Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Isimgamaszmw PALO ALTO CITY COUNCI LMEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIAiQSU• FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting February 21, 1989 ITISH Oral Communications Approval of Minutes PAGE 61-126 61-126 1. Contract with west valley Construction Company 61-126 for Capacitor Substructure Installation, Hansen Way Substation; Change Orders to $2,500 2. Contract with Power Engineering Contractors for 61-127 Remote Terminal Electric System Foundation and Conduit Installation, Hansen Way Substation; Change Orders to $2,500 3. Resolution Adopting Conflict of Interest 63-127 Code for Designated Positions 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Citywide Land Use and Trans- 61-127 portation Study and Environmental Iaaapct Report, Including Planning Commission Recommendations 5. Ordinance Amending Budget for Fiscal Year 1988- 61-131 89 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Information Systems Development 6. Council MembersAgavy, Patitucci and Woolley re Oral Communicati0us at -Council Meetings ddjournaent to Study Session to Discuss Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund at 10:44 p.n. final Adjournment at 11:20 p.m. 61-•132 61-136 61-137 61.125 2/21/89 Regular Meeting February 21, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Mayor Klein announced that immediately upon the conclusion of the regular meeting, Council would adjourn to a study session to discuss Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding Palo Alto Police Department complaints. 2. Tom Siowik, Evergreen Park Association, Stanford Avenue, spoke regarding R-1 and R-2 zoning. 3. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto Yacht Harbor and Peninsula Times Tribune not printing his letter. 4. Tony Spitaleri, 1125 Merrimac Drive, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding Palo Alto Fire Station Relocation Study and closing of Fire Station No. 2. $ P VAL OF MINUTEa NOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of January 23, 19E9, as submitted. NOTION PASSIM 7-0-2, Patitucci, Woolley *abstaining." ORMAEL&AMIQUI MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 3. to Contract with Wst Valley Construction Company for Capacitor Substru.ture Installation, Hansen Way Substation; Change Orders to $2,500 (1101) (CMR:152:9) 61-126 2/21/89 2. Contract with Power Engineering Contractors for Remote Terminal Electric System Foundation and Conduit Installation, Hansen Way Substation; Change Orders to $2,500 (1101) (CMR:151:9) 3. RESOLUTION 6759 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2.09.010 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 6670" (716-89-05) MOTION PAB$ED 9-0. PUBLICi HEARINGS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and Environmental Impact Report, Including Planning Commission Recommendations (1041-07) (cMR:154:9) Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Jerry Switalski, 813 Sam Ramon Avenue, represented the Palo Alto Elks Lodge, which was founded in July, 1924. The Lodge recently completed $31,000 in improvements to its current building at 4249 El Camino Real to add a handicap ramp to its front. The current zoning was Cn and staff recommended the zoning be chanced to RM- 30 and RM-15. The surrounding props rties were hotels, and the recommendation was to retain the current floor area ratio (FAR) of .75:1. He urged zoning of the Elks Lodge remain CS. Tom Settle, 531 Bay Road, Menlo Park, chaired the Drug Awareness Committee for the Palo Alto Elks Club. He urged that zoning of the Elks Lodge remain CS. Deborah Ju, 371 Whitcleia Drive, lived near the Elks Lodge. Her neighborhood was concerned about the possibility of RM-30 housing on the Elks' site. She referred to a petition which was submitted to the Planning Commission, signed by over 200 residents, opposing the proposed rezoning. Traffic impacts needed to be considered on an already heavily impacted Wilkie Way. She also believed Commissioner Huber made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Cullen at its November 30, 1988, meeting, which involved not only an L zone to disallow access to Wilkie Way but specific language in the zoning prohibiting access to Wilkie Way for any multi --family house. Commissioners discussed that an L zone would be an insufficient protection to the neighborhood from additional traffic on Wilkie Way due to the availability of use permits. The motion expressly stated there should be language to provide additional protection from such access, and she did not see it included. 61-127 2/21/89 Jean Olmstead, 240 W. Charleston, associated with the comments of Deborah Ju. She believed there was more of a need for neighborhood commercial zones rather than high -density residential or hotels. She supported most of the Planning Commission recommendations but was concerned about Area 6. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, submitted a letter from the Barron Park Association (BPA) (which is on file in the City Clerk's Office). BPA supported the Planning Commission recommendations. Florence LaRiviere( 453 Tennessee Lane, referred to the friendly relationship of her neighborhood with Traynor/Hill families. The neighborhood was long concerned about the possible heights and densities of the various zoning suggested over the years for the strips along El Camino Real and El Camino Way, and now they had the Hamlet and Reller projects looming over their fences. Council now had the opportunity to provide significant protection to their neighborhood. Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclea Court, referred to the area behind the Elks Club, which was zoned R-1. She associated with the comments of Deborah Ju. She urged protection of her neighborhood. Donald Peglow, 1102 Lincoln Drive, Mountain View, was associated with the Palo Alto Elks Club, and spoke of its many charitable deeds. He did not want tha zoning of the Elks Lodge to change. Joan !Mahler, 461 Carolina Lane, commended the Planning Commission and staff for their work on the Study. She believed the recom- mended zoning for the Traynor/Hill property at 461 West Charleston should preclude an ingress or egress from Charleston Roed. Al Casten, 633 Chapman Drive, Corte Madera, the principal owner of the property known as Fiesta Lanes, urged consideration of the third alternative in the City Land Use and Transportation Study which retained the commercial use of the property in force. He believed the property w.es ideally suited to motel use. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, was concerned the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study did not go far enough to solve the transportation problems. Ray Reiner, 3162 Ross Road, a member of the Elks Club, urged that the print zoning be retained. Harry Gray, 3782 Redwood Circle, a member of the Elks Club, urged that the present zoning be retained. 61-128Q 2/21/89 1 John Tow, 5110 W. Cypress, Visalia, represented Quad Consultants, who was retained by the Traynor/Hill families in conjunction with the Citywide Study. He urged consideration of poiets raised in their earlier letters (on file in the City Clerk's Office), and believed the present configuration of zoning designation on the Traynor/Hill properties was appropriate. Frank Matsumoto, M.D., 1187 University Drive, Menlo Park, referred to the Charter Psychiatric Facility at Stanford and the importance of it being located on the trapezoid lot. He looked forward to good medical practices and a benefit to patients, the City, and the staff. Lorrin Koran, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford Medical Center, 710 Alvarado Road, Stanford, represented the interests of locating the Charter Stanford Hospital in the trapezoid location at the corner of Quarry Road and Arboretum. The proposed location best facilitated patient care in terms of proximity to the hospital. About 25 percent of people in p :ychiatric hospitals had a serious medical disease which required treatment by a non - psychiatric physician. Patients would be frequently transported to the Medical Center. The Charter Hospital needed to be a part of the hospital mainstream. He also referred to the letter from Dean David Korn, dated February 15, 1989 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Chop Keenan, 400 Hamilton, said the future of the Citywide iownzoning was in the redevelopment of existing sites. Downzoning needed to be carefully considered as it related to economic consequences of businesses and the economic and social consequences to the City treasury. When Palo Alto had its auto row downtown, it had a greater sales tax contribution to the City than the Stanford Shopping Center. Land use decisions discouraged the relation of auto dealerships in the City and they moved to Menlo Park. E urged caution. Council Member Sutorius referred to a one -lot -deep CS zone along El Camino Real and the recommendation of the Planning Commission to add a category of general neighborhood business to a CN zone. He queried CS at a .5 FAR versus CN with the revised definition. Mr. Keenan believed the CH zone was restrictive in use. El Camino Real was a state highway traveled by 47,000 to 50,000 cars per day through the major intersections. It was not a neighborhood serving commercial, but ` rather a strip commercial. He believed the FAR would control the concern about traffic. He recommended leaving latitude on what businesses located in the area. 61-129 2/21/89 Henry Brodersen, 1270 Byron Street, Government Relations Chair of the Palo Alto Elks Lodge, expressed his concerts about local government decisions. Wilton Johnson, 4287 Wilkie Way, lived directly across the street from the Elks Club property and expressed concern about parking end traffic on Wilkie Way. He urged that the Elks Club not be rezoned. David Midlo, 1933 Waverley Street, recently sold his business in downtown Palo Alto because it had been level or down for the past three years; and, with the "no growth" policy downtown, he felt there was no chance for growth in his business. Hisbusiness had been lo':ated downtown for 15 years and rents increased 50 percent every five years. The rents were not the problem; he planned for rent increases, but he did not, and could not, plan for no growth. William Spangler, 471 Carolina Lane, generally agreed with the Planning Commission recommendations. The El Camino Real/ Charleston/Arastradero intersection, located in Area 6, was one of the worst in the City, but only trifling improvements were proposed. He suggested westbound Charleston have a right turn lane for turns onto northbound El Camino Real. He did not believe the hotel zone overlay should apply to the Town & Country Shopping Center. He supported rezoning the Elks Lodge site with a grandfather clause and did not believe there should be a problem as long as the Elks stayed, To provide adequate compatibility with existing neighborhoods, he believed the Elki Club property strip along Wilkie Way should be R-1 to a depth of 100 feet, and the 476 Charleston Road site should also be R-1 and not be saved as a potential .road into the site. He urged adoption of :,the Planning Commission proposal with minor changes. Alexander Lappet 3457 El Camino Real, represented Continental Car Service, and did not want any rezoning to force them to have to leave their present location. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said 111 the public comments focused on elements of the study and the Planning Commission recommendations. There were no comments specifically related to the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and there were no requests for additional information. Regarding the February 16, 1989, letter from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) , he clarified that a program EIR looked at a more general level of action, which was why the detailed information regarding bicycle facilities was not included. Hot commenting on some of the bicycle --related items in no way implied the City was reducing its policy emphasis as a key part of its transportation element. He deterred to Steve Pickrell' the Transportation Consultant from Fehr and Pears, to 61-130 2/21/89 comment on the letter from Paul Wilson (on file in the City Clerk's Office), the only other piece of correspondence which directly related to the EIR. Steve Pickrell said Mr. Wilson's letter, dated February 21, 1989, suggested the analysis of traffic impacts on the various land use scenarios should have relied to a greater extent on measurement of delay. The "delay" method referred to did not work well when traffic demand voirmes were expected to exceed the capacity of an intersection. The variables needed to drive the "delay" model could not be accurately predicted in a 15 -year period. Staff, with the consultant's assistance, instead chose to develop a method more suited for long-range planning. The method's ability to provide usable measures of the spread of congestion outside its traditional peak hour in the future was specifically enhanced. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Klein announced the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study would return to Council for discussion and possible decisions on March 5, 1989. No Action Taken R E$ ; _ 9;25 - 9:35 'p.m. ORJINA ICES 5. Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1988-89 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Infoimation Systems Development (270-01) (CMR:148:9) Council Member Patitucci queried why the matter could not wait for the budget process, City Manager Bill Zaner said the problems were that people could not get on the computer system and get proper response time. By waiting for the budget process, the problems would not be solved. MOTION2 Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation approving a reduction in Capital Improvement Project 18508 of $43,000 and amend Capital Improvement Project 18812 by $43,000 for compter equipment to support the Financial Data Base. plunmaimm 3852 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT" 61-131 2/21/89 MOTIOM PASSED 9-0. !ovncIL MATTERS 6. Council Members Levy, Patitucci and Woolley re Oral Communications at Council Meetings (701) Council Member Woolley said the article in the San Jose 1 ergury $ewe referred to a "drastic" change in the Oral Communications process. The actual. proposal was to limit speakers to one appearance per month during Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting and to provide a second Oral Communications period at the end of meetings for those speakers not eligible to speak at the beginning of the meeting. Many people attended the City Council. meetings to speak to a particular item on the agenda, and it was not equitable for the same members of the public to always be able to speak to Council at the beginning of the meeting while the other members of the public had to wait their turn. The proposal would also limit speakers to items within t} subject matter jurisdiction of the Council, but she was willing to have staff determine whether it was necessary to make any changes in the ordinance. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that limits speakers to one appearance per month during Oral Communications at the beginning of Council meetings, and provides a second Oral Communications period at the end of meetings for speakers who are not permitted to speak earlier; and the City Clerk to revise the fixed portion of agenda notiees to reflect these changes. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, referred to "Council jurisdiction," and said a City Council meeting was not just a place where a citizen could speak to the Council but also a forum where a citizen could speak to other citizens who cared to listen. He was concerned about than consequences of the term "Council jurisdiction." Ed Power, 2254 Daraouth Street, said the Oral Communications section of the City Council meeting provided the only free form for ideas. not popular for the Council majority or the media. Re was also concerned that the proposal suggested comments made under Oral Communications needed to be within "Council jurisdiction." The purpose of Oral Communications was not just to address the Council but also to address the electorate. The Council currently allotted 30 minutes for Oral Communications which was rarely used. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, sympathized somewhat regarding abuses of Oral Communications; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution said Congress, and by extension to states and all other governmental bodies, "shall make not law abrieging the right 61-132 2/21/89 1 of the people to petition for redress or grievance." Council previously had two Oral Communications periods, at the beginning and end of the meeting, and those who stayed to the end usually reserved their comments for items which arose during the Council meeting on which they desired additional comment. He could not recall more than one or two instances of someone getting up (luring Oral Communications at the end of the Council meeting and making a statement which would not have been appropriate at the beginning of the Council meeting. Speaking at the beginning of the Council meeting allowed for a time certain, and people could schedule their tine and appear. Citizens tuned in the radio specifically to hear Oral. Communications. Limiting Oral Communications to things which fell under "Council jurisdiction" to a certain extent required the public to be mind readers. Council's jurisdiction, or things Council chose to d iscues, changed from time to time, year to year and from Council to Council. Some issues Council refused to address one year, would be passed by resolution during the next. Limiting a citizen's right to speak based on what Council considered to be in its jurisdiction exercised prior restraint of public speech. The U. S. Supreme Court in the Pentagon Pape'., , case clearly said no one could exercise prior, restraint of free speech. Establishieg two classes of speakers was discriminatory. It was better to err on the side of letting freedom have its chance in the Council Chambers. Herb Boroce, 2731 Byron Street, said the purposes of the proposal were allegedly to provide opportunities for broader community participation, but he saw no evidence to indicate there would be any change in the amount of community participation based on the proposal. The second motivation for the proposal was increasing time constraints at Council meetings; however, he saw no evidence that the proposal would change it. If people spoke at the end of the meeting rather than the beginning, the meeting would take just as long. On the other hand, if the proponents expected people not to speak because they were forced to speak at the end of the meeting, it appeared the purpose of the proposal was to prevent people from speaking. Regarding "Council jurisdiction," the Brown Act, at Section 54954.3(a) of the Government Code required the Council to provide a period of tine so people could speak to subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Council. The question was where to draw the line in terms of Council jurisdiction. He refereed to the issue of the Nuclear Free Zone proposal, and said if there was any item that could be acted on by staff or by another governmental body, Council could always include it in its jurisdiction by taking an opinion on the particular subject. He believed everything was within the jurisdiction of the Council. In terms of limiting people to speaking once a month at 7:30 p.m., the Brown Act at Geverna ent Ccde Section 54954.3(b) required the regulations to be reasonable. Both of the reasonable regulations cited in the Government Cods, e.g., limiting the total 61-133 2/21/69 amount of time allocated to public testimony, and limiting the total amount of time for each individual speaker, were already adopted. No other specific reasonable regulations were listed in the Brown Act; and, therefore, each proposal angst be judged on a case by case basis. He did not believe the proposed ordinance was necessary nor were the proposed restrictions reasonable. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, was disappointed in the rationale for the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance was a "gag" order, and Palo Alto residents were too intelligent to be fooled. Tony Spitalcri, President of the Palo Alto Firefighters Union, associated himself with the previous speakers. He urged that Council not place more restrictions on citizens who desired to speak. Every matter should be important to someone who sat as an elected official. Vice Mayor Bechtel was also concerned about who decided whether an item was within "Councie jurisdiction." While Council did not like to hear about the same issue it was not able to handle or deal with week after week, it did not mean people should be restricted from talking. She would not support the motion. Council Member Levy said the present ordinance dictated that Oral Communications be 1inited to item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Council was very broad in allowing members of the public to speak to any item not on the agenda under Oral Communications. In terms of limiting Oral Communications to one appearance per month at the beginning of the meeting but to an unlimited number at the end of the meeting reflected an allocation of time. While everyone was entitled to write a letter to the editor of the neesoaper, it did not mean the letter appeared on the front page. Ce encil needed to allocate its time as well as the people's time. He did not believe there was an inherent right to ors of the public who wished to speak to items not on the advertised agenda to have "prise tie." The question in his mind was "whose time was prime time," and he believed it should primarily be the public's, i.e, the greater majority of the public responding to agendised items. If members of the public wished to speak under Oral Communications, it could be done at the beginning of the meeting. It was only in those instances of repetition where those members of the public would be asked to speak at the end of the meeting. The allocation of time needed to be balanced between what was agendised end what individual members of the public wanted to say. He supported the action. Council Member Renzel ansoeiate d herself with the comments of Vice Mayor Bechtel. She had attended Palo Alto City Council meetings for over 20 years. When she first started attending, Oral 61-134 2/21/89 i Communications was at the end of the meeting. As a member of the public, she waited through meetings which often ended past midnight in order to speak. She was also among many members of the public who hailed the new procedure which allowed Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting. Like her colleagues, she found it somewhat distressing that some members of the public repeated the same Oral Communications week after week. She did not feel it served the citizens well, and in some respects she shared Council Member Levy's point of view that members of the public in attendance for agenda items were delayed in hearing their item. Nevertheless, she preferred to withstand the repetitions than to impinge on those members of the public who wished to speak at a convenient hour. People who overused Oral Communications needed to weigh the impact of their participation. In terms of subject natter jurisdiction, Council nenerally listened to a wide range of subject matters many of which were not within its ability to act on, but any effort on the part of the Council to screen what was said under Oral Communications would have to be very selective. She opposed the motion. Council Member Sutorius was concerned that by selecting subject matter and by imposing the alternating appearances, Council would be taking more time than it should and identifying one more subject for repetitive, critical appearances While a few subjected the public to annoyances, he would defend their right and not support the motion. Mayer Klein believed there was a problem with a group of people who abused the Oral Communications period. As he read the law, Oral Communications was not intended to be a forum for addressing the entire community. Few cities in California broadcasted their City Council meetings, and the intent of Oral Communications as passed by the State legislature was for citizens to have a means to communicate to their elected officials. The Oral Communications period did not apply in the State legislature. A member of the public could not go to the State legislature and speak for five minutes nor speak before the United States Congress, yet democracy and free speech survived. While he could not support Oral Communications being at the end of the meeting, he could support a shorter time period, i.e., three minutes per speaker. Council Member Cobb shared marl of the comments of his colleagues. He agreed with Messrs. Noss, Spitaleri, and Taskovich. He opposed the motion. Cot nci l Member Fletcher opposed the first part of the motion but sympathized with the second part. She heard from many citizens, and one suggested that instead of members of the public speak] one time per month at the beginning of the meeting, they be allowed to speak three times per quarter. 61-135 2/21/89 AMENDMENT: Council. Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to amend the notion to reflect that persons may speak three times per calendar quarter at the beginning of the City Council meeting. Council Member Renzel was concerned about getting into complex bookkeeping which served no purpose. Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed. Council Member Woolley was advised by the City Clerk that the procedure would not be too difficult. She referred to a situation where someone appeared on two successive meetings regarding the condition of El Palo Alto. It was appropriate to have a little more flexibility on such current issues. AST FAILED 4-5, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Woolley "aye." Mayor Klein ruled out of order the first part of the motion regarding speaking to items within Council's jurisdiction since similar information was already included in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. MOTION FAILED 4-5, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Woolsey "aye." MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to limit each speaker under Oral Communications to three minutes. Council Member Menzel supported the motion as long Lie the public was so advised. Council Member Cobb supported the status quo. MOTION mem) 7-2, Cobb, Sutorius "no." ADJOVRNMENT: Adjournment to Study Session to Discuss Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund - Council Conference Room -10:44 p.m. STUDY SESSION RE STORM DRAINAGE ENTERPRISE FUND Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said the purpose of the Study Session was to discuss a Storm Drainage Enterprise F101 which would make more funds available for drainage, which had historically been underfunded. It vas estimated about $1,000,000 was needed. Abcut $400,000 per year was expended for capital improvements until 1967 and $200,000 to $250,000 per year was expended for maintenance. Council asked whether the Enterprise Fund would solve such problems as the Monier Street catch basin which drained directly int, a 61-136 2/21/89 A i parking garage, and whether drainage improvements would affect preservation of the San Francisquito Creek. Staff said problems such as the Homer Street catch basin would be solved over time. Most drainage in Palo Alto was routed away from San Francisquito Creek, and any improved systems in the area would likely connect to existing systems further downstream at Highway 101. While revenue requirements were not yet defined, rates probably would not exceed $2 per month per household. Businesses would be charged based on the type of use the property received. No decisions had been made about areas like Barron Park which did not have storm drains and whether it would have higher rates when they were built. Most municipalities charged the same amounts, and each neighborhood eventually received an approximate equal share of revenues. Some municipalities found that dividing up rates geographically was very cumbersome. In response to questions about why one acre of commercial property would be charged more than one acre of residential property, staff responded that commercial properties tended to have a higher proportion of impervious surface, and, therefore, greater amounts of runoff. Most municipalities had a bill appeal process to correct bills when the assumption might not be true, and some municipalities did field checks before billing. Council Members noted that while the tine to vote on such a measure was when it was raining, in January, 1990, several Council Members could be new at the time, and an extra study session might be required to bring them up to speed. `' l,Elinta a Ad j ourned at 11:20 p.m. ATTES Clerk APPROVED: ayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council resting 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 mix months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 61-137 2/21/89