Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COU NCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSLI- FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting May 15, 1989 ITEM P14G 1. Resolution Congratulating YMCA of the Mid- 61-347 Peninsula on its 50th Anniversary Oral Communications 61-347 Minutes of April 10, 1989 61-347 Consent Calendar 61-347 2. Contract with George Bianchi Construction, 61.348 Inc, for Sidewalk Replacement 4. Ordinance Amending Budget to Provide an 61-348 Additional Appropriation for the Hu an Services Division of Social and Community Services Department, and to Provide for Receipt of Grant Funds from the State of California 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Application of Adrian E. Smith for Property Located at 480 Dymond Court 6. PUBLIC HEARING: 250 University Avenue Parking Project Assessment. District 7. Historic Resources Board Recommendation re Change of Composition of the Board 61-348 61-351 61-57 61-345 5/15/89 8. Ordinance to Change the Classification of 61-358 Property Known as 250, 262 and 266 University Avenue from CD -C (GF) (P) to PC 9. City Manager Williim Zaner re Senate Bill 61-359 1267 (Davis) - Brown Act: Closed Sessions 10. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Representa- 61-359 tion an the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Adjournment at 9:10 p.m. 61-359 61-346' 5/15/89 Regular Meeting May 15, '1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:36 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley SPECIAL ORDER, QF T}t$ DAY 1. Resolution Congratulating the YMCA of the Mid -Peninsula on its 50th Anniversary NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLTfION 6774 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF PALO ALTO► CONGRATULATING THE YMCA OF THE ?4ID-PENINSULA ON ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY" (504) (NPG) MOTION PANNED 8-0, Patitucci absent. Christine Irving, Chairperson of the Board of the YMCA of the Mid - Peninsula, accepted the Resolution. The YMCA in Palo Alto started in 1939, for the purpose of strengthening and enriching the mental, physical and spiritual wellness of all people and to improving conditions within the changing patterns of family and community life. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding AB 2222 (Sher). 2. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, spoke regarding Police/Fire Department services. APPROVAL Of MinTAS NOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the April 10, 1989 minutes, as corrected. LION PASS= 9-0. Q NS R NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, approval of Consent Calendar- Items 2 - 4, with Item 3 removed by staff. 61-347 5/15/89 2. Contract with George Bianchi Construction, Inc. for Sidewalk Replacement, and Change Orders not to exceed $10,000 (1011) (CMR:255:9) 4. QRUINANCE 387,1 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 THE HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" (412-02-02) (CMR:258:9) MOTION PASSED 9.0. PUBLIC, HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re Application of Adrian E. Smith for a preliminary parcel map, for property located at 480 Dymond Court (300) (CMR:252:9) Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said the Planning Commission unanimously voted to overturn the staff recommendation for three reasons. Except for the property at Cowper and Dymond, all of the other properties on Dymond Court were substandard in size. The proposed subdivision to create two lots in the range of 4,100 square feet was far more compatible with the already existing lots on Dymond Court than was the potential to develop one large home on an 8,000 square -foot lot. The Commission also believed the proposed subdivision could sustain the allowed development since there already were two mail homes on the two lots. While the variance process provided the potential for much greater develop- ment on the two lots, the judicial nature of the process also provided the City the opportunity to say lno" to any kind of development which might be incompatible. Precedents also existed in terms of one subdivision at the corner of Guinda and Lytton where t/Ne subdivision would have split off a small cottage from a much larger hose thereby creating a substandard lot. The Commission and Council voted to grant the subdivision, and as it turned out, the large home which was in a state of disrepair at the time of the application was purchased and was in the process of being fixed up. The second precedent related to the subdivision on Lincoln Court, where a large home with much different develop- ment potential was being built in a court that otherwise had seen small h mmeb. The conflict between the larger hose and the smaller horses caused a lot of disruption among the neighbors. The precedents supported granting of the subdivision. Counci 1 Member Cobb queried whether any attempt was made to restrict tho size of the potential development of the smaller homes. 61-348 5/15/89 1 Ms. Marsh did not believe specific sizes were discussed; however, the development would be subject to the variance process. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Adrian Smith, 480 Dymond Court, said the neighborhood was upgrading in terms of people taking care of the appearance of their homes and more homes being owner -occupied. The variance requests related to lot depth from the required 100 foot minimum to 99.8 feet, a conforming lot line of 6 feet, and another of 4 feet which was large enough to support a reasonable pathway if desired. The detached garage at 482 Dymond Court was 62 feet back from a lot line and the planning Department specifications required 75 feet. The overall lot area was 41 feet frontal distance versus current City minimums of 60 feet. The structures currently covered between 25 and 27 percent of the lot area, and all existing structures and trees would be retained. The neighborhood supported the project, and he saw no effect on traffic patterns or other environmental conditions. The subdivision would result in putting a line where an implicit one had existed for many years. The subdivision would also result in returning the zoning to a consistent R--1 status. Council Member Sutorius asked whether plans existed to add space at the rear of the property at 480 Dymond Court. Mr. Smith said no. A patio was in severe disrepair in many places, and on advice of his insurance carrier. he intended to alleviate a dangerous situation. His plan was to clear the backyard and decide what to do. Jennifer Ingko, 478 Dymond Court, agreed the neighborhood was upgrading, and supported Mr. Smith's application based on the fact it would help to preserve the neighborhood's integrity. She did not want an oversized house on the lot and in the neighborhood. Charles Mayman, 479 Dymond Court. supported the proposal. Council Member Renzel asked whether setbacks on private streets were figured the same as on public streets, and whether the eight feet to the center of the street was figured in the lot depth area. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said setbacks on private streets were counted the same way as they were for public. The eight feet to the street was not included in the lot depth area. Council ;!ate Renzel clarified whether the lot size was larger than desigrted in the staff report (CHR:252:9) or whether it included the street ownership. 61.349 5/15/89 Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said the lot size should not include the right-of-way. Council Member Renzel clarified in some sense if the right-of-way were part of the lot, they were not quite as substandard as they appeared. For purposes of figuring how big a house could be constructed and setbacks, it was as if the street were public. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. MOTIOR's Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to approve staff recommendation approving 89 -PM -03, 89-EIA-17, based on the Planning Commission's new findings: Findings: 1. The presence of the two existing hom:ms on the property, and the fact that 480 Dymond Court is predominantly surrounded by smaller single-family homes on substandard lots, constitutes extraordinary circumstances. 2. Providing 480 and 482 Dymond Court with separate legal parcels will provide the pr operty owners only with the same rights as those now enjoyed by the majority of other property owners on the Court, who have similar -sized single-family dwellings on substandard lots. 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the scale of existing development on Dymond Court, and given the support of all the surrounding neighbors on Dymond Court, the subdivision should be compatible with th•e surrounding properties that will be most directly affected. 4. The proposed subdivision is consistent with Policy 5 of the Housing Element in the Comprehensive Plan: "In addition to providing low- and moderate -income housing, some housing should be provided for middle -income households priced out of the Palo Alto housing market." Variance Findings: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district, in that 480 Dymond Court is predominantly surrounded by smaller single-family homes on substandard lots. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appsi=;.ant, ;Ind, to prevent unreasonable property loss or 61-350 5/15/89 unnecessary hardship, in that providing 480 and 482 Dymond Court with separate legal parcels will provide the property owners only with the same rights as those property owners on the Court who have similar -sized dwellings on substandard lots. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the scale of existing development on Dymond Court, and all the surrounding neighbors on Dymond Court support the subdivision. i Council Member Woolley believed the Planning Commission recommenda- tion was a solution which benefited the neighborhood and community in that Council was always trying to figure out ways to have more affordable housing in the community, and Council was fortunate to have found a way to retain the subject property. Council Member Renzel supported the motion but referred to the situation on Melville where Council and the neighbors were led to believe one thing, and upon subdivision approval, the property was immediately turned over for sale. She hoped the same thing would not occur. She agreed the proposed subdivision provided the best opportunity to retain the present neighborhood character, and hoped all assertions were made in good faith. The proposal pointed out the problems with the City's R--1 zoning and what they were doing to the City's neighborhoods. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6. PUBLIC HEAPING: 250 University Avenue Parking Project Assessment District (410-03) (CMR:261:9) Payor Klein said it was the time and place for the public hearing for the 250 University Avenue Parking Project Assessment Disrict. Written protests should be submitted to the City Clerk. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open and said interested persons could express their view in opposition to, and in favor of, the project. City staff would provide a su nny of the project and explanation of financing of the project by bond counsel. The written protests received before the hearing were reviewed by the Council., and any written protests received that day would be read by the City Clerk. Oral protests and proponents would be heard from in that order. City Clerk Gloria Young announced that no written protests had been received that day. 61-351 5/15/89 Assistant Director of Public Works George Sagdon said the project consisted of a parking structure located at 250 University Avenue. The footprint was 25,800 square feet over the entire site. The cost of the acquisition would include the structure, accessory ramps, drives, signs, and striping for 62 automobile stalls which comprised the public portion of the garage. Also included were fire sprinklers, elevators, stairs, aechan1cal ventilation, equipment, a lobby, and stair enclosures and other incidental features for such a structure. City Bond Counsel Steve Cassaleggio, Jones, Hall, Hill & White, said the proposed bond financing would be supported by the assessments. The proposed G -bonds were issued under the City's charter provisions and were payable against assessments each year after Council decided to issue bonds. Bonds were vollected on tax bills. Annually, there would be a G -bond hearing to examine the relative levels of the bonds. Assessments were imposed by the so- called "ordinance formula" as reflected in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which method had been successfully employed for some years in the University Avenue project, including, among others, Lot J. Council Member Sutorius said the engineer's report indicated the last installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed 30 years from their date or such date as determined by the Council. Given the size of the likely issue, he queried the anticipated life. Mr. Cassaleggio said the anticipated actual life for an issuance thesize of the one proposed would be approximately 20 years depending on the bond market conditions when Council decided to issue. Council Member Sutorius asked the record to reflect one written protest received from Darrell Dukes, wherein his parcel number appeared to be transposed. The parcel number was shown as being 120-26-027, and he believed it should be 120-26-072. Me. Bagdon said that was correct. Council L *ber Levy queried whether the subject property would be assessed. He also asked what steps were taken to ensure everyone in the assessment district was properly notified. Mr. Bagdon said the subject property would be assessed. Regarding notification, notices were sent to each property ten days before the public hearing. Signs were also placed throughout the district on telephone and utility poles. A public meeting was held two weeks 4go at which the assesauent district Was notified. An notification was also placed in the newspapers. 61-352 5/15/89 1 Council Member Levy queried whether both tenants and owners were notified. Mr. Bagdon said the owners of the propeety were notified only. Ray Tourzan, 540 University Avenue, opposed the assessment because he understood 11,000 square feet of density were provided for alley beautification, and the City was paid nothing for the extra space. The extra parking space required for the 11,000 square feet in any other City would be roughly 44 parking spaces. Therefore, out of the 62 parking spaces, 44 would be used by the 11,000 square feet itself. The parking structure which wns built behind 540 University Avenue cost $17,000 per unit, and the proposed structure had a price of $23,000 per unit. He believed most of the spaces would be used by the 16,000 square feet of retail space and the 25,000 square feet of office space. He did not believe the structure would be advantageous to the other property owners on University Avenue. Walter Harrington, 180 Hamilton Avenue, was concerned about the assessment against Casa Olga especially in licxht of two years ago when a change in the City's data base resulted in Casa Olga's assessment being changed from about $3,50) to almost $20,000 per year. Casa Olga's previous requirement for four cars which was provided on -site off of Emerson Street, went to a requirement to provide for 200 cars when none of the frail and elderly residents drove. The assessment was unfair. He requested Casa Olga not be burdened by an additional assessment. Casa Olga provided 120 residential care units and nursing on -site, and 80 percent were MediCal patients. He believed an exception should be made. He urged consideration. Vice Mayor Bechtel understood Casa Olga was advised it could apply for a PC zone change, but that Casa Olga was reluctant to do so because of a concern about oeing restricted to the same use forever. A PC seemed to be the best option, and PCs could change in the future. Kr. Harrington said the rules were changed in May, 1987, and Council had the power to do so again. He did not believe the intent was to put such a load on Casa 0►lga in 1987. His concern was about Medical continuing to pay for 80 percent in perpetuity. Mayor Mein sympathized with Mr. Harrington but was confused about the unwillingness to go forward with a PC. As he understood it, a PC became the zoning for a particular property so that any change would require an amendment to the PC. 61-353 5/15/89 Mr. Harrington said Casa Olga was severely penalized in 1987 by what he considered to be unintended consequences, and he was concerned about the same thing happening again albeit unintended. Council Member Levy asked for confirmation about whether Casa Olga was being assessed as if it were a normal "transient" hotel rather than a residential care facility. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said it was being assessed as a commercial use. Council Member Levy asked whether Casa Olga would be assessed differently if it were defined as a residential care facility. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said the assessments in the downtown assessment district were based upon total floor area of a commercial use. If the use was in the assessment district and considered a commercial use, the assessnent would be based on the total floor area and the credits would be deducted for on -site parking provided. Council Member Levy asked how any employees were at Casa Olga. Mr. Barrington believed there were about 50 employees. Council Member Levy awedabout the maximum number of employees on - site at any one time. Mr. Harrington said about 20, and nine parking spaces were provided. Council Member Renzel queried whether Casa Olga could be plugged into the assessment formula if for some reason Casa Olga was exempted on the basis of the residential care facility, and the day after tomorrow the business turned into a commercial hotel. Ms. Jansen said one would have to pay back into the assessment district in order to convert to a commercial use. In order to exempt Casa Olga from the assessment district, it would have to apply for a PC zone change to allow for a residential care facility, which would no longer pay into the assessment district. If Casa Olga wanted to change back into a commercial use, the PC zone would have to be changed and it would have to pay back into the assessment district. Council Member Renzel asked whether such a process altered other assessments. Mr. Cassaleggio said there would be a ripple all the way through the assessment process because annually Council would review the 61-354 5/15/89 1 Gr-bond, the uses, floor areas, and would levy assessments accordingly. Significant changes would cause a ripple across the entire district because if previous uses were eliminated, the remainder of the district would have to support the balance. Mr. Harrington believed residential proje._;s built within the district were exempt. Council Member Cobb queried whether the PC zone was the only way to provide an exception for Casa Olga. Ms. Lytle said there were other possibilities, but considering there were potentially several other similarly situated uses within the assessment district, the PC zoning concept would provide greater protection to the City in making a special exception for one use. Dan Fred, 764 Rucalyptu` , Novato, pointed out that what was defined in 1975 as affordable housing had really changed. In 1975, the single room occupant (SRO) hotel was seen as transient housing, but in 1989 SRO housing was seen as affordable permanent housing. In the same respect, Casa Olga provided permanent affordable housing to a number of frail and elderly. In 1975, when the occupancy permit was granted by the City Council, the definition of a "residential facility" was that it was required to have�`a kitchen. Casa Olga did not have kitchens and it was, therefore, defined as a hotel. In 1979, most SRO housing did not have kitchens but were still defined as permanent housing. He believed Mr. Harrington was looking for some type of equity in the definition of his facility. Had Casa Olga been provided with kitchens initially, it would be defined 46 a residential facility and there would be no issue. Staff believed a public benefit could be found, but if a PC were granted, Casa Olga would revert back to a commercial use andthe on -site parking would be required. It would be impossible for Casa Olga to ever meet the on -site parking requirements. Mr. Harrington hoped for some way of defining Casa Olga as a defecto residential facility. Harrison Otis, urged Council to work with Casa Olga. Jim Baer, 532 Charming Avenue, believed support for the assessment district financing was at about 60 peicent. If there were roughly $1.6 million in bond costs and a 10 percent annual constant for the repayment of the bond over a 20 -year period, which he assumed would have an 8.5 percent to 8.75 percent interest rate, annual payments per square foot, one hundred sixty thousand divided by two million squalled 80 cents per year per foot or two-thirds of one cent per foot per month. Mere were some inequities in the way the assessment district worked, and strategic planning of how to go about providingthe development of lots S & L was in order. 61-355 5/15/89 Council Member Sutorius referred to the Barker Hotel and asked for comment on the SRO question. Mr. Baer said a conversion from residential to nonresidential required payment for four parking spaces for each one thousand feet converted. In order for the President Apartments to convert to a hotel it would have to provide 130 spaces or buy 130 in -lieu spaces not simply "turn the assessment district switch on." The residential/nonresidential use was far more burdensome than just shifting in and out of an assessment district. Once residential uses were named as "residential," it was impractical for them to convert. He agreed a PC might be easiest way to address Casa Olga without having to evaluate how to ripple through residential uses throughout the district. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. LION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the staff recommendations. REP QLUTION 6775 entitled "RESOLUii%Y FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS" REZDIXTIPN 6776 entitled "RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS" #SOLUTION 6777 entitled "RESOLUTION ADOPTING .ENGINEER"S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE WORK AND ACQUISITIONS, AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO" Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case referred to the Casa Olga situation and said Council could not do anything that evening without affecting the entire assessment procedure. The proper procedure would be to agendize the matter at a separate meeting. Vice Mayor Bechtel believed the recommendation from staff was fair and she did not want to see any exceptions in the future. Council Member Levy supported the motion. The protests were few and the public benefits were many. He would agendize the Casa Olga situation in the future because of questions in his mind as to whether it was being treated fairly. Council Abe:: Fletcher asked what would happen with the assess- ments levied if Casa Olga received a zone change in the near future. 61-356 5/15/89 1 1 Mr. Bagdon said Casa Olga comprised about 2.5 percent of the total assessment which would have to be spread among all the other 254 properties. Mr. Cassaleggio said it would be possible to spread the 2.5 percent among the remaining properties even with the assessments levied that evening because Council was not approving the bond and indebtedness that evening. Council Member Sutorius said while some questions were raised about the per stall price there was a not to exceed cost for the entire parking lot structure including all stalls of $1,426,000, which was $50,000 below the amended total cost. While the per stall costs went up over the years, the developer was providing the opportunity for the assessment district to have a valuable addition at an excellent location. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CQMMISSION. 7. Historic Resources Board Recommendation re Change of Composi- tion of the Board (702-02) (CMR:256:9) Historic Resources Board (HRB) member David Zink -Brody said when Ken Alsman resigned from the HRB a year ago, he was the only person left on the board with design training and had little or no experience in terns of design review outside of academic situa- tions. While Council Member Woolley was very helpful, she also did not have design review training, and the occasional absence of John Gifford often resulted in a lack of the requisite design review capacity for the HRB. The HRB was typically comprised of three design professionals, and it seemed the requirement would take the burden off of individual design professionals in terms of making the ds.terai ations for potential applicants on historic properties. Council Member Sutorius said the recommendation was that three members of the HRB should be architects, landscape architects, building designers, urban planners, architectural historians or other design professionals. The ordinance cited *architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design profes- sionals,* and he gloried whether it was broad enough to encompass urban planners and architectural historians as stated in the report (CMR:256:9) . Mr= ?ink -Brody believed the ordinance should include planners as well as historians. Senior • Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said staff would amend the ordinan , 61-357 5/15/89 Council Member Woolley said the intent of the verbiage "other design professionals" was to have an open category which would include urban planners. The historian could also be included under the one member "who shall possess academic, education, or practical experience in the field of history." MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to introduce the ordinance approving the Historic Resources Board's recommendation requiring that the composition of the board include three design professionals. QRD=NANCE FOR FIRST READIAQ entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 16.49.030(a) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD" Council Member Woolley referred to recent experience where an action of the HRB was appealed and the original action had been taken by the HRB with only one design professional in attendance. She believed that pointed out the need for having at least three design professionals on the board. The entire process which went to the Council was based on one person's professional guidance. When the ordinance was originally drafted, the HRB was largely an educational body, and was rarely a review body. The review function had increased with the activity in residential redevelop- ment in Palo Alto, and now it was unusual to have a meeting without a building to review, MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 8. Ordinance to Change the Classification of Property Known as 250, 262 and 266 University Avenue from CD -C (GF) (P) to PC (1st Reading 4/10/89, PASSED 9-0) (237-01) (NPG) NOTION: Council Member Cobb moved,. seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the ordinance. Q$ORAN= 3872 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MhP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ENOWN AS 250, 262 AND 266 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FROM CD (GF) (P) TO Pa;" MOTION PASSED 9-0. 61-358 5/15/89 E PORTL.OF OFFICIAL 9. City Manager William Zaner re Senate Bill 1267 (Davis) Brown Act: Closed Sessions (725-02-02) (CMR:267:9) City Manager Bill Zaner said the League of California Cities advised the bill was killed, but the staff of the sponsoring Senator believed the bill was not killed. Council Member Levy asked under what circumstances tape recorded transcripts of a closed session would be made public. Mr. Zaner said the transcripts would be made available if requested by the Grand Jury, District Attorney, or prosecutorial agency on demand. The City Clerk would be required to retain the tape recordings for one year and release them on demand. Council Member Levy said if the City was being prosecuted, the transcripts would be made available to the other side. Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said that was correct. If there was an investigation in order to try and make a case, the bill could be interpreted that the tapes be released. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to approve the City Manager's recommendationto go on record in opposition to SB 1267. MOTION PASSED 9-0. OUNQIJ MAT RS 10. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Representation on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1163-02) MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to go on record in support of AB 1611 which would restructure the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's membership to reflect population figures. MOTION PAB3BD 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourne4 at 9:10 p. m. ATTEST: APPROVED: y Clerk Ma or 61-359 5/15/89 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 are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 61-360 5/15/89