any Council Action.

1. Reconsideration at the same meeting.

A motion to reconsider an action taken by the City Council may be made at thesame meeting at which the action was taken (including an adjourned or continuedmeeting).

A motion to reconsider an action taken by the City Council may be made only by aCouncilmember who voted on the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Councilmember and is debatable.

The motion must be approved by a majority of the entire City Council.

2. Reconsideration at a subsequent meeting.

If an intent to request a motion for reconsideration is communicated to the City Council prior to the deadline for posting the City Council meeting agenda, then therequest for reconsideration may be agendized if support for said action exists inaccordance with the Council Norms Section 10.8. Otherwise, no City Councildiscussion or action on a possible reconsideration may occur unless the item isappropriately added to the agenda pursuant to Government Code section54954.2(b), which addresses adding items that are not listed on a posted agenda(urgency agenda item).



At the time such motion for reconsideration is heard, testimony shall be limited tothe facts giving rise to the motion.

C. Effect of Approval of Motion.

Upon approval of a motion to reconsider, and at such time as the matter is heard, theCity Council shall only consider any new evidence or facts not presented previously with

regard to the item or a claim of error in applying the facts.

If the motion to reconsider is made and approved at the same meeting at which theinitial action was taken and all interested persons (including applicants, owners,supporters and opponents) are still present, the matter may be reconsidered at thatmeeting or at the next regular meeting or intervening special meeting (subject to thediscretion of the maker of the motion) and no further public notice is required.

If the motion to reconsider is made and approved at the same meeting at which theinitial action was taken but all interested persons are not still present, or if the motion ismade and approved at the next regular meeting or intervening special meeting, the item

shall be scheduled for consideration at the earliest feasible City Council meeting and shallbe re-noticed in accordance with the Government Code, the City Code and the Council Norms . The Clerk shall provide notice to all interested parties as soon as possible when amatter becomes the subject of a motion to reconsider.

11.9 Discussion.

A. The discussion and deliberations at meetings of the City Council are to secure themature judgment of Councilmembers on proposals submitted for decision. Thispurpose is best served by the exchange of thought through discussion and debate.

To the extent possible, Councilmembers shall disclose any ex parte communication

prior to discussion on an item.

Discussion and deliberation are regulated by these rules in order to assure every member a reasonable and equal opportunity to be heard.

B. Obtaining the Floor for Discussion.

After the Council has commented on an issue, and a motion has been stated to theCouncil and seconded, any member of the Council has a right to discuss it afterobtaining the floor. The member obtains the floor by seeking recognition from theMayor. A member who has been recognized should limit his or her time to 3 minutes.

C. Speaking More Than Once.

To encourage the full participation of all members of the Council, no member ormembers shall be permitted to monopolize the discussion of the question. If aCouncilmember has already spoken, other Councilmembers wishing to speak shall thenbe recognized. No Councilmember shall be allowed to speak a second time until after allother Councilmembers have had an opportunity to speak.

D. Relevancy of Discussion.

All discussion must be relevant to the issue before the City Council. A Councilmemberis given the floor only for the purpose of discussing the pending question; discussion



which departs is out of order. Councilmembers shall avoid repetition and strive to movethe discussion along.

A motion, its nature, or consequences, may be attacked vigorously. It is neverpermissible to attack the motives, character, or personality of a member either directly or by innuendo or implication. It is the duty of the Mayor to instantly rule out of orderany Councilmember who engages in personal attacks. It is the motion, not its proposer,

that is subject to debate. Arguments, for or against a measure, should be stated as concisely as possible.

It is the responsibility of each Councilmember to maintain an open mind on all issuesduring discussion and deliberation.

It is not necessary for all City Councilmembers to speak or give their viewpoints if another Councilmember has already addressed their concerns.

E. Mayor’s Duties During Discussion.

The Mayor has the responsibility of controlling and expediting the discussion. A

Councilmember who has been recognized to speak on a question has a right to theundivided attention of the Council.

It is the duty of the Mayor to keep the subject clearly before the members, to rule outirrelevant discussion, and to restate the question whenever necessary.

11.10 Councilmember Respect. At all times, Councilmembers in the minority on an issue shallrespect the decision and authority of the majority.

SECTION 12. CLOSED SESSIONS

12.1 Purpose. It is the policy of the City Council to conduct its business in public to the greatestextent possible. In certain circumstances, however, state law recognizes that public discussion

jeopardizes the public interest, compromises the City’s position, and could cost the taxpayersof Los Altos financially. These Rules, therefore, provide for strict confidentiality of City Council discussion in those circumstances allowed by law. The procedures for the conduct of these meetings shall be the same as for public meetings, except that the public will beexcluded.

Prior to convening the closed session meeting, the City Clerk shall publicly announce theclosed session items and ask for public input regarding any items on the closed sessionagenda.

City Councilmembers shall keep all written materials and verbal information provided to them

in closed session in complete confidence to insure that the City’s position is notcompromised. No mention of information in these materials shall be made to anyone otherthan Councilmembers, the City Attorney or City Manager, except where authorized by amajority of the City Council.

12.2 Rule of Confidentiality. The City Council recognizes that breaches in confidentiality canseverely prejudice the City’s position in litigation, labor relations and real estate negotiations.Further, breaches of confidentiality can create a climate of distrust among Councilmembersand can harm the Council’s ability to communicate openly in closed sessions, thereby impairing the Council’s ability to perform its official duties.



The City Council further recognizes that confidentiality of discussions and documents are atthe core of a closed session. Confidentiality is essential if the closed session is to serve itspurpose. Therefore, the City Council will adhere to a strict policy of confidentiality for closedsessions.

12.3 Breach of Rule of Confidentiality. No person who attends a closed session may disclose any statements, discussions, or documents used in a closed session except where specifically

authorized by these Rules. Any authorized disclosure shall be in strict compliance with theserules and the Ralph M. Brown Act. Violation of this rule shall be considered a breach of thisrule of confidentiality.

12.4 Agenda. The City Council agenda will contain a brief general description of the items to bediscussed at the closed session.

12.5 Permissible Topics. All closed sessions will be held in strict compliance with the Ralph M.Brown Act. The City Attorney or his or her designee will advise in advance on topics thatmay be discussed in Closed Session.

12.6 Rules of Decorum.

A. The same high standard of respect and decorum as apply to public meetings shall apply to closed sessions. There shall be courtesy, respect and tolerance for all viewpoints andfor the right of Councilmembers to disagree. Councilmembers shall strive to make eachother feel comfortable and safe to express their points of view. All Councilmembershave the right to insist upon strict adherence to this rule.

B. Councilmembers may make whatever written notes they deem helpful and appropriate. All such documents are subject to these rules of confidentiality and shall be kept strictly confidential.

C. Prior to a vote, the Mayor shall ensure that the motion is clearly stated and clearly understood by all Councilmembers.

D. The Mayor shall keep the debate moving forward so that debate and a vote can occur inthe time allotted for the closed session. The Mayor will determine the order of debate ina fair manner.

12.7 Conduct of Meeting.

A. The Mayor will call the closed session to order promptly at its scheduled time.

B. The Mayor will keep discussion focused on the permissible topics.

C. The use of handouts and visual aids such as charts is encouraged to focus debate andpromote understanding of the topic. All such materials are strictly confidential.

D. If the City Council in closed session has provided direction to City staff on proposedterms and conditions for any type of negotiations, whether it be related to property acquisitions or disposal, a proposed or pending claim or litigation, or employeenegotiations, all contact with the other party will be through the designated City person(s) representing the City in the handling of the matter. A Councilmember, not sodesignated by the Council, will not under any circumstances have any contact ordiscussion with the other party or its representative concerning the matter which wasdiscussed in the closed session, and will not communicate any discussions conducted inclosed session to such party.



12.8 Public Disclosure After Final Action.

A. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that, as a body, the City Council make certain publicdisclosure of closed session decisions when those actions have become final. Accordingly, the City Council shall publicly report any final action taken in closedsession, and the vote, including abstentions, at a publicly noticed meeting as follows:

* Real Estate negotiations: After the agreement is final and accepted by the other

party;

* Litigation: After approval to defend or appeal a lawsuit or to initiate a lawsuit;

* Settlement: After final settlement of litigation or claims;

* Employees: Action taken to appoint or dismiss an employee;

* Labor relations: After the MOU is final and has been accepted by both parties.

B. The report may be oral or written. The report will state only the action taken and the vote. Unless authorized by the majority of the City Council, the report will not state the

debate or discussion that occurred. Except for the action taken and the vote, all closedsession discussions will remain confidential.

SECTION 13. DECORUM

13.1 Councilmembers. Members of the City Council value and recognize the importance of thetrust invested in them by the public to accomplish the business of the City. Councilmembersshall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to City employees, and to the public appearing before the City Council. Formal business attire is required only when Council meetings, workshops, or study sessions are held in Council Chambers and televised.

13.2 City Employees. Members of the City staff shall observe the same rules of order and decorum

applicable to the City Council. City staff shall act at all times in a business and professionalmanner towards Councilmembers and members of the public.

13.3 Public. Members of the public attending City Council meetings shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the City Council. City Code Chapter 2.05, Public Meeting Rules for Conduct, shall apply to all City Council Meetings.

13.4 Noise in the Chambers. Noise emanating from the audience, whether expressing opposition orsupport, within the Council Chambers or lobby area, which disrupts City Council meetings,shall not be permitted. All cellular phones and other consumer electronic devices shall bemuted while in the chambers. Refusal is grounds for removal.

SECTION 14. VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES

Nothing in these Norms and Procedures shall invalidate a properly noticed and acted upon action of the City Council in accordance with State Law.

This document shall remain in effect until modified by the City Council.



AMENDED AND APPROVED: October 26, 2010January 10, 2012.

_______________________________ _________________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR Jarrett Fishpaw, MAYOR PRO TEM

_______________________________ _________________________________ Ron Packard, COUNCILMEMBER David Casas, COUNCILMEMBER

_________________________________ Megan Satterlee, COUNCILMEMBER



APPENDIX A

ROSENBERG’S RULES OF ORDER



League of California Cities

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order:Simple Parliamentary

Procedures for the 21st Century



About the League of California Cities

Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a mem-ber organization that represents California’s incorporated cities.The League strives to protect the local authority and autonomy of city government and help California’s cities effectively servetheir residents. In addition to advocating on cities’ behalf at thestate capitol, the League provides its members with professionaldevelopment programs and information resources, conductseducational conferences and research, and publishes WesternCity magazine.

About Western City Magazine

Western City is the League of California Cities' monthly maga-zine. Western City provides lively, interdisciplinary analyses of issues affecting local governance. Its goal is to offer immediately practical ideas, information and bigger-picture policy issues andtrends. For more information, visit www.westerncity.com.

“Rosenberg’s Rules of Order” first appeared in Western City magazine in August and September 2003.

VISION:

To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of

California cities.

MISSION:To restore and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance

the quality of life for all Californians.

About the Author

Dave Rosenberg is an elected county supervisor representingthe 4th District in Yolo County. He also serves as director of community and intergovernmental relations, director of opera-tions, and senior advisor to the governor of California. He hasserved as a member and chair of numerous state and localboards, both appointed and elected, and also served on theDavis City Council for 12 years, including two terms as mayor.He has taught classes on parliamentary procedure and hasserved as parliamentarian for large and small governing bodies.In the fall of 2003, Gov. Davis appointed Rosenberg as a judgeof the Yolo County Superior Court.

1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 658-8200

Fax (916) 658-8240

www.cacities.org

To order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8257 or visit www.cacities.org/store.

© 2003 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.



www.cacities.org

he rules of procedure at meetingsshould be simple enough for most

people to understand. Unfortunately,that hasn’t always been the case. Virtu-ally all clubs, associations, boards, coun-cils and bodies follow a set of rules,Robert’s Rules of Order , which are em-bodied in a small but complex book.

Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover.

Worse yet, the book was written foranother time and purpose. If you arerunning the British Parliament, Robert’s Rules of Order is a dandy and quite use-ful handbook. On the other hand, if you’re running a meeting of a five-member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplifiedversion of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order. Hence, the birth

of “Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.”This publication covers the rules of parliamentary procedure based on my 20 years of experience chairing meetingsin state and local government. Theserules have been simplified and slimmeddown for 21st century meetings, yetthey retain the basic tenets of order to which we are accustomed.

“Rosenberg’s Rules of Order” are sup-ported by the following four principles:

1. Rules should establish order. Thefirst purpose of the rules of parlia-mentary procedure is to establish a

framework for the orderly conductof meetings.

2. Rules should be clear. Simple ruleslead to wider understanding andparticipation. Complex rules createtwo classes: those who understandand participate and those who donot fully understand and do notfully participate.

3. Rules should be user-friendly. Thatis, the rules must be simple enoughthat citizens feel they have been ableto participate in the process.

4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting therights of the minority. The ultimatepurpose of the rules of procedure isto encourage discussion and to facili-tate decision-making by the body. In

a democracy, the majority rules. Therules must enable the majority toexpress itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to alsoexpress itself (but not dominate) andfully participate in the process.

The Chairperson Should Take aBack Seat During Discussions

While all members of the governingbody should know and understand therules of parliamentary procedure, it isthe chairperson (chair) who is charged with applying the rules of conduct.The chair should be well versed in those

rules, because the chair, for all intentsand purposes, makes the final ruling onthe rules. In fact, all decisions by thechair are final unless overruled by thegoverning body itself.

Because the chair conducts the meeting,it is common courtesy for the chair totake a less active role than other mem-bers of the body in debates and discus-sions. This does not mean that the chairshould not participate in the debate ordiscussion. On the contrary, as a mem-ber of the body, the chair has full rightsto participate in debates, discussionsand decision-making. The chair should,however, strive to be the last to speak atthe discussion and debate stage, andshould not make or second a motionunless he or she is convinced that noother member of the body will do so.

The Basic Format for anAgenda Item Discussion

Formal meetings normally have a written,published agenda; informal meetingsmay have only an oral or understoodagenda. In either case, the meeting isgoverned by the agenda and the agendaconstitutes the body’s agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. And each agendaitem can be handled by the chair in thefollowing basic format.

First, the chair should clearly announcethe agenda item number and shouldclearly state what the subject is. Thechair should then announce the formatthat will be followed.

Second, following that agenda format,the chair should invite the appropriatepeople to report on the item, includingany recommendation they might have.The appropriate person may be thechair, a member of the governing body,

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order:Simple Parliamentary

Procedures for the21

st Century

There are exceptions to the general rule of free

and open debate on motions. The exceptions allapply when there is a desire to move on.

by Dave Rosenberg



League of California Cities2

a staff person, or a committee chaircharged with providing informationabout the agenda item.

Third, the chair should ask membersof the body if they have any technicalquestions for clarification. At this point,

members of the governing body may ask clarifying questions to the people whoreported on the item, and they shouldbe given time to respond.

Fourth, the chair should invite publiccomments or, if appropriate at a formalmeeting, open the meeting to publicinput. If numerous members of the pub-lic indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of eachpublic speaker. At the conclusion of thepublic comments, the chair should ann-

ounce that public input has concluded(or that the public hearing, as the casemay be, is closed).

Fifth, the chair should invite a motionfrom the governing body members. Thechair should announce the name of themember who makes the motion.

Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to secondthe motion. The chair should announcethe name of the member who secondsthe motion. It is normally good practice

for a motion to require a second beforeproceeding with it, to ensure that it isnot just one member of the body whois interested in a particular approach.However, a second is not an absoluterequirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and a vote on themotion even when there is no second.This is a matter left to the discretionof the chair.

Seventh, if the motion is made and sec-onded, the chair should make sure every-

one understands the motion. This isdone in one of three ways:

1. The chair can ask the maker of themotion to repeat it;

2. The chair can repeat the motion; or

3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeatthe motion.

Motions are made in a simple two-stepprocess. First, the chair recognizes themember. Second, the member makes amotion by preceding the member’sdesired approach with the words: “Imove …” A typical motion might be:

“I move that we give 10 days’ notice inthe future for all our meetings.”

The chair usually initiates the motion by:

1. Inviting the members to make amotion: “A motion at this time would be in order.”

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century

Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the “ayes” and then the “nays”is normally sufficient. If members of thebody do not vote, then they “abstain.”Unless the rules of the body provideotherwise or unless a super-majority isrequired (as delineated later in theserules), a simple majority determines whether the motion passes or is defeated.

Tenth, the chair should announce theresult of the vote and should announce what action (if any) the body has taken.In announcing the result, the chairshould indicate the names of the mem-bers, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This announcementmight take the following form: “Themotion passes by a vote of 3-2, withSmith and Jones dissenting. We havepassed the motion requiring 10 days’notice for all future meetings of this

governing body.”

Motions in General

Motions are the vehicles for decision-making. It is usually best to have a mot-ion before the governing body prior todiscussing an agenda item, to help every-one focus on the motion before them.

Eighth, the chair should now invite dis-cussion of the motion by the membersof the governing body. If there is nodesired discussion or the discussion hasended, the chair should announce thatthe body will vote on the motion. If

there has been no discussion or a very brief discussion, the vote should proceedimmediately, and there is no need to re-peat the motion. If there has been sub-stantial discussion, it is normally best tomake sure everyone understands themotion by repeating it.

2. Suggesting a motion to the members:“A motion would be in order that wegive 10-days’ notice in the future forall our meetings.”

3. Making the motion.

As noted, the chair has every right as amember of the body to make a motion,but normally should do so only if he or

she wishes a motion to be made but noother member seems willing to do so.

The Three Basic Motions

Three motions are the most common:

1. The basic motion. The basic motionis the one that puts forward a deci-sion for consideration. A basic mot-ion might be: “I move that we createa five-member committee to planand put on our annual fundraiser.”

2. The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion thatis under discussion, he or she wouldmove to amend it. A motion toamend might be: “I move that weamend the motion to have a 10-member committee.” A motion toamend takes the basic motion that isbefore the body and seeks to changeit in some way.

Debate on policy is healthy; debate on personalities

is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion

that is too personal, too loud or too crude.



www.cacities.org


3. The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away withthe basic motion under discussionand put a new motion before thegoverning body, he or she would“move a substitute motion.” A substi-

tute motion might be: “I move a sub-stitute motion that we cancel theannual fundraiser this year.”

Motions to amend and substitute mo-tions are often confused. But they arequite different, and so is their effect,if passed.

A motion to amend seeks to retain thebasic motion on the floor, but to modify it in some way.

A substitute motion seeks to throw outthe basic motion on the floor and substi-tute a new and different motion for it.

The decision as to whether a motion isreally a motion to amend or a substitutemotion is left to the chair. So that if amember makes what that member calls amotion to amend, but the chair deter-mines it is really a substitute motion, thechair’s designation governs.

When Multiple Motions Are BeforeThe Governing Body

Up to three motions may be on the floorsimultaneously. The chair may reject afourth motion until the three that are onthe floor have been resolved.

When two or three motions are on thefloor (after motions and seconds) atthe same time, the first vote should beon the last motion made. So, for exam-ple, assume the first motion is a basic“motion to have a five-member commit-tee to plan and put on our annual fund-raiser.” During the discussion of this

motion, a member might make a secondmotion to “amend the main motion tohave a 10-member committee, not afive-member committee, to plan andput on our annual fundraiser.” And per-haps, during that discussion, a membermakes yet a third motion as a “substitutemotion that we not have an annualfundraiser this year.” The proper proce-dure would be as follows.

First, the chair would deal with thethird (the last) motion on the floor, thesubstitute motion. After discussion anddebate, a vote would be taken first onthe third motion. If the substitutemotion passes , it would be a substitute

for the basic motion and would elimi-nate it. The first motion would be moot,as would the second motion (whichsought to amend the first motion), andthe action on the agenda item would becomplete. No vote would be taken onthe first or second motions. On theother hand, if the substitute motion (thethird motion) failed , the chair wouldproceed to consideration of the second(now the last) motion on the floor, themotion to amend.

If the substitute motion failed, thechair would then deal with the second(now the last) motion on the floor,the motion to amend. The discussionand debate would focus strictly on theamendment (should the committee befive or 10 members). If the motion toamend passed , the chair would now move to consider the main motion (thefirst motion) as amended . If the motionto amend failed, the chair would now move to consider the main motion(the first motion) in its original format,

not amended.

To Debate or Not to Debate

The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions toamend, and substitute motions are alleligible, each in their turn, for full dis-

cussion before and by the body. Thedebate can continue as long as membersof the body wish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the chair that it istime to move on and take action.

There are exceptions to the general ruleof free and open debate on motions. Theexceptions all apply when there is adesire of the body to move on. The fol-lowing motions are not debatable (thatis, when the following motions are madeand seconded, the chair must immedi-

ately call for a vote of the body withoutdebate on the motion):

A motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduledmeeting. This motion requires a simplemajority vote.

A motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess. Normally, the chair deter-mines the length of the recess, whichmay range from a few minutes to an

hour. It requires a simple majority vote.

The challenge for anyone chairing a public meet-

ing is to accommodate public input in a timelyand time-sensitive way, while maintaining steadyprogress through the agenda items.

Third, the chair would now deal withthe first motion that was placed on thefloor. The original motion would eitherbe in its original format (five-membercommittee) or, if amended, would be inits amended format (10-member com-mittee). And the question on the floorfor discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan andput on the annual fundraiser.

A motion to fix the time to adjourn.This motion, if passed, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specifictime set in the motion. For example, themotion might be: “I move we adjournthis meeting at midnight.” It requires asimple majority vote.

A motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agendaitem to be halted and the agenda item to




be placed on “hold.” The motion may contain a specific time in which theitem can come back to the body: “Imove we table this item until our regu-lar meeting in October.” Or the motionmay contain no specific time for the

return of the item, in which case amotion to take the item off the tableand bring it back to the body will haveto be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to bring itback to the body) requires a simplemajority vote.

A motion to limit debate. The mostcommon form of this motion is to say:“I move the previous question” or “Imove the question” or “I call for thequestion.” When a member of the body makes such a motion, the member isreally saying: “I’ve had enough debate.Let’s get on with the vote.” When sucha motion is made, the chair should ask for a second to the motion, stop debate,and vote on the motion to limit debate.The motion to limit debate requires atwo-thirds vote of the body. Note that amotion to limit debate could include atime limit. For example: “I move welimit debate on this agenda item to15 minutes.” Even in this format, the

the motion fails. If one member is ab-sent and the vote is 3-3, the motionstill fails.

All motions require a simple majority,but there are a few exceptions. Theexceptions occur when the body is

taking an action that effectively cutsoff the ability of a minority of the body to take an action or discuss an item.These extraordinary motions require atwo-thirds majority (a super-majority)to pass:

Motion to limit debate. Whether amember says, “I move the previousquestion,” “I move the question,” “Icall for the question” or “I move to limitdebate,” it all amounts to an attempt tocut off the ability of the minority to dis-

cuss an item, and it requires a two-thirdsvote to pass.

Motion to close nominations. Whenchoosing officers of the body, such as thechair, nominations are in order eitherfrom a nominating committee or fromthe floor of the body. A motion to closenominations effectively cuts off the rightof the minority to nominate officers,and it requires a two-thirds voteto pass.

pend the rules for a particular purpose.For example, the body (a private club)might have a rule prohibiting the atten-dance at meetings by non-club mem-bers. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non-club

member to attend a meeting of the clubon a particular date or on a particularagenda item.

The Motion to Reconsider

There is a special and unique motionthat requires a bit of explanation all by itself: the motion to reconsider. A tenetof parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate anda vote, there must be some closure tothe issue. And so, after a vote is taken,the matter is deemed closed, subjectonly to reopening if a proper motionto reconsider is made.

A motion to reconsider requires amajority vote to pass, but there aretwo special rules that apply only tothe motion to reconsider.

First is the matter of timing. A motionto reconsider must be made at the meet-ing where the item was first voted uponor at the very next meeting of the body. A motion to reconsider made at a later

time is untimely. (The body, however,can always vote to suspend the rulesand, by a two-thirds majority, allow amotion to reconsider to be made atanother time.)

Second, a motion to reconsider may bemade only by certain members of thebody. Accordingly, a motion to recon-sider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the origi-nal motion. If such a member has achange of heart, he or she may make the

motion to reconsider (any other mem-ber of the body may second the motion).If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider,it must be ruled out of order. The pur-pose of this rule is finality. If a memberof the minority could make a motion toreconsider, then the item could bebrought back to the body again andagain, which would defeat the purposeof finality.


motion to limit debate requires a two-thirds vote of the body. A similar mot-ion is a motion to object to considerationof an item. This motion is not debatable,

and if passed, precludes the body fromeven considering an item on the agenda.It also requires a two-thirds vote.

Majority and Super-Majority Votes

In a democracy, decisions are made witha simple majority vote. A tie vote meansthe motion fails. So in a seven-memberbody, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. A vote of 3-3 with one abstention means

Motion to object to the considerationof a question. Normally, such a motionis unnecessary, because the objectionableitem can be tabled or defeated straight

up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agendato be considered, then such a motionis in order. It is not debatable, and itrequires a two-thirds vote to pass.

Motion to suspend the rules. Thismotion is debatable, but requires a two-thirds vote to pass. If the body has itsown rules of order, conduct or proce-dure, this motion allows the body to sus-

If you are running the British Parliament,Robert’s Rules of Order is a dandy and quite

useful handbook.



www.cacities.org

If the motion to reconsider passes, thenthe original matter is back before thebody, and a new original motion is inorder. The matter may be discussed anddebated as if it were on the floor for thefirst time.

Courtesy and Decorum

The rules of order are meant to createan atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the publiccan attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. And at thesame time, it is up to the chair and themembers of the body to maintain com-mon courtesy and decorum. Unless thesetting is very informal, it is always bestfor only one person at a time to havethe floor, and it is always best for every

lege relate to anything that would inter-fere with the normal comfort of themeeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowingfan might interfere with a person’sability to hear.

Order. The proper interruption wouldbe: “Point of order.” Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to “state yourpoint.” Appropriate points of order

Withdraw a motion. During debateand discussion of a motion, the makerof the motion on the floor, at any time,may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. Themotion is immediately deemed with-drawn, although the chair may ask theperson who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion,and any other member may make the

motion if properly recognized.

Special Notes About Public Input

The rules outlined here help make meet-ings very public-friendly. But in addi-tion, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules thatapply to each agenda item:

Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing.

Rule Two: Keep the public informed

while the body is doing it.Rule Three: When the body has acted,tell the public what the body did.

Public input is essential to a healthy democracy, and community participa-tion in public meetings is an importantelement of that input. The challenge foranyone chairing a public meeting is toaccommodate public input in a timely and time-sensitive way, while maintain-ing steady progress through the agendaitems. The rules presented here for con-

ducting a meeting are offered as tools foreffective leadership and as a means of developing sound public policy. ■


It is usually best to have a motion before the gov-

erning body prior to discussing an agenda item,to help everyone focus.

Motions to amend and substitute motions areoften confused. But they are quite different, and

so is their effect, if passed.

speaker to be first recognized by thechair before proceeding to speak.

The chair should always ensure thatdebate and discussion of an agenda itemfocus on the item and the policy in ques-tion, not on the personalities of themembers of the body. Debate on policy is healthy; debate on personalities is not.The chair has the right to cut off discus-sion that is too personal, too loud ortoo crude.

Debate and discussion should be fo-cused, but free and open. In the interestof time, the chair may, however, limit

the time allotted to speakers, includingmembers of the body. Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? Thegeneral rule is no. There are, however,exceptions. A speaker may be interrupt-ed for the following reasons:

Privilege. The proper interruption would be: “Point of privilege.” The chair would then ask the interrupter to “stateyour point.” Appropriate points of privi-

relate to anything that would not beconsidered appropriate conduct of the

meeting; for example, if the chair movedon to a vote on a motion that permitsdebate without allowing that discussionor debate.

Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling thata member of the body disagrees with,that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded andafter debate, if it passes by a simplemajority vote, then the ruling of thechair is deemed reversed.

Call for orders of the day. This is sim-

ply another way of saying, “Let’s returnto the agenda.” If a member believes thatthe body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a call may be made.It does not require a vote, and when thechair discovers that the agenda has notbeen followed, the chair simply remindsthe body to return to the agenda itemproperly before them. If the chair failsto do so, the chair’s determination may be appealed.



Excerpt from Council Norms and Procedures

11.2 Rules of Order. The City Council adopts no specific rules of order except those listed herein. The City Council shall refer to Rosenberg’s Rules of Order , as a guide for the conduct of meetings, with the following modifications:

1. A motion is not required prior to a general discussion on an agenda item. A pre-motion discussion allows the members to share their thoughts on the agendizeditem so that a motion can more easily be made that takes into account whatappears to be the majority position.



4. A motion to amend may still be used.




1400 K Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 658-8200

Fax (916) 658-8240

www.cacities.org

SKU 1533

$5.00

To order additional copies of this

publication, call (916) 658-8257 or

visit www.cacities.org/store.

© 2003 League of California Cities.

All rights reserved.

This publication is printed on recycled paper



Los Altos City Council Addendums to Rosenburg’s Rules of Order

1. A motion is not required prior to a general discussion on an agenda item. Apre-motion discussion allows the members to share their thoughts on the

agendized item so that a motion can more easily be made that takes into account what appears to be the majority position.



4. A motion to amend may still be used





TO: City Council


SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.010 – Meetings

RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2012-376amending Section 2.04.010 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as it relates to Council meetings.

SUMMARY :


Amount: None

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: December 13, 2011

CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. Ordinance No. 2012-376





January 10, 2012Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.010 – Meetings Page 2

BACKGROUND:

On December 13, 2011, the City Council considered the Council Meeting Schedule for 2012.During the discussion, Councilmember Satterlee noted that the practice of establishing dates

for meetings other than regular meetings did not appear to conform to Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code. In addition, she pointed out that there is no provision for cancelling meetings. The code section currently reads:

“2.04.010 – Meetings.

The council shall hold its regular meetings in the community meeting chambers located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California on thesecond and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The council may establish other dates, times and locations for its meetings by resolution.” (Emphasis added)

The Council unanimously directed staff to bring back the 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule for approval by resolution and to consider modifications to Section 2.04.010 of theMunicipal Code as it relates to establishing other dates, times and locations for Councilmeetings.

DISCUSSION:

A resolution has been prepared for Council adoption establishing the Council Meeting Schedule for 2012 as a separate agenda item. The attached draft ordinance amends Section2.04.010 to read, as follows:

“2.04.010 – Meetings.

The council shall hold its regular meetings in the community meeting chamberslocated at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California on the second andfourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. A special meeting of the City Council may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by a majority of the members of the City Council, in accordance with State law. Any meeting of the City Council may be cancelled in advance by majority vote of the Council. The Mayor may cancel a meeting in the case of an emergency or when a majority of members have confirmed in writing their unavailability to attend a meeting.” (Emphasis added)

The recommended amendments are intended to eliminate the requirement to adopt aresolution every year establishing the Council meeting schedule and add standard language

consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act providing for the call and cancellation of meetings. This modification will provide the Council with the flexibility to add meeting dates, otherthan regular meetings (special meetings or study sessions), as well as cancel meetings, if necessary, without the unnecessary requirement to return to Council for formal approval by resolution. It also assures the public that meetings will be called and noticed pursuant toState law.



January 10, 2012Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.010 – Meetings Page 3

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Make no change to the Municipal Code and adopt annually a resolution establishing theCouncil meeting schedule for the year. Taking no action to amend the Code in this mattercauses an additional requirement for formal Council action whenever the meeting schedule isproposed to be changed.



ORDINANCE NO. 2012-376

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFLOS ALTOS AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010 OF THE LOS ALTOSMUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO COUNCIL MEETINGS

WHEREAS, at the first regular meeting in January of each year, the City Council typically approves the schedule of meetings for the calendar year, which in addition to the regular meeting schedule may include the cancellation of regular meetings and the addition of special meetings andstudy sessions; and

WHEREAS, there currently exists a conflict between the Municipal Code and the CouncilNorms and Procedures as it relates to establishing the Council Meeting Schedule; and

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2011, the City Council provided direction to Staff to return tothe City Council with an ordinance for consideration amending the Municipal Code to remedy theconflict; and

WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain asfollows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Chapter 2.04 is hereby amended torevise Section 2.04.010, to read as follows:

“2.04.010 – Meetings.

The council shall hold its regular meetings in the community meeting chamberslocated at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California on the second andfourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. A special meeting of the City Council may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by a majority of the members of the City Council, in accordance with State law. Any meeting of the City Council may becancelled in advance by majority vote of the Council. The Mayor may cancel a meeting in the case of an emergency or when a majority of members have confirmed in writing their unavailability to attend a meeting.”

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause orphrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall notaffect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.

SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall be published as provided inGovernment Code section 36933.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon thecommencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.

Ordinance No. 2012-376 1



Ordinance No. 2012-376 2

The foregoing ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on January 10, 2012 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ____________, 2012 passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

___________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR

Attest:

_______________________ Lee Price, MMC, CITY CLERK





TO: City Council


SUBJECT: 2012 Council Meeting Schedule

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2012-01 approving the 2012 Council Meeting Schedule.

SUMMARY :


Amount: None

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: December 13, 2011

CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2012-01





January 10, 20122012 Council Meeting SchedulePage 2

BACKGROUND:

As noted in a related item (see Agenda Item #6), the City Council continued from theDecember 13, 2011 meeting the approval of the Council Meeting Schedule for 2012,

pending the adoption of a resolution.

DISCUSSION:

A resolution has been prepared for Council adoption establishing the Council Meeting Schedule for 2012 and is attached. The schedule has been revised to delete the reference tothe December 13, 2011 regular meeting and changes the date for interviews of the City Manager finalists from January 17, 2012 to January 31, 2012.

If the Council adopts the ordinance amending Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code(Agenda Item #6) and eliminates the need to annually approve the Council meeting

schedule, no further formal Council approval will be necessary to make additional changes tothe schedule. If however, the Council chooses to not amend the Code, any changes to themeeting schedule will need to come back to Council for formal approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Modify the schedule and/or provide any further direction to staff, as appropriate.



RESOLUTION NO. 2012-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

APPROVING THE COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2012

WHEREAS, the Council Meeting Schedule for 2012 (attached as Exhibit A)establishes the dates for regular meetings for the year, proposes the cancellation of someregular meetings and sets dates for special meetings and study sessions; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 2.04.010 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, the City Council is required to establish meeting dates other than regular meetings by resolution.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby approve the Council Meeting Schedule for 2012.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of aResolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 10th day of January, 2012 by the following vote:


___________________________

Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR Attest:




RESOLUTION NO. 2012-01EXHIBIT A

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2012

January 10, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting January 24, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting February 14, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting February 28, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting March 13, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting March 27, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting April 10, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting April 24, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting May 8, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting May 22, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting June 12, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting June 26, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting

July 24, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting August 28, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting September 11, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting September 25, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting October 9, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting October 23, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting November 13, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting December 11, 2012 – Regular City Council Meeting

The proposed schedule includes cancelling the first regular meetings in July and August andthe second regular meetings in November and December. The Council Reorganization

meeting that is typically held at the end of November is proposed to be held on December 4,2012. This is 28 days after the November 6, 2012 City Council election which is required tocertify the results of the election.

Further, the following special meetings have been proposed:

January 31, 2012 – City Manager Finalist Interviews (tentative)February 7, 2012 – Interview applicants for Commissions and Committees for terms to

begin March 2012 (appointments to be made on February 14, 2012) April 3 and May 1, 2012 – Annual 45-minute meetings with Commissions

(Environmental/Financial/Historical/Library; Parks and

Recreation/Planning/Senior/Traffic)May 15, 2012 – Annual Commission and Committee Training (Personnel Committee) June 5, 2012 – Budget Study Session (if needed)September 18, 2012 – Annual meetings with Public Arts Commission, Youth Commission

and Grant Writing Committee

In March, the City Council will hold closed sessions to perform the annual review of the City Attorney. On May 29, 2012, the City Council Personnel Committee will interview candidates for the Youth Commission for appointment at the June 12, 2012 regular meeting.





TO: City Council

FROM: Zachary Dahl, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendments

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2012-375 amending various chapters of Title

14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code as it pertains to zoning.

SUMMARY :


Amount: Not Applicable

Budgeted: Not Applicable

Public Hearing Notice: December 21, 2011


CEQA Status: Exempt

Attachments:

1. Ordinance No. 2012-3752. Planning Commission Minutes, November 17, 20113. Planning Commission Memorandum, November 17, 2011

James Walgren, Assistant City Manager Date




January 10, 2012Zoning Ordinance AmendmentsPage 2

BACKGROUND:

On November 17, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the

above-listed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Commission expressed general supportfor a majority of the amendments and voted unanimously to recommend approval for all buttwo of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments.

With regard to the proposed amendment requiring a minimum setback for garages locatedon narrow corner lots, a commissioner raised a concern about negatively impacting already constrained lots. Following the discussion, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommendapproval of the proposed amendment.

With regard to the proposed amendment to include carports as gross floor area, severalcommissioners raised concerns, noting that this could create properties with non-

conforming floor areas. Commissioners in support of the proposed amendment noted thatit was necessary in order to prevent property owners from converting garages to carports inorder to gain more habitable floor area. The Commission discussed differentiating betweencarports, which are for the storage of vehicles, and similar structures such as porte cocheres,noting that only carports should be counted as floor area. Following the discussion, theCommission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment with theinclusion of a definition for porte cocheres to ensure that they were not included as grossfloor area. The Planning Commission minutes are included in Attachment 2.

The Planning Commission Memorandum, which provides a context and discussion for eachof the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, is also attached (Attachment 3).

DISCUSSION:

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, if adopted, will amend Title 14 of theMunicipal Code, as follows:

1. Chapter 14.02 of Title 14 pertaining to updating definitions for cul-de-sac, gross floorarea, porte cochere and residential care homes;

2. Chapter 14.04 of Title 14 pertaining to removing old district references;3. Chapters 14.06, 14.08, 14.10 and 14.12 of Title 14 pertaining to clarifying accessory

structure setbacks in single-family districts;4. Chapters 14.06 and 14.22 of Title 14 pertaining to requiring a minimum setback for

garages on narrow corner lots;5. Chapter 14.48 of Title 14 pertaining to restricting daycare uses on the ground floor of

buildings on First Street in the CRS District;6. Chapter 14.66 of Title 14 pertaining to a minimum clearance in side yards; and7. Chapter 14.74 of Title 14 pertaining to requiring visitor parking for multiple-family

development and defining net square footage for the purpose of parking requirements.



January 10, 2012Zoning Ordinance AmendmentsPage 3

As recommended by the Planning Commission, to ensure that only carports used for thestorage of vehicles are counted as gross floor area, a definition for a “porte cochere” isincluded as part of the Zoning Ordinance amendments (Section 1 in Ordinance No. 2012-

375 ).

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are in the best interest for the protection andpromotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity and welfare of theCity and are in conformance with the Los Altos General Plan.



Ordinance No. 2012-375 Page 1

ORDINANCE NO. 2012-375

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING CHAPTERS 14.02, 14.04, 14.06, 14.08, 14.10, 14.12,

14.22, 14.48, 14.66 AND 14.74 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos initiated an application (11-CA-03) to amend Title 14 of the Los Altos Municipal Code pertaining to updating definitions for cul-de-sac, gross floor area,porte cochere and residential care homes, removing old district references, clarifying accessory structure setbacks in single-family districts, requiring a minimum setback for garages on narrow corner lots, restricting daycare uses on the ground floor of buildings on First Street in the CRSDistrict, requiring a minimum clearance in side yards, requiring visitor parking for multiple-family development and defining net square footage for the purpose of parking requirements, referredherein as the “CA”; and

WHEREAS, said CA has been reviewed and considered by the City Council in accordance

with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, andthe guidelines promulgated thereunder, and Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that thereare no significant environmental impacts on the environment resulting from these amendments andsaid amendments are therefore exempt from the requirements of the CEQA; and

WHEREAS, required public notices and public hearings were duly given and duly heldaccording to law; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the CA onNovember 17, 2011 and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the CA on January 10, 2012; and

WHEREAS, the CA was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of theCalifornia Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials whichconstitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council’s decision is based in the Office of theCity Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain asfollows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Portions of Section 14.02.070 of Chapter14.02 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Definitions” are hereby amended as follows:

“Cul-de-sac” means any street having but one outlet for vehicular traffic.“Gross floor area” means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts,ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, interior courts, garages, and enclosedaccessory structures, and carports. In the case of a sloped ceiling or ground surface, the floorarea shall be measured to the point at which the interior height is five feet.




“Gross floor area” does not include: porches, verandas, balconies, alcoves, or other similarelements, which are open on at least one side; basements or attic areas; unenclosed accessory structures; exterior roof overhangs or chimney projections; porte cocheres; interior heightsless than five feet; or structures under six feet in height.“Porte cochere” means a roofed structure covering a driveway that is not designed for the

storage of automobiles.“Residential care home for aged persons” means a structure in which nonmedical servicesare provided for persons sixty-two (62) (60) years of age and over in accordance withstandards set forth by the Social Welfare Department of the state. California Health andSafety Code Section 1569.2.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.04.010 of Chapter 14.04 of theLos Altos Municipal Code entitled “Districts” is hereby amended as follows:

Districts. The districts established by this chapter shall be designated as follows: A. Single-Family District (R1-10);

B. Single-Family District (R1-H);C. Single-Family District (R1-20);D. Single-Family District (R1-40);E. Single-Story Single-Family Overlay District (R1-S);F. Multiple-Family District (R3-4.5);G. Multiple-Family District (R3-5);H. Multiple-Family District (R3-3);I. Multiple-Family District (R3.1.8); J. Multiple-Family District (R3-1);K. Office-Administrative District (OAD);K. Office-Administrative District (OA);

L. Office-Administrative District (OA-1 and OA-4.5);M. Office Multiple District (OAD/R3-1); Commercial Downtown/Multiple-Family District

(CD/R3);N. Commercial Neighborhood District (CN);P. Commercial District (CN-T);O. Commercial Downtown District (CD);P. Commercial Retail Sales District (CRS);Q. Commercial Thoroughfare District (CT); T. Affordable Housing/Mixed-Use Overlay District Regulations (AH/MV);R. Commercial Retail Sales/Office District (CRS/OAD);S. Public and Community Facilities District (PCF);

T. Public and Community Facilities/Single-Family District (PCF/R1-10);U. Planned Community (PC); V. Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay District (LCSPZ); and W. Planned Unit Development (PUD). W. Planned Unit Development/Senior Citizen Housing. The city is divided into districts in which certain uses are permitted. The districts are asshown on the zoning map of the city which is incorporated in this chapter by reference.

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/




SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A portion of Section 14.06.120 of Chapter14.06, Section 14.08.120 of Chapter 14.08, Section 14.10.120 of Chapter 14.10 and Section 14.12.120of Chapter 14.12 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Accessory structures, outdoorbarbeques and swimming pools” is hereby amended as follows:

B. Accessory structures that are more than six feet in height may be located in the requiredrear yard setback area or in the main structure's building envelope, subject to thefollowing provisions:

1. Accessory structures shall have a minimum setback of two and one-half feet from theside and rear property line and a minimum setback from the rear property line asfollows:

i. Two and one-half feet when the structure is under eight feet in height;ii. Five feet when the structure is between eight and ten (10) feet in height;iii. Seven and one-half feet when the structure is between ten (10) and twelve (12) feet in

height; andiv. Two and one-half feet when the rear property line abuts an alley.2. No portion of any accessory structure shall project above a daylight plane, beginning at a

height of six feet at the side property line and increasing at a slope of four feet for eachten (10) feet of distance from the side property line to a distance of ten (10) feet fromthe side property line.

3. The maximum allowable height for accessory structures shall be twelve (12) feet. asfollows:

i. Eight feet in height when located within five feet of a rear property line.ii. Ten (10) feet in height when located within seven and one-half feet of a rear property

line.iii. Twelve (12) feet in height when located a minimum of seven and one-half feet from a

rear property line, or two and one-half feet from a rear property line that abuts an alley.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A portion of Section 14.06.080 of Chapter14.06 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Setbacks (R1-10)” is hereby amended as follows:

E. On a lot less than eighty (80) feet in width, or in the case of a corner lot less than ninety (90) feet in width (hereinafter referred to as "narrow" lots), the minimum width of sideyards shall be as follows:

1. On a narrow corner lot, the minimum width of the side yard adjoining the street shall betwenty (20) percent of the average lot width but in no case less than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater. The minimum interior side yard setback for corner lots greater thaneighty (80) feet in width shall be as provided in subsection A of this section. Theminimum interior side yard setback for corner lots less than eighty (80) feet in width

shall be as provided in subsection (E)(2) of this section. For a garage or carport facing anexterior side yard, the minimum setback to the face of the structure shall be eighteen(18) feet.

SECTION 5. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.22.070 of Chapter 14.22 of theLos Altos Municipal Code entitled “Side yards (R3-1.8)” is hereby amended as follows:

Side yards (R3-1.8). The minimum width of side yards shall be seven and one-half feet, except that on a cornerlot, the minimum width of the side yard adjoining the street shall be fifteen (15) feet. Five

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/




feet shall be added to each side yard for each story above the first story or for each ten (10)feet of height, or fraction thereof, above the lowest twelve (12) feet of the height of thestructure, whichever is the lesser, except on the secondary setback on a corner lot. When agarage or carport faces a side yard adjoining a street, the minimum setback to the face of thestructure shall be eighteen (18) feet. Where R3-1.8 District property abuts on R1-10 District

property, the minimum side yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet for one-story structures, of which the ten (10) feet abutting the property in the R1-10 District shall have a six-foot solidfence or wall outside a planting screen of evergreen trees or bushes of a variety, height, andspacing as approved by the building and planning department, all of which shall bepermanently maintained by the property owner. Such ten (10) foot planting strip shall beused exclusively for landscaping purposes.

SECTION 6. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Portions of Section 14.48.040 of Chapter14.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Conditional uses and structures (CRS)” are hereby amended as follows:

Conditional uses and structures (CRS).

Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of thistitle, the following uses shall be permitted in the CRS District, except when they displace aretail business located in a ground floor building space that fronts directly onto First Street,Main Street or State Street:D. Day care centers, except when located in a ground floor building space that fronts

directly onto First Street, Main Street or State Street;

SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.66.190 of Chapter 14.66 of theLos Altos Municipal Code entitled “Distances between structures” is hereby amended as follows:

Distances between structures.

Where there is more than one structure on a site, the minimum distance between a mainstructure and an accessory structure which exceeds six feet in height shall be ten (10) feet;provided, however, if the open spaces surrounding the accessory structure conform with theregulations for the main structure in the district in which they are located, the accessory structure may be located nearer than ten (10) feet from the main structure. No minimumdistance shall be required between main structures, between accessory structures, or betweena main structure and an accessory structure which does not exceed six feet in height;provided, however, in no case shall there be less than a five-foot wide unobstructedpassageway adjacent to a main structure or an accessory structure. For the purposes of thissection, the vertical dimension of the structure shall be measured from the elevation of thefinished lot grade to the highest point of the structure.

SECTION 8. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.020 of Chapter 14.74 of theLos Altos Municipal Code entitled “R1-10 District requirements” is hereby deleted.

R1-10 District requirements.Not less than one garage or carport, plus one parking space for each single-family residence,plus one parking space for each roomer, shall be required.

http://void%280%29/

http://library.municode.com/HTML/16460/level3/SUHITA_TIT14ZO_CH14.80USPE.html#SUHITA_TIT14ZO_CH14.80USPE

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://library.municode.com/HTML/16460/level3/SUHITA_TIT14ZO_CH14.80USPE.html#SUHITA_TIT14ZO_CH14.80USPE

http://void%280%29/




SECTION 9. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.070 of Chapter 14.74 of theLos Altos Municipal Code entitled “R3-1 District requirements” is hereby amended as follows:

R3-1 District requirements. A. There shall be two underground off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a

multiple-family dwelling or apartment house having two rooms or more in addition tothe kitchens and bathrooms.B. There shall be one and one-half underground off-street parking spaces for each dwelling

unit in a multiple-family dwelling or apartment house having less than two rooms inaddition to the kitchens and bathrooms.

C. Projects with a site area less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet may provide up toa maximum of one-half of the required parking above-ground. The proposed parking plan shall be subject to the approval of the commission and council.

D. One on-site visitor space shall be required for every four multiple-family residentialdwelling units or fraction thereof.

SECTION 10. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.080 of Chapter 14.74 of the

Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Residential uses in CN, CS, CD, CRS and CT districts” is hereby amended as follows:

Residential uses in CN, CS, CD, CD/R3, CRS/OAD, CRS and CT Districts. For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall berequired for the gross net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percentof the lot area. Parking shall be required as follows for any gross net square footage in excessof one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did notparticipate in a public parking district: A. There shall be two off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a multiple-family

dwelling or apartment house having two rooms or more in addition to the kitchens and

bathrooms.B. There shall be one and one-half off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a

multiple-family dwelling or apartment house having less than two rooms in addition tothe kitchens and bathrooms.

C. One on-site visitor space shall be required for every four multiple-family residentialdwelling units or fraction thereof. Mixed use projects may substitute non-residentialparking spaces for visitor use in-lieu of providing dedicated visitor parking spaces,subject to approval of the commission and council.

SECTION 11. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.090 of Chapter 14.74 of the

Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Office uses in the OA-1, OA-4.5 and CN district” is hereby deleted.

Office uses in OA-1, OA-4.5 and CN Districts.Parking space requirements shall be not less than one parking space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross square footage. For the purposes of this section, "gross squarefootage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures.

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/




SECTION 12. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 14.74.100 of Chapter 14.74 of theLos Altos Municipal Code entitled “Office uses in OAD, OA, CS, CD, CRS and CT districts” ishereby amended as follows:

Office uses in CRS/OAD, OA, CS, CN, CD, CD/R3, CRS and CT Districts.

For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall berequired for the gross net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percentof the lot area. Parking shall be required for any gross net square footage in excess of onehundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did not participate in apublic parking district and shall be not less than one parking space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross net floor area. For the purposes of this section, "gross squarefootage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures.

SECTION 13. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A portion of Section 14.74.110 of Chapter14.74 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Commercial uses in OAD, OA, CN, CS, CD, CRSand CT districts” is hereby amended as follows:

Commercial uses in CRS/OAD, OA, CN, CS, CD, CD/R3, CRS and CT Districts.For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall berequired for the gross net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percentof the lot area. Parking shall be required as follows for any gross net square footage in excessof one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did notparticipate in a public parking district. For the purposes of this section, "gross squarefootage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures. A. For intensive retail uses and personal services, not less than one parking space for each

two hundred (200) square feet of gross net floor area;

B. For extensive retail uses, not less than one parking space for each five hundred (500)square feet of gross net floor area;

SECTION 14. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A subsection of Section 14.74.200 of Chapter 14.74 of the Los Altos Municipal Code entitled “Development standards for off-street parking and truck loading spaces” is hereby amended as follows:

Q. For the purposes of this section, “net square footage” shall mean the total horizontalarea in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of innercourts or shaft enclosures.

SECTION 15. FINDINGS. The City Council finds in accordance with Chapter 14.86 of the Los Altos Municipal Code that the amendment is in the best interest of the City for theprotection and/or promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity and welfare; and that the amendment is in conformance with the City of Los Altos General Plan.

SECTION 16. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause orphrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall notaffect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/

http://void%280%29/




SECTION 17. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall be published as provided inGovernment Code section 36933.

SECTION 18. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon thecommencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.

The foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City Councilof the City of Los Altos on January 10, 2012 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___,2012 passed and adopted by the following vote:


_____________________________ Valorie Cook Carpenter, MAYOR

Attest:






TO: City Council

FROM: Valorie Cook Carpenter, MayorRonald D. Packard, Councilmember

SUBJECT: Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the agenda report and direct the Council ad hoc subcommitteeaccordingly.

SUMMARY :


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A


Previous Council Consideration: November 8, 2011

CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. Carpenter and Packard Report dated December 15, 2011 2. Schmitz Agenda Report dated November 8, 2011




January 10, 2012Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and BPAC Meeting Page 2

BACKGROUND:

During the November 8, 2011 Council meeting, Council discussed the attached

recommendation from the City Manager to consider creating a Planning and TransportationCommission, appointed an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of then-Mayor Packard andMayor Pro Tem Carpenter, and authorized them to meet with the Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to furtherdiscuss the alternatives/options, then report back to the entire Council.

The Council ad hoc subcommittee met with the Planning Commission, Traffic Commission,and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on December 15, 2011 to discussthe attached possible recommendation. Participating in the meeting were six of sevenPlanning Commissioners, four of six Traffic Commissioners, and five of seven BPACmembers. Mayor Carpenter and Councilman Packard subsequently met either individually

or together with three Planning Commissioners.

DISCUSSION:

1. There was little support among the current commissioners and committee membersfor replacing the Planning Commission and the Traffic Commission with a Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC). The major concern was the potentialdifficulty of finding City of Los Altos residents with interest in and expertise intraffic issues for this body, with the possible result that traffic issues – the #1concern of Los Altos residents – would receive less attention than under the currentstructure. Staff and the Council subcommittee believe that this concern could beaddressed in several ways, such as formal training in traffic issues for Planning

Commissioners, and/or striving to recruit and appoint at least one P&TC member with expertise in traffic issues, similar to the current approach to recruiting andappointing an architect to the Planning Commission.

2. There was considerable support for eliminating the Board of Adjustments andadding responsibility for reviewing variance requests to land use regulations such assite area, setbacks, coverage, yards and other open spaces, height of structures, andfences to the Architecture & Site Review Committee and the Planning Commission.

3. There was also support for limiting the Architectural & Site Review Committee toreview of all two-story single-family residential design applications and variance

requests, as well as any one-story single-family residential design applications and variance requests referred to it by staff.

4. There was little support for creating a separate Design Review Commission. Analternative that was suggested was to have the full Planning Commission review commercial and multi-family design applications and variance requests with anarchitect, ideally a resident of Los Altos but not a member of the Planning Commission, under contract with the City to work with developers early in the



January 10, 2012Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and BPAC Meeting Page 3

design process. In this scenario, a commercial or multi-family project would comebefore the Planning Commission in a two-step process, the first for design review and the second for other issues such as parking, traffic, etc.

5. There was strong support for having the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee(BPAC) continue to report directly to the Traffic Commission, with responsibility for bicycle and pedestrian matters including ADA improvements, Safe Routes toSchool grant applications, the Bicycle Master Plan, the Pedestrian Master Plan, andreview of relevant capital projects. The City Attorney continues to recommend thatBPAC be comprised of City of Los Altos residents not serving on the TrafficCommission. The following changes are therefore recommended: (1) that Councilappoint seven BPAC members, none of which are current Traffic Commissioners, tostaggered four-year terms, and meet with BPAC once a year; and (2) put in place apractice of having a non-voting Traffic Commissioner attend BPAC meetings and a

non-voting BPAC member attend Traffic Commission meetings.

6. Additional recommendations included putting in place a practice to have BPAC andthe Traffic Commission write reports to accompany action minutes when they review/make recommendations on projects, and encouraging BPAC and the TrafficCommission to have non-voting representatives at Planning Commission meetings.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council could decide to maintain the current structure of the Planning Commission, TrafficCommission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, or to restructure theseorganizations in some other way. The membership of the BPAC could also include one to

two members of the P&TC or Traffic Commission.




MEETING DATE: December 15, 2011

TO: Planning Commission, Traffic Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

FROM: Mayor Carpenter and Councilmember Packard

SUBJECT: Possible Recommendation to Restructure Planning Commission, Traffic Commissionand Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

RECOMMENDATION: Restructure the Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, andBicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND:

During the November 8, 2011 Council meeting, Council discussed the attached recommendationfrom the City Manager to consider creating a Planning and Transportation Commission, appointedan ad hoc subcommittee comprised of Mayor Packard and Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter, andauthorized them to meet with the Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Bicycle andPedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to further discuss the alternatives/options, then reportback to the entire Council. This recommendation from the subcommittee is provided as additional

background for this discussion.

POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation to:

1. Replace the Planning Commission and the Traffic Commission with a Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) reporting directly to the Los Altos City Council,comprised of 7 City of Los Altos residents appointed by Council to staggered 4-year terms, with responsibility for reviewing commercial and multiple-family design applications and variance requests*, use permits, subdivisions, CEQA/traffic impact analyses, general plan,zoning ordinance, neighborhood traffic management program, and capital projects; decisionsof the P&TC would be appealable to Council

2. Create a Design Review Commission (DRC) reporting directly to the Los Altos City Council,comprised of 5 City of Los Altos residents appointed by Council to staggered 4-year terms, with responsibility for reviewing all two-story residential design applications and variancerequests* as well as any one-story residential design applications and variance requests*referred to it by staff; decisions of the DRC would be appealable to Council

ATTACHMENT 1



December 15, 2011Possible Recommendation to Restructure Planning, Traffic and BPACPage 2

3. Disband the Board of Adjustments and Architecture and Site Review(A&SR)

subcommittees of the Planning Commission

4. Restructure the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to reportdirectly to the Planning and Transportation Commission, comprised of 7 City of Los Altos residents not serving on the P&TC, appointed by Council to staggered 4-yearterms, with responsibility for bicycle and pedestrian matters including ADAimprovements, Safe Routes to School grant applications, the Bicycle Master Plan, thePedestrian Master Plan, and review of relevant capital projects

* to land use regulations such as site area, setbacks, coverage, yards and other openspaces, height of structures, and fences

It is also recommended that: (1) the current terms of all sitting members be deemedconcluded with the understanding that members may apply to the new commission(s) andBPAC, and (2) that Council may solicit new applications.

DISCUSSION

The recommended structure:

1. unifies the land use, planning and transportation roles for major projects

2. avoids contradictory development review recommendations resulting from two

separate commissions – Planning and Traffic – being tasked with similarresponsibilities

3. creates a more efficient and timely review process for applicants with major projectsas well as for applicants with single-family residential projects

4. streamlines the current structure of two commissions and three committees – A &SR, Board of Adjustments, and BPAC – into a more efficient organizationalstructure

5. continues to focus attention on bicycle and pedestrian matters

6. avoids the concern expressed by the City Attorney regarding commission liaisons tocommittees voting on items twice, once at the committee level and again at thecommission level

7. provides more points of view on extremely important A&SR decisions

8. results in more effective organizations that foster and maintain Los Altos as a greatplace to live and to raise a family



December 15, 2011Possible Recommendation to Restructure Planning, Traffic and BPACPage 3

9. is more consistent with some of the best practices of other communities

ALTERNATIVES

Council could decide to maintain the current structure of the Planning Commission, TrafficCommission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, or to restructure theseorganizations in some other way. The membership of the BPAC could also include 1-2members of the P&TC.

ATTACHMENT

November 8, 2011 Planning and Transportation Commission agenda report with revised Attachment 1




MEETING DATE: November 8, 2011

TO: City Council

FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager

SUBJECT: Planning and Transportation Commission

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Council Personnel Committee to meet with the Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to discuss a new commission structure.

SUMMARY :


Amount: N/A

Budgeted: N/A



CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. Alternative Commission Structure Table


ATTACHMENT 2



November 8, 2011Planning and Transportation CommissionPage 2

BACKGROUND:

Does Los Altos have too many commissions? Are our commissions structured to provide

efficiency for citizens and applicants? Are there options to consider for re-organizing?

Since Councilmember Satterlee initially asked the question regarding too many commissions,I began considering if our current commission/committee structure best serves thecommunity and the Council. During this reflective time, the Council held a joint study session with the Traffic Commission and BPAC. In the agenda material, the TrafficCommission listed three issues regarding its and BPAC’s “objectives, roles andresponsibilities.” The transmittal stated that “the TC and BPAC are almost always working in a reactive mode often with limited time to act.”

With the Satterlee question and the comment from the Traffic Commission current, I asked

“is there a better model for Los Altos involving unification of the citizen planning andtransportation responsibilities?”

In the adopted Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan, under the “Purpose of theCirculation Element” heading, it is stated that circulation policies and plans should“coordinate the transportation and circulation system with planned land uses.” The GeneralPlan further states that “The Land Use and Circulation Elements are inextricably linked. Theplanned development identified in the Land Use Element is the basis for determining futureroad improvements. The circulation policies and plans ensure that existing transportationfacilities will be improved and new facilities will be constructed to adequately serve thetraffic generated by planned development.” (p. 4—Circulation Element)

In several meetings with the Council Personnel Committee, examples from other agencies were studied and discussed. This has led to the development of several options presented inthe attached matrix. Alternatives 1 and 2 in the matrix attempt to:

1) unify the land use, planning and transportation roles;2) avoid contradictory development review recommendations when two

commissions – Planning and Traffic – are tasked with similar responsibilities;3) create a more efficient and timely review process for an applicant;4) integrate the current structure of two commissions and three committees –

A&S, Board of Adjustments, and BPAC – into a more efficient andstreamlined organizational structure.

Alternative 3 is based on the Palo Alto model but leaves a separate Design Review Commission.



November 8, 2011Planning and Transportation CommissionPage 3

DISCUSSION:

Attached are three options/alternatives. Alternative 1 would merge the duties of the Traffic

Commission and BPAC into the responsibilities of the Planning Commission. Whileunifying the land use/planning and transportation functions, this consolidation would leadto lengthy agendas for the Planning Commission.

Alternative 2 consolidates the two commissions and three committees, but maintains an A&S that would continue to review single-family home design review submittals andincorporate residential variance applications. The Board of Adjustments would be eliminatedand a new Traffic, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee would be created within thenewly named Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to advise the entireCommission on matters pertaining to Neighborhood Traffic Management applications, SafeRoutes to School grants and other capital project review matters. Both committees withinthe Planning and Transportation Commission structure would be comprised of three (3)

members.

The PTC would review transportation matters such as traffic impact analyses related todevelopment proposals, amendments to the General Plan Circulation Element, Bicycle Planor Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, as well as other transportation-relatedmatters.

Alternative 3 is based on Palo Alto’s model of separating design review from other land usedecision making. In Palo Alto, some use permits and variances are decided by the planning staff vs. going before the PTC. This alternative would probably be unacceptable in Los Altosand does not unify land use/planning and transportation roles.

MEMBERSHIP

Our existing structure of the Planning and Traffic Commissions and BPAC contains twenty-one (21) seats. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the new PTC would have seven (7) members. In Alternative 3, the PTC would have seven (7) members and the Design Review Commissioncould contain either three (3), five (5) or seven (7) members.

Since each alternative alters the existing structures, should Council wish to implement any of the options, it is recommended that the current terms of all sitting members be concluded with the understanding that members could apply to the new commission(s). Additionally Council could also solicit new applicants.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that on November 8, 2011 the Council discuss whether any of thepresented options is of interest to it. Should Council desire to further a dialogue on thepresented alternatives, or any other option which might arise during Council’s November 8,2011 discussion, the Council should direct its Personnel Committee to meet with thePlanning Commission, Traffic Commission and BPAC to further discuss thealternatives/options and then report back to the entire Council.



CURRENT STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2

PLANNING COMMISSION WITH COMMITTEES

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WITH COMMITTEES Design Review – Large Projects Design Review – All Design Review – Large Projects

Use Permits Use Permits Use Permits

Subdivisions Subdivisions Subdivisions

CEQA/Traffic Impact Analyses Variances CEQA/Traffic Impact Analyses

General Plan/Zoning/Etc. CEQA/Traffic Impact Analyses General Plan/Zoning/Bicycle Plan/Etc.

General Plan/Zoning/Bicycle Plan/Etc.

Architecture and Site Review Committee NTMP Architecture and Site Review Committee

Design Review – Large Projects SR2S Design Review – Two‐Story Homes

Design Review – Two‐Story Homes Capital Project Review Variances

Board of Adjustments Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Variances NTMP and SR2S

Capital Project Review

TRAFFIC COMMISSION WITH COMMITTEE

Bicycle and Pedestrian Matters

Traffic Impact Analyses

GP Circulation Element/Bicycle Plan/Etc.

NTMP and SR2S

Capital Project Review

Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Bicycle and Pedestrian Matters





TO: City Council

FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager

SUBJECT: Traffic/Parking at Main Library

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and direct staff accordingly.

SUMMARY :


Amount: Estimated $50,000 (CIP)

Budgeted: No


Previous Council Consideration: September 13, 2011; December 13, 2011

CEQA Status: None

Attachments:

1. Letter from Jane Cronkhite dated December 5, 2011 2. Aerial photograph with mylar overlay





January 10, 2012 Traffic/Parking at Main Library Page 2

BACKGROUND:

In March 2011, the Library Commission forwarded a request to the Traffic Commission

asking it to consider suggestions for “…improving the traffic flow near the Library.” The Traffic Commission considered the transmittal from the Library Commission at a futuremeeting and concurred with the listed issues raised by the Library Commission. The initialreport was forwarded to the City’s outside consulting traffic engineer and the matters weresubsequently discussed by the City Council in September 2011. The Council’s primary actioncoming out of the meeting was to ask the Library staff to consider designating the parking spaces closest to San Antonio Road as “staff parking.” The attached letter from Community Librarian Jane Cronkhite details why the Library does not favor the designation of thesespaces for staff.

In November 2011, Mayor Pro Tem Carpenter requested the Council to place on a future

agenda a discussion of parking at the Main Library. Council concurred. In its March 2011transmittal to the Traffic Commission, the Library Commission had highlighted the backedup traffic onto San Antonio Road from vehicles maneuvering to/from the parking spacesnearest San Antonio Road and the driveway entrance to the civic facility.

Staff has focused its review and suggestions on how to mitigate the impacts of vehiclesbacking out of the parking spaces nearest the driveway/San Antonio Road intersection. Agoal was set to have no net loss of spaces if any design alternatives emerged from the staff review.

Attached is a proposal which keeps the same number of spaces on the south side of thedriveway, removes three spaces closest to the intersection and relocates them nearer to the

satellite parking lot near the soccer field. The design also alters the angle of the spaces andinstalls a concrete median between the entry and exit lanes making it more difficult for vehicles backing out of the spaces across from the library entrance to maneuver within thedriveway area so as to exit back onto San Antonio Road. An aerial photographic exhibit isattached, accompanied with a mylar overlay of the proposed adjustments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Engineering Department estimates the cost for a survey, demolition, construction of new curbing, construction of the entry median, painting of stall lines and new signage to beapproximately $50,000. If Council is accepting of the concept, this project would be included

for Council’s consideration as part of the mid-year CIP review and adjustments at themeeting of January 24, 2012.





TO: City Council

FROM: Larry Lind, Senior Engineer

SUBJECT: Baseline Trash Load and Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to prepare a Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Planbased upon the contents discussed herein and submit to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.

SUMMARY :


Amount: TBD

Budgeted: Partially

Previous Council Consideration: Staff memorandum dated December 8, 2011

CEQA Status (If Required): None

Jim Gustafson, Engineering Services Manager Date





January 10, 2012Baseline Trash Load and Short-Term Trash Load Reduction PlanPage 2

BACKGROUND:

In October 2009, the Water Board issued a new regional National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit to the City of Los Altos and 76 other Bay Area entitiesfor discharge of municipal stormwater to local creeks and San Francisco Bay. ThisMunicipal Regional Permit (MRP) specifies programs and measures to be conducted by localagencies to minimize stormwater pollution over the next five years. One of these programsis the implementation of control measures and other actions by July 1, 2014 to reduce trashloads from municipal storm sewer systems by 40%. The Water Board has further indicatedin the MRP that it plans to increase this to 70% by 2017 and 100% by 2022. Staff providedCouncil a memo dated December 9, 2011 that provided an update on this program.

Under this trash program, Los Altos must develop a baseline trash load that is currently entering the City’s storm drain system and prepare a Short-Term Trash Load Reduction Plan

(Plan) indicating how the City intends to reduce this trash baseline amount by 40% before adeadline date of July 1, 2014. The baseline amount and the Plan must be submitted to the Water Board by February 1, 2012.

Over the past several months, the City has been working collaboratively with other cities inSanta Clara County along with other jurisdictions in the Bay Area to develop a basis fordetermining the baseline as well as control measures for reducing this baseline. The currenttrash control measures that have been developed are:

a. Single-use Carryout Plastic Bag Ordinancesb. Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Bansc. Public Education and Outreach Programs

d. Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Loadse. Anti-Littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Activitiesf. Improved Trash Bin/Container Managementg. On-Land Trash Pickup (Volunteer and/or Municipal)h. Enhanced Street Sweeping i. Partial-Capture Treatment Devicesj. Full-Capture Treatment Devicesk. Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanup (Volunteer and/or Municipal)

DISCUSSION:

The year-long collaborative effort of evaluating the origins and generation rates of trash hasresulted in a proposed methodology for determining a city’s baseline trash load and for thetrash load reduction for each of the proposed trash control measures. Utilizing the baselinemethodology, the annual baseline for the City of Los Altos was determined to be 4,391gallons of trash.




To comply with a minimum 40% reduction as required by MRP, staff will propose thefollowing control measures in the plan:

Single-use Carryout Plastic Bag Ordinance. Adopt an ordinance that would prohibit largesupermarkets from using single, carryout plastic bags. (Estimated 6% trash load reduction)

Polystyrene Foam Food Service Ware Ban. Adopt a policy that would prevent food vendorsfrom distributing polystyrene foam food ware at any City of Los Altos sponsored event andadopt an ordinance prohibiting food vendors from distribution polystyrene foam food wares within the City of Los Altos. (Estimated 8% trash load reduction)

Public Education and Outreach Programs. Participate in or contribute to advertising compaign(s) on preventing trash/litter in waterways. Participate in or contribute to a media

relation campaign focusing on litter issues. Organize or participate in three separate focusedoutreach and education programs including participant feedback. (Estimated 6% trash loadreduction).

Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Loads. Include language in City of Los Altoshauling service contract(s) that requires contracted trash and construction debris haulers tocover loads during transportation of trash. Implement an enhanced enforcement programfor vehicles with uncovered loads. (Estimated 5% trash load reduction)

Anti-Littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Activities. Implement an active anti-littering and illegal dumping enforcement program including thorough investigations of complaints received from an illegal dumping hotline, implementation of enforcement

procedures including citations and the collection of evidence from illegal dump sites in anattempt to identify offenders. (Estimated 2% trash load reduction)

Improve Trash Bin/Container Management. Require businesses/households to sufficiently remedy any of their inadequate trash service including recycling of trash through MunicipalCode Enforcement or other authority. (Estimate 3% trash load reduction)

Full-Capture Treatment Devices. Staff is preparing plans and specifications for theinstallation of a full-capture device that is required by the permit. Staff will be seeking approval for the installation of this device in FY2012-2013. (Estimate 3.3% trash loadreduction)

Creek/Channel/Shoreline Cleanup (Volunteer and/or Municipal). As required by the MRP,staff is required to conduct annual creek cleanup at a designated hot spot. Staff has selecteda section of Stevens Creek beginning at the north side of Interstate 280. (Estimate 2.7%trash load reductions)




Implementation of these measures is estimated to result in a 34% trash load reduction. The weekly street sweeping that the City currently conducts in the commercial areas of Los Altos

adds an estimated 6.4% trash load reduction resulting in a 40.4% reduction of its estimatedbaseline loading. If Council is accepting of the concepts described in this report, staff willinclude these control measures into a draft Plan and submit the Plan to the San FranciscoRegional Water Quality Control Board by February 1, 2012.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The exact cost impact has yet to be determined, but staff anticipates that additional funds will be needed for a consultant to prepare the necessary environmental supporting documents for the plastic bag and polystyrene bans, for conducting the additional outreachand for enforcement of the various additional municipal code requirements.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council could select different control measures, but staff believes those selected are the mostcost effective.

los altos city council jan 10, 2012 complete packet of agenda files 1 to 11

Documents