05/04/1999 City Councilpprove
27/99
inutes
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
. MAY 49.1999
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to meet with an appointee to the Civil Service Commission, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library-
Plaza Room, 650 Main Street.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Gary Haakenson, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Meghan Cross, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager
Michael Karber, City Attorney
Phil Olbrechts, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Fahey invited Boy Scout Troop No. 300 to make the presentation of flags and to lead the flag
salute. Mayor Fahey noted that Troop No. 300 has been in existence for 30 years. She introduced Scout
Master David Miller, who is also an Edmonds Police Officer, and explained the scouts are earning their
Citizenship in the Community merit badge. The scouts each introduced themselves to the Council.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 5 TO ITEM 3 AND TO RENUMBER ITEMS 3 AND 4
AS ITEM 4 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1999
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 1
Approve
Claim
Warrants
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29378 THROUGH #32500 FOR THE WEEK OF
APRIL 26, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $465,759.10
laims for
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KRISTI M. WESTER
amages
($690.42), AND JAN & JANINE JOHANSEN ($2,561.09)
pdate on (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
wy 99
PSA with (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
System CONTRACT WITH SYSTEM INTERFACE, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
interface WATER/SEWER TELEMETRY MONITORING SYSTEM SERVICES ($5,900)
urplus (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO
ehicles SELL SURPLUS VEHICLES
Res. 952 Set (H) RESOLUTION NO. 952 SETTING JUNE 1, 1999, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A
Baring REQUEST TO VACATE A 10 -FOOT WIDE BY 113 -FOOT LONG PORTION OF THE
Date 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 9405 -
218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST (Applicant: Larry Wax / File No. ST- 99 -52)
10rd. 3250 re (1) ORDINANCE NO. 3250 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
oning Map EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF 15TH STREET SW AT ITS
INTERSECTION WITH STATE ROUTE 104 FROM SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS -6) TO PLANNED BUSINESS (PB)
1999Legis. 3• PRESENTATION OF 1999 LEGISLATIVE CITATION OF MERIT TO MAYOR BARBARA S.
Citation of FAHEY FROM THE WASHINGTON RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION
Brit
Lynn DeVour, Washington State Recreation and Park Association, explained the Washington
Recreation and Park Association is a 1200 member organization made up of Parks and Recreation
professionals and Commissioners from across the state of Washington. At a recent conference, an
awards banquet was held to honor people in the state for their efforts regarding Parks and Recreation.
She presented Mayor Fahey the Legislative Citation of Merit and read a letter from the Executive
Director of the National Parks and Recreation Association recognizing Mayor Fahey for her exemplary
actions in support of congressional appropriations for public parks and recreation through the Land and
Waster Conservation Fund.
Ms. DeVour presented a Citation of Merit Award to Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde who
was nominated by Mayor Fahey as well as several members of the association.
Mayor Fahey said this is a very significant award for her because she has been working very hard on this
issue for the last two years. She said the award was not in recognition of her success but for her efforts
to bring about change. She explained by congressional rule, the oil drilling industry must put monies
into a trust fund to be used for park and recreation purposes. Some of the funds are to be used for federal
programs and some for local, state, and city programs. Until about five years ago, both federal and local
projects were funded; five years ago Congress made a decision to retain a significant amount of money
in the trust and only allocate funds for federal projects. She said the City has numerous parks that were
previously acquired with this funding.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 2
Mayor Fahey explained Ms. Ohlde asked her to speak to the Appropriations Committee to request
funding for statewide programs. Mayor Fahey pointed out the need for open spaces in the City that are
available to citizens on a daily basis and not only national parks and open spaces that citizens often
cannot access. Their efforts resulted in the State Legislature supporting Congress' allocations. Letters
signed by every mayor in the state have also been submitted to Congress requesting the appropriation.
Resolutions have also been passed at the Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities. She
pointed out this is an example of the importance of actively participating in debates in Washington DC to
benefit the community.
Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde said funds provided in the past have resulted in the
acquisition of Seaview Park, Sierra Park, Olympic Beach, the fishing pier, Brackett's Landing North, and
the Meadowdale Playfields. She explained these funds are still being provided by the oil drilling
industry but need to be reallocated the way they were promised in the 1960's.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENDING THE LIFE OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTED
Ord. 3209
- Frame/ PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3209 RELATING TO A -FRAME AND SANDWICH -BOARD
Sandwich DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND REAFFIRMING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES
Board Signs
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is a follow -up hearing to an action the Council took in April
extending the 3 -month study period for sandwich board signs. While sandwich board signs have been
studied, work has also been underway on the sign code in general including coordination with the
Architectural Design Board (ADB) study being conducted by Cedar River Associates. A joint meeting
with the ADB and Planning Board is scheduled for May 12 to review sign regulations by districts as well
as sandwich board sign issues specifically. The Planning Board will also review these issues at a
meeting later in the month. The matter will be presented to the Council at a work session in June, which
will include the Planning Board's recommendation. He anticipated the Council could take action in July.
Mr. Chave said notices would be mailed next week for a June 2 open house when the Planning Board
information will be available for public comment prior to their final action.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, reiterated a concern expressed by Councilmember
Earling previously regarding the absence of those directly affected by this issue. He said there does not
appear to be a lot of interest by the individuals the City is trying to change the code for and questioned
whether it was necessary to continue.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. She
explained unless the Council chooses not to extend the ordinance, no further action is required.
Closed 5. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN
Record APPEAL REGARDING THE PLANNING DIVISION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
Appeal RECORDED PLAT CONDITIONS OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. S- 96 -86,
AP- 99 -58) COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAGLES NEST ESTATES, AS SUCH CONDITIONS RELATE TO
THE BUILDABLE STATUS OF LOT 1 OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. S -29 -88
(Property Location: North of the properties addressed as 7411, 7407, and 7403 - 169 "' Place /
Appellant: Russell G Cofano representing Thomas & Roberta Maurice and Robert & Susan Allen /
File No. AP- 99 -58)
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers lived within 300 feet of the short plat, had any business or
personal dealings with the appellant or the short plat, had any exparte contact concerning the short plat or
have any information that could be perceived as influencing their objectivity.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 3
Council President Haakenson said in 1987 he testified before the Planning Board and City Council
regarding an emergency access road that was part of this proposal at that time for the Eagles Nest
Estates. He lived in the neighborhood and the neighbors did not want the access road. He said any
action he took 12 years ago regarding the access road, which had nothing to do with this issue, would not
bias his participation. There were no other disclosures.
Mayor Fahey asked if there were any objections to the participation of any Councilmember in the
proceedings. There were no objections; Mayor Fahey advised all Councilmembers were empowered to
participate in the hearing.
Mayor Fahey explained because the City Attorney was involved in this case originally, he cannot
participate as legal counsel but will assist staff with the City's presentation. Therefore, the City has
engaged the services of Phil Olbrechts as an independent attorney to assist the Council and herself with
the hearing.
City Attorney Phil Olbrechts explained this is a closed record appeal of the staff interpretation, which
will include legal argument about the staff interpretation; new evidence (that was not presented to the
Hearing Examiner) is not allowed. He requested that anyone referring to evidence state the location in
the record to ensure the information was included in the record. He explained the staff interpretation is a
determination by the Planning Department that one lot of a 2 -lot subdivision cannot be developed due to
a Native Growth Area. The property owner disputes that interpretation.
Mr. Olbrechts said his understanding was Mr. Karber, City Attorney representing staff, planned to
withdraw his motion to supplement the record. Mr. Karber said he filed a motion with Council to
supplement the record with information staff felt was relevant. Upon further review, staff does not wish
to supplement the record. Mr. Olbrechts asked if the appellant had any issues with this action.
Robert Allen, 833 8`h NW, Shoreline, asked if this meant the letter he received recently would not be
submitted into the record and he could not refer to it. Mr. Karber answered yes; staff is asking Council
to disregard that as evidence in this matter. Mr. Allen asked if he could refer to the letter. Mr. Karber
answered no.
Mayor Fahey asked Mr. Allen if he had an objection to the withdrawal of the motion to supplement the
record. Mr. Allen answered he had no objection.
Mr. Olbrechts explained legal counsel for the applicant will be allowed to present his argument first,
followed by Mr. Karber representing staff, followed by members of the audience who wish to address
issues in the record. The applicant's representative would have an opportunity for final rebuttal. Mayor
Fahey said the appellant would be allowed ten minutes for his presentation and five minutes for rebuttal,
staff will also have ten minutes for their presentation, and members of the public are asked to keep their
comments to three minutes.
Mr. Karber asked the Council to consider a change in the order. He explained the appellant's attorney
will not be present and Mr. Allen will present their case. Although the appellant has the right to present
his argument first, Mr. Karber requested he be allowed to present the factual record, which includes
overheads that may assist the appellant in presenting their argument, prior to the appellant's presentation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 4
i
�I
i
I
i
Mayor Fahey indicated that Mr. Allen was nodding affirmatively from the audience that he would like to
proceed in that manner.
Mr. Karber explained in 1986, Mr. Allen and Mr. Maurice were the property owners of a 4.75 -acre parcel
located in Edmonds. They originally proposed to construct an 8 -lot Planned Residential Development
(PRD) on the property. Mr. Karber displayed a plat map that was filed with the plat and referred to the
site characteristics outlined in Exhibit A to the City's brief (page 54 of the record). He explained the
northerly one -third of the site is heavily vegetated and very steeply sloped. For that reason, the original
PRD in 1987 proposed to have 8 lots located on the southerly two- thirds of the site. When the Hearing
Examiner considered the PRD application, he was concerned with the small size of some of the lots (one
lot was 4,800 square feet) given the minimum zoning at the time (RS -20, a 20,000 square foot minimum
lot size). Therefore, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the PRD to the Council with the
condition that two of the lots be aggregated because they were the smallest lots in the original PRD
application.
The original PRD application also proposed to leave the northerly one -third of the site as common open
space with what was referred to as a Native Growth Restriction across that entire northerly one - third.
The applicant apparently did not want to proceed with a 7 -lot PRD and changed their application to an B-
lot standard sub - division. In order to accomplish that, they were required to use the entire 4.75 acres to
create eight platted lots. Mr. Karber referred to the map and indicated the northerly portion of Lot 5 was
Lot 8 in the original PRD application. The Hearing Examiner's decision at the time was to approve the
8 -lot subdivision but indicated there was significant concern about the buildability of what was then
known as Lot 8 due to the steep slope as it appeared to have unstable soils and was heavily wooded. The
Hearing Examiner's staff report (Exhibit D, page 100 of the record) lists the Hearing Examiner's
concerns about the buildability of Lot 8. The Hearing Examiner attached conditions to the subdivision
with respect to Lot 8, requiring further extensive environmental review of that particular lot if a building
permit was ever sought for that lot. Otherwise, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the 8-
lot subdivision.
When the Council first heard the preliminary plat application, there was an issue raised regarding the
means of access to the site but that is not germane to the appeal. Due to the Council's concern with
access, the matter was remanded to the Hearing Examiner for review of the access. When the Hearing
Examiner next heard the application for subdivision, the applicants had changed the proposed layout of
the lots so that what was formerly Lot 8 was aggregated into Lot 5. This was ultimately recommended to
Council and the preliminary plat and final plat were approved.
Approximately six months after the plat was recorded, the property owners submitted an application for
an administrative short plat that sought to further subdivide Lot 5 of the original 7 -lot subdivision. It
divided former Lot 5 into Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 is the exact dimensions of what was formerly
Lot 8 in the original subdivision considered by the Hearing Examiner and the Council. Mr. Karber
summarized the lots were consolidated when approved by the Council and then re- subdivided through
the administrative short plat process, which did not require Council approval in accordance with the
regulations in effect at that time. Parcel 2 was developed with a single - family residence and Parcel 1 has
been vacant since the subdivision.
The City recently received a request to evaluate whether Parcel 1 would be considered a buildable lot for
purposes of obtaining a building permit. Planning staff reviewed the issue, including the conditions
imposed by the Hearing Examiner, and issued a written response that they did not consider Parcel 1 to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 5
a buildable lot, specifically due to the Native Growth restriction imposed on what was formerly the
northerly portion of Lot 5, also known as Lot 8. Staffs administrative decision was appealed to the
Hearing Examiner. Because the appeal is an appeal of a staff interpretation, the appeal is heard by the
Council.
Appellan t
Mr. Allen said when they short platted the property, they always had it in mind to build on that lot
eventually. He said that is the reason they had geotechnical studies done and have paid taxes on the
property since that time.
Mr. Olbrechts asked where the fact that they always intended to build on the property was in the record.
Mr. Allen said it was self - evident; if someone pays taxes on property, they must have some intended use
for it. Mr. Olbrechts cautioned that was not a fact in the record.
Mr. Allen said the City denied their request based on the Native Growth Protection. He knew that at the
time but there was no hard definition of Native Growth. The definition on the recorded plat states no
trees shall be cut except dead or dying and the property shall remain in its present state unless approved
by the City of Edmonds. He said they interpreted that to mean they would have to meet environmental
review to build on it. He said since they received approval for the short plat and have paid taxes on the
property, they feel it would be unfair in the extreme to have the City determine the property can never be
built upon.
Mayor Fahey asked if there was any member of the audience with standing who wished to speak. There
was no one present who wished to address the Council.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Karber said the decision from the Hearing Examiner was very clear and summarized the arguments
to reach his conclusion. Mr. Karber explained the subdivision of land in the state of Washington is
governed by state law and local ordinances. Local ordinances must be consistent with state law. RCW
58.17.215 (page 44 of the record) states if any portion of a subdivision that has been recorded is to be
altered, the process that is required is the same process by which the original subdivision was approved
and a majority of the owners of the subdivided property must join in the application to alter the
subdivision. That state statute is implemented in the City by ECDC 20.75.110(B) entitled "Changes"
which provides that: An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall. be
processed in the same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of
correction (page 45 of the Council record). Staffs position has been in 1986 Council approved a 7 -lot
subdivision that clearly had a Native Growth Area designated on the plat. He referred to the map
recorded with the subdivision plat, identifying the Native Growth Area that extends along the area that
now comprises the area where Parcel 1 is located following the administrative short plat. He read the
restriction printed on the map, which is also. printed in the Hearing Examiner's decision, "The Native
Growth Area shown hereon shall remain in its present state. There shall be no cutting of trees unless
they are dead, diseased or pose a hazard to the public or unless otherwise approved by the City." Staffs
interpretation is this information should be given its plain and ordinary meaning because the first section
is very unambiguous in its meaning and states the Native Growth Area shown hereon shall remain in its
present state. Staffs interpretation is the construction of a single family home would take it outside its
natural state. Staff also believes there was further authority in prior versions of the restriction. The
Hearing Examiner heard evidence on this and made a finding (Finding 2 on page 2 of the Hearing
Examiner's decision) indicating the manner in which the original restriction was proposed. That
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 6
I
restriction stated, "The Native Growth Protection Area shall be left in a substantially native state. No
clearing, grading, filling or construction shall occur within this area except for necessary utility
installations, drainage and other improvements as may be needed for the purposes of soil stabilization
when reviewed and approved by the City of Edmonds City Engineer. Removal of trees by the property
owners shall be limited to those which are dead, diseased or dangerous." That restriction was originally
proposed with the 8 -lot PRD and the 8 -lot subdivision. When the 7 -lot subdivision was approved by
Council, the restriction had been shortened to the two sentences that appear on the plat map.
Mr. Karber summarized that the restriction is clear and unambiguous and should be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, which would restrict the buildability of the lot restricted by that language. Therefore,
it is staffs position that the purpose of the administrative short plat was to separate the burdened portion
of Lot 5 from the unburdened portion of Lot 5 and that is where the division of property occurred.
The appellant argued before the Hearing Examiner that they may have vested rights and raised some
legal issues in that respect. The appellant's claim is that when they short subdivided the property (Lot 5)
into two lots, it was done in expectation of building on Parcel 1. Although the Hearing Examiner heard
testimony on this issue, it is not noted in his findings. Mr. Karber explained the Vested Rights Doctrine
states when an application is complete, the property owner vests not only the right to divide the property
but also to develop the property. However, courts have ruled that the property owner does not vest the
right to develop the property to any possible use under the zoning but rather vests the right to develop
what is stated as their intention to develop it at the time of application for subdivision. Therefore, the
applicant's intention regarding development is relevant to what rights, if any, they are vested in.
Mr. Karber referred to the Environmental Checklist (Exhibit M, page 212 of the record) specifically
question 11 on page 213, "Give a brief complete description of your proposal." The applicant answered,
"Proposal is to subdivide Lot 5 of Eagle Nest Estates into two lots. Lot 5 would be 20, 000 square feet
and Lot 5A would be approximately 50,000 square feet. No use for the Lot 5A is planned at this time."
Mr. Karber said there are other indications in the Environmental Checklist that the applicant intended to
do no construction, grading, filling or any type of activity on Parcel 1. Mr. Karber referred to page 3 of
the Checklist (page 214 of the record), question "h" which states "proposed measures to reduce or
control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any:" The applicant answers "Preserve vegetation."
Question "f' states, "could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe." The applicant answered "Yes, but no clearing proposed."
Mr. Karber said it was called to the Hearing Examiner's attention (verbatim transcript in the record) that
the application for short subdivision did not have a space to indicate the proposed use. However, there
was a section to indicate variances being requested as part of the subdivision. Staffs position is the
property owners knew this area was burdened by the restrictions and had actually proposed the
restriction. If they intended to build on Parcel 1, they could have requested a variance as part of the
subdivision process. Staff s position is the restriction on the face of the original subdivision could only
be modified or terminated by action of Council. That remains true today; if an application is presented,
signed by a majority of the property owners of the subdivision, the restriction could be lifted if the
Council found that was the correct course of action.
Council President Haakenson said the Native Growth Area appeared on the map to be spread over three
areas. He observed where NATIVE is printed is approximately the area being addressed tonight.
Mr. Karber agreed. Council President Haakenson said where GROWTH and AREA are printed on the
map is a steep slope. He asked if the Native Growth Area is part of lots 6 and 7 shown on the map.
Mr. Karber answered yes according to staffs interpretation of the plat map. Council President
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 7
Haakenson asked if the bottom half of Lot 6 was a Native Growth Area. Mr. Karber said the single
family homes developed on Lots 6 and 7 are south of the Native Growth Area. Mr. Olbrechts observed
this information was outside the record.
Council President Haakenson asked if any tree cutting or development plans have been proposed for the
Native Growth Area on Lots 6 and 7. Mr. Karber answered he is not aware of any but that was not an
issue raised before the Hearing Examiner. One of the property owners of Lot 6 or 7 testified before the
Hearing Examiner indicating he did not want to see his backyard go away, as the northerly part of his lot
was well treed and steeply sloped to Meadowdale Beach Road. The property owner questioned how the
City could consider de- vegetation of the site and construction of any structure. Mr. Karber said it could
be assumed from the record that the neighbors who testified before the Hearing Examiner were strongly
in support of staffs interpretation.
Councilmember Earling said the testimony Mr. Karber referred to was from Mr. Kopp. Mr. Karber
agreed Mr. Kopp testified and three letters were submitted at the hearing voicing concerns similar to
Mr. Kopp's.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to RCW 58.17.215 regarding subdivision and said his understanding
was that this was a Planned Residential Development (PRD) which was more difficult to change.
Mr. Karber answered when the property was first proposed to be developed, it was proposed as a PRD.
However, because of the Hearing Examiner's decision, the property owners withdrew that application
and changed to a straight formal subdivision.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Allen said replatting is not a remedy because it was unlikely they could get 6 - 7 property owners to
willingly replat the plat to allow them to build one single family residence because no one wants
development in their area. He commented none of the residents of the plat would be able to see a house
on Parcel 1 from their property. He summarized replatting was not a viable remedy. Regarding the
reference to the Environmental Checklist and that it indicated they had no intention of developing the
property at that time, he stressed they had no intention of developing the property "at that time," but truly
and honestly always felt that was an option. That is why they have paid taxes on the property and had
geotechnical studies done on the property in 1992. He said the fact that a short plat was granted led them
to believe they could develop the property, provided, they went through the proper environmental review
process, and that is why he had the geotechnical studies. done. He said the City may have erred in
granting the short plat. He said this was unfair and extreme.
Councilmember Plunkett asked where the City erred. Mr. Allen answered in granting the short plat in
the first place in what was deemed a Native Growth Area. He did not realize at the time and still does
not realize that a Native Growth designation condemns a property never to be built upon ever. He said
there is nothing in the language that states that.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Allen if he felt the City did not have the right to designate the
property Native Growth. Mr. Allen answered they have always believed the Native Growth designation
did not mean it could not be built upon. Further, there is nothing "hard and fast" in the definition of
Native Growth that states it cannot be built upon.
Councilmember Earling referred to Mr. Allen's statement that there is no definition of Native Growth
and asked what impact that has on Mr. Allen's argument versus Mr. Karber's argument. Mr. Olbrechts
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 8
i
i
said it is not an issue because it is a valid condition of plat approval and there is no question what that
condition states. In the application materials, the attorney argued that the last clause "or unless approved
by the City of Edmonds" qualified the fact that the property owner could not build. The Hearing
Examiner disagreed with that interpretation and he (Mr. Olbrechts) also disagreed with that interpretation
and believed that clause refers to the cutting of trees, and not to the first sentence. Due to the inclusion
of the restriction on the plat map, Mr. Olbrechts said there is no question that any interpretation of the
subdivision approval that concluded the City would allow development on the property would be invalid
because it would conflict with the no development condition.
Councilmember Earling asked Mr. Karber to review the change in language again. Mr. Karber referred
to the Hearing Examiner decision (page 2 of Exhibit 5) and read the language included in the original B-
lot subdivision, "A Native Growth Protection Easement is established over and upon Lot 8 and those
portions of Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 north of the top of the bank as indicated, except that clearing shall be
permitted on Lot 8 for the construction of a house, driveway and 50' of lawn area around the house. This
Native Growth Protection Area shall be left in a substantially native state. No clearing, grading, filling
or construction shall occur within this area except for the necessary utility installations, drainage and
other improvements as may be needed for the purposes of soil stabilization when reviewed and approved
by the City of Edmonds City Engineer. Removal of trees by the property owners shall be limited to those
which are dead, diseased or dangerous. Limbs may be removed from selected trees to establish/enhance
view corridors." Mr. Karber said this language was originally proposed by the applicant for the Native
Growth Area. What was approved by Council is the language that appears on the plat which shows the
Native Growth Area covering former Lot 8 as well as the northerly portion of Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7. The
language the Council approved was shortened and is more concise, "The Native Growth Area shown
hereon shall remain in its present state. There shall be no cutting of trees unless they are dead, diseased
or pose a hazard to the public, or unless otherwise approved by the City." Mr. Karber said the Hearing
Examiner made a finding that the record does not indicate why the language regarding the Native
Growth Area was changed and staff concurred with that finding.
Mr. Olbrechts said unless the Council found the restriction on the Native Growth Area ambiguous, the
background of how it was developed is irrelevant and a court would not consider that information.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Olbrechts to explain what the Council is being asked to act
upon. Mr. Olbrechts displayed a map showing the short plat of Parcels 1 and 2. He said the appellant
acquired approval for the short plat several years ago and recently requested a building permit for
Parcel 1. The Planning Department indicated Parcel 1 was not a buildable lot due to the Native Growth
Area. The appellant appealed staffs decision to the Hearing Examiner in an attempt to be allowed to
build on Parcel 1, arguing that the City told him he could build on Parcel 1 when he obtained the short
plat (equitable estoppel). Mr. Olbrechts said, as was argued in Mr. Karber's brief, equitable estoppel
does not apply if there is an invalid permit. Mr. Olbrechts explained the concept of equitable estoppel is
if someone makes you a promise and you rely on that promise, the person has to follow through on their
promise. In this instance, the appellant states the City promised him, when granting the short plat
approval, that he could build on that lot and, therefore, represents a promise upon which he has relied.
The courts have found that equitable estoppel will not apply if the City promises you something they
have no authority to promise. In this instance, when the Planner approved the short plat, it could be
construed, although it is not clear what she actually said, that she was allowing development to occur on
Parcel 1. What Mr. Karber has argued and what Mr. Olbrechts said he agreed with, the Planner had no
authority to allow that because the only way to remove the Native Growth Easement on Parcel 1 and
allow.development is through a plat alteration process, which requires the signature of the majority of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 9
property owners living in the subdivision. The City's argument is since the Planner had no authority to
make that statement, equitable estoppel does not apply.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke said the Council record indicates on page 2 .that the Council's specific
charge is to determine if the Hearing Examiner did his job in a proper manner or if he in some manner
committed an error in law and, therefore, his decision is erroneous. Councilmember Van Hollebeke
summarized the Council is to determine whether the Hearing Examiner acted within his bounds or made
a substantial error. Mr. Olbrechts agreed, pointing out this refers to the original issue of whether staff
was correct in their interpretation. The Hearing Examiner found they were and now the Council must
determine if the Hearing Examiner was correct.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF MARCH 4, 1999,
AND DENY APPEAL NO. AP- 99 -58.
Council. President Haakenson said the appellant referred to the lack of definition for a Native Growth
Area as well as the statement that "There shall be no cutting of trees unless they are dead, diseased or
pose a hazard to the public, or unless otherwise approved by the City." Council President Haakenson
said there are two statements regarding the restriction, the original one addressing, the Native Growth
Protection Area, which would appear to mean "not buildable." He said the definition of Native Growth
Protection Area was given on page 292, the Hearing Examiner's decision in which he quoted the
restriction, "This Native Growth Protection Area shall be left in a substantially native state. No clearing,
grading, filling or construction shall occur within this area except for the necessary utility installations,
drainage and other improvements as may be needed for the purposes of soil stabilization when reviewed
and approved by the City of Edmonds City Engineer. Removal of trees by the property owners shall be
limited to those which are dead, diseased or dangerous. Limbs may be removed from selected trees to
establish/enhance view corridors." The shorter definition appears to be a paraphrase of the first
definition. Council President Haakenson said he was comfortable the Native Growth Protection Area
was designated by the definition and the intent of the Council at that time was to leave the area as it
existed with no building. Council President Haakenson indicated he was in support of the motion. .
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Fahey asked if Parcel 1 & 2, originally Lot 5, were originally designated as a Native Growth
Area. Mr. Olbrechts answered only Parcel 1. Mayor Fahey asked if the two- parcel subdivision was
necessary to build on a portion of the lot or if it would have been possible to build on part of the lot.
Mr. Karber stated construction could have been done on the southern portion (similar to what was done
on Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7) and leave the northerly portion of the lot in a vegetated state.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ater ski Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to a newspaper article 'regarding
Mountlake Terrace's cancellation of the water -ski race on Lake Ballinger. He felt Edmonds had not been
included in the discussion of this event. He next referred to Mayor Fahey's appointment to Amtrak's
Mayor Council and suggested she or Councilmember Earling may be able to respond to an incident that
occurred on a recent Amtrak trip from Vancouver BC where there were insufficient dinners available.
Councilmember Earling clarified he was not on the train and had nothing to do with Amtrak's meal
policies.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 10
nimal Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said he attends numerous meetings in the City including
ntrolOrd. City Council, Planning Board, and Architectural Design Board meetings and considers himself well
informed. He said the Planning Board and ADB are functioning well and he complimented them on their
concern for the City. He referred to the joint City Council/Planning Board meeting where it was ,pointed
out the animal control ordinance was sent to Council committee from the Planning Board. The ordinance
was then altered by Committee member Van Hollebeke due to his belief that the ordinance needed more
restrictions. Mayor Fahey indicated at the joint meeting that sending Planning Board recommendations
to Council committee was not the normal practice and in the future Planning Board recommendations
Plan - g Board would go directly to the full Council for hearing. Mr. Hertrich said this issue was discussed at a
Planning Board meeting following the joint meeting and Commissioners were dismayed to learn three.
Board
Recommend- Planning Board issues, including wall graphics, will be reviewed by Council committee. As a result of
ations. Councilmember Earling's statement to the Planning Board at the joint meeting that they had the ability to
determine the path of their recommendations, they chose to suggest to staff that most of their items go
directly to City Council. Mr. Hertrich suggested the Council look into the process, as it was important
issues be sent to the Council for hearing.
Amtrak Mayor Fahey clarified that Mr. Rutledge was referring to her attendance at an Amtrak meeting as a
Mayor's member of Amtrak's Mayor Council to discuss issues related to safety. She explained she is not riding
Council Amtrak because of the significant amount of time it takes to get to Chicago on the train. Instead she will
be flying to Chicago on Wednesday afternoon for meetings on Thursday morning and flying back on
Thursday afternoon. She said she looked forward to riding Amtrak when she has more time.
es. 953 7• RESOLUTION NO. 953 TO CONDUCT TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF CABLE TELEVISION
val. of SYSTEM REBUILD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
able TV
Community Service Director Paul Mar recalled last week Chambers Cable made a presentation to the
Council on the status of their system rebuild. At the conclusion of that presentation, Council directed
staff to initiate the process for a technical review of the system rebuild. The City Attorney assisted with
drafting the proposed resolution and has approved it to form.
Council President Haakenson asked Mr. Mar to explain the resolution. Mr. Mar said the resolution
directs staff to begin the technical evaluation. This includes. notifying Chambers Cable of the City's
intent to do a technical evaluation, collection of information, and if the evidence indicates it is
appropriate, setting a hearing date. Chambers Cable will have an opportunity to present their evaluation
of the City's technical evaluation. The technical evaluation will be done by a consultant, assuming the
resolution is approved.
Mayor Fahey clarified the purpose of the technical evaluation is to determine if Chambers Cable
complied with the terms of the contract for the system rebuild.
Councilmember White asked the estimated cost of the consultant. Mr. Mar answered they have
discussed the evaluation with 3H Cable Consultants, the consultant who assisted with drafting the
franchise agreement and who have the capability of doing this analysis but no price has yet been
requested. Mr. Karber said payment would come from the franchise fees that are collected. Mr. Mar
agreed.
Councilmember White asked how those funds are used if they are not used to pay a consultant. Mr. Mar
answered they are in the General Fund.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page l l
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HAAKENSON, FOR PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION NO. 953.
Councilmember White said he would support the resolution if amended to include a presentation to the
Council on consultant costs prior to entering into a contract. Councilmember Nordquist accepted this as
a friendly amendment.
MAYOR FAHEY RESTATED THE MOTION: TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SHOWN IN
EXHIBIT I WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE COST OF THE PROCESS BE PRESENTED TO
THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL BEFORE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Haakenson asked Mr. Mar if that report could be provided next week. Mr. Mar agreed
to provide it in memorandum form with the Council packet.
Eund 8. UPDATED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE
kZrg
e Community Services Director Paul Mar recalled a lengthy presentation was made to the Council on
April 20 regarding the proposed underground parking garage, particularly as it related to the special
benefit area and the assessment if an LID was used to finance the garage. At the conclusion of that
presentation, Council directed staff to return in 30 days with further information. Staff wants to ensure
the information regarding which property owners would be subject to the special benefit assessment was
clearly indicated. Mr. Mar explained the only property owners to be assessed are the property owners
within the colored areas on the map shown at that meeting who have non - residential property uses and a
parking deficit. Further, the public safety construction project is at a point where, if this project is still to
be considered, staff needs direction from Council to issue a deductive change order to the current
contractor. This will prevent the contractor from ordering long lead time items or proceeding with any of
the landscaped areas on the west side of the project and allow the City full credit if the garage proceeds.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked the timeline for that decision. Mr. Mar answered a decision will
be necessary at the May 25 meeting.
Councilmember White asked how commercial properties could exist within the zone, have a parking
deficit and not have paid into the in- lieu -of- parking fund. Mr. Mar answered one possibility is if a
property were in use prior to the enactment of the parking code. He explained the appraiser applied a
parking demand based on the code requirement. If a property was in use prior to the implementation of
the parking codes, it would not have been required to provide parking. Until a property -by- property
analysis is done, exactly which properties have deficits will not be known as the appraiser looked only at
blocks and not individual properties.
Councilmember White said it appeared it would be relatively easy to determine which properties were in
use prior to the enactment of the parking regulations. He asked if staff could provide a percentage of
commercial properties that would be subject to the LID. Mr. Mar said his understanding of the analysis
was there were estimates of square footage and application of the code by portion of a block and not on a
parcel -by- parcel basis.
Councilmember Earling asked whether there was a formula established based on vehicle traffic, etc. for
reviewing new businesses. And, if so, hasn't every business been reviewed on that basis and asked to pay
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 12
into the in- lieu -of- parking fund. Mr. Mar answered where businesses have changed use and have not
increased the square footage or changed the use to another category, staff s determination has been that
no additional parking is required. There have been redeveloped properties where additional parking has
been required (i.e. 3`d and Dayton property, formerly Quintana Roo Restaurant).
Councilmember Earling asked if the two churches will have full knowledge of the May 25 meeting.
Mr. Mar said a letter from the Downtown Parking Committee is being distributed to all property owners,
including the churches and includes notification of the May 25 meeting. Councilmember Earling asked
if the business community has responded regarding ideas or reactions to the change in the amount of
money that may be required via the LID. Mr. Mar answered after the April 20 meeting, he spoke with
the project proponents to ensure they understood what their tasks were for the May 25 meeting. Mr. Mar
said staff will also present further information at the May 25 meeting regarding other revenue sources
from a parking garage that might offset the cost.
Councilmember Earling was concerned there may be requests to re- identify the way the parking garage
could be paid for (head tax or square footage tax). He said this appeared to be an evolution of the .rules.
Mr. Mar said the business community has been asked to bring forward more information regarding other
revenue sources. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler and he have also discussed how that
would affect financing for the garage. That information will be presented at the May 25 meeting.
Councilmember White asked if the business community was aware that a significant portion of the
businesses may not be participating,in the assessment. Mr. Mar answered the businesses that were at the
April 20 meeting were aware the colored map does not include a portion of the BC zone.
Councilmember White observed a determination has not yet been made regarding which businesses in
the BC zone will be participating as no determination has yet been made regarding deficits. He asked if
property owners understood this. Mr. Mar said yes; Ms. Wiggin's letter indicates the possibility of
businesses being assessed. The letter seeks input on whether property owners are interested in
proceeding now that the percentage may be as high as 36% (versus the 20% originally proposed) and the
increased estimated cost of the garage.
Councilmember White wanted to ensure property owners were aware the amount provided by the LID
would not necessarily be divided by all businesses in the BC zone as many may be in compliance with
parking regulations. Mr. Mar said the letter states the assessment is based on parking deficit, not
property value, as originally proposed.
Councilmember White asked if the LID would be assessed against the church property. Mr. Mar
answered it would be assessed on all non - residential properties within the three colored zones that have a
parking deficit. Councilmember White observed the property tax exemption did not apply in this
instance. Mr. Mar said no.
Council President Haakenson commented that the terms business community, business owners and
property owners are being used interchangeably but it is actually the property owner who will be
assessed. He said although the property owners will be assessed, it is likely the business owner who will
pay. Council President Haakenson stressed although the business community may be in favor of a
parking garage, they may not understand they will be paying for it. He hoped there would be
representation from both business owners and property owners when this issue is discussed again.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 13
Councilmember Van Hollebeke, a member of the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, i
stressed there is not a clear understanding in the business community, whether it is the property owners,
business owners or tenants. He implored staff to contact Doug Dewar who raised the issue of who would
be taking the leadership role in helping educate the business community regarding the assessment.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he suggested the logical group would be the Chamber of
Commerce's Economic Development group as well as the Property Owners group. He said the business
community also may not understand the importance of the upcoming deadline and potential costs.
Mayor Fahey explained the letter is being sent to property owners who would potentially be assessed if
an LID is done based on benefit to individual property owners. This is different from Mr. Dewar's
proposal that some form of tax (such as a head tax or square footage tax) be .implemented on the
businesses in the entire downtown business zone as a way to pay for at least part of the proposed garage.
This proposal will not be included in the letter related to the potential assessment, as they are completely
separate issues. She said there are differences of opinion regarding a head tax and square footage tax and
would require additional public meetings for discussion. This would be difficult to factor into the
timeline necessary to make a decision regarding the Public Safety complex.
9. MAYOR'S REPORT j
i
candinavian Mayor Fahey reported on the wonderful 41 Annual Scandinavian Festival on Saturday, May 1, which
estival included trolls, Scandinavian music, dancing, crafts and breakfast. She reported a big event is planned
for their 5`h anniversary next year.
arrior Mayor Fahey advised Warrior Way on Edmonds - Woodway High School campus will be dedicated '
ay tomorrow (May 5) at 8:30 a.m.
Mayor's Mayor Fahey reported she will leave Thursday afternoon to attend the Cascadia Mayor's Conference in
onference Victoria on Friday. Council President Haakenson will'act as Mayor Pro Tem in her absence.
isioning Mayor Fahey reminded the community of the report on the visioning process that will be presented on
Meeting May 19 at Edmonds Theater at 7:00 p.m.
aterfront Mayor Fahey advised the Waterfront Festival, sponsored by the Edmonds Rotary, will take place on
estival May 21 - 23 at the Port.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council. President Haakenson wished Councilmember Miller a happy birthday on May 10.
nimal Councilmember Van Hollebeke advised Mr. Hertrich that the City has a process for handling
ontrol Ord. 1 Councilmember duties, which includes committee meetings once per month to discuss issues prior to a
public meeting with the full Council. He stressed he had no intention of circumventing the process and
never intended for the animal control ordinance to be a committee decision. He said most issues that are
brought to the committee are suggested by staff or a Councilmember. He supported having the animal '
control ordinance presented to the full Council. j
Councilmember Plunkett said Lynnwood Councilmembers are envious of the Council's committee
process. He was confident Council President Haakenson could make arrangements with Board and
Commissions regarding what issues are heard by committees. He next reported the committee selecting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 14
ork for the artwork for Lynndale Skateboard Park will meet on Thursday, May 6 at the Lynnwood Council
nndale j Chambers to review artwork. He advised the South County Republican Party meeting is also on May 6
k at the same location and time.
Artwork for Councilmember Nordquist advised he has been participating on a jury to select artwork for the 50'
ekinan 50' Anniversary of Hekinan. The jury met once and will be meeting again on June 10 for art presentations.
`" He encouraged interested citizens to attend. He commented on the challenge of identifying an art piece
that will fit into Hekinan's environment.
Appointment Mayor Fahey requested the Council approve the appointment of David Bracilano to the Civil Service
to Civil Commission. She explained the Council met with Mr. Bracilano prior to the Council meeting. She
Service
ommission briefly described Mr. Barcilano's background.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HAAKENSON, TO APPOINT DAVID BRACILANO TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey extended warm wishes for a Happy Mothers Day to all mothers in the community.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR
'-d� --f Z�"
-.SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 1999
Page 15
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
MAY 4, 1999
Special Meeting
6:45 P.M. — MEETING WITH APPOINTEE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE — LED BY BOY SCOUT TROOP NO. 300
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1999
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29378 THROUGH #32500 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 26, 1999,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $465,759.10
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KRISTI M. WESTER ($690.42), AND
JAN & JANINE JOHANSEN ($2,561.09)
(E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SYSTEM
INTERFACE, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WATER/SEWER TELEMETRY MONITORING SYSTEM
SERVICES ($5,900)
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SELL SURPLUS
VEHICLES
(H) PROPOSED RESOLUTION SETTING JUNE 1, 1999, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A REQUEST TO
VACATE A 10 -FOOT WIDE BY 113 -FOOT LONG PORTION OF THE 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -
OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 9405 — 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST (Applicant: Larry Wax /
File No. ST- 99 -52)
(1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO
CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
AND SOUTH SIDES OF 15TH STREET SW AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH STATE ROUTE 104 FROM
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -6) TO PLANNED BUSINESS (PB)
3. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING — EXTENDING THE LIFE OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTED PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 3209 RELATING TO A -FRAME AND SANDWICH -BOARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND
REAFFIRMING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES
4. (60 Min.) CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL
REGARDING THE PLANNING DIVISION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE RECORDED PLAT CONDITIONS
OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. S- 96 -86, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAGLES NEST
ESTATES, AS SUCH CONDITIONS RELATE TO THE BUILDABLE STATUS OF LOT 1 OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. S- 29 -88. (Property Location: North of the properties addressed as
7411, 7407, and 7403 — 169 " Place / Appellant: Russell G. Cofano representing Thomas & Roberta
Maurice and Robert & Susan Allen / File No. AP- 99 -58)
5. (5 Min.) PRESENTATION OF 1999 LEGISLATIVE CITATION OF MERIT TO MAYOR BARBARA S. FAHEY FROM
THE WASHINGTON RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 4, 1999
Page 2
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
7. (10 Min.) PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF CABLE TELEVISION
SYSTEM REBUILD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
8. (5 Min.) UPDATED INFORMATION ON PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE
9. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.
Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and .Monday at noon on Channel 32.