Loading...
09/23/2003 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES September 23, 2003 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Brent - Fielding, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL 15/03e (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #65421 THROUGH #65523 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $658,129.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL Claim DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #36686 THROUGH #36772 FOR THE PERIOD Checks SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $974,967.67. Amendment (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL to SnoCom lnterlocal COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY Agreement PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION AGENCY. (E) 242ND STREET STORM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — REQUEST FOR PROJECT F t BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO EXTEND PROPOSED STORM SYSTEM REPLACEMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 1 Day of Concern for (F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF DAY OF CONCERN FOR THE HUNGRY, he Hungry SEPTEMBER 27, 2003 New Student 3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE epresenta- ive Council President Earling introduced Alex Brent - Fielding from Meadowdale High School and described her school activities. National 4. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH IN Arts and EDMONDS Humanities Month Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation declaring October as National Arts and Humanities month in Edmonds. He presented the Proclamation to Julie Long, Chair of the Arts Commission, and Nancie Wood, Arts Commissioner. Ms. Long thanked the Council for their recognition of National Arts and Humanities Month, commenting art was a very important and vital part of the community. rRIA 8 5. PRESENTATION BY WRIA 8 Jane Lamensdorf - Bucher, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator, provided a presentation on the Interlocal Collaboration to Conserve Salmon. She began by explaining under the Federal Endangered Species Act several species of salmon were listed as threatened including Puget Sound Chinook in March 1999 and Bull Trout in June 1998, and Puget Sound Coho were a candidate species for a threatened listing. She explained there were four reasons salmon were in trouble, 1) harvest (an issue controlled by the State and Tribes), 2) hatcheries (an issue controlled by the State and Tribes), 3) hydropower dams (an Eastern Washington issue), and 4) habitat degradation and loss (a local issue). Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher explained habitat was a local issue because local governments control land use decisions. To address this issue, 25 cities and 2 counties (King and Snohomish Counties) within WRIA 8 joined to form the Lake Washington/Cedar /Sammamish Forum. The 27 local governments signed an Interlocal Agreement to jointly fund salmon planning. An elected official from each government serves on the Forum, Councilmember Petso for Edmonds, and King County was hired as the service provider to assist. She explained WRIA 8 also had a Steering Committee, a multi - stakeholder body comprised of local elected leaders, business and community groups, water and sewer districts, scientists, citizens, and representatives from State agencies. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher described the model for plan development which includes the Steering Committee overseeing development of the plan and the Forum approving the plan following presentation to each local Council. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher described the progress thus far, explaining there were four steps in conservation salmon planning in WRIA 8, the first two steps have been accomplished, Reconnaissance/Habitat Limiting Factors Report, and developing a Near Term Action Agenda for Salmon Conservation. She explained the preparation of the Reconnaissance/Habitat Limiting Factors Report included a group of scientists who considered the factors of decline for salmon habitat. The purpose of preparing the Near Term Action Agenda was to offer a range of voluntary actions to address factors of habitat decline and protect and restore salmon habitat. She explained for the habitat protection and restoration projects in the Near Term Action Agenda, the watershed was divided into 13 subareas; Edmonds was in the nearshore subarea. The Near Term Action Agenda also provided guidance for policies and regulations, education and public outreach recommendations, suggestions for monitoring and adaptive management, and implementation resources such as model ordinances and possible funding sources. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher reviewed the next steps in WRIA 8 salmon conservation planning, explaining the Strategic Watershed Assessment (what more do we need to know ?) was nearing completion, and efforts were underway on the Draft Conservation Plan (what should we do in the future ?). The Strategic Assessment models habitat conditions in the watershed to illustrate what a fish encounters. This allowed prioritization of what needed to be done and compiled a common data base of habitat conditions. She noted 192 reports have been combined and 54 experts have worked on this assessment. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher explained this information would then be used to develop the Conservation Plan including the most gain for the least pain, determine how the challenge can be shouldered together, and justify projects for funding by Sound Transit, Brightwater, etc. She concluded that together local governments could improve the watershed for both salmon and citizens. She emphasized the importance of 27 local governments participating in this unified planning process. She cited the benefits of regional cooperation including common science and providing local information to the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project and others, noting that collaboration gets farther than competition. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher advised a boat tour is scheduled on October 3 and October 17 of selected sites along the nearshore including Edmonds. She encouraged Councilmembers to participate, noting it would be a good opportunity.for dialogue and to better understand how processes work in the nearshore. Councilmember Petso inquired what the Conservation Plan would require of private property owners with stream -side property. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher answered development of the Conservation Plan was in the early stages and that information was not yet available. They expect to have a prioritized list of actions /recommendations by year end which would be presented to the Steering Committee. She anticipated a draft plan would be available by late March 2004 for public comment and review. Council President Earling asked whether there was a weighted vote on policy decisions or one vote per jurisdiction. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher answered via the Interlocal Agreement, the goal was to have consensus. If consensus could not be reached on key decisions, decisions would be made on the same basis used to determine the cost share, a formula based on population, geographic area, and assessed value. She noted thus far consensus had been reached on all decisions. Councilmember Wilson asked what local jurisdictions' responsibility would be once the policy document was adopted. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher answered it would depend on what the jurisdictions wanted to do. After the Steering Committee made its recommendations to the Forum, the Plan would go to each jurisdiction and each City and County Council would review the Plan via its own processes. She hoped the end result would be a concurrence document where, for example, jurisdictions would agree to accomplish certain actions. Councilmember Wilson asked whether each jurisdiction would need to adopt all policies and implementation procedures and would it be successful if all jurisdictions did not adopt the same guidelines /regulations. Ms. Lamensdorf - Bucher answered consideration would be given to what it would take to reach success, how many jurisdictions, how much land would need to be covered, etc. in order to reach success. She explained one of the benefits of doing the model of the watershed was that different alternatives could be evaluated in the model to see the results. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS f late d Bob Gregg, 16550, 76"' Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 7, Work Session on Modulated ulations Roof Regulations, pointing out there was a frequent misconception that Edmonds currently had modulated roof regulations which it did not. He explained the City currently had regulations for pitched Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 3 roofs and flat roofs, and flat roofs above 25 feet must be part of an approved modulated design, but were not a modulated roof. aterfront I Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, relayed waterfront businesses' concern with the usmesses decrease in revenue they have been experiencing. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed concern with the proposed levy lid lift, `' Lid Lift commenting Edmonds residents were already overtaxed, services had been diminished, and percentage of managers to workers was climbing. He alleged excessive spending and waste continued despite citizen input. He was concerned with library costs and excessive budgets that are rubberstamped by the Council. He asserted that the City's outstanding Police and Fire Departments were being used as political pawns and their budgets should be the top priority. He suggested the title of the levy lid lift be the "Tax and Spend Levy," commenting it had the same chance of winning as the latte tax vote in Seattle. He alleged the Public Safety Departments had been pressured to support "Tax and Spend" candidates and suggested citizens ignore the misleading endorsements and consider those without the endorsement signs. Modulated Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the comment in the agenda memo regarding Roof Agenda Item 7, Work Session on Modulated Roof Regulations, that as long as a building had enough Regulations modulation, horizontal and/or vertical, the ADB could approve a building of up to 30 -feet tall. He recalled when he moved to Edmonds, citizens were reacting to the number of condominiums being built on 5th Avenue and due to the community's wishes, building heights were lowered. However, in 1997, heights began to increase, resulting in the demise of what he deemed the most loved character of Edmonds, low buildings in the downtown area. Although the intent of the 1997 change was to achieve some variety, that did not occur. He alleged the Council supported the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development's efforts to increase building heights downtown to 40 feet and increase the density of downtown Edmonds, the opposite of what he believed citizens wanted. Modulated 7, WORK SESSION ON MODULATED ROOF REGULATIONS Roof Regulations Mayor Haakenson explained this item was before the Council, not as an attempt to achieve 40 -foot height limits, but because of the numerous inquiries regarding why buildings can be up to 30 feet, can be built lot line to lot line, or commercial space is constructed on the ground floor of a building in the BC zone. Mayor Haakenson noted that requiring commercial space on the ground floor in the BC zone pushed businesses outside the retail core and the buildings are often vacant. He was concerned that lot -line to lot -line construction in the BC zone did not allow light or open or green space. His intent in bringing this issue to the Council was to consider the existing code and illustrate buildings that had been constructed since 1997 when the code was changed to allow design features other than a 4:12 pitched roof to achieve the maximum height. He noted that although Mr. Hertrich stated height creep began in 1997, height creep actually began in 1981 when the 25 foot height limit was increased an additional 5 feet for a pitched roof of 4:12 or greater. He summarized that buildings 30 feet tall had been allowed since 1981. He did not expect Council action; this was purely an informational item. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained he planned not only to show development that had occurred in the last six years but also development that occurred prior to the City adopting its first zoning code. He displayed a photograph of Main Street looking left from 5"' — the Beeson Building and others. He identified a building constructed in the early 1910's that remained until the 1950's — the Olympic Hotel. He displayed an aerial photograph up Main Street identifying several buildings that were constructed in many cases lot line to lot line, ranging in height from 1 -3 stories. He noted in most cases, particularly on Main Street and 50', buildings were constructed to the sidewalk. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Bullock displayed another photograph of the same area, pointing out desirable architectural features such as a prominent roof or cornice treatment. He noted pedestrian amenities such as awnings and interaction between the development and pedestrians either via physical or visual access to the building. He further noted the mixture of materials and architectural features, cornice and roof treatments, and details in ornamentation and trimming and fenestration used on buildings. He displayed examples of older buildings in the City that illustrate those architectural features. Mr. Bullock displayed a photograph looking north on 5"' Avenue toward the fountain, pointing out much of the older development were small buildings and although they had rather flat facades, they provided a great deal of diversity and interest on the street. He noted as more people moved to Edmonds and more housing was constructed, the City adopted its first zoning code in 1956. At that time, buildings in the downtown commercial core were allowed to be 4 stories or 45 -feet tall. Later in 1964, the building height was modified to 35 -feet or 3 stories. He noted from 1964 through 1981, 35 -feet or 3 stories was the height limit in downtown Edmonds. He displayed an example of a building similar to much of the construction that occurred between 1956 and 1981, simple boxy buildings without a great deal of architectural ornamentation with the upper story built to the top of the roof at the height limit. Mr. Bullock explained in 1981, due to concern with the style of buildings being constructed in the City, both the height and the boxy style of buildings, a major rewrite of the City's Development Code was adopted, establishing the height limits for downtown at 25 feet with the possibility of 30 feet with a pitched roof of 4:12 or greater. In 1981, essentially a 30 foot height limit was established for the downtown area, stated as 25 feet plus an additional five feet with a pitched roof of 4:12 or greater. Mr. Bullock explained there were two building approaches that resulted from this zoning criteria. First, buildings constructed to the 25 foot height limit and a 4:12 pitched hip roof around the perimeter of the building was used to attain the additional 5 feet. He noted there was a great deal of this type of development in the downtown area. A second approach was a building constructed to 25 feet topped with an element with the 4:12 gable as an architectural element or possibly a series of gables or a sawtooth top. He noted these types of buildings were the norm for approximately 20 years. At that time, there was concern that too much of the same buildings were being constructed and there was interest in a downtown with diversity and interesting architectural features. Therefore, Section 16.50, which addressed the BC zone and development standards for the BC zone, was modified to allow buildings with design features other than a 4:12 pitched roof to achieve the maximum height of 30 -feet in the BC zone. He explained the change allowed buildings up to 25 feet with an additional 5 feet for a pitched roof of 3:12 or greater or an approved modulated design. Mr. Bullock displayed a photograph of the first building that utilized the revised code amendment. He noted the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who was responsible for approving building designs, were cautious in their approach and were uncertain how they were to apply the change to the code. In this instance, the result was a building with a barrel vault on the east side of the building and a series of shed roofs on the west side of the building. He noted behind the barrel vault and the shed roofs was a portion of the building that had a flat roof over the 25 foot height limit where the mechanical equipment was located but was completely screened by the perimeter building forms. The ADB approved the building and the portion of the building over the 25 foot height limit that was flat was allowed because it was an approved modulated design. Mr. Bullock displayed a photograph of the second building to utilize the revised code section, a building at Yd Avenue North and Bell Street. He explained the developer wanted a building that fit the urban context of Edmonds downtown with an old town feel with square building facades and wanted a flat roof. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 5 Their proposal was a building with a number of smaller, varied roof levels and the building moves in and out from the front fagade. The ADB approved the building design, determining that the appearance of different roof levels and in and out on the face of the building represented a modulated design. This building was appealed to the City Council and the City Council upheld the ADB's decision that this was an approved modulated design and complied with the City's 30 foot building height. Mr. Bullock displayed a photograph of another building design approved by the ADB as an approved modulated design, pointing out the movement of the fagade forward and back from the front property line as well as up and down and the appearance that the roof moved up and down. He noted this building was not appealed to the City Council and that was still the understanding and approach the ADB took in reviewing projects — they considered whether a building qualified as an approved modulated design if any portion of the building was proposed to be over 25 feet high that was less than a 3:12 pitch. He displayed another view of the building, pointing out how the fagade moved up and down and forward and back. Mr. Bullock concluded that only three buildings had been through the entire approval process and construction completed since the 1997 change in ECDC 16.50. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the draft design guidelines that had been prepared but not been reviewed further might address some of the issues and concerns. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting there were specific sections that addressed modulated buildings and walls. He cautioned if the code was too prescriptive, the City would experience the type of building design that occurred between 1981 and 1997; if the code remained subjective without a great deal of specificity, there would continue to be concern and trepidation about what might be approved. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the ADB or Planning Board had misgivings regarding the way the language was currently crafted or whether they had reservations regarding the appropriateness of the approved buildings in terms of the setting and scale of downtown. Mr. Bullock responded the ADB was very pleased with the projects that had been approved and constructed under this Code section. He noted there were a number of new members on the ADB now, and some would like to have more specific direction similar to design guidelines. Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Bullock mentioned in this presentation that certain older buildings in downtown appeared more acceptable regardless of their height because they were smaller buildings and a series of smaller buildings in a row provided a look that was smaller in scale. She noted each of the new buildings were huge and asked what could be done to assist in achieving the smaller building appearance. Mr. Bullock answered one thing the three buildings had in common was they had broken the building into a series of smaller pieces to appear more like the older buildings. He displayed a photograph of one of the older buildings, pointing out how the building was broken into several smaller pieces. Similarly, the design of the new building may appear to be several different buildings because the elements of the building have been recessed. He cited this as an example of the ADB working with applicants so that buildings were modulated to break up the mass and size of buildings. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was more that could be done in the City's regulations to achieve more variation, noting the photograph of the three older buildings was significantly different in appearance than the new buildings even with the modulation. Mr. Bullock answered the smaller sites were the most difficult to develop as they could not reasonably provide the amount of parking that was required. As a result, developers consolidate lots to have enough area to provide the parking the building will require. He noted one larger building was a more efficient building practice, one foundation rather than three separate foundations, therefore, simply as a matter of economics, developers were constructing larger buildings. He referred to a project that had recently completed the design review process, on 50' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 6 and Walnut, explaining the architect and builder developed a design that appeared to be three distinct buildings, from the materials used and the architectural style of the building. He noted they tried to emulate the downtown style to a certain point while gaining the efficiencies of a larger building and shared parking for one building rather than several smaller buildings. Councilmember Petso asked how the 25 feet + the additional 5 feet were measured, noting many appear to be taller than 30 feet. Mr. Bullock explained on sloped sites, staff determines the average grade of the building pad. Therefore, on a sloped site, the average grade for the building footprint will be between the lowest and highest point, which may result in a building appearing to be 20 feet tall on the high side and 35 -40 feet on the low side. However, measured from the average grade of that building footprint, he assured the height would not be higher than 30 feet. Councilmember Marin recalled in 1983 when he moved his business into the Harbor Building, he was proud to have his business in that building. Although some may consider it an ugly box, there was merit in a building such as that when the landscape of the downtown area was considered as a whole. He acknowledged if all buildings were constructed in that style, it may be monotonous and not as good looking. He described looking at buildings constructed in recent years, noting there was some marvelous work being done in the past few years, buildings that were far superior in detail and quality of workmanship that were amenities to the City. He noted the City contained architecture and design that spanned many years from Victorian to boxes to elegant looking buildings constructed in the recent past. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Bullock to address lot -line to lot -line development and commercial space on the first floor issue. Mr. Bullock explained the code required the first 30 feet of depth of a building in the downtown commercial zone, as measured from the sidewalk, to be dedicated to commercial uses. He noted there were some provisions that allowed for drive aisles although the code was very `specific in encouraging buildings to use alleys as their primary use of access. In instances where alley access was not possible, a driveway could be accessed from the street and through the first 30 feet of depth. The code did not allow parking or residential use in the first 30 feet of the first floor as measured from the sidewalk in a commercial area. He displayed a photograph of the building lot across 5`h Avenue S from Petosa's Grocer that has two floors of condominiums and commercial on the first floor, noting the commercial space is often vacant. He noted further from the downtown core, the first floor commercial spaces are frequently vacant. He explained the BC zone extended to Edmonds Street between 3rd and 5"'; commenting that as some of those properties were redeveloped and commercial uses were required on the first floor, there was concern whether that space would be viable commercial space. The issue was balancing sufficient commercial space against possibly refining the boundaries of the BC zone if those commercial spaces were not viable and allowing the first floor to be used entirely for residential. With regard to lot -line to lot -line development, Mr. Bullock noted this issue was also tied to the boundaries of the BC zone. Where did the City want to encourage commercial development? If the current boundaries were appropriate, he felt the lot -line to lot -line development was effective and resulted in an active, pedestrian experience that would aid in the vitality of the downtown area. If the boundaries of the BC zone was not appropriate and it deemed to be too spread out to be developed effectively, consideration may need to be given to revising the boundaries of the BC zone. Mayor Haakenson reiterated that his reason for bringing this to the Council was to illustrate to the Council and public what had occurred with the development of roof lines over the past six years. He explained his concern with requiring commercial space further from the downtown core, noting if that remained vacant commercial space, consideration should be given to reducing the boundaries of the BC Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 7 zone or allowing residential on the first floor rather than requiring commercial space. He reiterated no action was required, this was only intended as an update. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS xcused COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO bsences EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON FROM THE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 26 AND SEPTEMBER 16. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1 -0), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON ABSTAINED. Councilmember Marin recognized the City's new Administrative Services Director, Dan Clements, who won the 2003 Professional Financial Officer Award from the Washington Financial Officers Association. He also recognized Edmonds Police Department Reserve Officer Dick Anway for achieving 30 years of service in the City as a Reserve Officer. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Y H ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 8 1 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 511 Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (13) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #65421 through #65523 for the week of September Y - 15, 2003, in the amount of $658,129.90. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #36686 through #36772 for the period September 1 through September 15, 2003, in the amount of $974,967.67. (D) Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Southwest Snohomish County Public Safety Communications Agency. (E) 242nd Street Storm Improvements Project - request for project budget adjustment for additional funding to extend proposed storm system replacement. (F) Proclamation in honor of Day of Concern for the Hungry, September 27, 2003. 3. ( 5 Min.) Introduction of new Student Representative. 4. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in recognition of National Arts and Humanities Month in Edmonds. 5. (10 Min.) Presentation by WRIA 8. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA September 23, 2003 Page 2 of 2 7. (so Min.) Work session on modulated roof regulations. 8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee /board meetings. ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21. �1