02/03/2004 City CouncilThe 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
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
David Dwyer, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Star Campbell, Assistant Planner
Zach Lell, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO SCHEDULE A FIVE MINUTE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF A
POTENTIAL LEGAL MATTER AS ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #68484 THROUGH #68688 FOR THE WEEK OF
JANUARY 26, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,214.40.
(D) BOND CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE.
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FOR COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR)
2003 — 2005.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 1
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO
SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT.
(G) APPROVAL OF 2004 TAXI LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI.
3A. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL LEGAL MATTER
At 7:02 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a five minute Executive Session regarding a
potential legal matter. The meeting was reconvened at 7:08 p.m.
3B. CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
DECISION ON THE APPLICATION BY MJ AND MP INVESTMENT LLC FOR A NEW MIXED
USE BUILDING AT 215 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. THE SITE IS ZONED COMMUNITY
BUSINESS (BC). THIS MATTER WAS FIRST DISCUSSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
OCTOBER 7 2003 AND REMANDED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR
CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND MORE EXPLICIT FINDINGS. (APPELLANTS:
DARRELL MARMION AND LESLIE HAAN, STEPHEN BERNHEIM AND SUSAN BAUER 1
APPLICANT: MJ AND MP INVESTMENT. LLC / FILE NO. ADB-03-56 AND AP-03-142
In response to Mayor Haakenson's inquiry, City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the Council and all parties of
record were provided copies of the ex parte communication. In addition, four responses were received
from the parties of record with regard to the ex parte communication. Copies of the four responses were
also provided to the Council and each party of record.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether Councilmembers Moore, Olson and Dawson had had an opportunity
to review the record. Councilmembers Moore, Olson and Dawson answered they had.
As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson inquired pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine whether any Councilmember had any conflict or ex parte communication since January 20, 2004
to disclose.
Councilmember Moore advised she spoke with staff regarding procedural issues. Mayor Haakenson
advised a Councilmember was allowed to discuss procedures with staff.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Councilmember Orvis explained after reviewing the record, he still disagreed with the interpretation of
the height limit ordinance. He referred to the ordinance which included the phrase, "approved modulated
design," noting much of the interpretation was focused on that phrase. He explained when interpreting
the code, he considered the context of the sentence in which a word or phrase appeared. In the context of
the code, the phrase "approved modulated design" appeared in a paragraph that was a footnote to height
limits and within the paragraph, "roof' was mentioned a few times and the examples were modulated roof
designs. He concluded the code was clearly requesting a modulated roof design.
Councilmember Orvis also pointed out precedence, noting the August 6, 2003 ADB minutes referred to
previous cases the ADB reviewed, one that had plateaus that moved up and down, a modulated roof
design, that was allowed the additional five feet in height. Another example cited by the ADB was a
building with a flat roof with modulated parapets. He concluded the building proposed in this application
did not have any up and down modulation although he acknowledged it had side to side modulation. He
did not support approval of the application for that reason.
Councilmember Marin disagreed with Councilmember Orvis, referring to a rendering of the rear of the
building which he felt showed substantial modulation in many different directions. He found the design
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 2
of the back of the building to be "exquisite" which he noted was not usually the case in most building
designs. With regard to complaints that the building should not be approved, he pointed out such a
building was allowed in this zone and would be allowed on either side of the alley. He commented on the
garbage enclosures designed as part of the building, stating it was the best, most reasonable garbage
enclosure proposal he had seen.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the issue was not whether this was a nice -looking building but
whether the building was allowed to be 25 feet or 30 feet in height. She noted the height depended on the
interpretation of the code and what was intended by approved modulated design. She agreed with
Councilmember Orvis that the context of the code must be considered. By considering the context, she
concluded modulated referred to a modulated roof design. She noted a finding that approved modulated
design did not refer to roofs would render the 25 versus 30 foot concept moot as the code already required
wall modulation and details in the building to break up the building mass. She noted if the design
guidelines already required modulation, how could doing what the design guidelines required allow a
developer five extra feet? She concluded if the code required a modulated roof design, the proposed
building did not include a modulated roof design irregardless of the side -to -side modulation. She agreed
with Councilmember Orvis and did not support approval of this application.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, DAWSON AND WILSON OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Councilmember Orvis' indication that he disagreed with the height limit
ordinance on modulation design and Councilmember Dawson's indication that it was an interpretation of
City Code. He reiterated his request of two weeks ago, emphasizing that there should not need to be an
interpretation of the code, it should be black and white. He commented the Council would continue to
face this issue unless the matter was referred to the Planning Board or the Council made a change
themselves. He noted it could be as simple as adding one word to the Code.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, urged the Council to address the issue involved in
the previous matter just discussed. He noted it was not just roof versus wall modulation; the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan was not being followed. He noted street level development was the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the BC zone; he disagreed with the interpretation that development four feet
below street level met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Another issue that needed to be addressed
was the code referred to ground level for height calculation and the Comprehensive Plan referred to street
level. He envisioned every building on Main Street could now have retail four feet below grade and
questioned whether that was desirable. He urged the Council make this a priority and ensure that
interpretation at the staff and ADB level agreed with the Comprehensive Plan.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, commented that new businesses did not locate in
downtown Edmonds and developers pushed height limits because the City demanded too much parking.
Too many commercial spaces were built that did not allow customers because the City demanded too
much parking, yet according to the May 2003 parking study, there was ample parking downtown. He
agreed with the methodology and conclusions of the May 2003 parking study and supported most if its
recommendations. He recalled many developers, business owners, Chamber of Commerce
representatives and knowledgeable citizens who spoke to the Planning Board also supported the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 3
recommendations of the parking study. He urged the Council to consider the Planning Board's
recommendation when they completed their review of the parking study. He encouraged citizens to read
the May 2003 parking study as well as the minutes of the January 28, 2004 Planning Board meeting.
Ron Wambolt, 504 6th Avenue S, Edmonds, relayed his surprise at the Council's decision regarding
Agenda Item 3b. He noted it was not a question of interpretation; the code was clear regarding the
limitations. He recalled when he entered negotiations with a builder to construct a condominium, he was
advised that the maximum height was 25 feet and the building was required to be modulated and an
additional five feet required roof modulation. He clarified a building with a flat roof could not exceed 25
feet. He alleged the Council was interpreting the code in the manner they did to oblige applicants. He
concluded if Councilmembers did not understand the way the code was written, they were not qualified to
be on the Council.
David Smith, 220 41h Avenue N (business) and 222 41h Avenue N (residence), Edmonds, recalled after
he purchased the property 11 years ago, he was approached regarding demolishing the building. He
recalled at the time the code allowed a 25 foot tall building with a flat roof and 30 feet with a pitched
roof. He noted the statute the Council considered was the same as was in place at that time. Mayor
Haakenson pointed out the code was revised in 1997 to allow for modulated roof designs.
In response to Mr. Wambolt's comments, Mayor Haakenson explained an additional five feet, from 25
feet to 30 feet, was allowed with a modulated roof design. Later in the code, the language refers to "with
an approved modulated design," rather than "modulated roof design." He pointed out with the addition of
one word, the code would meet the intent of the Council that approved the code in 1997. He recalled, as
the only remaining member of the Council when the code was passed in 1997, the Council's intent was to
have modulated roof designs, not modulated building design.
Ray Martin, 18704 94" Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to Student Representative and
Councilmembers Wilson and Dawson for their ethical stance with regard to the dog/cat ordinance. He
recalled the 1997 meeting Mayor Haakenson referred to, recalling when Council President Earling voted
to allow an additional five feet with modulated roof design, he violated a campaign promise not to support
increased building heights. With regard to the dog/cat spay/neuter ordinance, he objected to an illegal,
likely unenforceable ordinance. He believed Mayor Haakenson along with Senators Shin and Fairley
could draft legislation to address the situation created by the dog/cat ordinance. He admired Council
President Plunkett's efforts to get the spay/neuter ordinance passed and recommended other
Councilmembers show some individual effort.
5. MIKE DOUBLEDAY GOVERNMENT RELATIONS — 2004 CONTRACT PROPOSAL FOR
SERVICES RELATED TO STREAMLINE SALES TAX PROJECT
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained this was a $5000 contract with Mike
Doubleday to represent the City's interest in the sales tax sourcing study. He explained a bill currently
under consideration in the legislature represented one of the most significant changes in sales tax structure
in the past 40 years and in which the City had a financial interest in the outcome. He explained Mr.
Doubleday's contract extended through year end because even if the legislature acted during this session,
the Department of Revenue would be considering implementation language. Also, if the legislation was
not approved this year, it would be considered again next year and Mr. Doubleday would begin doing
background work.
Mr. Clements noted this was a very divisive issue between cities as there were cities that would gain and
other that would lose. He explained a potential conflict of interest was discussed with Mr. Doubleday as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 4
he also represents the City of Bellevue; however, Bellevue has not taken a position and Mr. Doubleday
felt he could represent Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson commented passage of the legislation could result in an additional $500,000 in revenue
for Edmonds.
Councilmember Moore asked why this was not covered by Mr. Doubleday's existing contract. Mr.
Clements answered the existing contract was a very narrowly defined issue contract; Mr. Doubleday was
retained to represent the City with regard to the Edmonds Crossing project and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts.
Councilmember Dawson supported Mr. Doubleday representing the City and questioned whether
lobbying should also be done at the federal level. She understood that representatives from Washington
may not be supportive of the federal legislation that would be required to benefit Edmonds in the future.
Mr. Clements answered the main focus at this time was the State. Mayor Haakenson commented there
must be a certain number of states who favor the sales tax proposal in order to put pressure on the federal
government. He explained the federal government was considering an internet tax which was the end
result of the state issue.
Councilmember Dawson explained representatives from Washington may be opposed to the future
internet tax. Mr. Clements explained the intent with this bill was not to expand sales tax to all internet
sales, but apply the tax currently applied to stores to purchases made on the internet. Councilmember
Dawson clarified it was not an internet tax, when items were delivered, the tax charged would be the same
as if the item were purchased at a store. Mayor Haakenson clarified what Mr. Doubleday would be doing
would be to lobby the State legislature to approve the Department of Revenue recommendation that was
currently before the Senate and House that would change the collection of sales tax from the point of sale
to the point of delivery.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the issue to the Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AND ASK THAT THE MAYOR
SIGN THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING GREASE
CONTROL AND OTHER PRE-TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR USERS OF THE CITY'S
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS.
Mayor Haakenson explained the intent was to stop grease from entering the City's sewers, and restaurants
seemed to be some of the biggest offenders. He explained the intent of the ordinance was to hold
restaurants responsible and not allow grease to enter the City's sewers.
Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho explained the sewer use ordinance that governed restrictions on
the sewer was passed by the Council 18 months ago. The ordinance required virtually every restaurant to
install a large outdoor grease interceptor. Upon implementation, this proved to be a large issue as in
many instances it was physically and economically infeasible. Staff s research found that other cities
grandfathered existing businesses and allowed them to attempt to use a small indoor grease trap. New
users would be required to install the large outdoor grease interceptor if above a certain size. He clarified
the main difference in the proposed ordinance was that it grandfathered existing businesses and therefore
was more business friendly but still protected infrastructure. He explained the places where grease
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 5
problems existed were restaurants with no grease removal system or that had a small, undersized,
improperly connected grease trap. To his knowledge, there were no properly sized, properly connected
grease traps that were creating a grease problem. He concluded the proposed ordinance protected
infrastructure while promoting small businesses in Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson recalled this was an instance where the Council approved an ordinance and problems
developed immediately. Staff spent a year researching the issue, gathering input from other cities and
restaurants, after learning the original ordinance would put some restaurants out of businesses with the
requirement for the $25,000 grease interceptor. He noted education was a key component.
Mr. Koho advised the City's pretreatment inspector educated businesses regarding the proper use of their
fixtures including not using the sewer as a garbage can and other mechanisms kitchens could employ to
keep their costs down and prevent grease from entering the sewer system. He noted the proposed
ordinance allowed existing businesses to attempt to use the smaller grease traps. If they were not
successful, they may be required to install the larger interceptor in the future.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the problem with the grease traps was not cleaning them often enough.
Mr. Koho agreed that was often the case; however, dishwashers were not allowed to be connected to the
traps, therefore, unless proper pre -dishwashing was done, the grease bypassed the trap and entered the
sewer system.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the cost to the City from grease in the sewer lines. Mr. Koho
answered that information was not available tonight but was included in the presentation made 18 months
ago. He noted there were "red zones" in the system where crews were required to quarterly cut through
the grease in the lines to maintain flow. He recalled an expensive sewer line rehabilitation on Admiral
Way in the past due to inadequate pretreatment.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether staff had quantified the potential savings from reduced
maintenance with the use of grease interceptors versus grease traps. Mr. Koho recalled the savings offset
the employee who administered the program.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Marin was pleased the City recognized the difficulty for restaurants to install the grease
interceptor that was mandated by the first ordinance and developed alternative ways to maintain the
infrastructure.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.3487.
Council President Plunkett commended Mayor Haakenson, staff and the Council Community
Services/Development Services Committee on the revision of this ordinance. He recalled the City
received a number of telephone calls when the ordinance was first implemented and was pleased an
alternative had been developed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS
7.90, 7.91, 7.92, 7.94 AND 7.102 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE; CLARIFYING THE
APPLICABILITY OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS TO EXISTING
AND NEW FACILITIES; REVISING CERTAIN CODIFIED DEFINITIONS FOR SAID
STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR
REGULATED FACILITIES; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 6
7. REAFFIRMATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1038 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED LEGISLATION BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
STATE LEGISLATURE AMENDING RCW 35.58.320 RELATING TO METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND THE SITING OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Council President Plunkett recalled on February 25, 2003, the Council passed Resolution No. 1038
supporting legislation being considered by the Washington State Legislature. The proposed ordinance
would allow the 2004 Council to reaffirm that resolution. He read the title of the Resolution, "A
Resolution of the City Council Expressing Support for Proposed Legislation before the Washington State
Legislature Amending RCW 35.58.320, Relating to Metropolitan Municipal Corporations and the Siting
of Essential Public Facilities."
Council President Plunkett clarified the resolution asked the Legislature to enact Senate Bill 5078, House
Bill 1000 providing that a municipal corporation should not condemn lands for an essential public facility
at a location outside its component county without first going through the siting of an essential public
facility process in the county or city in which the proposed facility is to be located.
Mayor Haakenson recognized Jerry Janacek, President of the Washington Tea Party, in the audience who
has been, along with the Washington Tea Party, supportive of this legislation.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
REAFFIRM RESOLUTION NO. 1038. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett clarified there was a former Councilmember who was opposed to the dog/cat
ordinance but it was not Council President Earling.
Council President Plunkett encouraged Councilmembers to submit retreat topics to Senior Executive
Council Assistant Jana Spellman as soon as possible. He announced that next week was Council
committee meetings, and encouraged the public to attend these meetings, explaining it was an opportunity
to hear detailed, informal discussion regarding pending issues before the Council.
Councilmember Marin relayed his experience last week when he visited child care centers with a health
nurse and environmental health specialist to do a three hour evaluation on their programs. He commented
on the valuable assistance the Department of Health offered to the child care centers.
Councilmember Marin, President of the Highway 99 Task Force, reported on the focus groups held last
week. He explained randomly selected citizens who live in the Highway 99 corridor including home and
condominium owners as well as those living in apartments participated in the focus groups. He explained
the report would show the values they identified for their neighborhood were similar to the values
throughout the city. He advised of two meetings in late February with business and property owners
along Highway 99 to gather their input. Following those meetings, the Highway 99 Task Force meeting
in late March would be open to the public to allow the public to review the Task Force's work and submit
comment prior to finalizing a report that would be forwarded to the Planning Board.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson advised the Community Services/Development Services Committee would begin
review of design guidelines related issues and modulation.
Councilmember Wilson congratulated Councilmember Dawson on her recent election to Vice President
of the Snohomish County Cities and Towns, an organization that represented cities and towns in
Snohomish County. He noted her experience and expertise would allow her to assist communities in
defining legislation that would represent all cities and towns' interest.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
G Y tIAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 3, 2004
Page 8
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 511 Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #68484 through #68688 for the week of January 26,
2004, in the amount of $350,214.40.
(D) Bond Capital Projects Update.
(E) Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County
Public Works for Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) 2003 - 2005.
(F) Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City
vehicles and equipment.
(G) Approval of 2004 Taxi License for North End Taxi.
3. (45 Min.) Continued Closed Record Review of the Architectural Design Board decision
on the application by MJ and MP Investment LLC for a new mixed use building
at 215 Fifth Avenue North. The site is zoned Community Business (BC). This
matter was first discussed by the City Council on October 7, 2003, and
remanded to the Architectural Design Board for continued deliberation and
more explicit findings. (Appellants: Darrell Marmion and Leslie Haan, Stephen
Bernheim and Susan Bauer / Applicant: MJ and MP Investment, LLC / File No.
ADB-03-56 and AP-03-142)
4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 3, 2004
Page 2 of 2
5. ( 5 min.) Mike Doubleday Government Relations - 2004 Contract Proposal for Services
related to Streamline Sales Tax Project.
6. (15 Min.) Proposed Ordinance amending the City Code establishing grease control and
other pre-treatment requirements for users of the City's publicly owned
treatment works.
7. (10 Min.) Reaffirmation of Resolution No. 1038 - A Resolution of the City Council
expressing support for proposed legislation before the Washington State
Legislature amending RCW 35.58.320, relating to Metropolitan Municipal
Corporations and the siting of Essential Public Facilities.
8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
0
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 as well as a delayed telecast of
the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.