Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU - FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting February 13, 1989 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 61-97 Approval of Minutes 61-97 1. Appointments to the Centennial Steering 61-97 Committee Consent Calendar 2. Amendment No, 1 to Agreement No. S4-002062 with Whitmore, Kay & Stevens for Legal Servi%es 61-98 3. Agreement with Innovative Housing for Community 61-98 for the Provision of Community Development Block Grnnt Funds 4. Agreement with Gilbeau-Hulberg Associates 61-98 for Appraisal of General Pund Property Rented to the utilities Department . Ordinance to Allow Use of City Streets Which 61-98 Are Not Designated as Truck Rotytss by Vehicles Which Are Authorized by Contract to Use the Palo Alto Slid Waste Disposal Site 6. Consultant Agreement with James K. Montgomery 61-98 Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Phase / Study Plans for Vpecial Study Requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Plant NPDES Discharge Permit 61-95 2/13/89. Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 10. Policy and Procedures Committee Recommenda- tion re Skateboards 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Application of John Brooks Boyd/ Robert R. Jenks Associates for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions for Property Located at 1055 Forest Avenue 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Appeal of Bob Moss re Decision of Zoning Administrator to Approve a Variance at 3939 Fabian Way 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation to Extend Interim Zoning Regulations for Town & Country Village, Stanford Shopping Center and the OR, CN and CS Districts PAGE 61-98 61-99 61-104 61-112 61-117 11. Ordinance Amending Budget to Provide an 61-118 Additional Appropriation for Participation in Golden Triangle Transportation Demand Manage- ment Program 12. Council Member Patitucci and Mayor Klein re 61.120 Possible Council Action to Support Restric- tions on Sale and Use of Assault -Type Weapons 13. Council Membexs Cobb, Levy, Sutoriva & Woolley 61-122 re. 1989 Study Topics for the Finance and Public Works Committee Adjournment at 11:34 p.m.. 61-124 61-96 2/13/89 Regular Meeting February 13, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Mayor Klein announced that the Study Session scheduled after the conclusion of the regular meeting to discuss Council Priorities was cancelled. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Levy (Irrived at 7:39 p.m.), Patitecci (arrived at 7:43 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding Palo Altc Police Department complaints. 2. Harrison Otis, 272. Midtown Court, spoke regarding service regulated industries. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the Minutes of January 17, 1939, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Woolley "abstaining." S PECJAT. ORDERS OF THE' 1. Appointments to the Centennial Steering Committee (3.307-02) Council Member Woolley believed one of the strongest objectives of the Advance Planning Committee was for the Centennial to be a community -wide event which involved people of all interests and ages. She suggested Council try again to find applicants who would represent a wider 6pectrum of the community. The problem was not new. When the Council last advertised vacancies on the Architectural Review Board (ARB), it was not very successful. The same was true for the Historic Resources Board (HRB) . The City Clerk advised that advertising in the newspapers was expensive and r,edvertistng causer problems for the City Clerk's budget. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, to continue the appointmea4ts to the Centennial, Steering Committee until after the City Clerk has returned in two weeks with a new process of announcing openings on committees. 6197 2/13/89 Mayor Klein spoke to the excellence of the applicants but was concerned because there were only seven applicants to fill the seven vacancies. At least two of the applicants called him because they were also uncomfortable with the number of applicants. Council Wember Cobb was bothered by the open-endedness of process. Seven people expressed interest in being a part of committee; and, if the process went on too long, Council ran risk of discouraging those people. Council needed to conclude matter within a few weeks. NOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDA)3 NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, approve Consent Calendar Items 2 - 6. the the the the 2. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. SO --002062 with Whitmore, Kay & Stevens for Legal Services (516) 3. Agreement with Innovative Housing for Community for the Provision of Community Development Block Grant Funds (412-02-01) (CMR: 139:9) 4. Agreement with Gilbeau-Hulberg Associates for Appraisal of General Fund Property Rented to the Utilities Department (403.02) (CMR:117:9) 5. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST t.EADING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 10.48.090 OF THE PAIR ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW USE OF CITY STREETS WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS TRUCK ROUTES BY VEHICLES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED BY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO USE THE PALO ALTO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE" (1072) (CMR:137:9) 6. Consultant Agreement with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. tor Phase I Study Pans for Special Study Requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Plant NPDES Discharge Permit; Staff is authorized to make amendments to the agreement up to $10,000 (1122-01) (C i:146: 9) NOTION PASSED : 9-0. NOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to bring forward Item 10 to precede Item 7. NOTION PASSED 9-0. 61-98 2/13/89 REPORTS OF CQMKITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. Policy and Procedures Committee recommendation re Skateboards (1167) (CMR:496:8) Vice Mayor Bechtel said the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee considered the staff recommendation regarding skateboards, which was to maintain the statue quo. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved regarding Skateboards in Streets as follows: 1. Retain Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.64.200 which prohibits trick riding on any public right-of-way; 2. Retain 7alo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.64.230 which prohibits skateboards in business districts; 3. Direct the City Attorney to revise Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.64.240, which currently prohibits skateboards in roadways, and, if the skateboard ordinance sections were revised, direct staff to report back cne year from the effective date as to the progress, e.g., whether there had been any problems, and what staff k..aw as effects of skateboarding on the streets of Palo Alto; 4. Add a section to the Code which provided for general restric- tions for the use of skateboards on roadways and sidewalks similar to the Pleasanton ordinance; and 5, Direct staff to cone up with a workable plan which would allow skateboarding on at least some City streets, and the plan to include, but not be limited to, the items listed above, and that any new plan for skateboarders include the establishment of a statistical category to track how safe or .ion -safe skateboarding was in Palo Alto. Council Member Woolley queried whether it was legal for skateboards to be used in bike lanes. City Attorney Diane Northway said yes. California Vehicle Code Section 21967, gave authority to local agencies to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance , specifically related to skateboards. Section 219€8 prohibited only motorized skateboards in bicycle paths but not those propelled without motors by humans. Council Member Woolley referred to •i grant application made by Stanford Middle School wherein 81,000 would be used to reach all 51-99 2/13/89 students regarding bicycle and skateboard orientation and safety among other things. Council Member Cobb asked the Police Chief to comment on his posi- tion. Police Chief Chris Durkin said the Police Department's position was that skateboards were dangerous in the street. Skateboards were not equipped with safety devices and as compared to bicycles, bicycles had more control and were more visible. Last fiscal year, 81 bicycle accidents were documented. Council Member Cobb queried the Police Department's postion in terms of the level of safety in allowing skateboards on sidewalks. Chief Durkin said the Police Department had no data which indicated injuries to pedestrians as a result of skateboards an the side- walks. Vice Mayor Bechtel said it was argued that skateboards were used for transportation. Teenagers particularly used them to get to school, jobs, etc. Up until the past few months tickets were issued for using skateboards in the street. Of the various cities with restrictions on skateboards, only three prohibited them in the streets. Council somber Levy said one of the objections constantly made to bicyclists riding on the sidewalks was the danger of a bicyclist passing across a driveway when an automobile driver backing out of the driveway w not prepared for the cyclist's speed. A bicyclist arriving at an intersection and going from the sidewalk onto the pedestrian crosswalk was considered to be unsafe because the auto- mobile driver was not prepared for someone with such speed going through the crosswalk. It seemed ..he same concerns would be valid for a skateboard since a skateboarder also traveled several times the speed of a pedestrian. He asked for comment. Chief Durkin agreed. There was no experience of injuries of a skateboarder colliding with a vehicle from the sidewalk, but he believed it was more dangerous for skateboarders to be on the street. Chris Weeks, 3060 Price Court, had been skateboarding for about four years. He urged that skateboarders be allowed on City streets other than arteriala such as Alma or Middlefield where the danger level was increased. Skateboarding was a form of transportation that law abiding citizens chose to use, and it was inappropriate to have laws against skateboarding in the street. 61-100 2/13/89 Council Member Cobb queried the general level of expertise of those who skateboarded in the streets. Mr. Weeks believed young bicyclists were as dangerous as young skateboarders in the streets. Some of the young skateboarders were better than he was at a comparable age. Council Member Sutorius asked about the value of safety equipment associated with skateboarding. Mr. Weeks believed there was absolute necessity of safety equipment on "ramps" which was a dangerous environment where one might fall. The situation was much the same as for bicyclists. Council Member Sutorius referred to the active education process in the promotion of the use of helmets for bicycle riders. He believed helmets were extremely widely used. Mr. Weeks believed it was safer to use helmets for bicycle riding but believed he observed one teenager in one hundred actually using them. Sherry Lazarus, 937 Ruthven, said most of the bicyclists she observed were adults, and she referred to the dangerous condition which existed at the intersection of Waverley and Hawthorne_ due to the lack of cyclists shopping at the stop sign before continuing on through. Skateboarders should have the option of whether to ride in bicycle lanes or on the sidewalks where appropriate. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, wanted to maintain a viable community for young people. He believed skateboarders were doing fine; he was more concerned about bicylists not complying with the laws. Melissa Smith, 2840 Emerson, did not believe there should be any bans against skateboarding as a means of transportation. Beverly Benson, 2375 Santa Catalina, said her 18 -year old son had been skateboarding for the past nine years. Her son had been stopped several times by the Police Department, and such stops created an unfortunate attitude by the youth. Council Member Levy believed a perfect commute vehicle might be a skateboard or the new roller skates. It might behoove the Council to tailor an ordinance to make skateboards as safe as possible. Problems related to lack of lights and mechanical brakes, and the silhouette was difficult to see at night. Hu believed any skateboard ordinance should include the following elements: 61-101 2/13/89 1. Skateboards should be prohibited on the streets and sidewalks in the business district. 2. Skateboards should be allowed in all bike lanes since they traveled at similer speeds. 3. Skateboards should be prohibited on streets with speed limits over 25 miles per hour, except if those streets had bike lanes. 4. Skateboard should be prohibited on designated higher volume streets such as £mbarcadero, University, Charleston, Arastradero, etc. except in bike lanes. 5. Skateboarding should not be allowed in any street during those hours when motor vehicles used headlamps. 6. Helmets should be worn. 7. Skateboarders must obey the Vehicle Code if they were allowed to be in the streets. He believed skateboarding could be made safe and should be carefully regulated. Skateboarding could be as useful as bicycling. Council Member Cobb ,ensed the ability to "stop on a dime" was a function of the skateboarder's capability. He agreed skateboarding should not be a crime, but it needed to be safe for everyone. That evening he observed a skateboarder with no lights riding through three stop signs and ignoring every existing Vehicle Code regula- tion. Busy streets were not conducive to skateboarding, but he saw no problem on the smaller streets. Skateboards should be "required" to be in bike lanes. He was not sure having skateboards on the sidewalks was a problem especially for the younger children, but he understood the desire of the older children who probably had the skill to do so to use to use skateboards as a means of trans- portation. He was concerned about the ricks. Council Member Fletcher did not support the use of skateboards in the roadways. If skateboarders followed the Vehicle Code, they were allowed to leave the bicycle lane under certain conditions; they were allowed to crake left turns from the center of the road- way; and other situations which, while appropriate for a bicycle, were totally inappropriate for a skateboard. She had many concerns besides the apparent lack of control. Council Member Reenzel experienced no problem with skateboarders. Having an ordinance to permit skateboards in the street without being cited did not mandate small children to ride in the street. 61-102 2/13/89 Children could continue to use the sidewalks, and she hoped younger children were under parental supervision. If not, no ordinance would make any difference. The older children were riding in the street anyway and the only difference was they were being ticketed, which seemed to be unfair. Council had the ability to review the situation in a year to see whether there was adverse experience resulting from a different ordinance. She supported the motion. She also agreed with most of Council Member Levy's criteria. Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Member Renzel in terms of ages of children and parental control. She preferred the helmet issue also be left to parental discretion. She did not disagree. a helmet would be a valuable safety devise, but if Council did not require them for bicyclists, it was difficult to defend a requirement for skateboarders. She suggested reflectors be required to be worn by skateboarders at night, just as they would be required on a bicyclists. Absent reflectors, skateboarders should not be allowed in the street at night. She was not sure about the practicality of a skateboarder obeying the Vehicle Code, but she supported regulations similar to those adopted by the City of Pleasanton. Council Member Sutorius was concerned about any permissive ordi- nance, partially triggered by several instances when he observed dangerous skateboarding behavior and a near serious accident. He observed a skateboarder who was able to "stop on a dime," but the skateboard flew through the air, narrowly missed a pedestrian, and went on into the inter-- section. He did, however, appreciate the philosophy of letting the parents decide, and the proposal did require the issue to return to Council with the data collected during the first year of the ordinance. He would support the motion. He clarified the present ordinance referred to a prohibition of skateboarding in the "business districts" not just the "downtown." Mayor Klein supported the motion. He pointed out no data was presented to support the statement that skateboarding was unsafe. Until such data was pr=,aented, skateboarding should be treated fairly and should not be illegal. Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the motion and believed parental discretion was very important. She would not have allowed her six - year old child to ride a bicycle in the street, but an older child using goodjudgment could safely ride in street. She did not fully concur with Council Member Levy's criteria for an ordinance and did not believe Council could require helmets for skateboarders if they were not required of bicyclists. She agreed with Mayor Klein. MOTIOK PASSND 1, Fletcher "no." 61-103 2/13/89 P' 7DL L C HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re application of John Brooks Boyd/Robert R. Jenks Associates for a preliminary parcel map with exceptions for property located at 1055 Forest Avenue (300) (CMR:143:9) Council Member Renzel would not participate in the item. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen asked the record to reflect the inclusion of the following condition which was inadvertently omitted from the staff report (CMR:143:9): "The landscape strip east of the street and around the north end of the cul-de-sac must include a one foot non -access easement in order to preclude surrounding properties from also using the street as public access. Such a provision must be recorded concurrent with the final map" Ys. Jansen reiterated the condition was included with the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Council. The condition would basically not allow any access to future properties located at 1075 and 1081 Forest Avenue. Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the item was a reconfigura- tion of a previous subdivision application. Instead of the four lots originally configured, there were now only three. All of the lots met development standards. The only exception was for the street which was now requested to be 35 feet wide instead of 50 feet and the elimination of sidewalks because of the short area, The Planning Commission recommended approval. The only difference between the staff recommendation as originally sent to the Planning Commission and the Commission's final action was the addition of 10 -foot side yard setbacks on Parcels A and B. Further, the original recommendation from staff contained a recommendation for design review by the Zoning Administrator, but with the condition, the Commission disagreed. It was a question of breaking new ground, and it might not be in the purview of the Zoning. Administrator. It was believed 1 be unnecessary in such a small subdivision. Council Member Sutorius clarified Condition 7 listed in the staff report (CMR:143:9) was a aide yard property line setback intended to be the entire length. Council Member Woolley asked about a possible future subdivision of the Parcel C. Commissioner Cullen said the street frontage to divide Parcel C would not be sufficient to create two lots. 61-104 2/13/89 0 f Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said any future subdivision of parcel C would require an exception to lot depth. The parcel was currently 95 feet wise. In order to create two properties, they would need to front onto the newly formed cul-de-sac and there would be insufficient depth in that event on both lots. Any exceptions would require Council approval. Vice Mayor Bechtel said one of the conditions required the planting of a Copper Beech tree. There were some apparent problems with such a tree and she asked about the possibility of change. Ms. Jansen said the particular tree was recommended by the City Arborist Dave Sandage. She believed there was a lot of flexibility in the area, and something alas could be renegotiated. Vice Mayor Bechtel said a concern was expressed about the grading plan and whether there would be a differential between the surrounding neighbors homes. Ms. Jansen said there was no specific condition regarding grading placed on the property. She knew of no particular grading problems within the area. If Council desired to establish a condition, it could be done. The recommendation would be one along the lines of recent multiple family projects where there not be more than a one - foot grade differential at the rear of the property. Vice Mayor Bechtel referred to discussion that a side yard setback be longer than the 10 feet, perhaps 12 or 13 feet. She asked how restrictive that would be o ttes buildable area. Ms. Jansen said it would not unduly restrict the buildable area. She did not believe it would substantially reduce the house size, but rather that the structure would be placed in a different area. Commissioner Cullen said the Commission decided not to require additional setbacks. Increased setbacks would have been different from other setbacks around town, and there was concern about having mini -regulations in various areas of town. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Mary Morris, 1081 Forest Avenue, supported changing the classifica- tion of theproperty located at 1055 Forest Avenue to a Class 1 historic home. The Copper Beeches were potentially 90 -foot trees with a 60 -foot spreads and trunks which could be three to four feat in circumference. They were surface rooters and would be two feet on the other side of the fence line. Two families, living down the driveway should have some say as , to what type of tree they would be responsible for. She supported a different tree. 61-105 2/13/89 Ronald Cote, 1044 Forest Avenue, supported the Planning Commission recommendation to subdivide the property into three lots and to see the inclusion of a larger lot size to accommodate the Class 4 historic home located at 1055 Forest Avenue. The retention of the home was pivotal to the character of the neighborhood. home at 1055 Forest Avenue was one of four large homes in a ro:' on that side of the street and was set back more than 50 feet from i�A sidewalk. The appearance of the homes added a historical flavor and a sense of architectural integrity to the area he believed to be unique. He urged conditions to require the preservation of the home at 1055 Forest Avenue. Enid Pearson, 1019 Forest Court, said her lot backed up against Parcel B . She was grateful for the 1© -foot setback but preferred a 12 -foot setback because she was concerned that any structure would overwhelm her proIerty. She was concerned about the oversized houses being built and one Commissioner suggested a 24 -- foot height limit on the two lots. A 30 -foot high house would be enormous next to her one story home. She supported the subdivision with conditions. She was concerned about the grading differential raising the height and bulk of the houses further. The lots in the neighborhood sloped down towards Bay, and she urged no mere than a one -foot differential. She was concerned about the demolition possibilities and another subdivision of the lot. She and her neighbor believed it would be nice if the 15 feet being given to lots in terms of street size be used to provide a 12 -foot setback on each side. She supported the recommendation that the historic structure be given a Class 4 designation and recorded with the County. She supported the applicant's request to retain the cottage until the last minute. She supported the condition not recommended by the Planning Commission that the Zoning Administrator have some kind of design review. Jonathan Gifford, 1990 Cowper Street, emphasized he did not represent the Historic Resources Board (HRB) , and spoke only as an individual citizen. The house at 1055 Forest Avenue, Parcel C, was built in 1896 for a professor in the English Department at Stanford. It was a simple, colonial revival house. and a category 4. He doubted the current HRB would support a higher category to forestall potential demolition. John Hock, 736 Barron Avenue, could not find a parcel reap in the staff report (CMR:14 3 s 9) or the minutes. He was concerned a parcel map of the subdivision was not available to the public before the meeting. The City Council decided not to create elag lots, and when he finally did get a chance to review the parcel map, no parking was allowed on the street. The lots appeared to be flag lots. 61-106 2/13/89 i 0 Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. :' OTIOM: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation as amended on application 88-PM-4/88-EIA-18 based on the following findings and conditions, amending Condition 5 and adding Conditions 9 and 10: 7I INKS 1. The existing lot at 1055 Forest Avenue is unique and extra- ordinary because it is considerably larger than surrounding properties, and contains a large historic house which places limitations on access, lot design, and location. While standard road dedication could be physically accommodated in this subdivision design, it would appear out of scale and excessive to have a standard road serving three lots. There- fore, it is appropriate to grant exceptions for public street width and sidewalk standards. 2. Policy No. 3 of the Urban Design Element of the General Plan states, "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areasr and removal of visually disruptive elements on major city streets." Furthermore, the City's Street Tree Management Plan calls for "a continuous cover of tree foliage over a minimum of 50 percent on both sides of the block, within the public right-of-way," in the ongoing renewal of the street tree canopy in Palo Alto. The revised parcel map reflects a proposed street cross- section with a generous landscape strip along both sides of the street and a landscape island in the center of the cul-de-sac, all of which include a substantial variety of street trees and other appropriate vegetation. 3. Based on the above findings, the granting of these exceptions will not violate the goals, requirements policies and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Q1DTIO1( 1. All improvements within the public right-of-way must comply with the► City of Palo Alto's Standard Specifications, and be approved by the City Engineer. 2. The street must include vertical curbing. 3. A parking prohibition must be enforced on the street throughout the entire cul-de-sac, by posting "no -parking" signs in the required locations as indicated by the 61-107 2/13/89 Transportation Department, prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A private maintenance agreement shall be entered into by the homeowners who shall be responsible for all street maintenance and repairs (including the proposed 15 -foot landscape strip). This agreement shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Director of Planning and Community Environment, and recorded concurrently with the final parcel map. 5. The street tree species shall be subject to City Arborist approval, in consultation with the property owner and abutting neighbors and shall include trees of 15 -gallon sizes to be planted under the direction of the City Arborist. 6. Street lighting in conformance to city standards shall be provided by the developer. A plan for street lighting shall be approved by the Chief Electrical Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. 7. Ten foot side yard setbacks shall be required along the property line which separates Parcel A from 1075 Forest Avenue, and the property line which separates Parcel B from 1021 Forest Court. 8. rhe existing garden house/studio shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map, or a variance shall be applied for and approved to allow the structure within the rear yard setback area. 9. The landscape strip east of the street, and around the north end of the cul-de-sac, must include a one -foot non -access easement in order to preclude sQ rrounding properties from also using the street as public access. Such provision must be recorded concurrent with the final map. 10. There shall be no more than a one -foot grade difference between the subdivision and the surrounding parcels, at the subdivision boundaries in any future site development. Council Member Woolley was also concerned about retaining the house at 1055 Forest Avenue. She was concerned the 55 -foot setback was almost as important as the house, so it was not strictly a matter of historic preservation and changing categories, It was a matter of visual texture and what the haiise setback of 55 feet together did for the neighborhood. 61.108 2/13/89 As Corrected 3/13/89 a AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to more evenly distribute the net area of the subdivision among the lots by moving the rear line of Parcel C forward eight feet to increase Parcel B to 9,068 square feet and decrease Parcel C to 13,919 square feet. Future subdivision of Parcel C shall not be permitted in order to minimize access of a greater number of parcels into a substandard street. An exception is requested to the minimum road right-of-way; however, the area that would normally be dedicated to the public should not be included towards the net area of the individual parcel when calculating future subdivision potential. Council Member Woolley clarified if Parcel C was reduced by moving the lot line between B and C forward eight feet and the condition was clear that the 15 feet saved from making the road narrower shall not be used in calculating whether there was enough feet for a subdividable lot, the n't result would be that Parcel C ended up being 11,984 square feet which was not enough for two lots. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked if. the Redwood trees would be in the way of any kind of fence and whether the studio would be affected. Ms. Northway said a variance would be required to keep the cottage in the location. Ms. Jansen said if the tree was properly spotted, the property line would not actually run through the trunk of the tree. She did not see a major problem. Council Member Patitucci was concerned about Council getting to such a level of detail when there was a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation. Council MerberBechtel's modifications were clarificatiohJ. He believed the amendment was a departure from what the Planning Coi ission approved and he would not support it. Council Member Sutorius clarified they were talking about a public right-of-way which measured 20 feet in terms `.of the paved asphalt with vertical curve, and a five-foot and a ten -foot landscape strip described as being part of the public right-of-way, Ms. Jansen said there were two things happening with the raendment. First, the lot areas of Parcels B and C would be moved a little more towards equalization of the lot area although it was really not achievable given the existing development on the property. Secondarily, the moving of the property line could relate back to the total area of Parcel C which would then be less than 12,000 square feet and would, therefore, require a variance to lot area if an application were eventually receive.. It allowed for the connection between the substandard street width and access to 61.109 2/13/89 Parcel C and, therefore, allowed the City to make the fining that Parcel C could not be subdivided in the future which was the purpose of the amendment. It would be a covenant and would run with .:ne land. There was nothing in tha present conditions to preclude the subdivision application at some future date. Council Member Sutorius concurred with Council Member Patitucci. He was concerned about taking such a significant action without the applicant even registering a reaction. He could not support the amendment that evening. Mayor Klein agreed with Council Members Patitucci and Sutorius. He could not conceive of himself supporting a subdie ision of Parcel Cf but, if a Council wanted to do it in 20 years, he preoumed there would be some wisdom for doing so. He did not see why the 1989 City Council would want to prevent the 2009 City Council from doing what it saw best at the time. He would not support the amendment. Council Member Fletcher said the issue of the possible future subdivision of the lot was discussed at the Planning Commission level, and the applicant was aware of the concern. Council had the opportunity to deal with the matter. It was a great concern to preserve the particular setback and she urged reconsideration. Bob Jenks, 454 Forest Avenue, applicant, was confused. He did not understand how moving the property line between properties C and D forward eight feet would make the lot below 12,000 square feet. They were talking 14,000 plus square feet, and to get below 12,000 square feet, the property line would have to move forward by 20 or 30 feet, and it would eliminate the present cottage. He requested clarification. Ms. Jansen said if the full right-of-way for the 50 -foot width were there, it would be around 11,000 square feet. They were only suggesting moving the property line eight feet, and the applicant would have to apply for a variance +:vr the studio location regardless of where the property line was. Mr. Jenks clarified it was eight feet towards Forest Avenue. The property was being reduced from approximately 14,500 square feet to basically 13,919. It was a little sudden to absorb some of the details without further study. He was uncomfortable accepting the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Woolley, Fletcher voting "aye," Menzel "not participating." Council Member Fletcher believed Council was duty-bound to expose whether individual members went to see the property and spoke with neighbors, She wanted to increase the size of the side yard 61-110 2/13/89 setbacks and did not believe such a change was a precedent because Council did not usually allow streets of less than the normal width. The reduction from 50 feet to 35 feet was actually a bonus for the applicant and '.t should be used to protect the immediate neighbors. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to amend Condition 7 to increase the side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 12 feet. Council Member Cobb asked to what extent such an amendment would drive the development up. Commissioner Cullen said Chairman Hirsch was concerned that if the side yard setback were increased, it would practically mandate a two-story house. The rest of the Commission believed a two-story house was probably inevitable in the location given the size of the parcels and price they would bring. Council Member Sutorius would not support the amendment. The Commission's discussion was extensive. He also visited the site and did not see a reason for going beyond the ten feet. Both the Pearson and the Armstrong homes were six feet from the property life of the Parcels B and A respectively. In the case of each property, they had two six-foot wide separations. In the Armstrong's case, it was the side yard and the backyard, and in the Pearson's case, it was her rear yard and one of her side yards. It was difficult for him to understand the fairness of expanding the setbacks even further on Parcels A and B when it was "taking" from the properties in order to protect an advantage that the two existing homes already had of narrow setback. Council Member Levy supported increasing the setbacks The config- uration of they parcels was such that there was a larger amount of buildable footprint on the parcels than on a normal parcel because of the narrowness of the front yard around the bulb of the cul-de- sac. He agreed with Commissioner Cullen that building a two-story house was inevitable, and the footprint was large enough to increase the side yard setback and allow a little more daylight. It was a minor item and he saw no reason to object. Council Member Patitucci would not support the amendment, Council was again "playing" planning Commission on an item which was thoroughly discussed and returned with, a unanimous recommendation. Former Cou.nc i l Member Pearson said she was pleased with 10 feat but would be elated with 12 feet. AMEtMMENT TIMM 3-51 Fletcher, Levy, Woolley voting "aye," penzel "not participating." 61-111 2/13/89 As Corrected 3/13/89 Council Member Cobb believed Council did a good job of making it difficult to subdivide the property which was a protection he was looking for and it would be adequate for the future. Council Member Woolley understood the access strip did not border Parcel C. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. The Commission actually con- sidered having the access strip border Parcel C but the motion failed. The non -access strip was along the other side of the street. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Renzel "not participating." RECESS: 9:35 p.m. to 9:47 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re appeal of Bob Moss from the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve a variance for property located at 3939 Fabian Way (300) Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle referred to a letter, dated February 6, 1989, from Bob Moss (which is on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Moss stated in his letter that Council could only uphold or deny the appeal not impose modified conditions directly which was incorrect. Council could modify the conditions. Mr. Moss further stated staff had not requested an upgrading of the building. While that was technically true,, Palo Alto required seismic analysis of certain high occupancy buildings, of which the pxsposed building was one. The purpose of the seismic hazards identification program was to inform owners of potential lateral force problems and have them corrected voluntarily. Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the Planning Ce ission was also primarily concerned with the seismic safety in considering the appeal. The testimony of the structural engineer as to the method being used was convincing; the design itself was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and would return to them: the question of usable floor area ratio (FAR) was concerned only whether it was in the tower or on the ground. It could not be in both. Sun Microsystems was not requesting additional FAR as a seismic safety bonus. She regretted the misunderstanding of her remarks which concerned the building only in its industrial zone and did not relate to any of the residences. Council Member Menzel clarified the present height limit was 50 test. If a 22,000 square foot addition was requested, it could be done. It could also be done in the same configuration stopping at 50 feet. 61-112 2/13/89 Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Sutorius clarified Council should rely on the plans submitted, including the revised sheets with a revision date of January 13, 1989. Ms. Lytle said Council should be concerned with the portion of the building proposed for above the 50 -foot height limit. Modifications could still occur within all legal zoning require- ments to the portion of the building below the 50 -foot height limit without variance with ARB approval so long as it conformed with the zoning ordinance. Council Member Fletcher queried whether there had been final review by the ARB. Ms. Lytle said no. Council Member Sutorius clarified there had been preliminary review by the ARB, and there was an approved landscape plan. Ms. Lytle said the applicant received final approval of a parking lot upgrade, modification and landscaping. Final approval had not been received for any building additions. Council Member Sutorius had visited the site but had no contact with any personnel. He also walked and drove through portions of the area and had contact with Mrs. Weinstein and Mr. Grimsrud. Council Member Renzel visited the site and neighborhood. Council Member Cobb visited the Mr. Gri asrud. Council Member Fletcher visited no contact with anyone. site and discussed the matter with the site and neighborhood but had Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme,.appellant, suggested rather than the variance approval for the specific project, there be stiffening approaches without using the fourth and fifth floors. There could be a flatter but wider tower to reduce the increased bulk of the building. He made a presentation with many alternatives to the variance. He urged they appeal be upheld and that the specific variance be denied. He would have no problem with a referral to reduce the size of they towers above 50 feet and for the etrengt ening to be done differently. If the applicant still. asz ir+ d 20,000 additional square feet, the first and second floors could be between the proposed towers. 61.113 2/:.3/89 Dr. Marvin Weinstein, 3845 Nathan Way, had a doctorate in physics, and was a research scientist at Stanford Linear Accelerator. The first he heard of the matter was when Bob Moss filed the appeal. Following the Planning Commission hearings, he was left with the belief that the issue was fully discussed. The only Commissioner who spoke at the Planning Commission level was C 'nunissioner Cullen, who said he had misunderstood her. He apologized if that was the case but reiterated that what he heard was a total lack of concern for the protection of homeowners' rights in the neighborhood. He referred to the discussion that evening regarding the division of the lot on Forest Avenue with a true concern with how the, residents would be impacted. There was no discussion about the appeal or -any of his or Mr. Grimsrud's comments. He was very concerned about the decision process. Paul Grimsrud, 3955 Bibbits Drive, associated with the comments of Dr. Weinstein. The addition of 22,000 square feet above the 50 - foot level was a significant increase in the size of the building and should be given some consideration. He agreed residents were not consulted early in the process to receive proper considerat. on. As a planning consultant, he was accustomed to public hearings where the public's options of design, costs and impacts on the community were presented. He was pleased about Sun Microsystems moving in but was concerned about the process. He requested a review of the options to see whether Sun Microsystems could provide earthquake protection at a reasonable cost with a lower visual impact on the community. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gailen Avenue, was concerned about the visual impacts of the height variance. If it was possible to make the improvements without such a visual impact, it should be explored. Paul Hauser, 6130 Monteverde Drive, San Jose, represented Sun Microsystems, and was concerned about safety and energy conservation. He believed the improvements and the associated variance would not be detrimental or injurious to the community but rather would improve the life, safety, and architectural image of the community. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission concurred in the matter and the granting of the variance would establish a strong precedent for the voluntary seismic upgrade of structures to the levels of or beyond Palo Alto's ordinance. He urged the appeal be denied. Council Member Cobb asked whether consideration was liven to the options suggested. Joe Sutton, President, Basher Designs, structural engineers for the project, said approxisately one dozen structural bracing schemes involving combinations of internal perimeter and external 61-114 2/13/89 1 seismic bracing schemes were considered. The building was currently considered to be unsafe. After looking at combinations of internal schemes as well as perimeter schemes, the conclusion was that no system other than the external bracing would effectively accomplish the level of safety required by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) . They focused on a variety of external bracing schemes, e.g., locating the towers at various positions around the perimeter, and trying to achieve some symmetry in order to take the maximum advantages of the towers. It was concluded early in the design stages that it would not be possible to truncate or effectively cone the tops of the towers because they would not provide adequate stiffness at the upper levels of the building. They were trying to not only provide for minimization of damage to the structure but z lso to provide uniformity and safety to the occupants at all levels. Council Member Renzel clarified part of the existing building was at 70 feet with an 83 -foot high penthouse, but the variance was for a maximum height of 82 feet, 9 inches for the penthouse and 79 feet, 9 inches for the main building. It appeared 9 feet, 9 inches was being added on the towers. She asked about the penthouse. Mr. Sutton said the external braces themselves engaged each floor and extended all the way to the roof and engaged the roof level. The penthouse seismic strengthening was achieved by braces in the perimeter walls of the penthouse as well as internal to penthouse itself. The bracing could not be seen from the outside. Mr. Moss referred to a proposal 10 or 12 years ago for external development and to increase the size of the old Palo Alto Savings & Loan Building. The basic principle of not excee;.:ing the 50 -foot height then was equally valid in 1989. He had not seer any demonstration by the structural engineers that adequate strengthening and stiffening of the building and additional usable office space could not be achieved without using the towers as proposed. It was possible to strengthen the building by putting more structural members in place of the open space which would be used for offices. The options needed to be explored. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Bechtel believed the alternatives had been explored. Regarding the square footage, the application did not go beyond the legal floor area ratio and there was no request for an exception as a benefit of doing the seismic upgrade. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to deny the appeal of Bob Moss, and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve a variance to maximum height requirements 61-115 2/13/89 for a seismic bracing addition at 3939 Fabian Way with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the existing five -story building is noncomplying in height, at approximately 70 feet with an 83 -foot high penthouse. The building does not meet current seismic safety requirements; The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, in that the applicant desires to upgrade the safety of the building by constructing seismic bracing additions that will achieve the design standards of the X985 Uniform Building Code. The bracing must be constructed to the height of theexisting parapet, and the existing penthouse will also require bracing. At the same time, the applicant will be improving the architectural appearance of the building and adding to the internal floor area; and 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that it will provide a greater degree of safety within and around the building and will impeeve the architectural image of the structure. 2. CQ 4DITIONS 1. The final design shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board within the limits of this variance, as shown on plane dated received January 13, 1989.* * Please note that the plans submitted on January 13, 1989, differ slightly from those originally approved by the Zoning A inistrator. Tha applicants have included a small expansion of the mechanical penthouse structure in order to screen some equipment which was not accounted for in the original design submittal. This design modification will be largely imperceptible from off site. Council Member Renzel was very concerned about the City's height limitation; however, the existing building was already 70 feet tall. It appeared that all the surrounding properties faced the building at a slightly oblique angle. The building was so large, the structural additions did not actually increase the building as much as the width of the additions because one only saw. one side 61-116 2/13/89 1 of the building at one time. The proposal was within the allowable FAR and height limit; and, even if the addition were straight offices, all of the space up to 50 feet would be allowed. They were talking about the difference of 29 feet of the structural additions which had 8,000 square feet of total office space. It appeared the width of the building would not be perceived as being very much greater from the neighbor's properties than it already appeared, and since the building was there and since the square footage was allowed, it made sense '.:o approve the variance. She reluctantly supported the motion. Council Member Fletcher concurred with Council Member Renzel. Council Member Levy would not support the motion. There was a 50 - foot height limitation in Palo Alto, and the proposal would bring the structure to 30 feet above that limitation. He was persuaded there were ways of strengthening the building which would not require additional floor space. Council Member Sutorius supported the motion and associated hieself with many of the comments of Council Member Menzel. He believed the matter was carefull; studied by the applicant and the applicant's professional consultants, and had gone through the City pro- ceases. The City of Palo Alto was extremely fortunate to have as its Chief Building Official, Fred Herman, who was extraordinarily familiar with aspects of earthquake hazard and the right kinds of structural engineering design and support to lessen the impacts. The project was well -evaluated from several vantages. In terms of process, property ownere within 300 feet of the property requesting a variance were required to be noticed. It was mandatory that the party applying for the variance send out the notices. It was in the best interests of the community to enhance the safe operation of such a major facility. Mayor Klein was pleased to see Sun Microsystems as a part of the Palo Alto community and that it was voluntarily undertaking to enhance the safety of the► building and the appearance of the area. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Cobb, Levy "no." Council agreed to complete its regular agenda but that the Study Session to discuss Council Priorities be postponed. 9. PUBLIC SING: Planning Commission recommendation to extend interim zoning regulations for Town & Country Village, Stanford Shopping Center and the OR, CM and CS Districts (237, 61-117 2/13/€9 Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt staff recommendation to approve the ordinance, which includes a finding that there will be no significant adverse environmental impact. QRDI iANcE FOR_FIRST RE/0Q/NQ entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL '`4F THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE, STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER, AND THE OR, CN AND CS DISTRICTS" MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 11. Ordinance Amending the Budget to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Participation in the Golder_ Triangle Transportation Demand Transportation Management Program (1045-01) (CMR:1449) Mike Evanhoe, Executive Director, Golden Triangle Task Force, introduced dary Edson, Project Manager for the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) agency. The Golden Triangle Task Force approved the overall implementation agreement. They were in the process or putting together a Memora adum of Understanding with the Bay Area Rides commute organization to coordinate activities between those two agencies. Mr. Edson was reviewing the specifi- cations to line up compatible computer systems, and they were working with the Santa Clara County Transit District on some ridesharing initiatives to increase use of the commute lanes on Highway 101. Council Member Fletcher asked when Council might expect to see the TDM ordinance. Mr. Evanhoe said the ordinance was presently in model form. A new state law, AB 2595, set a new Clean Air Act for the State of California, and AB 3971 established a procedure for implementing it in the Bay Area, The two new laws gave authority to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to implement the law. The first joint meeting of the agencies was Febraary 23, 1989. Hopefully, the ordinance would be brought forward in the summer. 61-118 2/13/89 e 1 Council Member Cobb asked about the difference in the figures for the final. budget from that outlined in the staff report (cMR:14 4 : 9) . Mr. Evanhoe said there would be somewhat of a downward adjustment due to the five months remaining in the current fiscal year. The next fiscal year, depending on what type of system was set up, would be about the same. Council Member Sutorius asked about the process to evaluate performance and accomplishments of the TDM program. Mr. Evanhoe said the Golden Triangle Task Force suggested a benchmark survey to be conducted before implementing anything to get updated statistics on ridesharing and the use of alternate systems. In the specifications for the annual reporting of each company with 100 or more employees, there would be continued monitoring and an evaluation of success. A work session was to be scheduled with the Council to go over the plans in more detail. Gary Ldson, Golden Triangle TDM Program Manager, formerly of Orange County, referred to similarities of suburban areas with a lot of economic strength suffering from traffic congestion. Many of the lessons learned in Orange County could be applied in Santa Clara County. Council Member Patitucci queried whether there were any ongoing funding and financing mechanisms paid for by commuters, employers, Federal funding or others or would the cities ba paying the total tab in the long tern. Mr. Edson said they were presently propos;ng 14 Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) to be funded partially through the present allocation being requested and through some money to be received from Caltrans. The idea behind the public funding was to get the TMAs off the ground for the first two or three years and then have them totally privately funded from the employer fees which would be assessed pursuant to a similar plan successfully used in Orange County. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt staff reco en= lat ion to: 1. Approve the Amendment to Golden Triangle Task Force Agreement to Implement a Transportation Demand Manageent Program; 2. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance appropriating $19,000 Jot the February, March and April 1989 City payment to the Golden Triangle TDM Agency; and 61-119 2/13/89 3. Acknowledge the City's commitment to participate in the Golden Triangle TDM Agency in 1989-90 and receipt of the Octobsr 1988 estimate of the City's 1989-90 TDM Agency expenditure . ORDINANCE 3852 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN A GOLDEN TRIANGLE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE" Council Member Levy had no problem with the substance of the ordinance. He assumed the money was coming from the Reserve for Capital Items, and he asked for the status of the Reserve. Assistant City Manager June Fleming was not sure about the exact figures but stressed extensive use of those funds had not been made. Council Member Patitucci queried whether it was possible to get the funding into the regular budget cycle. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 12. Council. Member Patitucci and Mayor Klein lie Possible Council Actions to Support Restrictions on the Sale and Use of Assault -Type (Semi -Automatic) Weapons (1202) Council Member Patitucci sai0 the issue of semi -automatic, military -type weapons was brought to Council's attention by the tragic shootings of the children in Stockton and news which reported the military -type weapons were generally available from gun stores. He also referred to gang wars where the semi -automatic weapon was the "weapon of choice." He undetstood the State legislature was reviewing the subject as was the Federal Congress and other litiea. MOTION; Council Member Patitucci moved, secor"ed..by Klein, to direct staff to return with a recommendation fnr the strongest action which the City of Palo Alto can take with respect to prohibiting the sale and possession of semi -automatic weapons. Council Member Sutorius asked about including ammunition in the investigation. Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said current research reflected the issue of ammunition was included in some of the definitions of the weapons. Staff could return with more information. 61-120 2/13/89 Ms. Northvay sensed Council wanted to move quickly on the matter. She suggested she would research the issue of the weapons themselves. If such an ordinance was Zeal, she would return on March 6, 1989, with a proposal. She had not considered the issue of ammunition, and it might create a longer time frame. Council Member Levy said a couple of years ago Council discussed the potential for putting significant limitations on handguns within the community. It was discovered the State had preempted the City, and the City was precluded from taking any action whatsoever on handguns. He queried how semi -automatic assault weapons were defined differently. Ms. Northway believed the distinction was based an the concealable firearms. Her initial research was done in 1982, and in 1983, there was a case, Vane 0100 V. De City and County of a Francisco, which clearly held that handguns as "concealable weapons" were preempted. Preliminary research indicated the City might have more latitude with respect to semiautomatic weapons because they were not regulated by the States Scott Zickefoose, 962 Lawrence Lane, believed the proposed legislation was an infringement of his Constitutional rights. Military ammunition was generally used by hunters. Council Member Renze1 asked whether Mr. Zickefoose was is the weapons business. Mr. Zickefoose said no, but he was interested in them. Francis Hamada, 785 Loma Verde, said everyone was horrified by the violence but steps needed to be aimed directly at the problele. A civilized society carried certain responsibilities and obligations. Those who did not obey society's rules were stripped of their privileges, e.g., the right to vote, the right to freedom, and the right to keep and bear arms: Contzols needed to directly address the problem He referred to legislation introduced by Democratic Mse'.eblyman Lloyd Conley in Sacramento, regarding 15 - day waiting periods, complete records, security and background checks, plus a national computer concerning "51-50" detainment forms filed by the police concerning mental instability or violence. These all directly related to the targeted concerns. He supported enforcement of existing laws. Mike McGowan, 2513 Alma Street, raid it was easy to want to do something about what occurred in Stockton. To focus upon the weapon used made no more sense than to focus upon the brand of whiskey or the kind of car preferred by a drunken driver. Over 98.8 percent of the firearms mined in the United States were never 61-121 2/13/89 involved in any form cf crime or accident and it made no sense to assume the common, law-abiding citizen was a latent criminal. He believed it would be more effective to keep repeat offenders in jail and to use consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. The definition of an automatic weapon was one which would fire more than one rov'nd with one pull of the trigger, and such weapons were strictly controlled under Federal law. Council Member Patitucci clarified a line had been drawn in terms of automatic weapons at some point. The question was now where the line should be drawn with respect to semi -automatic weapons. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, said one could not always tell about some people, and he referred to San Francisco Supervisor Dan White. Some guns were strictly controlled, and some needed to be added to the list. The issue of gun control had been around for a long time. Regarding competitive rifle competition sponsored by the military, he believed gunners could practice with smaller, less lethal ammunition and the military could issue full clips for the actual competition. He did not believe military -type weapons needed to be in circulation. He urged the careful drafting of regulations to exclude truly dangerous weapons while retaining the privilege of owning mechanically similar weapons with a legitimate purpose in sport shooting. He respected the right of individuals to hunt in a safe and sane manner. Dangerous weapons with no legitimate use in society should be regulated. Terry Wittenberg, 756 East Charleston Road, said there were several gun enthusiasts in the area, and he d 3 not believe passage of an ordinance would compel those with limited edition rifles to give them up. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, commended Council Member Patitucci and Mayor Klein for bringing the matter forward. He believed it was appropriate for the Council to do whatever was possible to get the semi -automatic, military -type weapons, off the street and make them less available. He urged that Council adopt an ordinance banning the sale . and possession of military -type weapons, in Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 13. Council Members Cobb, Levy, Sutorius and Woolley re 1989 Study Topics for the Finance and Public Works Committee (701-15) Council Member Cobb said the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee discussed at its last meeting the idea of taking from a list of topics some to study in depth during the year. NOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, to direct the Finance and Public Works Committee to prioritize the 1989 Study 61-122 2/13/89 1 Topics as follows, to the end of taking an in-depth look at some combination of the following topics: 1) Utility tax; 2) Two-year budget; 3) New revenues; 4) Economic forecast; 5) User fees/Cost recovery; 6) Budget format; and 7) Self-insurance. Those with the most impact on the budget process would be considered first, with others to be undertaken later in the year after completion of the budget. Vice Mayor Bechtel believed the list was ambitious, and she queried whether the thought was for it to be extended over a several -year period. Council Member Cobb said the Committee wanted to get the topics on the table in order to decide how they might be addressed, in what order, and how many could be accomplished in 1989. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said the list was appropriate; however, she was concerned some of the items needed to be considered in depth and she was unsure whether the available staff time and resources could do justice to the topics. The bulk of the work would fall on a department already severely strained and workingat capacity. Council Member Patitucci believed it might be useful to express some priorities tor the year. The utility tax issue needed to be dealt with because the revenue forecasts were well in excess of what was expected, and Council owed the public acme policy decisions in conjunction with the next budget cycle. He would not have made the self-inaurance risk assessment a high priority had the City not just paid out $2 million in attorneys° fees regarding the cable lawsuit. Another priority was the policies, guidelines, goals and specific fees under the user fee and cost recovery topic. Given the budget situation, the City was moving toward relating fees to services, and every effort in that area would ease budget demands. Council Member Renzel queried what Council was authorizing by listing and voting on priorities for. the F&PW Committee. Council Member Cobb did not expect the P&p'W Committee would attempt to consider all of the issues. He did not believe it would be appropriate for the F&PW Committee to consider any of the issues in depth without full Council approval to do so. Council Member Renzel was concerned about the topic "economic forecast." Having the economics govern planning would be the "tail wagging the dog" and Council needed to approach the topic carefully. She was not interested in the F&PW Committee getting into the issues of planning. 61-123 2/13/89 MOTION PASSED 9-0. AWOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:34 ATTEST: CitC1�rk p.m. APPROVED: NOTE: Sense min ite's opsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 61-124 2/13/89