Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-18 City Council Summary Minutesi CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting August 18, 1986 CITY Or Pry! 0 ALTO ITEM PAGE Minutes of July 14, 1986 7 5 5 7 1. Appointment of Planning Commissioner to Fill 7 5 5 7 Term Expiring July 31, 1990 (Continued from 8/11/86) 2. Appointment of Visual Arts Jury Member to Fill 7 5 5 9 Unexpired Term Ending January 31, 1987 Consent Calendar 7 5 5 9 4. Agreement for Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road 7 5 5 9 Landscape Maintenance 6. Conveyance of Former Ross Road School Sice 7 5 6 0 Below -Market -Rate to Duplex Lot to Palo Alto Housing Corporation Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 7. Report of Council Legislative Committee 8. Amendment to Agreement for Consultant Services for California Public Utilities Rate Hearings 9. Long -Term Solid Waste Planning 9 A (Old 43) Award of Contract for Landscape Maintenance 10. Consideration of Individual Contracts for Management and Confidential Employees 11. Request of Counci lmember Fletcher re Smoke -Free League Conference 12. Request of Council*ember Sutorius re Northern California Power Association Financing Adjournment to Closed Session at 10:30 p.m. Final adjournment 7 5 6 0 7 5 6 0 7 5 6 3 7 5 6 3 7 5 7 6 7 5 7 8 7 5 8 3 7 5 2 3 -7 5 8 4 7 5 8 4 7 5 5 6 8/18/86 Regular Meeting Monday, August 18, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Cobb said a Special Study Session re the Palo Alto Airport Operations was held at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. Mayor Cobb announced the need for a Closed Session re Personnel to be held after the meeting. MINUTES OF JULY 14 c 1986 MOTIOX* Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of July 14, 1986, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimous/y. 1. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER -TO FILL TERM EXPIRING JULY 31, 1990 (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/86) (COU 5--4-2) Councilmember Levy said all the candidates were excellent and whoever was elected would serve the City well. Before the item wat continued, he supported Mark Chandler, the incumbent. He supported Commissioner Chandler in 1984 because of his excellent .record in community service, his intelligence and imagination, and because they shared many of the same concerns. He served on the Palo Alto Rousing Corporation, Civic League, Mid- Peninsula Coalition for Fair Housing, and Mid -Peninsula Support Network. As an attorney, he - served on the Trust for Public Land, and he worked on many land -issues and had a sense of the economics and practicalities of land within the community. He was the only appointed or elected official in the community from the College Terrace area. He lived in a duplex in a ACM --U zone and was married with an infant. His perspective was important to the community. It was not to soy people should be appointed to boards; and commissions because of who they represented, but individual characteristics were also important. The City should have as diversified a board as possible. Council's practice was to support incumbents who served the community well for a second term. Commissioner Chandler was criticized for being discourteous to the public, and while h.e was concerned, he believed the criticism was fairly minor and dated back some time. There was no. criticism for his preparedness, the thoroughness with which he attended meetings, or the conscientiousness with which he voted. He would support Commissioner Chandler. Councilmember Patitucci agreed the candidates were excellent. He supported Rick McMichael for the first ballot. He was a developer and with the appointment of Pam Marsh and the resignation of Mr. Northway, there was no one on the Planning Commission with any direct development experience. There needed to be more variety on the City commissions, and he believed Mr. McMichael was the best qualified. If recommendations to the Council were to be thor- %uglily thought through, they needed to be looked, at from many dif- eerent perspectives. There needed to be more differences of opinion. He believed Mr. Northway's resignation would be a serious deficit to the quality of decisions made on the Commission, and while Pam Marsh had good qualifications, her back- ground was similar to those already on the Commission. He urged Council support of Mr. McMichael. Mayor Cobb supported Joe Huber for the first ballot RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR CHANDLER: Levy, Fletcher, Woolley, Renzel VOTING FOR HUBER: Bechtel, Sutorius, Cobb, Klein VOTING FOR McMICHAEL: Patitucci City Clerk Gloria Young said none of the candidates received five votes and another round of voting was in order. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUN€) OF VOTING VOTING FOR CHANDLER: Levy, Pletcher, Woolley, Renzel VOTING FOR HUBER: Bechtel, Sutorius, Cobb VOTING FOR McMICHAEL: Klein, Patitucci Ms. Young said none of the candidates received five votes and another round of voting was in order. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR CHANDLER: Levy, Fletcher, Woolley, Renzel VOTING FOR HUBER: Bechtel, Cobb VOTiNG FO McMICHAEL: Sutorius, Klein, Patitucci Ms. Young said none of the candidates received five votes and another round of voting was in order. 7 5 5 8 8/18/86 RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR CHANDLER: Levy, Fletcher, Bechtel, Woolley, Renzel VOTING FOR HUBER; Cobb VOTING FOR McMICHAEL. Sutorius, Klein, Patitucci Ms, Young announced Mark Chandler received five votes and was appointed. Mayor Cobb congratulated Commissioner Chandler on his reappoint- ment. 2. APPOINTMENT OF VISUAL ARTS JURY MEMBER TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JANUARY 31, 198.7 (COU 5-7-2) MOTIO is Mayor Cobb roved, seconded by Fletcher, to continue the item to September 8, 1386. Mayor Cobb said a continuance was necessary in order to consider all applicants. MOTION PASSED unanimously.. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Fletcher removed 3, Landscape iaintenance Contract, from the Consent Calendar. Staff removed 5, Telephone and Data Communications Consultant Agreement, from the agenda. MOTIONS Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Consent Calendar. 4. AGREEMENT FOR OREGON EXPRESSWAY/PAGE MILL ROAD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE (PWK 2-5) (CMR:43406) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agree- ment with Santa Clara County for City maintenance of portions of Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road. AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING OF CERTAIN PORTIONS or OREGON/PAGE MILL EXPRESSWAY FROM SPRR TO FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY 7 5 5 9 8/18/86 6. CONVEYANCE OF FORMER ROSS ROAD SCHOOL SITE BELOW -MARKET -RATE DUPLEX LOT TO PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION (PLA 2-3-1/ PLA 2-6) (CMR:437:6) Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution authorizing conveyance of real property to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. GRANT DEED Palo Alto Housing Corporation RESOLUTION 6547 entitled '.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECONV YA•*C! 0? ELUL PROPERTY TO THE PALO ALTO =USING CORPORATION' MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner said would become 9-A. La Ilt.1 1.:ctpe Maintenance L�J1L c.1. to ♦..t 7. REPORT Or COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG 4-2) (CMR:444:6) Councilmember Pletcher eeid the "parental leave" bill was in the State legislature and there was a similar bill in Congress. The State legislation did not make it out of committee and was dead for the session, but the Federal legislation was still alive« Staff was advised of some amendments, and she asked for comment. Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said amendments to H.R. 4300 (Clay, Schroeder, et al.) made the legislation stronger than what the Legislative Committee believed it to be. In AB 613 (Moore), the employer was required to allow ethe employees to maintain their health benefit, but at their own expense, and the federal bill required the employer to pick up the cost of the benefits even though it were unpaid leave. The federal bill applied to any employee who wa: employed a minimum of three months or 500 hours, whereas the State legislation only applied to employees who worked at least one year for the employer. The Federal legislation included parental leave and temporary medical leave, which could be combined whereby an employee could get as much as 36 weeks of leave .n a year, The Federal legislation included a provision for a commission to explore the feasibility of paid parental leave as' a follow-on to the ..unpaid leave provisions of the bill. Council might want to consider advocating amendments to the Federal legislation to be consistent wtth the provisions of the State legislation which Council supported. She believed the concept was the point Cou.tcil might wish to stress in its recommendations. 7 5 6 0 8/18/86 Councilmember Fletcher said the Legislative Committee voted 2 to 1 in support of the original legislation at the State and Federal level with the dissenting vote referring to the number of employees affected in the workplace. There was a concern that small employers would be impacted. Cynthia Cannady, 2065 Emerson Street, spoke on her own behalf, but was a member of the Palo Alto Child Care Task Force, an attorney and mother of two children. She urged Council go on record in support of H.R. 4300 and to support State legislation in principal with similar effects. Both parents needed to work to meet the cost of housing and living iii Palo Alto. Something needed to be done about the conflict of job security and parenting and the crisis in infant care and the fact there were not enough spaces in the child care facilities which accepted infants. Care by the parent through parental leave was the most efficient and high quality child care in the first few months there was. Dorothea Almond, 4135 Old Trace Road, worked at Stanford as a child care consultant and was co -director of the Child Care Resource Center. Last year, the Association of Junior Leagues convened a conference called "Parental Leave -- Options for Dorking Parents," The conference revealed that between 1975 and 1985, the percentage of working mothers with children younger than one year old increased from 31 to 47 percent. Pediatricians agreed parental care to be of critical importance during the early, months, The United States as the only industrialized nation without a family policy. Many of the developing nations had family policies which included parental leave auti jott, security or at least the assurance the parent could return to a similar job after .parental leave and certain benefits would continue during the absence. The federal legislation began to address the issues and allowed for considerable options. Sheurged support. MOTIONS Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzei, the City Council go on record in support of the principle along the liner of A :613 - the concept of employer -provided unpaid parental leave. Councilmember Klein believed the legislation was importantand he osupported the principle. Recent developments to H.R. 4300 mace: it imperative to return the item to the Legislative Committee. SU3STITUTC MOTIO; Council...ober Klein awed, second...1d by Woolley, to refer back to the Council's Legislative Committee to draft a more persuasive letter to the appropriate legislators which can precisely take into account the recent changes. 7 5 6 1 8/18/86 Councilmember Renzel concurred a more detailed letter was needed with respect to the legislation. before Congress but understood staff drafted letters according to Council's policy statement. She- expected staff would take. the elements of the State legislation and relate them to the. legislation before Congress. She believed Councilmember Fletcher's motion contemplated staff would do what Councilmember Klein suggested in his motion. She would not support the substitute motion= Councilmember Sutorius supported the substitute motion. He encouraged the Committee to think about the "number of employees" issue because , he could not support the specific of 15 -employee limit, which was too low to be contained in legislation. Councilmember Fletcher asked about the Committee meeting and Council acting in time for Congressional action. Ms. Rudin said the Committee could meet on Tuesday, September 2, 1986, and the item could return to Council on September 8, which would be consistent with the schedule of Congress. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting "no.". Councilmember Fletcher said H.R. 3535 (Swift) addressed the issue of the results of elections being announced before the polls closed in California. It proposed a uniform closing time of 9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time extending the daylight savings timeby one hour in California for the extra one or two weeks in presidential election years. s. , NOTION* Councilmember Fletcher oved, seconded by Klein, that Council support E.R. 3525, establishing uniform poll closing tiles for presidential elections and direct the Council position be conveyed to the appropriate legislators. Councilmember Levy would not support the motion because he believed it overrode the principles of noninterference in local issues where a local entity could self -direct at no detc.iment to others or to its own constituents. Citizens in California, Santa Clara County and Palo Alto could determine what was best overall in terms of how late .the polls should remain open. Further, the legislation overrode the freedom of the citizen to make his or her own decision in terms of whether to go to the polls. Councilmember Klein pointed out citizens, still had the same choices about whether to vote. It was established that the exit polls and media projections influenced whether people voted, which he believed to be an extraneous influence on the democratic pro- cess. He urged support. 7 5 6 2 8/18/86 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting 'no.' i 1 Mayor Cobb said implicit in the motions were that Council's positions be conveyed to the appropriate\legislators. 8. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES RATE HEARINGS UTI 9) (CMR:44O:s) MOTION! Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the staff recommendation to approvethe budget ordinance and amended agreement providing for an increase to the City's contract with Rencon Research Corporation of the aggregate limit of compensation from $10,000 to $50,00.0 for consulting services on gas rate matters before the California Public Utilities Commission. The additional funding will be provided from the Gas System Improvement Reserve. ORDINANCE 3702 entitled °ORDINANCE or THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIO* LL APPROPRIATION FOR SPECIALIZED CONSULTING SERVICES ON GAS RATE MATTERS BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION' AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.. Recon Research Corporation MOTION PASSED unanimously. 9. LONG-TERM SOLID WASTE PLANNING (ENV 4) (CMR : 3 7 4 : f ) Director of Public Works Dave Adams said Palo Alto's .landfill was filling faster than originally anticipated. Staff sought long- term solutions, i.e., alternate landfill sites outside the City and the Waste to Energy Plant with Combustion Engineering in Redwood City. Short-term solutions were needed. At present fill rates, Palo Alto would be out- of landfill capacity sometime in 1993. Of the available options, raising the height limits and changing the landfill configuration would give capacity sometime into the year 20.00.. Raising the landfill height to 60 feet was the most - important recommendation. Another recommendation was to restrict landfill use by prohibiting individual and commercial nonresidents. November 1 was the suggested date with the idea landfill users could be notified by then. The Council should direct staff to study ways to .collect compostibie material, recycling cardboard and instituting some special fee schedules. Staff recommended work on Byxbee Park development. be deferred to allow for proper settlement and that staff be authorized to negotiate with other parties for solid waste capacity in other locations and that staff return to Council with additional data on a transfer, station in Palo Alto if necessary. 7 5 6 3 8/18/86 Councilmember Bechtel asked about the present landfill height. Mr. Adams said 50 feet was the authorized level and it was presently about 40 feet. Councilmember Bechtel realized there was a problem with gardeners who worked in Palo Alto but who lived elsewhere. She supported the elimination of nonresident usage and risked if gardeners who worked in Palo Alto would still be able to bring compostible materials. She referred to a dumpster in front of her neighbor's house where it was three-quarters filled with garden debris two days after it arrived. Mr. Adams said curbside collection would be retained, and there was the possibility of doing a compostible pickup. Councilmember Bechtel referred to a private gardener who presently hauled away debris. People did not want compostible material to sit in front of. their house for a week until the next regular garbage pick up. Mr. Adams clarified Councilmember Bechtel referred to a non- resident gardener doing work for a resident. He had no immediate response but said something could be worked out. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned about illegal dumping and needed a response to her questions before she could support the matter. Councilmember Renzel asked if 60 feet was an absolute height before or after settlement. Mr. Adams said 60 feet would be height after settlement. Councilmember Renzel asked if garbage presently buried in the "valley" pot hole on Phase 1 had to be uncovered in order to fill the valley. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said yes. The existing soil would be removed to gain capacity and be refilled with garbage and another layer .of dirt of impermeable cover above. The valley represented 15 to 20 percent of the capacity. There would either be five months of capacity or it would drop to four months if garbage were put on tope of the present coil. Some of the removed soil could be saved. Councilmember Renzel remained concerned about the final. outcome. Councilmember Renzel asked about Stanford's solid waste. 7 5 6 4 8/18/86: Mr. Adams said Palo Alto accepted all of Stanford's solid waste, which represented about 11 percent of the City's intake. There was an annual contract. Councilmember Renzel said in reviewing Stanford's Environmental Impact Report, garbage problems were regarded as being taken care of by contracting with the City of Palo Alto. Stanford chose to remain an independent entity, and she► queried whether it was eime for Palo Alto to look at its own assets and urge Stanford to start seeking its on solution using its own resources. Mr. Adams said staff considered Palo Alto's commitment to Stanford as being part of 'che community, and Council needed to provide guidance in that regard. Councilmember Renzel believed within the last ten years, City Council made a strong' statement about no second lift, which occurred when the dump was only 14 feet high. She asked if the City was facing the music and when the landfill reached 60 feet, if Council would be asked to make a different mountain or go higher. She asked about the highest point at Shoreline. Mr. Adams said the consultant advised 60 feet to be the practical limit because of settlement conditions and earthquake stability. There were no plans to go higher and no permits to go elsewhere. Shoreline was 90 feet. Councilmember Renzel asked if the "hills and valley" concept was being eliminated and strictly making a big sloping, flat land mass on the new configuration for Phases II and III. She was concerned the City would end up with 150 useless acres because of so many hills arid valleys and potholes. Mr. Bagdon said there would still be undulations, but they would not be as pronounced as they were previously. Technically, it could be straighter than it was presently. Staff used the undulations to coe orm asmuch as possible to what was approved by the Council previously in raising the landfill ten feet. Councilmember Renzel said the original plan had a big undulation between Phases 1 and II, and she asked if it was eliminated. She also asked if the height could be lowered five feet if some of the swales and undulations were eliminated. Mr. Bagdon said the big undulation would be eliminated with the recommendation. The higher limit could not be lowered by elimi- nating some of the swales and undulations. 7 5 .6 5 8/18/86 Councilmember Renzel referred to fill activity in the vicinity of. the Mayfield Slough remnant consistent with the Council's policy to start filling at the upper end. She understood when Mayfield Slough was encroached upon with stockpiled soil, it would be moved back away from Mayfield Slough remnant. It now looked liked it was being filled on top. She asked what assurance the City had that what little remained of the Mayfield Slough remnant would be protected by the plan. Superintendent of Field Operations Mike Miller said as the back portion was filled, the stockpiled soil at the bottom would be taken up and over the top. The perimeter was still a storage area and the slough area would not be further encroached upon. The thickness of the storage area was more than what was called for, and it would not take any more soil than what was there to move it over the top and meet the minimum requirements established by the State. Vice Mayor Woolley asked what would happen if all of the landfill's capacity was not needed. Mr. Bagdon said the grades would be adjusted and staff would return for Council approval of a modified plan. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to filling from one side to the other, and envisioned getting halfway across at a certain height and then Council deciding to change the height. Mr. Bagdon said there would be a transition back to the presently approved plan. There could not be a sudden 10 -foot drop. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the staff report, dated May 15, 1986, where both industrial and commercial corrugated cardboard were discussed. The most recent staff report (CMR:374:6) dropped the industrial corrugated cardboard discussion and she queried whether it was because of the restructured tee schedule providing an incentive for industry to undertake its own recycling program for corrugated cardboard. Mr. Miller said that was correct. The industrial programwould provide an incentive or a _rate restructure. Tte City would still provide a consultant -type service as it presently did. The commercial collection would include Downtown, California Avenue and Midtown. Vice Mayor Woolley was also concerned about Stanford and while she agreed with staff in terms _ of Stanford being a part of the com- munity, it was important for Stanford to do everything the City did to cut down on the waste flow. She asked if staff could come up with an amount by which Stanford could be expected to increase its recycling efforts. 7 5 6 6 8/18/86 Mr. Adams believed it would be difficult for staff to establish such a figure without some type of study. Stanford could be asked to conduct a study. As far as he knew, Stanford only did some volunteer recycling. Councilmember Fletcher referred to a letter, dated July 1, 1986, from the Peninsula -Conservation Center (on file in the City Clerk's office) which pointed out the City should have an environ- mental impact report on the increased height of the landfill. She asked for comment. Mr. Adams said the question was not pursued. Councilmember Levy was concerned about the costs of alternatives. He realized many alternatives were being investigated, but if none ofthem were acceptable, he queried whether Palo Alto could use Newby Island or Kirby Canyon at the prices reflected in the staff report. Mr. Miller said the rates were not binding and could be increased at any time. Councilmember Levy asked about the change in rates for local garbage disposal. Mr. Miller said not knowing all the considerations other than what was contained in the report, the rates could go up to two and one-half times what people currently paid. The current rate was $7.75 for two -can service, residentiai. backyard. Capitalization and site costs for a transfer station would have to be added in at some point. Councilmember Patitucci said it was hard for him to interpret the computer -generated picture of the parts,, and needed something to help him deal with what type of park was anticipated. He wanted a scale model. Mr. Adams said the proposal was reviewed with Council on many occasions and specific instructions down to the number of trees to eliminate, park benches and dollars to be included in Phase'1 were given. Staff intended to follow the Council instructions as closely as possible. The new park design would go through the Site and Design review process and would receive public review. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether it was possible to implement the actions having to do with changing garbage behavior including pushing up the price to some serious levels and then revisiting the height question in a year. 7 5 6 7 8/18/86 Mr., Adams said no. In order to properly grade and fill the land- fill, the height decision was needed then. Other things could be done for hopefully more benefit. Mr. Zaner said it was a longterm project, and sometime ago a consultant was hired to do a major landscaping plan for which a now out-of-date model was done. The Planning Commission believed the original landscaping plan was too expensive and elaborate, and the Council concurred in the main. Staff reduced the scope of the park, number of trees, some of the grading, landscaping, pathways, etc., as instructed. The drawings were redone to show what the park would look like. The primary objective was the landfill --not the park. The park was a way to make use of the landfill after the resource was no longer available. The Refuse Fund in effect rented the property from the General Fund and returned it to the General Fund in thf form of a community park. The Visual Arts Jury requested the opportunity to hire a designer to do a massive sculptural approach to the landfill which took the project down another step in its evolution. Staff was careful to return to Council step-by-step to keep everyone informed, and it was time for Council to make the policy decision as to whether to raise the height of the landfill. If raising the height was not preferred by Council, staff would begin looking for another solution for the early 1990s. The issues raised by Councilmember Patitucci were valid but were already covered with the Council. In terms of a model, if Council wanted to see what a landscape architect would do with a 60 -foot high landfill, it could be done. It would cause a delay and make the process somewhat more difficult in terms, of coodination. Councilmember Klein said present plans were good for another seven years, and approval of the 60 -foot height limit would provide another 6.4 years. Restricting the landfill to Palo Alto resi- dents would provide another 37 days per year, or a little more than one year in 14 years; the composting program provided an additional 26 days per year and approximately one year in 14 years; the corrugated cardboard collection would provide another 18 days per year or about one-half year in 14 years; and mandatory recycyling program would provide an additional eight days a year or a little over 100 days in 14 years. Accordingly, all the recommendations would provide a little over three years from the additional steps. If nothing was done, the landfill had a remaining life of seven years, and if all the recommendations were done, the landfill had approximately 17 years remaining life. Mayor Cobb believed Councilmember Klein's calculations were good, but he guessed they would be more on the order of 80 percent due to some loss of economies of scale as the dump filled. He asked when the next report could be expected by Council. 7 5 6 8 8/18/86 e 1 At. Miller said the compostible material collection would take between six and nine months to study and set up a pilot program. Staff could report back in nine months on compostible material. Corrugated cardboard would take nine months to one year to study, and the refuse rate study would take between three and six months. Mayor Cobb asked about the alternatives if no answers were found. Mr. Adams said representatives of Combustion Engineering renewed hopes that San Francisco would still come through with its end of the bargain. They were working with regulatory agencies and had some confidence there would be a waste to energy plant in Redwood City in which Palo Alto would be included. The waste to energy plan would only be a long-term interim solution. Councilmember Sutorius said recommendation No. I asked Council to direct staff to initiate appropriate review of the modified Byxbee Park concept, and he asked if staff would have a problem with a modified motion to make the direction more explicit. Mr. Adams said the intent was to convey that once Council set the 60 -foot limit, staff would have to go through the design process. Mayor Cobb understood staff requested a policy decision to go to 60 feet and staff would do the studies, etc. necessary to return with the specifics to implement. Mr. Adams said Mayor Cobb was correct, and staff would start implementing the fill at 60 feet beginning with the Mountain View side. Councilmember Renzel said staff would create part of the design by filling to the 60 -foot limit at some presumed configuration. Whatever happened between then and the Site and Design review at 60 feet would be a given of the Site and Design Review. Mr. Adams said that was correct, but in the whole scheme of things, it would not set the entire park. Councilmember Renzel asked about the basis for the 60 -foot height limit. Mr. Adams said considering that other landfills in the area ranged from 90 feet to over 100 feet, staff believed 60 feet was reasonable ' and achievable. Going to 55 feet would effectively eliminate the option of later going the extra five feet. 7 5 6 9 8/18/86 Councilmember Bechtel referred to page 10 of CMR:287:6 and said if Council approved the recommendations, staff would be directed to do the evaluation, site and design revif:w process, master plan revisions, develop revised closure plans and appropriate environmental assessment. She clarified the environmental assessment would not be done solely on the 60 -foot height as opposed to whatever the present maximum was. Mr. Adams said the environmental assessment would cover the final configuration of the park, but the 60 feet would already be established hopefully that evening. Councilmember Bechtel never wanted to build "Mount Trashmor.e." Everyone hoped something could be worked out with the joint powers authority, but it did not. Palo Alto only had about seven years remaining on its landfill. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adapt the staff recommendations 1 6 with the _ addition that at the time the ban on nonresidential use is implemented that staff develop a process for enforcing nonresidential gardeners gardening in Palo alto to only be allowed to bring compostibie debris to the landfills 1. Direct staff to initiate appropriate review of the modified Byxbee Park concept, which increases the height of the land- fill closure plan to 60 feet and fills the valleys and ties the hills together as described in staff report (C1NRs287s6); 2. Defer the first phase of Byzbee Park conversion in order to allow for settlement and for installation of a gas recovery system; 3. Prohibit nonresidents from using the landfill effective November 1, 1486 and direct staff to return to Council with a revised landfill use fee schedule at a later date; 4. Direct staff to report back with an analysis of additional waste reduction measures; a) coapostible plant debris collection; b) corrugated cardboard recovery; c) restructured feeschedule for individual and commercial refuse collection ret+ea. 5. authorize negotiations with other parties for landfill space outside Palo alto; and 6,. Direct staff to review and analyze transfer station options and report beck to. Council. 7 5 7 0 8/18/86 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to add 4(d) "Analyze recycling in multiple family zones.• Councilmember Fletcher said there was terrible waste at multi- family establishments, and the additional fees for excess garbage' were not directly seen by the residents in multi -family establishments because of a blanket fee. There needed to be additional incentives. Mr. Zaner said the additional assignment to analyze recycling in multiple family zones would probably take six months to one year. Councilmember Fletcher said the report did not have to return with the other aspects, but she wanted a feasibility analysis. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Woolley supported the main motion because she believed it was a sensible combination of keeping. the City's options open and simultaneously doing everything possible to reduce the waste stream. If the City was successful with the latter, staff assured that the additional height could easily be stopped and the City could return to the present plan. AMEMDNSAT: Vice Mayor Woolley roved, seconded by Menzel, to add recommendation 7 to direct staff• to add a condition to the 1986 Stanford Refuse Disposal Agreement stating that within one year the onive»sity will implement a plan to significantly increase their recycling program for residential and campus activities and that the plan be reviewed by Council before the 1987 annual amendment. Councilmember Fletcher preferred to phase Stanford out of Palo Alto's landfill because it did not have the same growth limita- tions, did not conform to Palo Alto's height limits or new FAR limits. Stanford seemed to be proceeding with development at an accelerated rate, and the County seemed to be insensitive to the environmental effects of the approved developments. She supported the amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Patitucci said it sounded as though Council was going to a ten -foot higher height limit and would fill in valleys without first looking at a plan for what the park would look like when it was done. If the motion passed, staff would start going. towards 60 feet tomorrow. Mr. Adams said that was correct. 7 5 7 1 8/18/86 Councilmember Patitucci .said stuff would begin to function at the dump as if the contours were completely changed without looking at s no&1 , or drawing, or anything which showed the impact of the park. Not only was the park secondary, it was of no concern to the Council how useful the park would be. He could not support recommendation 1 under those circumstances. He requested to vote on recommendation l separately. Council was not expressing any priorities in the other items, and given the limited staff capability to deal with the issues, they would be dealt with linearly. He believed Council should express some priorities, and if the numbers reflected priorities, they might be renumbered in order of importance. a!4EMDMEMMT s Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Woolley, if Council approved the height limit, the transfer station be the least priority. If Council did not approve the height limit, then the transfer station would become the .highest priority. Ho suggested the items under recommendation 4 be prioritized as follows: a) restructured fee schedule b) review of modified Byxbee Park concept; c) corrugated cardboard recovery; and d) waste in multi -family zones Councilmember Patitucci believed the fee structure was a motivator and would communicate the problems to the public. Councilmember Klein asked for clarification of the linear study process absent the amendment. Mr. Adams said staff would review the information on hand for each item and see whether they could 'tackle more than one point at a time. Staff might also decide to return with the one that was easiest to report on rather than doing the most difficult one first. While staff would be happy to do the studies in the order specified, staff might be able to do the total composite assignment easier if it was left to staff's discretion. Councilmember Klein opposed the amendment. :le believed the assignment was better left to staff's discretion. He was concerned that all the programs be put into effect as soon as possible. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to inclusion of the transfer station options and asked whether the same staff would work on it. Mr. Adams said the same staff would work on the subject, but it was not related to the other four studies. A transfer _ station would be needed if the material were taken anywhere outside of Palo Alto. 7 5.7 2 8/18/86 Councilmember Bechtel believed the studies should be left to the City's administrators. She opposed the amendment. Councilmember Fletcher said if the order was left as recommended and Council approved the height limit increase, she asked whether staff would feel they could delay items 5 and 6 or would the items proceed, and if an alternative was found before the City reached the 60 foot height limit, the height limit would not be reached. Mr. Adams said Councilmember Fletcher was partially correct. Since the City would be filling from one end, it would reach the higher height limit at that end and taper off from that point. Councilmember Sutorius concurred with Councilmembers Klein and Bechtel.. The $220,000 in revenue the City would lose by pro- hibiting nonresidents was important and might be what Councilmember Patitucci had in mind when he dealt with the priorities. The study reflected in 4(c) would take four to six monthe, and he asked how much revenue would the City lose in that time. He believed item 3 in combination with 4(c) deserved high priority and he did not want to approve something that just allowed item 4(c) to drift to the bottom of the pile if there were other things in progress. Mr. Adams said 4(c) referred to a City-wide collection rate and the use of the landfill was a separate rate of collection at the gate. Staff could return with gate rate within two months or could wait until next year's refuse rates were set and do it then.. Councilmember Sutorius said if the dump were closed to non- residents on November 1, 1986, and the. City started losing revenue at an annual rate of $220,000, he asked about staff's intent 'to f ind. a . way to start recouping or offsetting the lost revenue. Mr. Adams said absent any instructions from Council, staff would have returned in time to set a rate for entrance to the landfill only, which would commence approximately Janua.sy 1, 1987. It would not be the rates referred to in 4(c). Councilmember Sutorius clarified the rate structure would apply to residents. Mr. Adams said yes. Councilmember Sutorius opposed the amendment for the reasons enunciated by Councilmewbera Klein and Bechtel. He believed staff understood Council's concerns about the lost revenues and the need for an timely offset recommendation. 7 5 7 3 8/18/86 AMENDMENT FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3--6, Menzel, Patitucci, Woolley voting "aye." Councilmember Frenzel referred to the previous study session and said four members of the Council went on a tour, but the remaining Councilmembers were unable to attend. The tour drove up onto phase 1 and looked down into the major valley, which was a real detraction from the ultimate use of the area. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Menzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to ask staff to review whether a more economical_ means existed to fill the valley in phase 1. Councilmember Renzel suggested City vehicles could dump there and there would be a restricted number of ltee :s within the control of the City to not dig up the existing cover material with the idea of ending up with something to allow a person to walk over the top of the area and not fall in a hole. The swale was an interruption in the ability to move across the area and it had no aesthetic appeal. It might provide three months of additional dump life, and without establishing a fancy road for general use, the City might be able to use the area productively and end up with a bet- ter product. The report need not interfere too much with present studies, but a decision should be made then in order to not delay the closure of phase one any longer than it was already being delayed by the natural gas and settlement issues. Councilmember Sutorius believed if the amendment passed, the City would end up with a two -foot layer of impermeable and when the City reached the ultimate fill in, it would place another two feet of impermeable fill and t e cap soil on top. Mr. Adams said the initial impermeable cover was not yet there —only the intermediate, but everything else was correct. Councilmember Sutorius suggested the City might lose two vertical feet of .dump capacity for whatever hor i eonta1 level was involved. Mr. Adams said that was the loss of the 15-20 percent. They would still need to build an access road to that area. Councilmember Sutorius asked if gas relief piping would be needed both in the tirst level and the new level established. Mr. Adams said some waywould be needed to treat the accumulation of gas whether by digging through the present cover as previously proposed or by separate gas collection. ins presumed that would be included in the study referred to in the amendment. Councilmember Sutorius understood the spirit behind the amendment but believed it would be taking time for something that would not produce an economic way. 7 5 7 4 8/18/86 1 Councilmember Fletcher said the amendment did not speak to accomplishing the fill in but just to an assessment from staff and was not a major assignment. Councilmember Renzel commented methane gas was not heretofore pumped out, and she could not imagine digging down through two or three lifts to the earliest -placed garbage. They spoke to methane pipes going down about two feet into the most recent garbage, but older garbage below was sealed off all over the landfill She did not believe it was any different from other parts of the landfill and urged her colleagues to support the amendment at least conceptually. She realized landfill was the major objective, but the amendment would gain three months' time and end up with some valuable, useful land. Mr. Adams interjected that staff studied the issue, and the assessment in their report was the most economical way. Councilmember Patitucci did not believe he would support the amendment. He asked if such questions would be moot when they received the results on the kind of park, or would Council be able to make changes such as Councilmember Renzel mentioned. Mr. Adams said the type of question currently being asked would be locked in and impossible to explore; however, modest changes to the surface would be possible. Staff would be redesigning the park as they were filling. Long before the point of complete fill, they would have the site and design review process completed; and the Council would have another opportunity to look at the issue with more details for Phase 1 and the concept and contours for the rest of the phases. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Renzel, Fletcher voting °aryl. " Councilmember Renzel asked if staff could set up an additional Council tour of the landfill as soon ac possible so councilmernbers could see what they faced on Phase 1, with the possibility of reconsidering the issue at an early date. Mr. Adams said staff could set up such a tour without a motion. Councilmember Renzel wanted it understood the issue might be raised within a week or two after the tour. Mayor Cobb requested staff set up the tour quickly. Mr. Adams added the particular valley could be addressed separately and was not an issue regarding the height of the main landfill. 7 5 7 5 8/18/86' Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned the Councilmembers who had not Been the configuration of the land needed to see it. Councilmember Klein believed they all shared frustration there was no better solution to waste disposal. The issue was not one they could solve on theirnwn. Pending the regional solution they all hoped for, there was no choice. A tripling of waste disposal rates could not be inflicted on their citizens together with an unsound environmental solution. He did not like the idea of having the garbage trucked 50 miles nor seeing the City create an ever -higher landfill in the Bay, but it seemed the best alternative left, and they should do it in as efficient and environmentally -pleasing a way as possible. Staff's proposed solutions made sensed and he would vote for the motion on the floor. Councilmember Fletcher was unhappy about making a decision to raise the landfill higher than any building allowed in the City. She was also upset the environmental assessment came after the fact but concurred Council had no choice and would vote for the motion. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher's assessment. She had no problems with recommendations 2-6 but remained concerned about the ad hoc planning. She was pleased Council would review the approved plan, which was a poor one, and she hoped the lines would end up smoother. She was not happy about ,the height, Mayor Cobb believed even after Council passed the motion, their backs were still against the wall. He concurred with all. cennci member: Klein's comments. He had been concerned about the issue since he first joined the Council. Council and staff must make the issue a priority because the fact had to be faced they still ,had no long-term solution. Councilmember Levy strongly seconded Mayor Cobb's comments. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION AS AMENDED RELATED TO RECOMMENDATION 1, RE 6o -FOOT LIMIT PASSED by s. rote of 7-2, Mensal, Patitucci, voting *no." REMAINDER OF MOTION AS AMENDED RELATED TO RECOMMENDATIONS 2-7 PASSED unanimously. 9 A. (OLD # 3 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE (PWK 7) (CMR:432:6) Councilmember . Fletcher said since El Camino Real was a State highway she wanted to find out . why the landscaping on El Camino Real was being paid for by the City rather than the State. 7 5 7 6 8/18/86 1 MOTION' Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt staff recommendation that* The Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with John J. Shooter in the amount of $.109,968 per year for a period of two peace to_ .promid.e landscape mail tenance services; and • Staff be authorised to execute change orders in the amount of $17,000 for each of the two contract years. AWARD OF CONTRACT JOHN J. SHOOTER Councilmember Fletcher said the Webster -Cowper Garage was a parking assessment facility, and she believed the funds might be reimbursed from the parking assessment funds. AMENDMENT; Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct staff to seek cost -sharing agreements with Caltrans for landscaping maintenance costs on 81 Camino Real. City Manager Hill Zaner said while staff would endorse the notion, prospects of being successful were extremely slim. He could not see the State being concerned about landscaping on El Camino as funds were committed in many other places. It would be fruitless to enter into a lung series of negotiations with the State. Councilmember Fletcher understood a discussion was due to commence. She asked if there were to be negotiations over a lease agreement. Director of Public Works David Adams said the City was negotiating regarding the amount the State paid for sweeping. The City was not reimbursed for all the sweeping. The State also paid for street lighting and signal maintenance to a point, but the City paid for extra signals. The arrangement was. complicated, and the City asked for the State's permission to landscape the areas with the understanding the. City would pay for the maintenance. Vice Mayor. Woolley said the City Attorney indicated an amendment to a contract of that nature was not appropriate. Councilmember Fletcher said:, she had in mind going ahead with the contract and seeking reimbursement. She asked for response regarding landscaping at the assessment district garage. 7 5 7 7 8/18/86 Mr. Zaner said in the Downtown area there were no funds nor any mechanism for maintenance of parking lots or the structure, as existed in the California Avenue district. The City was looking at the possibility of returning to Council to establish such a district which would then levy the cost of maintenance back on the assessment district. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND MOTION PASSED unanimously. 10. CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS FOR MANAGEMENT AND FLOYEES PER 1) (CMR:446 :6 ) CONFIDENTIAL EM City Manager Bill Zaner anticipated there might be changes in state law in the near future. The purpose of the set of agreements with management employees was to take into account any changes that might occur. The agreement was reviewed both by the City Attorney and by Mr. Whitmore, who did special legal work for the City in the labor relations field. Councilmember Bechtel clarified if an employee was terminated for normal reasons, the contract would in no way prohibit such termination. Director of Personnel Services Jay Rounds said that was correct. The contract was carefully structured to memorialize the Merit Rule provisions covering termination and granted no more and no less in terms of rights to the employee or powers to the employer than those that already existed in the Merit Rules. Councilmember Klein asked what th.e written contract added to either the City's interests or the management employees' interests. Mr. Rounds said the main accomplishment of the contract was to make a . bilateral agreement. The group in question was the only group of employees for which the City had no bilateral agreement. Councilmember Klein believed every year when Council approved the salary structure for management employees, Council was making a bilateral agreement, The contract was oral. He asked what the difference was. Mr. • Rounds said staff had always taken the position .that Council was free to change the compensation plan on any given Monday night. While Council had never chosen to do that, the effect would be a two-year compensation plan which would be backed by a contract. The City would be in a similar situation with regard to thecontracts as they ..were with the . other employee groups where there was a collective representation. 7 5 7 8 8/18/86 1 Councilmember Klein clarified the difference was the employees would have an enforceable right to the compensation package for two years, whereas at present Council was free to change the package at any time. Mr. Richard Whitmore, Whitmore, Kay and Stevens, clarified the difference was that the employee would be assured, e.g., with management employees, they would participate under the management pay plan for a period of two years. Presently, even if Council agroed unilaterally to subject certain employees to the plan for one year, Council could change it after one year, maybe every Monday night. The question was whether Council felt comfortable with the restriction. Staff purposely included in the contracts a maximum amount of flexibility as to pay by utilizing the management pay plan, and in terms of disipline or termination tied into the Merit Rules and other provisions Council currently had that allowed them to discipline or terminate an employee. Councilmember Klein asked if Mr. Whitmore shared Mr. Rounds belief that. Council could change the management pay plan on any given Monday Mr. Whitmore wished to reserve the option to argue that they could. If the matter were a subject of litigation and they were speaking to the chances of winning the case, he might be -somewhat more frank. That discretion was at least a greater possibility than if Council had the contract. Counci1merber Sutorius asked if the body of legal advice generally was that under Proposition 61 the proposed contract would obviate the negative impacts of Proposition 61. Mr. Whitmore said there were some questions and debate, and there would be litigation, but the general body of legal opinion was a contract entered into between employees and the City prior to passage of Proposition 61 would survive even if the Gann initiative passed and would be a valid ocntract which could not be impaired by the operation of the initiative. Councilmen er Sutorius asked in what position an agency was absent such a proposed contract. If Proposition 61 passed, what was the positionof the City if it participated in the litigation and continued to administer the existing Merit Plan. Mr. Whitmore said Mr. Gann and his legal advisers took the position that if there was no contract, the three major components of the initiative affecting local employees --the salary limitation, the restriction on sick leave, and the restriction on vacation -would go into effect - immediately. Without a contract, as of November 5, 1986, the ray limitation would go into effect and the myriad questions on vacation and sick leave would then arias. Thosequestions would be part of the litigation. The 7 5 7 9 8/18/86 general legal opinion was what was contained in a contract could not be impaired by the initiative for the term of the contract. When the subject contracts expired, the pay -limitations, sick leave and vacation restrictions would go into effect. At least there would be a period of some stability so the status. quo would continue, and some of the litigation would work itself out during that time. Councilmember Patitucci clarified Council presently had contracts with organizations that represented groups, and they were now speaking to individual contracts with people who had never had contracts before and were not part of groups. Mr. Whitmore said that was correct. Under State law, employees could represent themselves either individually or collectively, as many e:nployeen chose to do. Councilmember Patitucci asked if many government agencies had similar contracts. Mr. Rounds heard many public agencies ,had gone ahead and put together contracts for certain members of their staff. A great many public agencies were contemplating such contracts. Councilmember Patitucci asked why the contracts were for two years and not one. Mr. Rounds said staff considered one year. They were attempting tc put. together a period of adjustment and stability and one year would, in effect, be only six to eight months if the proposition passed. Councilmember Levy understood the element of salary involved in the Gann initiative was a maximum limit on salaries of all City, employees of $64,000 a year. Mr. Rounds said that was correct. He did not know whether the element would be interpreted to mean salary or total compensation. Mr. Whitmore said the wording of. the initiative was confusing and spoke about the salary • of the governor and a limitation on the compensation of other employees. There was a question as to what the initiative meant by using two different words. In recent litigation, Mr. Gann's attorneys said they meant "salary." Councilmember Levy asked if the basic package was implemented for thr coming year, how many City employees would be affected by the Gann initiative. Mr. Rounds .said the number could be 14 if the definition was "salary," to well over 100 if the definition was "total compensation." All City employees would be affected by the fringe -benefit provisions pertaining to sick leave and vacation. 8/18/86 0 8 MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt staff recommendation approving an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into memoranda of agreement with individual Management and Confidential employees. These agreements will put •mplo;rees who represent . themselves _individually on an equal footing with collectively represented employees, in terms of bilateral legal documentation of compensation and conditions of employment, and will provide baseline documentation for existing compensation and benefits. Such documentation will be advantageous both to the employee and the employer in the event of protracted .litigation which would conceivably follow changes in the law. Councilmember Klein opposed the motion. Council should look carefully at what they were doing and not adopt a panick response. The contracts were not the usual ones at all. Council elicited in its questions that the contracts added little to the rights of the employees and the obligations of the City. He did not believe any City Council would start changing the pay schedule of employees. Employees knew when Council enacted the pay schedule for Management, it would remain in effect fur some period of time. The contracts were merely a subterfuge to get around the effects of Proposition 61 and would merely give the people who supported Paul Gann's ideas an argument. If Proposition 61 did pass, Council should not try to get around what was the will of the people. He preferred to use the energy to work hard against Proposition 63.. The contracts would be costly to administer. He did not like the idea that management would have a written agreement whereas they had not before. The overwhelming number pf management employees both in the private and public sector did not have written agreements. He believed the contracts were bad policy and Council should not approve the motion. Councilmember . Levy differed very strongly. He believed the item was a prudent management action which Council should take in anticipation of an eventuality which could dramatically. affect Council's ability to continue operations in a straightforward way. Fourteen to one hundred management -level employees would be affected. The lower number was still extremely important because they were the important directors of the City's business. It was a question of Council prudently trying to foresee what might happen and to prevent the employees themselves panicking Wean they saw the initiative might pass. It was. up to the courts to determine whether the contracts were a subterfuge, but he believed they were valid contracts. The costs would be minor compared to the costs to the City in disruption of service, etc., if the initiative passed and there . was a . revolt on the part of management, and they looked for alternative employment. He hoped the inititative did not pass, but Council should act in anticipation of the possibility of it passing and try to foreclose unfortunate actions. 7 5 8 1 8/18/86 Councilmember Fletcher did not consider the proposal an action of panic but of caution. She also remembered Council believed Proposition 13 was so bad it could not possibly pass. Turning down the the proposal would not prevent other cities from making similar arrangements with their staffs, and that would be inequitable and not to the benefit of Palo Alto. The strength of a city lay in the quality of its staff and Council had an opportunity to provide some protection.. The proposal would preserve the morale of the City's excellent employees. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Councilmembers Fletcher and Levy. She believed Council owed the proposal to its employees. Council valued its employees and wanted to be sure they were around with all the proper benefits. With the wonders of word processing, she did not believe drawing up the contracts would be an onerous task. Councilmember.. Fenzel concurred with Councilmembers Bechtel, Fletcher,_and Levy. Council had for some time attempted to get two-year contracts with some of the bargaining groups in the City. Anticipating the legislation might pass was prudent, and Council would want an orderly transition into whatever interpretations the new law might take. Council really valued the City's excellent staff and wanted them to remain. It would be is.portant to have as much stability as possible in the event of such legislation. The terns of employment for management employees had to be recorded somewhere, and they would simply be recorded in the form of a contract and would not amount to much additional work. A two-year contract was consistent and not in avoidance of the law. She urged support of the motion. Councilmember Patitucci seconded Councilmember Klein's comments. He believed Council would be making a serious mistake if they approved the motion. They would be setting personnel policy precedents for the wrong reasons. If individual contracts with individual employees was brought to Council as a separate issue, the matter would be studied in Policy and Procedures Committee and personnel committees fox many years before arriving at a conclusion. He believed fundamentally the issue was political where they, along with every other City Council, would try to soften the impact of aboeirsable legislation. If everyone softened the impact, no one would feel the pain and no one would vote against the initiative.. He opposed the motion. Councilmember Sutorius concurred with Councilmembers Patitucci and Klein. He would . vote against the motion. He hoped all Councilmembers would uniformally and energetically work in opposition to Proposition 61, but the motion was not the way to approach fundamental, long-lasting personnel procedures and policies. Councilmember Klein said the motion was enacting contracts which Council would not otherwise do, and he believed it was a sham. He believed City governments should act in the highest possible, honorable way. They,, were setting a bad example. Absent Proposition 61, Council would go through elaborate study procedures. Councilmember Renzel commented in the case of Proposition 61 the ball was not in Council's court to deal with but in staff's court whether they chose to continue in public employment. With the salary limitations and the high caliber of staff, it was clear what choices staff would make of necessity. Council had difficulty in the past recognizing they were competing with the private market place to get new professional managers in various department head categories. While the initiative was ostensibly to lower public costs, the real effect would be to lower the caliber of people attracted to public service. A two-year contract would not soften the ultimate blow of the proposition. Council could not presume the public would fully understand the ramifications of such an initiative. Mayor Cobb said he had been prepared to vote in favor of the measure but was persuaded by the comments of Councilmembers Klein, Patitucci, and Sutorius. He did not believe Proposition 61 would pass. The motion was a bad way to solve a real problem. NOTION FAILED by .a vote of 4-5, Rsnzsl, Bechtel, Fletcher, Levy, voting 'aye." 11. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE SMOKE -FREE LEAGUE CONFERENCE ( ADM 3-2) ) Councilmember Fletcher said she was attempting to get protection for the nonsmoker in conferences. Such protection was done in Seattle the prE,,vious year, and the City's smoking ordinance prohibited smoking in conference rooms anywhere in the City. Council should ask for no less from the League of. California Cities. NOTIOS: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Remsel, to direct staff to prepare: and forward a resolutionto th. League of California Cities, proclaiming smoke -free conference rooms and dining :cress at future League conferences. MOTIONPASSED unanimously. 12.: Ries VEST OF CQUNCILMEMSER SUTORIU a RE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER ASSOCIATION FINANCING (UTI 3.2) Councilmember Sutorius requested the item be postponed to another meeting. 7 5 8 3 8/18/86 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session re Personnel at 10:30 p. m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 19, 1986. APPROVED: ATTEST: Mayor