HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-06 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DEAL
Regular Meeting
March 6, 1989
Oral Communications
61-x.51
Minutes of February 6, 1989
1. Agreement With Santa Clara
Valley
o Water
61-151
District for Replacement og �
and Naverley Street Bridges at Matadero
Creek
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Citywide Land Use a'd 61-152
Transportation Study and Environmental
Impact Reports Including Manning Commis-
sion Recommendations
3 Ordinance Prohibiting Possession or Sale
61--17Q
of Assault Weapons and Declaring an Emergency
4. Ordinance regarding
Oral Communications 61-176
61-177
PAGB
61-151
Adjournment at 12:33 a.m.
61-150
3/6/89
Regular Meeting
March 6, 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 the need for Closed Session to discuss 1)
City of Palo Alto v. City of East Palo Alto; and, 2) World
Resources v. City of Palo Alto pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a); and to discuss initiation of litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to be held at some point during
or after the meeting.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher,
Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:45 p.m.),
Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
ORAL commpIcAnws
1. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, spoke regarding support for
Palo Alto firefighters.
2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto
3t acht Harbor.
&MOM; OF iNUTES
MCTIO►Nx Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the Minutes of February 6, 1989, as submittad.
MOTION PASS= 8-0, Patitucci absent.
CDNERMSALENDM
(MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve
Consent Calendar Item 1.
Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District for
Replacement of the Cowper and Waverley Street Bridges at
Matadero Creek; staff is further authorized to make amendments
to the agreement up to $5,000. (1520.01) (Cllr: l49:9)
LION PAU= 8-0, Patitucci absent.
61-151
3/6/89
1
1
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study
and Environmental Impact Report, Including Planning Commission
Recommendations (1041-07) (CMR:173:9)
Mayor Klein announced that he would not participate in the matter
insofar as Stanford University items were concerned due to a
conflict of interest.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing reopened.
Phil Williams, Director of Planning, Stanford University, referred
to Stanford's recommendations that the Quarry Road site be
designated to allow a psychiatric center. Several years ago the
campus was d iv ided into regions in order to facilitate thorough
planning to bridge the gap between the General Land Use Plan and
specific building projects. The original Medical Center Region
Plan was completed in 1985, and the update was completed in late
1988. Both Plans indicated a Psychiatric Center on the Quarry
trapezoid parcel. The need for such a facility was established by
a task force of key physicians and administr.:ors in 1982. When
the possibility of funding and building the facility was confirmed,
the Medical Center Long -Range Facilities Planning Group conducted
an extensive analysis of five sitee lased on 15 criteria, related
to planning and program, land use, zoning, functional relationships
and access, costs including the opportunity costs compared to other
uses for the sites, and other factors including timing, size,
organizational boundaries and gcwernmental constraints. Site E,
the trapezoid site, ranked highest especially in planning and
program criteria. Site A, the old Childrens' Hospital site, had
the same problems of distance and accessibility to the Stanford
Hospital for doctors and patients which motivated the move of
Childrens' Hospital in the first place. Site B, the west campus,
or the 85 -acre site, was reserved for future teaching and research
facilities which Stanford preferred not to use until it exhausted
infiil sites of .which the Quarry Road site was one. The Plan also
called for the preservation of a wide area of low intensity uses
such as biological experimental fields as a buffer from Sand Hill
Road. Site C, the Hoover Pavilion site, was the current location
of most of the psychiatric beds which must be moved as a condition
of the use permit for the Hospital Modernization Plan (HMP). The
old betiding was becoming less suite'ale for modern patient caret
Site Q, the site behind the Mobil Station, was not as accessible
to the main hospital as the Quarry Road, trapezoid site. Stanford
was interested in providing housing to support its educational
programs. Presently, housing for 8,700 students and 955 faculty
homes were provided. Stanford way: building 26 dupleA units,
planning at least 800 unite, for Stanford West in the old Childrens'
Hospital area, hoping to add 200 to 400 units at the Mayfield
61-152
3/6/89
School site, and at least 400 more student beds on campus.
Stanford invested $35 million in housing assistance programs.
Since the first discussions of possible housing along Quarry Road
in the early 1980's, the old Childrens' Hospital site became
available for housing --26 acres instead of 11, and Stanford
discovered a way to fund the Psychiatric Center. It seemed logical
to take advantage of the opportunity to create a continuum of
housing along the Creek with access from Sand Hill Road and the
opportunity to create a continuum of medical uses with access from
Quarry Road, which was already a principal emergency route. The
County designation being sought for the area was University
Lands/Campus. It would allow academic uses and housing. He urged
the City provide the same designation.
Council Member Sutorius said Site B, the west campus, was located
in a "special condition" area. The General Use Permit proposal
indicated no development was foreseen in "special areas" A, B and
1). He asked about the kind of uses being studied for "special
condition" area B, which would affect the vest campus.
Mr. Williams said the current use permit went roughly to the year
2000, and Stanford contemplated no building construction
whatsoever. The area along the road was being held back for an
area of 100 or 200 feet or more available as a low intensity area
in the current Regional Plans for biological research fields. Such
low density use would not require a building permit or a special
use permit,
Council Member Sutorius asked about the current definition of the
University Lards/Campus designation.
Mr. Williams said the County only had one general designation for
campus -type uses, i.e. , University Lands/Campus, and it allowed the
full gamut of academic uses and housing for faculty, staff or
students. The definition was not prescriptive onto the density of
the housing.
Council Member Sutorius waked whether Stanford, the County and the
City were in concert in terms of the kind of housing allowed under
the University Lands/Campus designation at the Site B, west campus
location.
Mr. Williams believed there was concert on the type of housing
allowed, but it was not discussed in detail.
Council Member Levy asked whether Stanford consiaared changing its
plans for areas heretofore considered . for academic use to be
•houaling as a trade- off for the trapezoid site.
61-153
3/6/89
Mr. Williams said no. Stanford was studying additional areas in
terms of suitability for housing.
Council Member Renzel asked how the current housing supply provided
by Stanford compared to its total number,_of faculty, staff and
students.
Mr. Williams said Stanford provided housing for half or a little
more than half of its faculty; about 87 percent of the
undergraduate students; 37 percent of the graduate students; and
out rf about 4,500 staff members on the main campus and a similar
number in the hospital, it provided housing for about 10 percent.
Council Member Patitucci asked about the present zoning category
for Site E, the Quarry Road, trapezoid site.
Mr. Williams said Site E was currently designated by the County as
a Study Area. Because it was in the same designation :s the
Arbor :tum, the zoning was A-1, agriculture with a 20 -acre site
olope minimum. The designation was designed for the foothills
areas of the County.
Council Member Renzel asked how long Stanford had intended to
incorporate the Welch Road Medical Regional Plan into the Medical
Center.
Mr. Williams said it was shown as such in Stanford's 1980 Land Use
Plan.
David Korn, Vice President of Stanford University and Dean of the
School of Medicine, supported retaining the land designation at the
southwest corner of Quarry and Arboretum Roads for academic use in
order to build the proposed Psychiatric Center. The proposal was
for an 80 -bed psychiatric hospital and a companion building to
house the Department of Psychiatry and its out -patient clinics.
The psychiatric hospital would add several new programs intended
to serve the residents of the area, including in -patient services
for children, alcohol and substance abuse programs for adolescents,
intensive care and highly specialized units for adolescents, in-
patient services for senior citizens, and in -patient
neuropsychiatric evaluation. The Psychiatric Center would enable
the academic Department of Psychiatry to strengthen its clinical
facilities and provide for more patient care for individuals who
could not currently be ancoamodated. Stanford presently had 20
general psychiatric beds and 1.4 substance abuse beds in the Hoover
Pavilion. which were inadequate. Stanford was also obligated to
vacate the Hoover Pavilion facility as parts of its use permit for
the HMP. The current facili, was the smallest psychiatric in-
patient unit in any major medical school in the country, and it
could not accommodate a whole variety of severely ill patients with
61-154
3/6/89
psychiatric disorders because of its physical limitations.
Proximity was an important issue because psychiatric patients were
often victims of a range of other medical problems which required
a tight linkage between medical or pediatric specialists,
psychiatrists and occasionally neurologists.
Council Member kenzel queried why the concern about psychiatric
beds was never raised nor had Stanford attempted to address the
concern. The pediatrics ward in the original old Stanford Hospital
was originally designed for psychiatry and was converted to
pediatrics. Now that the new Childrens' Hospital was being built,
she queried why the Psychiatric Center was not considered for that
facility as originally intended.
Mr. Korn said the original designation for the psychiatry beds in
the then new Stanford Palo Alto Hospital was converted to an in-
patient pediatric service. When the hospital was purchased in
1968, Dr. Tom Gonda, Professor of Psych4atry and first director of
the Stanford Hospital, identified laundry space in the Hoover
Pavilion where the first small psychiatric bed unit was set up.
The probler of how best to develop a state-of-the-art psychiatric
service in the Medical Center was a topic of discussion for at
least 15 years. The task force established by Dr. Crowley in 1982
devioped the proposal before the Council. The issue of why
Stanford did not try to put the needs into one or another of the
hospital expansions or the Packard Hospital was complicated. The
state of general psychiatric opinion was that psychiatric patients
required different facilities from general medical surgical
facilities. There either needed to be a special wing configured
for general acute care medicine and surgery or pediatrics or there
needed to be a separate site configured appropriately for such
patients.
Council Member Renzel queried what would happen to the ten Medi--
Cal beds in the new proposal.
Dr.. Lorrin Koran said there were no Medi-Cal beds at Stanford
Hospital or any other hospital. Beds were not allocated by payer,
they were allocated to patients. Some of the care for patients in
the general psychiatry units were paid for by Medi-Cal; some were
paid by privets insurance; some were paid by Medi-Care; some were
paid out of the patients' own pocket. The federal government would
not pay for patients cared for in a private, free-standing hospital
between the ages of 18 and 65. It would pay for those patients to
be cared for aged 10 to 17. There was no Stanford or charter
decision about whether to admit Medi-Cal patients —it was a federal
government decision.
Iris Litt,: Professor of Pediatrics at Stan'_'ord University School
of Medicine and Director of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at
61-155
3/6/e9
1
the Medical Center and Childrens' Hospital, supported locating the
proposed psychiatric facility as close to the main Medical Center
and the new Childrens' Hospital as possible. She was concerned for
both patient care and the academic activities of the Medical
Center. It was important that any patient admitted to a
psychiatric facility to be in close proximity to the Medical
Center.
Dr. Ivan Genzel, psychiatrist, 900 Welch Road, had been associated
with the Stanford Medical School since 1959, was a Clinical
Associate Professor in the Medical Center and on the active medical
staff since 1964. When the hospital opened, there were no
provisions for in -patient psychiatric care. In 1960, a 13 -bed unit
was opened in the main Medical Center, and about 1970, a 20 -bed
unit was transferred to a renovated laundry area of Hoover Pavilion
where it remained. There were occasions when the beds .sere filled,
and patients had to be referred to other facilities. The new
hospital would have more beds andwould be able to respond to the
needs for child, adolescent and geriatric care. Psychiatry was
important in the humane care of people with emotioral difficulties
and in education and research. The alliance of patient care,
education and research was best served by the closest possible
proximity of a psychiatric facility with the Medical Center. The
Arboretum/Quarry site provided that advantage. The need for
emergency medical care was bound to occur more frequently since the
new hospital would deal with the geriatric population. He
encouraged Council's acceptance of the Arboretum/Quarry site for
the new psychiatric hospital.
Bunny Good, Founder, International Group Organization for the
Disabled, P. D. Box 824, Menlo Park, CA 94026-0824, believed the
patients who were children should be separated from adult patients.
Carol Paine, Clinical Nursing Coordinator, In -Patient Psychiatric
Unit, 2040 Laguna, #203, said while the unit was strong and solid
clinically, it was very limited in the care it could provide.
Hoover Pavilion was formerly occupied by medical as well as
psychiatric services. Medical teams in training in the hospital
were on duty 24 hours in order to cover medical emergencies for the
psychiatric patients. When the HMP opened, the facilities vacated
by units moving into the HMP allowed the medical units to move out
of Hoover Pavilion. Those still in Hoover Pavilion were the in-
patient psychiatric unit and the substance abuse unit. It was
imperative to have access to medical aaseistance in emergencies.
She supported the Quarry/Arboretum tr :pezoid site for the
Psychiatric Clinic.
Stephen Player, 1874 Guinda, was a member of the Childrens' Health
Council Board of Directors and supported Stanford's proposal for
a psychiatric hospital at the Quarry Road site. While he
61-156
3/6/89
appreciated the dilemma in terms of what would be the best use of
the Quarry/Arboretum trapezoid, he believed the best use of the
site would be for the psychiatric hospital because of its proximity
to the Medical Center. Personal experience graphically illustrated
to him the close interrelationship between the medical and mental
aspect& of treatment.
Jacques Wolgelenter, 474 W. Charleston Road, was concerned about
the possibility of building an access strip on the current vacant
lot at 476 W. Charleston Road. He believed such an access strip
would increase the level of congestion and noise and would pose a
hazard to many students biking their way to Gunn High School.
Locating the access road on El Camino Real made more sense. He
urged the property at 476 W. Charleston Road be rezoned R -l.
Steve Jennings, 369 Whitclem Drive, was concerned about rezoning
the Elks Club property. He urged that the property along Wilkie
Way be zoned R-1. Growth in south Palo Alto needed to be limited.
Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, supported Stanford's proposal.
Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed.
'IOW: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
approve the staff recommendation to certify that the Final
Environmental Impact. Report (EIR), consisting of the Final Addendum
and the Draft EIR, has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
MOTION PA88=D 9-0.
$tan Ford_ Items
Quarry/Arboretum _Parcel (Trapezoid)
Director of Planning and Commeunity Environment Ken Schreiber said
there were two parcels involved with the rezoning. The
Comprehensive Plan: issue involved both the 'trapezoid" parcel and
the rectangular parcel behind the Mobil Gas Station and next to the
Hoover Pavilion. Both parcels were designated "Major Institution/
University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space" on the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and on the Santa Clara County General Plan they
were designated "study areas.* The recommendation was to change
both propertie a to the "Major Institution/University Lands/Campus/
Multi --Easily Residential" land use designation.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved. seconded by Patitucci, to
change the Comprehensive Plan designation for Quarry/Arboretum
Parcel (i.e., the Trapezoid) from Major Institution/University
La /Academic Reserve and Open Space to Ma j o• Institution/
61-157
3/6/89
1
University Lands/Campus and recommend Santa Clara County redesig-
nate from Study Area to Major Institution/University Lends/Campus.
Council Member Cobb said his motion only included the "trapezoid"
site. With Palo Alto's housing demand, it was easy to want to want
to put housing in at every opportunity, but he believed Palo Alto
would always be trying to catch up with the demand. Each site
needed to be reviewed for its most appropriate use. Stanford's
need for the psychiatric hospital was demonstrated; the logical
place for it was as close to existing medical facilities as
possible; and there were no better sites for such a facility. He
believed the strip of land which ran through the old Children's
Hospital provided an excellent opportunity for a considerable
contiguous housing development.
Council Member Renzel opposed the motion. She agreed Palo Alto
would probably never be able to catch up with the housing need but
was concerned that Palo Alto lost the multi -family zoning which
existed on both sides of Welch Road in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan,
and the old Children's Hospital site would not address Stanford's
current housing demand. From a land use perspective, it Stanford
was concerned about incorporating psychiatry near the Medical
Center, she was surprised the issue was not incorporated in the HMP
nor was it addressed by Stanford in any meaningful way for many
years. It seemed to her to be basically a profit -making venture
which happened to conveniently seeve some of the psychiatric needs
identified by Stanford Hospital. If another employment -generating,
hospital -type of use was contemplated, the City should revisit the
condition which prohibited the old Hoover Pavilion from being used
for its present purpose. The new type of operation would attract
more patients from outside the community, and while it might
address the needs of some members of the community, she was
uncomfortable losing a housing opportunity, and she was uncomfort-
able extending the Medical Center region to Welch Road. She
supported the Planning Commission recommendation.
Council Member Sutorius was encouraged that housing was a possible
use on the extension of the trapezoid site to the Mobil site and
potentially for the Hoover Pavilion site. Howes encouraged by the
agricultural and pastoral types of uses which in small part existed
today and might be extended along Sand Hill Road. He supported the
*potion. He would await the EIR and said his vote did not act on
the size of the facility, the perking, circulation, the floor area
ratio, nor wee it to be taken as an indication of future actions.
Council Member Woolley Supported the motion. It seemed the result
would be. optima site," for housing and the psychiatric hospital.
She asked how the notion would change the Planning Commission
recommendation.
51-158
J/6/89
Mr. Schreiber understood the intent of the motion was to have a
land use designation to allow the psychiatric center on the
trapezoid site, e.g., to change the Quarry/Arboretum trapezoid from
Major Institution/ University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open space
to Major Institution/ University Lands/Campus. The motion deleted
the multi -family residential designation for the trapezoid parcel.
Council Member Patitucci believed there was too much focus on the
specific medical use of the particular piece of land. The City
should be encouraging consolidation of the medical uses into a
fairly tight area and begin to work with the University on planning
what would become "out properties" and what they should be in the
long term. He believed the motion made good land use planning
sense. He appreciated the expression for more housing which
needed to be capitalized in other places.
Council Member Fletcher supported the staff and Planning Commission
recommendation. She was not against the psychiatric hospital but
there_ were other open areas close to the Medical Center toward
Pasteur Drive. One purpose of the study was to find more housing
sites in cooperation with the Golden Triangle Task Force, and the
trapezoid site was appropriate since it was close to the Shopping
Center. She did not consider the proposed development for the
Children's Hospital site to be the type of development envisioned
by the Golden Triangle Task Force, e.g., to provide housing for
emplajeee and to cut down on commute traffic. She opposed the
motion.
Council Member Levy supported the motion. He associated with the
comments of Council Member Cobb. He believed the ?Ass of the
Children's Hospital site was an appropriate trade-off for housing,
and a significant amount could be placed on it and the Stanford.
West site.
MOTION PASSED 6-2, Fletcher, Rental "no," Klein "not partici-
pating."
L4? 1 Sit,
Mr. Schreiber clarified that if Council took no action to change
the Planning Commission recommendation, it would endorse Campus/
Multi -Family residential land use designation for the area
surrounding the Mobil gas station. The service station itself
would go from CC to CM.
cha idree.n's HslD.$ta
Council Member Woolley was concerned the redesignation from PF to
RM-15 for the portion of the site dess;nated as the Children's
61-159
3/6/89
As Corrected
4/10/89
Hospital might set up a standard against which the City would
measure new projects when the new project might not necessarily be
appropriate. Stanford was considering a senior housing project,
and from experience with the Roller project, it might need to be
a dense project. If the designation was RN -15 in the Comprehensive
Plan, when it came time to talk about a more dense senior project,
the City might say no because it increased the assigned density per
the Comprehensive Plan.
NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to change
the Comprehensive Plan designation for 520-700 Sand Hill Road,
Children's Hospital, to Multiple Family Residential, but retain
zoning as PF.
Mr. Schreiber clarified the current designation for the site in the
Comprehensive Plan was Major Institution/Special Facilities, which
was consistent with the current hospital use. He believed the
motion was an appropriate way to handle Council Member Woolley's
objective. The housing proposal was to be submitted at some point
in the near future, and for a short period of time, there might be
a difference between the Comprehensive Plan designation and the
zoning designation, but he did not eee the issue being unresolved
for very long. If Stanford did not submit a proposal for an
extended period of time, staff would return to Council with the
ptassibility of applying a multi -family zone to the property in
order to not have an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
the specific zoning of the site.
Council Member Renzel was concerned Stanford had poorly planned the
entire area without proper access and wanted to construct what she
considered to be destructive access. Council was going at the
problem backwards. It should be saying it wanted to go in the
direction of RM-IS and then let any proposal stand on its own
merits. The property was within the City of Palo Alto and its
sphere of influencer and the City needed to take charge of some of
its planning for Stanford rather than letting it be done in the
press and in advance through contracts and other arrangements.
SUBNTI?UTS MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved to approve the
Planning Commission recommendation and designate the site RN -15D.
d0 TITUEN MOTION DID 701 IAN 03 h SWORD
Council Member Patitucci supported the motion.
MOTION PBNSID 6-2, Cobb, Renzel "no," Klein "not participating."
RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION RE ' TTIGATION FROM 9:25 p.m. 9:48. p.m.
61-160
3/6/89
ytanfggd Shopping Center
Council Member Cobb referred to the current moratorium with respect
to the Shcpping Center expansion and he asked about the azeociated
square footage.
Mr. Schreiber said the interim regulations allowed for an
additional 50,000 square feet from the point of adoption, and about
25,000 square feet had been built.
Council Member Cobb believed the 65,000 -square -foot limitation was
a little low particularly in light of what was happening in terms
of the City's revenues, the growth of Valley Fair in competition
with Stanford Shopping Center, etc.
''IONz Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to raise
the development ceiling for Stanford Shopping Center to 100,000
square feet with any further additions being tied to improvements
on Sand Hill Road.
Council Member Cobb was concerned about the health of the Shopping
Centers; r: e it was the single most imp: taat econcmic gener t or
in the City. The 65,000 square feet might not give Stanro d the
opportunity to respond to some of the business challenges it faced.
He did not believe the City should give too much until or unless
Sand Hill Road was improved; but on the other hand, sales tax
revenues were not increasing and the City was facing major budget
cuts. Based on hie investigations, Valley Fair was booming
partially becausemany tenants who had been at Stanford Shopping
Center were lured away by a better package. There were cases when
it was necessary to look at the connection between planning and
economic decisions for the economic health and future of the City.
Council Member Woolley agreed with the importance of the economic
health of the Stanford Shopping Center. The City needed to take
care to ensure that area of its resources remained healthy. She
did not believe additional space at the Stanford Shopping Center
was necessarily a traffic generator.
Council Member Renzel believed the Planning Commission limitation
was expressed as a limitation if and until Sand Hill Road was
connected.
Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen believed the limitation was
opecifically not tied to whatever happened at Sand Hill Road. The
Commission did not want to hold out the hope that them might be
another 200,000 square feet available if the Sand Hill Road
problems were solved. The 65,000 square feet waa believed to be
a reasonable amount of square footage to be allowed at Stanford
Shopping Center.
61-161
3/6/89
i
Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch.. said the 65,000 square feet was
roughly 5 percent of what was currently there. The figure was
carefully selected so it would not approximate the size of another
department store. Neiman Marcus was approximately 100,000 to
120,000 square feet. The 65,000 square feet would be significantly
smaller and there would not be another large building.
Council Member Renzel believed the 65,000 square feet was an exces-
sive limitation. It was foolhardy for Council to again expand the
Sand Hill Road corridor. She would not support the motion.
Council Member Sutorius asked about the difference in traffic
generation between 65,000 and 100,000 square feet, and whether such
an estimate included an increment of added square footage realizing
it was not what would be generated if it was a new shopping center.
Steve Pickrell, Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consultant for the
City of Palo Alto. said incremental square footage added to an
existing center generated less traffic per unit of area than would
the same amount of space in an entirely new center or added to a
/mailer .vantm . There was a declining marginal rate of trip
generatie . The difference between 60,000 square feet and 100,000
square feet would potentially be significant, but it depended
entirely upon the type of uses.
Council Member Fletcher opposed the motion because it implied that
once Sand Hill Road was cut through to El Camino Real, the ceiling
could be raised again.
Council Member Cobb intended that no further additions could be
considered until the improvements to Sand Hill Road occurred.
Council Member Patitucci did not believe 100,000 square feet was
an unreasonable number. Regarding the general planning of the
Shopping Center area, it was unfortunate the City Council had not
accepted its own responsibility for the problems in the corridor.
It was every bit as responsible for the types of development
occurring there as . Stanford. If Council wanted to develop some
long-term solutions, Stanford and Menlo Park would probably be
willing partners. If Council had nine opinions going in nine
different directions, there would continue to be problems.
Council Member Levy opposed the motion because it meant Council had
to start "playing" Planning Commission. The Commission worked on
the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study for over a year, and
came up with 65.000 square feat ae a figure. He did not believe
Council had the background or perspective to raise the figure to
100,000 square feat. The proposal was made under the assumption
that larger size meant greater health. He did not believe that was
61-162
3/6/69
true. The Shopping Center had expanded with at least one large new
store during the past four years. The health of the Shopping
Center related to its overall mar?rating and the overall strength
of the stcrea. If one store did well, all the stores did well.
He did not believe it was a function of adding a few thousand extra
square feet.
Vice Mayor Bechtel concurred with Council Member Levy.
LION FAILED 3-5, Cobb, Patitucci, Woolley "aye," Klein "not
participating."
ItsulisisLacligaLaiite
Council Member Sutorius was concerned about the impact of
recommending a multi -family designation for a site he believed
merited a ground floor retail along the El Camino frontage. Beyond
the ground floor, there should be both multi -family housing and/or
hotel in the frontage area and the major portion of the site multi-
family. He wanted to ensure the cost of the associated housing in
the area would be kept as reasonable As possible by the offset of
a revenue producing stream at the frontage through the retail or
potentially hotel designation.
Commissioner Christensen believed the only way to handle the objec-
tives of affordable housing on the site combined with commercial
would be through a PC zone. She did not believe the City had seen
good examples of mixed zoning on a site, and she had not seen a lot
of evidence that the actual housing units associated with the
projects, other than the ones which went into bankruptcy, were
affordable. The commercial had not really held down the cost of
the housing. In two of the projects, the commercial sections took
the longest in being rented out or sold off. The project on El
Camino Way still had primarily empty coi ercial space.
Staforo Research Park
Council Member Levy referred to a letter from the Santa Clara
Manufacturing Group (on file in the City! Clerk's Office) , which
reflected a telephone conversation with Mayor Klein where the
Manufacturing Group recommended the City_ not have a Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) policy for the Stanford Research Park as
it would be simply a piece of, and possibly at odds with, the basic
TOM process being implemented by the Golden Triangle Task Force.
He queried whether it would be wise to postpone dealing with the
TOM pending further analysis of the Golden Triangle's position.
Mr. Schreiber said if the City wished to pursue a separate TDM
Program for the Research Park, it would take at least a year since
the process would need to involve the firms in the Research Park,
b1-163
3/6/89
1
1
the Manufacturing Group, and other interested parties. While the
overall objective of the Golden Triangle was to have a unified TDK
Program for the participating jurisdictions, it was recognized that
jurisdictions had both the opportunity and obligation to adopt
mitigation measures for particular situations. Presently, the City
had site -specific TOM programs through development approvals for
various sites in the Research Park and it was confusing. While the
Golden Triangle process did not specifically call for the site -
specific effort, it was not precluded. As indicated in the letter
from the Manufacturing Group, the whole area of TDM was evolving
and changing in response to State legislation, activities at the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) , and the Air Quality Control Board in terms
of implementing State legislation. It would all have to be tied
into any effort to implement a Stanford Research Park TDM Program.
Council Member Levy assumed any implementation would return to the
Council for approval and that staff would be sensitive to the
Golden Triangle process.
Mr. Schreiber said staff would be sensitive to the Golden Triangle
process. If the recommendation for a separate TDM Program for the
Research Park was approved, staff would develop a work plan in
consultationwith the Golden Triangle Task Force staff, Santa Clara
Manufacturing Group, as well as transportation coordinators and
other staff people in the Research Park.
Council Member Patitucci asked whether the Traffic Impact Fee
applied to all new development throughout the City or just the
Research Park area. He queried how it tied to the TDM.
Mr. Schreiber said staff recommended the impact fee only apply to
the Stanford Research Park or the Area S development. The
recommendation was based on the amount of traffic generated from
the Research Park and the ability to satisfy State requirements for
a clear relationship between the impact and the fee. Staff
believed it was most appropriately focused on the Research Park.
Council Member Patitucci queried why it was called a "Citywide"
fee.
Mr. Schreiber said the staff recommendation was that it no longer
be called a "Citywide" fee. When the Planning Commission discussed
the matter, it was still being considered as a Citywide fee. After
review and analysis of land use and intersection recommendations,
the overwhelming impact was determined to be from the Stanford
Research Park.
Council Member Patitucci clarified the fee was related to the
necessary capital improvements. The money from those fees would
61-164
3/6/89
flow into a fund which would be available for capital improvements.
He asked who funded the TDM Program.
Mr. Schreiber said TDM Program funding would come from the firms
in the Research Park. There would be a set of requirements
employers would need to meet. The requirements would be developed
with the employers in the Research Park, and the employers would
be responsible for implementing specific transportation programs
on their sites.
Council Member Patitucci had problems with the fact the TDM Program
was something the City took up as a traffic management type program
throughout the City. He had not seen it as a land use issue. He
understood the Traffic Impact Fee had a relationship to the
incremental need for capital improvements that would support the
traffic generation as a result of the new development. It seemed
to him the City could pursue the TDM without approving it as part
of the land use program.
Mr. Schreiber said it was not part of the zoning, but he encouraged
that Council not separate it from the basic problem of mitigating
the zoning action.
Vice Mayor Bechtel clarified the Planning Commission recommended
not downzoning the area, but in order to mitigate the impact of
additional growth and traffic impacts, a TDM program needed to be
established. She believed it was a valid reason for retaining the
TDM and tAe Area 8 Traffic Impact Fee.
MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved to delete the reference to
the TDM and that it be dealt with as a separate issue.
NOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SICOND
Stanford Research Par)
Council Member Cobb asked whether the area surrounding the
University Club and the Foothills Tennis Club was zoned PF.
Mr. Schreiber said the PF zone applied to the Foothill Expressway
right-of-way and the Veteran's Hospital. He believed the
University Club was zoned U.
Council Member Cobb was concerned about the possibility of develop-
ment on what was presently a low intensity recreational use.
MOTION: Council Member Sutoriue moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation with regard to
Stanford lands as amended:
61-165 III
3/6/89
i
1. Make changes at 2650-2700-2780 El Camino Real, Mayfield School
Site/Restaurant/Gas Station as follows: Change 2700 (gas
station) and 2780 (restaurant) El Camino Real from
Comprehensive Plan designations of Service Commercial to
Multiple -Family Residential, and zoning designations of CS to
RM-40; Change 2650 El Casino Real from zoning designation of
PF to RM-40; and apply (D) Site and Design Review Combining
District to all three parcels;
2. Initiate ordinance modifications to provide special provisions
to the CC Zone to establish a 65,000 square foot development
ceiling for the Stanford Shopping Center; and
3. Initiate ordinance modifications to allow the FAR for the LM
parcels in the Stanford Research Park to remain at 0.4:1, with
application of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee for all new
development and creation of an aggressive, separate Stanford
Research TDM program with mandatory participation for both
existing and future development within the LM and LM(5) zoned
parcels in the Research Park; with a TDM goal to be defined
by the City and Research Park participants.
Council Member Renzel supported the motion because there were some
good aspects, but she was not in support of those motions passed
by the Council which weakened the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tions.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Klein "not participating."
Traynor/Hill
Council Member Sutorius asked about the development potential of
a CS versus CM parcel.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the CS and CM zones both
had the same floor area ratio (FAR) as recommended in the Citywide
Study. The CS zone allowed a 50 -foot building height and the CM
zone allowed a 25 -foot building height for commercial. The major
differences had to do with scale of uses. The CN district allowed
many of the uses permitted in the CS zone, but they were limited
in terms of the amount of area. For example, personal services
were limited to 2,500 square feet. Many of the uses permitted in
the CM zone had a cap over the overall size. Business services
were more limited in the CM than in the CS; however, one
recommendation was for certain business services to be reinstituted
within the CM district.. Automotive service uses were permitted as
conditional uses in the CM zone,- but were not permitted in the CM
zone. The CM was considered to be a more appropriate use in
61-166
3/6/89
conjunction with residential than CS. Hotels were permitted in the
CS zone but in the CN zone.
Council Member Sutorius queried whether there was a difference of
eight or nine units between what staff and the Planning Commission
recommended.
City Planner Sarah Cheney said that was correct.
Council Member Sutorius clarified there might be an additional
below -market -rate (BMR) unit.
Ms. Cheney said it was possible.
Council Member Sutorius did not understand the rationale for the
extension of the RM-15 on the Traynor/Hill property. He
appreciated the simplicity, but from the standpoint of the
protections to adjacent single family residents built into the RM-
15, he could not see how the additional footage proposed for RM-15
provided any benefit for the adjacent single family residents.
MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
retain the RM-15 zoned portion at a depth of 100 feet for 4175-4185
El Camino Real, Traynor/Hill.
Council Member Patitucci believed the motion would provide for an
adequate buffer.
Council Member Levy supported the motion. A depth of 100 feet was
appropriate.
Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Members Levy and
Sutorius. She clarified the Planning Commission minutes reflected
10 units would be lost by increasing the RM-n15 to 175 feet instead
of 100 feet.
Council Member Renzel was concerned about the access off 476
Charleston. She believed the particular parzel would be more
appropriately designated R-1.
Ate * Council Me ber Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that
the RAT -15 line continue across the right-of-way to the new Hamlet.
Council Member Woolley did not support the amendment. There was
already a 35 -foot landscape easement at the and of Tennessee Lane
which meant there old be no building at al/ for the first 35
feet. Tennessee Lane vaf . a street and was not adjacent to a house.
There was a lot visual barrier already for the house at 473
Tennessee Lane, and Council should leave the line alone.
61-167
3/6/69
f
1
1
ANZMEXIJIT !]1I" +ED 2-7 , Renzel, Cobb "aye."
Council Member Renzel agreed with the thrust of the Planning
Commission recommendation of having a meaningful RM-I5, and absent
a change to cover the distance on the right-of-way, she would
oppose the motion.
MOTION PASO= 7-2, Cobb, Renzel "no."
NOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, to desig-
nate the 476 Charleston lot as R-1.
Council Member Renzel said there was a lot of discussion about
access to the site and such a large site impacted the neighbors.
If a combined project went in, access should be from El Camino Way,
and the other Charleston access, and it would be more appropriate
to have a single family parcel on the site.
Council Member Patitucci clarified if it was intended that the "L"
zone would provide a buffer because it would be a logical entrance
into the development.
Commissioner Christensen said the intention was to keep the options
open so if access to the site made the most sense at the "L" zone,
it could be provided. Access would otherwise have to be onto El
Camino Real.
Mr. Schreiber said any other access would depend on what parts of
the property were being redeveloped. When the owners were
discussing redevelopment earlier in the year, access was close to
El Camino Way creating concerns from a transportation engineering
standpoint. Staff strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to
retain the option of exiting the site at 476 Charleston.
Council Member Patitucci opposed the motion.
MOTION TAIL= 3-6, Bechtel, Cobb, Renzel "aye.
Council Member Cobb said the CS to CM change would affect one
automobile dealer which generated a fair amount of sales tax for
the City. He queried how long the dealer would be able to remain
under the change.
Mr. Schreiber said the dealer would be able to remain a minimum of
15 years.
Council Member Woolley was concerned about the CS zone designation
being replaced by the CH zone designation. As pointed out, there
wee relatively little difference except automotive uses would not
be permitted in the CH zone, end any one use could only occupy
61-168
3/6/89
2,500 square feet. She believed Council's thinking might be
changing since it initially decided not to have auto uses along El
Camino Real. It was becoming increasingly difficult to find
someone to care for cars, and car sales generated a large amount
of revenue. The particular corner with automobile sales across El
Camino, Midas Muffler shop in the opposite corner with a new use
going in at 4195 El Camino for a Jiffy Luber and with the two
corner lots being CS, it seemed to her CS was just as appropriate.
Auto uses were conditional and not automatic uses. It would depend
on the design of the use. The neighbors agreed to have the lube
shop.
NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
retain CS zoning for currently zoned commercial portion of 4175-
4185 El Camino Real, Traynor/Hill.
Council Member Fletcher referred to the problems of the European
Auto with the fumes and noise. She did not believe such a use was
appropriate so close to residential structures.
Council Member Renzel said there was a tendency to look at zoning
as synonymous with what was seen, and she believed zoning needed
to be viewed as what could be, and what kinds of uses might
supersede the current ones. Staff and the consultant both
indicated CS plus the multi -family designation for the site would
be too much traffic in the area. Likewise, there were differences
in height limits for the CS versus CH, and she agreed regarding the
incompatibility of the allowed CS uses with the proposed multi-
family. CH had a multi -family designation of RM-15 and CS was RM-
30. They were talking about significant increased density. She
urged support of the Planning Commission recommendation.
Council Member Sutorius believed containing the development
potential of CS 4as positive and mitigated against some of the
concerns. There was an opportunity to create something that
Council would like to see and what had not materialized along El
Canino with the zoning changes of the 1970's. The subject property
was under the control of one set of owners, and he could not
imagine the frontage property would be developed deleteriously to
the significant res dent is l property behind it. He believed it was
appropriate to change to CS, and he supported the motion.
Council Member Woolley asked about the differences in traffic
generation with Chi versus CS.
Mr. Pickrell said variations depended on the use.
Council Member Woolley clarified the height limit for CS was
somewhat dependent on the ad j acent use. If the adjacent use was
RM-30„ she queried whether 50 feet was the height limit.
61.159
3/6/89
0
Ms. Jansen said the height limit would be 35 feet for CS if within
150 feet of residential and 25 feet for commercial in CN. If the
CN included residential, the height limit -could go up to 35 feet.
Council Member Woolley clarified the CS portion would probably not
be able to exceed 35 feet. If the traffic was not appreciably
different between CS and CN, if the height was going to be the
same, and if under CN there would be RM-15 at the back of the
property, RM-15 along El Camino, and RM-30 in the middle, she
believed the City was better off with CS.
Council Member Levy was concerned CS meat there could be uses more
deleterious to any housing which might occur; however, he agreed
with Council Member Sutorius in terms of the site being under the
control of one property owner. He supported the CS on that basis.
Council Member Renzel referred to other mixed zones which resulted
in planned community zones combining all the possibilities and
having a dense plan. Council needed to assume if the parcels were
developed jointly in the-erious combined zones, the same thing
would happen. While there might be similar traffic patterns from
CN and CS, it was because there was'a range in both and the City
did not know whether it would be comparing the high or low range
of CH with the CS. She believed the high end of CS was probably
higher than the high end of CM. Aut::aotive uses were a long-
standing concern of the residents of the area, and she was
concerned about facing more such uses. The City was not guaranteed
compatible uses and needed to be proactive in what it wanted in the
area. She supported the Planning Commission recommendation.
NOTION PASSED 6-3, Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel "no."
MOTION TO CO1[TIWUI: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to
continue Citywide Land Le and Transportation Study, including
Planning Commission recommendations, to the City Cor-ncil meeting
of March 20, 1989.
NOTION PASSED 9-0,
RDTNANCES
3, Ordinance Prohibiting Possession or Sale of Assault Weapons
and Declaring an urgency (1202)
City Attorney Diane Northway introduced City Attorney's Office Law
Clerk, Martha Decker.
Police Chief Claris Durkin introduced Palo Alto Police Department
Range Master Bill Baldwin. California law enforcement officials
61-170
3/6/89
were concerned about the availability of assault weapons and the
seemingly sharp rise in their criminal use. The California Police
Chiefs' Association, the California Sheriffs' Association, and the
California Police Officers' Association endorsed State legislation
to ban assault rifles, which were weapons of military origin,
designed to kill the enemy in war. They were distinguished by a
high rate and capacity of fire. A semiautomatic weapon fired one
round, or one bullet, with each pull of the trigger, Semi-
automatic weapons were devastating weapons with the sole purpose
of killing or wounding a large number of people. Duck hunters were
forbidden by law to have any more than three rounds in a shotgun,
and many deer hunters carried five rounds or fewer. Unlike use of
a standard rifle, there was no distinction between the target and
individual bystanders when the semiautomatic rifle was used. For
"Bullet-proof" vests did nothing to protect a police officer
against the effects of such a weapon. Military -style weapons were
designed for no other purpose than to kill people. He spoke to the
ease with which someone eighteen years or older could purchase an
assault weapon.
Council Member Cobb asked whether "bullet-proof" vests stopped
bullets from a typical revolver.
Chief Durkin said yes; however, bullets of the magnitude used in
the assault weapons were available for assault resolvers. The
design of the bullet carried the power.
Council Member Levy asked whether the weapons described were legal
for hunting.
Chief Durkin said yes.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to limit public
testimony on the issue of assault weapons to three minutes per
speaker.
AiZRDIMMTY Council Member Fletcher moved to limit public testimony
to two minutes.
NMI I ! DUD FOR LACK OF A SWORD
Council Member Levy would nzt support the motion in view of the
controversial nature of the subject matter.
Moil PAN= 7--2, Levy, Cobb ono."
Bob Summers, Executive Officer of the Menlo Rifle Club, 7711
Emerson Street, said the United States Congress set up a Civilian
Marksmanship Program in 1903 to provide training to citizens
subject to service in the armed forces. The Menlo Rifle Club
61-171
3/6/89
followed an extensive and structured program provided by the
Defense Department through the Office of the Director of Civilian
Marksmanship (DCM). The Menlo Rifle Club reported to the Director
of Civilian Marksmanship annually with an inventory of government
property in the possession together with a roster of membership and
a report on activities. He urged consideration of the DCM Program.
Amy Vossbrinck, 552 Kellogg Avenue, said the crimes committed with
guns were a national issue. When an alleged Constitutional right
to bear arms interfered with another person's Constitutional right
to safely walk the street, a compromise was necessary. There
needed to be laws which prohibited criminals from having guns. She
urged support of the ordinance.
Justin Vossbrinck, 552 Kellogg Avenue, was 13 years old and
expressed his fears about going to school and being faced with some
person killing his friends or him.
Nikolay Nesterov, 431 Tennyson Avenue, was a member of the Menlo
Rifle Club aid participated and supported the DCM Program. He
believed more should be done to enforce current laws.
David Peterson, 275 Hawthorne, was a member of the Menlo Rifle Club
and participated in the DCM Program. He opposed the proposed
ordinance, and suggested provisions to support the DCM Program.
Andrea Palounek, 275 Hawthorne, had been a United States citizen
for about 16 years. In her native Czechoslovakia only the army
and police were allowed to have weapons. She did not believe a ban
on assault weapons would do anything to deter a tragedy like what
happened in Stockton. She urged that Council not support such a
ban.
Bruce McCutcheon, 817 Cottonwood Drive, Cupertino, a representative
of the Quicksilver Coalition of Santa Clara County, said while the
use of assault weapons in crimes was increasing, crimes were
increasing regardless of whether assault weapons were used.
Michael Woronowicz, 484 James Road, #4, said while any firearm was
capable of taking a human life, the statistics showed the vast
majority of weapons would not be used as such. Hs urged Council
action be based on facts rather than emotions.
Karen Marwell, 1335 Dana Avenue, supported the proposed ordinance
prohibiting the possession or sale of assault weapons.
Brian Keast, 255 College Avenue, was a gun dealer in Palo Alto and
did not believe the proposed ordinance would have made any
difference in what happened to the school children in Stockton,
61-172
3/6/89
California. He supported the right
with the best possible weapon.
Victor Black, 144 Tennyson Avenue,
the personal property rights of law
that Council support legislation to
than law abiding gun owners.
to protect his family and home
objected to the disregard for
abiding gun owners. He urged
get tough on criminals rather
Jerrold Santoro, 10450 Pineville Avenue, Cupertino, worked in the
City of Palo Alto Utilities Light and Power Division, and was at
work the day of the shooting at the Municipal Service Center on
October 14, 1988. He opposed the proposed ordinance and did not
believe it would be upheld in court. Most people regretted what
happened in Stockton; however, he agreed with those who suggested
the ordinance was the result of emotion. It would not stop
deranged individuals from hurting others.
Frank Hamada, 785 Loma Verde, had provided firearms and costumes
to motion pictures and theatre for six years. Probably two million
Americans owned some type of assault weapon. He clarified almost
any type of hunting rifle would penetrate a bullet-proof vest.
Gwen Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, was a member of the Menlo Rifle
Club and had competed as a member of the rifle team for five years.
The ordinance, as written, banning assault weapons would deny her
the opportunity to practice and compete in certain matches. She
urged Council study the consequences of such an ordinance.
Bob Tousey, 523 Matadero, #1, was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army
Reserve and commander of the Special Marksmanship Unit, whose
mission was to teach individualsin the military how to shoot cor-
rectly. The Army relied on individuals who came into the Reserves
with some training, and it was why the Department of Defense
sponsored the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The proposed assault
weapon ordinance would ban the weapons used in the Program. He
urged Council support tougher penalties for criminals.
Richard Beckwith, 78 Ro'lsevelt Circle, said the ordinance referred
to the Stockton incident. The person', arrested for the disaster
had been arrested eight times, of which two arrests included
possession of illegal firearms. Such an offense was a felony and
carried with it a sentence of many years in jail. Each tine the
man was arrested, the sentences were plea-bargained down to
misdemeanors. The issue was not the easy accessibility of weapons,
but rather how easy it was for the Stockton incident to occur. He
urged criminals arrested in. Palo Alto possessing firearms be
:allowed no plea-bargaining and that appropriate jail sentences be
given. He believed all citizens would support such an action.
61-173
3/6/89
i
0
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, supported the proposed ordinance. California
spent over one billion dollars building new jails and prisons. The
prison population of California and the nation was at an all time
high. Council should do anything possible to get dangerous weapons
off the street.
Robert Haggquist, 132 Emerson Street, queried whether Palo Alto
police officers were polled about their feelings on the proposed
ord inane .
Chief Durkin said no, but he believed thay supported the ban.
Mr. Haggquist heard many police chiefs say the police officers were
demanding such a ban, but he never heard one chief who had polled
his officers. He opposed the ban._
David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, said the stated goal of the
Department of Defense Civilian Marksmanship Program was "to provide
viable marksmanship training for the United States citizens and
other authorized personnel who might be called into service in time
of National emergency, with emphasis on juniors ages 10 to 25,
senior leadership, and certified instructors." He was a certified
instructor. The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice
was authorized by Congress to advise the Secretary of the Army on
the implementation of the Civilian Marksmanship Progrem. The Board
promoted practice and the use of the military small arms ani spon-
sored matches any, competitions in their use. The service rifles
used in the training and competition would be banned as assault
weapons according to the definition in the proposed ordinance. He
urged re-examination of the ordinance and that Council not
eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program in Palo Alto.
Scott Zickefoose, 962 Lawrence, was concerned the ordinance might
be passed for emotional reasons. If Council could such lightly
pass laws which affected people's lives, he queried the democratic
system for making such a decision. He cautioned against opening
a Pandora's box of problems and lawsuits. He urgmd careful
consideration.
Mike McGowan, 2513 Alma Street, said violent crimes were committed
by violent people. Regarding United States v. Cruiks„, enk cited by
the City Attorney in her report, he believed the Supreme Court held
the 14th Amendrent did not apply to acts of individuals against
other acts of individuals but only to acts of the government
against individuals. Current legal theory held such rights were
not merely restrictions on the federal government but were rights
granted to the people. In Presser v. fllinp,s, while the court
held the parade of an armed group exceeded the individual's right
to keep and bear arms, it also held "it is undoubtedly true that
all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reseeve
61-174
3/6/89
military force or reserve militia of the United States, and in view
of this prerogative of the general government as well asof its
general powers, the states cannot...prohibit the people from
keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of
their rightful resources for maintaining thepublic security and
disable the people from performing their duty to the general
government." He opposed the proposed ordinance.
Doug Vossbrinck, 552 Kellogg Avenue, believed emotion was a big
part of the issues surrounding assault weapons. Assault weapons
had no place in legitimate target shooting or hunting. He could
not conceive of a homeowner having an assault weapon. He urged
Council support of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Klein asked the record to reflect the receipt of some
telephone calls from citizens wh, could not attend meeting:
Mr. and Mrs. Sid Simon supported the proposed semiautomatic weapons
ban.
Molly Wilson supported the proposed semiautomatic weapons ban.
Ruth Goldbeck supported the proposed weapons ban.
MOTIOM: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt
the ordinance.
QRDIN. NCE 3856 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TAE CITY
OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 9.09 TO ' iE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OR SALE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
Council Member Patitucci said the country clearly tried to create
a balance between the various rights of its citizens which needed
to be protected. It was equally clear in the area of weapons the
line had been drawn with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and
bazookas. The question was where to draw the line on the right to
bear arms. There was hysteria associated with the issue on both
sides, and he was pleased to hear the responsibility felt by many
of the weapons owners who spoke- He did not think any Council
Member believed passage of the ordinance would have any major
impact on crime in Palo Alto; however, the major reason for
supporting the ordinance gas to build the unanimous and consistent
support at the local government level for legislation he hoped
would eventually result in Sacramento and possibly natiertally for
more control over the assault weapons.
Council Member Levy agreed with Council Member Patitucci. He was
impressed by the speakers. Itwas not his desire to ban rifles and
shotguns but only to try and draw the line somewhere. Assault
61-175
3/6/89
weapons were an appropriate place to draw the line. He encouraged
marksmanship and the use of rifles for hunting. It was appropriate
that single -shot rifles be allowed, but he believed assault weapons
and concealable handguns were inappropriate.
Mayor Klein agreed with Council Members Patitucci and Levy. Many
democratic countries had stricter gun control laws than the United
States. Patrick Purdy might not have possessed an assault weapon
if there were bans all across California, and while he might have
killed children, he would have been limited to a weapon that was
not semiautoaitic. He could not believe the proposed ordinance
would impact the Department of Defense and pointed out military
bases were being closed. The State of California was spending an
incredible amount of money building much needed prisons.
Proposition 8 rendered plea bargaining almost inconceivable since
judges no longer had such authority, and there were mandatory jail
sentences. There were no longer any "soft judges." Criminals were
being put in jail, but something also needed to be done to prevent
the dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of people who did
such great damage to society. There needed to be a balance between
the rights of people to have weapons to use on a recreational basis
compared to the rights of all members of society to try to have a
safer society, which required tougher laws which did not allow
assault -type weapons to be in the possession of ordinary citizens.
He supported the proposed ordinance.
MOTION PAWED 9-0.
4. Ordinance. Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Oral
Communications (701-01)
Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, opposed the proposed amendment to limit
Oral Communications to three minutes per speaker. He volunteered
to curtail his activities during Oral Communicatic is and encouraged
large groups to appoint spokesperson:. ► avoid repetition.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, wa; not sure whether the proposed
amendment was intended to save time or to quiet those members of
the public Council did not want to hear. He opposed the amendment.
Bunny Good, Founder, International Group Organization for the
Disabled, P. O. Box 824, Menlo Park, CA. 94026-0824, opposed the
proposed amendment. She suggested Council curtail its comments as
well.
6',1-176
3/6/89
MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Patitucci,
introduction of the ordinance for first reading changing the
allotment for speakers under oral communications from five minutes
to three minutes.
Ordinance 1st Jteadinq entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 2.04.060 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS"
Council Member Menzel expressed her concern about protecting the
Oral Communications portion of the City Council Agenda. She
believed three minutes would provide members of the public an
opportunity to present items to the Council that the ordinance was
designed for and to get important messages to Council. For those
who could not convey their message in three minutes, she encouraged
correspondence or contact with a Council Member during the break.
SI..a also believed staff was generally sensitive to what a member
of the public was trying to convey akd often offered assistance.
She supported the motion.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to also change the
order of the Agenda so that "Special Orders of the Day" be the
second order of business after "Roll Call" followed by "Oral
Communications" and "Approval of Minutes."
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Cobb opposed the main motion to limit Oral
Communications to three minutes per speaker. He supported the
system currently in place.
Council Member Levy sympathized with Council Member Cobb's desire
to retain the current system but was concerned about the ongoing
abuse. Over the past one and one-half years, he calculated Council
spent ten hours listening to the concerns of two members of the
public. While the concerns of those members of the public were
legitimate and while those persons had a right to use the process
as they wished, Council had a right to ensure the citizens of Palo
Alto were properly served. He supported the main motion.
MOTION A8 QED PLO 7-2, Cobb, Sutorius "no."
ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:33 a.m.
61-177
3/6/89
1
1
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City . Cler
L%
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) 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 arc
retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the
tapes during regular office hours.
61-178
3/6/89