06/01/2004 City CouncilJune 1, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Acting Parks & Recreation Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
Mnut
Minuetes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2004.
Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #71420 THROUGH #71586 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks MAY 24, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $196,619.38.
MEBT Plan (D) CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES'
Committee BENEFIT TRUST PLAN COMMITTEE
Alder Street
Utility and (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE ALDER STREET UTILITY
231"PI. SW REPLACEMENT AND 231ST PLACE SW STORM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Storm
Projects
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 1
2004 Street O AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS OF THE 2004 STREET OVERLAY
Overlay PROGRAM
Program
Ord# 3503 (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3503 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7023
Rezone 7023 AND 7025 174TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) TO
and 702
174St,SW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12)
th
3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF AMTRAK'S EMPIRE BUILDER 75TH ANNIVERSARY
Empire
Amtrak's CELEBRATION FRIDAY J[JNE 11 2004
Builder
Anniversary Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring June 11, 2004 as the 75th Anniversary of the Empire
Builder and encouraging all citizens to pay tribute to this outstanding achievement of continuous rail
passenger service that the Empire Builder has provided to the people of Edmonds. He advised the kick-
off event would be in Seattle followed by community celebrations along the route. The train will pass
through Edmonds at 5:17 p.m, and stop for 3-5 minutes at which time an Amtrak representative will step
off and present the Edmonds community with a one -of -a -kind framed poster commemorating the
anniversary. Councilmembers Wilson and Marin will represent the City as Mayor Haakenson is unable to
attend.
Councilmember Marin advised the public was invited and refreshments would be served.
Point Edwards 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF POINT EDWARDS
Settlement SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING TREE CUTTING
Agreement —
Tree Cutting
Mayor Haakenson outlined how this item would be conducted. Development Services Director Duane
Bowman would provide a history of the project and how it had reached this point; the City Attorney
would describe the Settlement Agreement proposed by Pt. Edwards LLC and explain the Council's role in
tonight proceedings. Next the Pt. Edwards representative would speak followed by public comment. He
briefly reminded audience members of the three minute limit for comment. He noted it would be
beneficial for the Council if speakers included their ideas for a solution or preferred outcome in their
comments. After public comment, the Pt. Edwards representatives would address any issues that were
raised, then the Council would ask questions of the audience, staff, Pt. Edwards' representatives, etc.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether the Council was interested in extending the three minute limit.
Council President Plunkett observed Mayor Haakenson usually provided additional time for speakers to
summarize their comments so the three minute time limit was adequate. The Council agreed. Mayor
Haakenson noted after the Council asked questions, he would remand it to Council for their decision
making process.
Mr. Bowman explained the Edmonds Architectural Design Board (ADB) under File No. ADB-2002-226
approved the overall design of the Pt. Edwards LLC project, a 295 multifamily unit project for the upper
yard of the former Unocal property. Part of the ADB's approval included a detailed arborist report that
outlined how tree clearing would take place on the property. On March 15, 2004, the City issued a stop
work order for clearing that had occurred on the western steeply sloped area of the property in violation of
the approved arborist report and ADB approval. Subsequently a Notice of Violation was issued on March
19, 2004 and fines of $100 per day began to accrue. No appeal of the Notice of Violation occurred and
the fines continue to run.
On. April 14, 2004, pursuant to ECDC Section 21.00.040, he as the Development Services Director
initiated a review of the approved ADB design for File No. ADB-2002-262. The purpose of the review
was to have a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to review the existing permit conditions to
determine what new conditions could be placed on the project due to the violation of the approved
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 2
clearing plan. A public hearing, originally scheduled for May 20, 2004, was continued to June 17, 2004
to allow the City to consider a proposed Settlement Agreement from Pt. Edwards LLC.
City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified what the Council was being asked to do. He explained a proposal
was made by Pt. Edwards LLC to resolve a pending permit review process. He noted this process could
be initiated in a number of ways in order to consider violation of conditions posed under an application
and approval. He noted the process could be initiated by the Council, Mayor, staff or three property
owners living within 300 feet. Because of the location of this violation, there are no private citizens who
could bring this action; therefore, it was initiated by staff and was susceptible to settlement via a
Settlement Agreement. He noted this would be a legislative decision of the Council, not quasi judicial.
The Council was free to talk with the public to whatever extent necessary.
Mr. Snyder explained the terms were proposed by the developer and he incorporated them into a
Settlement Agreement. The heart of the Settlement Agreement were things that the City would not have
the legal ability to do under the current ordinance. As Mr. Bowman explained, the fines in this case were
$100 per day which most people he noted would consider inadequate for a project of this size. He
explained the Settlement Agreement provided for fines of $1,000 per day until the issue was resolved.
The Settlement Agreement also provided for a $100,000 payment to help compensate the City and its
citizens for the aesthetic and environmental damage caused.
Mr. Snyder noted that in this instance, the trees that were cut were not public property; they were the
property of the developer. The City had a fairly hefty fine and process for people who cleared their
property in anticipation of development but this was a first, someone after approval failed to follow the
conditions of approval. Staff drafted and will present on June 15 an ordinance to address that issue and
provide for fines of $1,500 per day or $1,500 per tree, triple that in critical areas, environmentally
sensitive areas and Native Growth Protection Easements. He noted this was nearly a one -of -a -kind issue
and the Settlement Agreement attempted to resolve it via a proposal made by the developer to increase the
penalties.
Mr. Snyder explained this Settlement Agreement resolved only the permit review process. Under that
process, the Hearing Examiner would review the permit to determine if the violations could be corrected
by the addition of conditions. One difficulty was the damage had already been done and the permit would
be subject to revocation but only if the process did not provide to reasonably resolve the problems that
occurred. He explained the Settlement Agreement did not resolve the pending Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) required moratorium. That moratorium was in place, imposed by Mr. Bowman, and a
number of environmental issues such as assessment of the damage by a wildlife biologist were part of that
process. That decision and resolution had not yet been made. Mr. Bowman's decision was subject to
public scrutiny and appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Snyder explained the Council was exercising its legislative discretion tonight in part because the
Council and Mayor were one of the few parties that could bring this enforcement action. There was no
financial obligation imposed by the City; the cost of drafting and reviewing the Settlement Agreement
and any defense costs would be borne by Pt. Edwards in event of any legal action. He concluded this was
one of the few issues in which Mayor Haakenson could cast the tie vote since there were only six
Councilmembers present.
Fred Grimm, President, Manager, Point Edmonds LLC and President and Founder, Triad
Development, 2801 Alaskan Way, Seattle, recalled several weeks ago at a Council meeting, he read
their letter of apology. Subsequent to that meeting, the letter was presented to print media and was
published in its entirety in two local newspapers. He noted while they had apologized publicly, they had
also attempted to apologize privately; contacting many of the citizens who voiced their concern about this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 3
issue to the city. He assured their apology was sincere and heartfelt. He noted although there was a time
to be eloquent, there was a time to be blunt — he admitted they screwed up, they made a mistake and they
were sorry. He assured this was not a reflection of who they were as a company, noting he had been in
the business 20 years and had never made this mistake before. He summarized they were embarrassed by
their mistake and humbled by it.
Mr. Grimm noted tonight's meeting was to discuss the consequences of their actions. He acknowledged
it was not enough to say they were sorry, there still needed to be consequences. He pointed out the need
to explain what they did do, what they didn't do, and what they should have done to provide some
perspective before discussing the merits of their proposal. He noted the need to explain the situation was
apparent when an acquaintance did not realize this had been a tank farm at one time and was under the
impression that they had cut an old growth forest on the entire site. He assured he was not trying to
undermine the sincerity of their apology by describing what they did. He noted what they did was not an
"oopsy" but at the same time it was not the crime of the century. He displayed a photograph of the
Unocal tank farm illustrating the tank that was removed in 2002, recalling the citizens' efforts to prevent
Brightwater from locating on this site and allowing this development to continue.
Mr. Grimm displayed a site map of the Pt. Edward site, noting one of the requirements of the ADB
approval was a requirement that all tree clearing and replanting comply with an arborist report and final
landscaping plan. He noted the arborist reviewed the site and determined many of the trees were diseased
and represented a declining forest. Mr. Grimm noted this forest was created when Unocal originally
cleared the site and pushed soil over the hillside to make room for the tanks and the forest grew up on its
own in that location.
Mr. Grimm displayed an aerial photograph identifying the 60-foot elevation line, explaining that above
the line, they were authorized to cut trees as long as there was a plan for reforestation/restoration after the
trees were cut. Under the arborist's report, they had the option to cut trees below the 60-foot line if
reforestation of the hillside occurred at least one year prior to cutting of the trees and was done between
April 15 and October 31 and with zero impact to the trees on the hillside. He summarized that was what
was done wrong — they cut the trees below the 60-foot line without planting a year in advance, cut the
trees prior to the date they should have and cut the trees without the zero impact measure. Mr. Grimm
explained subsequent to the discovery of their mistake, they called the arborist to address what was done
and to request he make recommendations to them and the City regarding appropriate action.
Dave Wright, consulting arborist, owner of City Foresters, Inc. explained he walked the site with Mr.
Bowman and Senior Planner Steve Bullock and based on his inspection of the site today and since he had
been called back, a very good restoration had been accomplished. He supported his original
recommendations as well as the work that had been done. He explained the existing greenbelt whose
dominant species was maple with alder as a secondary species was in decline; most of the canopy of the
existing stand of trees above and below the 60-foot line was in decline. He noted there were still trees
that he considered hazardous to Burlington Northern and another area off Pine that could be addressed
separately. Originally he envisioned that of the trees below the 60-foot line, perhaps 6-7 could have been
saved which would have accentuated and framed views of Puget Sound. He clarified every tree had an
infestation of root rot, a disease that naturally occurred in the forest resulting in trees dying and recycling
into the top soil for the new forest. He noted more than half the trees were too big to stand safely on the
slope. He noted in their experience, trees whose systems have been overcome by root rot, rather than
standing as a benefit to slope stability, they become a liability to the slope and in a wind/rain storm can
cause serious landslides. He concluded it was a touchy issue when a tree was a benefit to a hillside and
when it was a liability. Most of this forest would be a liability to the slope in a fairly short time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Wright commented on the restoration that had taken place, expressing his delight at the conifers that
were planted which were in addition to the original vegetation plan for the development. If the conifers
were maintained well, they would provide a more attractive forest stand than the maples did. The maples
were a result of urbanization; maple stands such as this occur in greenbelts and begin to deteriorate due to
neglect. He noted in greenbelts, the understory often becomes infested with noxious, non-native species
as occurred on this site. The entire stand of maples above and below the 60-foot line were covered with a
thick growth of Himalayan Blackberry, the most notorious noxious non-native. He summarized the net
benefits of this mistake likely outweighed the damage that was done. He commended the species, quality
of stock, and measures to cover the exposed topsoil with erosion cloth. He noted a great deal of the slash
from the cutting was returned to the slope and pinned to the slope with steel, which provided habitat and
secured the erosion blanket on the hill, but would also interrupt any mud flow on the hillside should a 20-
year rain event occur.
Mr. Grimm explained the landscape design was done by Tom Ringsdorf, licensed landscape architect.
Mr. Ringsdorf explained he had worked on this project since its inception. He explained the reforestation
plan in the original design was modified since the clearing to plant the evergreen trees. He noted the
mitigation trees were primarily conifer — cedar, fir, spruce — specified from 6-8 feet tall, although many
were 10-12 feet tall. He noted planting was being irrigated now and a system would be installed and
monitored over the next three years. The trees would be maintained on a regular basis via a daily walk-
through by the landscape contractors who would observe the watering and plant health. He noted there
were also hundreds of native shrubs planted on the site, such as vine maples, huckleberry, sword ferns and
snowberry. He agreed the long-term effect of particularly the confer habitat would create a better buffer
and create more diversity.
John Sadler, Project Manager, Terra Associates, Licensed Engineering Geologist and
Hydrogeologist, explained they had been involved with the project since late 2001 and had done a
number of studies on the site, including stability analysis of the steep slope. He explained their analysis
included the drilling of three 60-foot borings at the top of the slope and computer analysis for existing
condition and proposed slopes for static and seismic conditions. The results of that analysis, as
documented in a number of reports submitted to the City, were that the slopes are stable and would
remain stable with regard to deep-seated stability. He reported the tree cutting that occurred on the slope
would have no impact on the deep-seated stability. He noted superficial soil was exposed in several areas
on the slope face as a result of the tree removal. Their recommended mitigation included attaching
erosion control blankets to the face of the slope in conjunction with replanting. He noted the installation
had been done in conformance with their recommendations.
Mr. Grimm advised several other experts were in the audience to answer questions: Greg Crabby, Civil
Engineer; Lori Anderson, professional wildlife biologist; and Rich Gifford, land use attorney.
Mr. Grimm reviewed their proposal
• Comply with the recommendation in the arborist's report to plant 80 conifers. With the arborist's
approval, over 110 trees had actually been planted.
• Supply the Director with quarterly arborist reports for a period of three years. He displayed
several recent photographs of the site illustrating the irrigation, trees, and plastic covering the
City's water line extension which would be vegetated once it is complete.
• Supply the Director with weekly arborist reports until all plantings have been complete.
• Upon completion, post a landscape maintenance bond for a period of three years. He displayed a
rendering of the Pt. Edwards site in 2014 illustrating the conifers after 10 years of growth.
• Donate $100,000 to the Edmonds Beach Ranger and Flower Programs. He noted this was their
way of saying they were sorry and making a contribution to the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 5
• Pay the City $1000 per day from March 19, 2004 until the Director issued a Notice of
Completion. He noted they did not feel the City's current fines were a reasonable repercussion
for their actions. If the matter proceeded to the Hearing Examiner, the maximum fine was
$100/day.
Mr. Grimm explained the project proceeded through the SEPA process where the public had an
opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts. He noted via that process they were allowed to
eventually cut the trees on the hillside and replant it. He acknowledged they did not do the tree cutting
correctly, both in manner and timing. One of the reasons perhaps they were allowed to cut the trees was
the Edmonds Crossing had a ferry access lane that would have resulted in the removal of the trees. He
noted the trees they have planted would be cut by the City to construct the proposed access to Edmonds
Crossing.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public comment portion of the public hearing.
Carol Riddell, Edmonds, commented she enjoyed watching birds on the Edmonds waterfront and at the Amended
marsh. She expressed concern regarding the terms of the Settlement Agreement. She noted the developer 8/ 16/05
acknowledged they clear-cut the slope and she urged the Council not to settle the matter in a manner that
favored the developer but in a manner that would make whole relief. She noted the parties injured by this
action were the City, residents (humans, animals and birds), and adjacent property owners. She noted a
settlement with a three-year term placed by the city with the potential for slope failure and she
recommended a longer term, such as 20-year, $10 million bond. She recommended the City educate itself
with its own independent consultants. She commented Puget Sound slopes were subject to failure, noting
the intense rains may increase the risk. She recommended any relief run with the land so that successor
land owners are legally obligated to carry out the terms of the agreement. She noted failure to do this
could expose the City to liability for future losses due to slope failure. She also urged the City to
eliminate the gift provision from any formal resolution of this enforcement proceeding as a gift from the
violator conflicted with traditional concepts of ethics and integrity in government. She concluded once
the enforcement process was completed, it may then be appropriate for the City to accept a gift from
Triad.
Susie Schaefer, 1055 Edmonds St, Edmonds, a boardmember of the Pilchuck Audubon Society,
explained she would speak from a bird's point of view. She acknowledged the forest that was cut was a
scruffy forest but it was used by many migratory birds. Birds particularly like sick trees due to the
number of insects. She considered this an upland forest to the marsh and the area near the hatchery, the
marsh, the hillside and out to Puget Sound formed a wildlife corridor that was used by many birds and
other wildlife. Her suggestions for restoration were additional plantings including maples and other
deciduous trees, snags for perching as occur in a natural forest, and big logs on the ground. She also
suggested rather than having just staff monitoring the site, a citizen committee be formed to conduct
monitoring over a long period of time.
Gary Smith, 8936 179th Place SW, Edmonds, explained that as a Plant Steward for the Washington
Native Plant Society, he had been conducting vegetative monitoring for riparian restoration sites
throughout Snohomish County for Snohomish County Surface Water Management and the Stilly
Snohomish Fisheries Enhancement Task Force. In an effort to make the best situation from a bad
situation, he noted mitigation efforts have largely failed in Snohomish and King County due to
insufficient maintenance and monitoring. He noted with the express cooperation of the Pt. Edwards LLC
there was an opportunity to make this a win -win situation. After reviewing the documentation available
and his observation of the site, he found the plant list provided by the landscape architect and the arborist
was sufficient to provide adequate vegetative cover for wildlife if their recommendations were followed.
He noted the mix of deciduous and evergreens was sufficient and the number of plants may be adequate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 6
During his inspection, he noted the plants in the ground were healthy, had been installed properly and the
mulching was adequate. Although he would have preferred a wider diversity of plantings, he noted that
his vantage point may not have allowed him to view the range of plantings.
With regard to plant selection and design, Mr. Smith noted if the plants on the plant list were the same as
were planted, the planting should be adequate. He recommended the arborist prepare a report comparing
the as -built list with the proposed list to ensure the proper mix was attained and if there were deficiencies,
the arborist provide recommendation to remedy. He also recommended a formal maintenance plan be
prepared that included integrated vegetation management (IBM) procedures, including a replacement
strategy for dead/dying plants and specific watering and mulching requirements. His final
recommendation was that a formal monitoring plan be prepared that includes clear objectives that could
be measured and verified, including numbers and species of plants, mechanism for extending the
maintenance period beyond three years, quantitative assessment and maintenance requirements for
property accountability and monitoring reports should be submitted directly to the City and the permitee
to preserve the integrity of the report and allow both to provide comment. He recommended for the
period following October 31, more frequent qualitative assessments be made to ensure plant
establishment, noting this was critical due to the late planting at the site and the dry summer/fall period.
He also provided written materials.
Dell Lowell, 842 Dayton Street, Edmonds, thanked the developer of Pt. Edwards for removing an
eyesore, for cleaning up a heavily contaminated site and for trying to build a quality project in the
community that would attract more people to the City. He acknowledged there were trees on the hillside
but they were infested with disease and he did not consider the former tank farm as a forest. He
recognized the concerns with regard to wildlife and birds, pointing out the property belonged to the
developer and only the timing of the tree cutting was incorrect. He urged the Council to consider the
Settlement Agreement and if they did not want to accept the donation, give it to another cause in the
community that could use it.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, found the recommendation for a 20-year maintenance
bond sufficient if his primary recommendation to revoke the permit was ignored. He questioned the
explanation of what had occurred, noting there was an atmosphere in the City that told developers
"anything goes, there's not going to be any consequences." He noted the City was "a one man operation"
and anticipated three Councilmembers, Marin, Moore and Olson and possibly Council President Plunkett
would vote how the Mayor had told them to vote. He preferred a $500,000 donation so that it would be
self-perpetuating. He also recalled Mr. Bowman had told him he could not talk about the tree cutting and
all communications were to be directed to the Mayor. He stated an objection to the red light on the
podium.
Veen Weber, 12530 Almiralty Way, Everett, provided a perspective as a visitor and bird watcher at
Edmonds Pier and Marsh who often visited restaurants and shops in downtown. She pointed out this
represented a major loss of habitat, particularly for migratory birds. She urged the Council to send a
strong message and to incorporate the Pilchuck Audubon Society's recommendations in the Settlement
Agreement. She concluded the proposed Settlement Agreement let the developer off too easy and a
stronger message should be sent.
Norma Bruns, 960 5tn Avenue, Edmonds, expressed her appreciation to the Pilchuck Audubon Society
for their research and suggestions. Although she appreciated the developer's apology, it did not change
the fact that they negated their contract. She agreed the City needed to take a strong stance and inform
developers this was not acceptable. She urged the Council to take a strong stance and if they did not
agree with the Settlement Agreement, revoke the permit.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 7
John Pierce, 1148 2°a Avenue S, Edmonds, noted they lived close to the site and were not happy when
they noticed the trees had been cut. He noted the noise from the railroad tracks was noticeably increased.
An attorney himself, he acknowledged the City's recourse was somewhat limited. He recommended the
City consider two precedents in King County recently, the federal court judge who cut trees on public
land and trees that were cut in Bellevue, where the fine was based on the economic value that accrued as a
result of those actions. He recommended a third party evaluate whether the value to Triad/Pt. Edwards
LLC from cutting the trees was equivalent to the $100,000 payment and the $1,000/day fine.
Mr. Snyder commented that Mr. Pierce was referring to Trespass to Trees, and the difference in those
cases and this was that the developer owned the trees. He acknowledged Mr. Pierce's comment with
regard to analyzing the value.
Jack Bevan,19210 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, emphasized this was not a tree farm and he was delighted
when the tanks that had been on the site for 48 years were removed. He did not favor the extortion that
many people suggested and recommended the City accept the Settlement Agreement and be happy with it.
Ron Wambolt, 504 6tn Avenue S, Edmonds, expressed his pleasure at the improvements occurring on
the site. He believed the developer made an honest mistake because there was no financial gain from
deliberately cutting the trees as they did not block any views from the proposed buildings and they could
not build in the area where the trees were located. With regard to preventing liability from future
occurrences as a result of the tree cutting, his belief was that any future owner would incur that liability.
He noted the views from adjacent properties would be superior to their views when the tank farm existed.
He recommended the Council accept the Settlement Agreement after tweaking it a bit with the
suggestions of the Pilchuck Audubon Society and any changes the City Attorney may recommend.
Steve Waite, 324 Main, Edmonds, recommended the City accept the proposed Settlement Agreement,
pointing out the elements of the proposal were not mandated by City ordinance nor had staff made any
demands. The original arborist report conducted in 2002 stated this was not a high quality area and the
proposed restoration would create something of value. He urged the Council to examine the issues in.
light of the big picture, derive their conclusion based on fact and accept the Settlement Agreement.
J. E. Sullivan, 18829 88t" Avenue W, Edmonds, a member of the Audubon. Society, echoed the
comments of other Audubon members with regard to slope stability and wildlife concerns. She urged the
Council to focus on the fact that this was a permit violation and to impose strict accountability to Triad.
She appreciated the President of Triad's offer for restitution, however, she agreed with her colleagues that
there should be independent analysis that Triad should pay for. She suggested if this type of restoration
was to have been done one year prior to cutting, the Council could take up to six months to respond.
John Osterhaug, 941 Viewmoor Place, Edmonds, commented he was puzzled by Pt. Edwards'
presentation, expressing extreme regret for their transgressions but their consultants maintained that it was
a good thing that would be better than before the clear cut. He suggested this be clarified. He expressed
support for previous comments, particularly those of Ms. Riddell. He expressed concern with the stability
of the slope, recalling a major slide that occurred approximately one mile south. He referred to a 1997
Enterprise article describing the Kingston Ridge, a potential earthquake fault from Kingston to under Pt.
Edwards. He noted the experts could not guarantee that the tree clearing did not increase the risk of slides
in the area. He noted future slides could be very costly financially as well as environmentally. He
supported the requirement for Pt. Edwards to purchase a bond and whatever else was necessary to protect
Edmonds taxpayers from future loss. He envisioned in ten years if there were a major slide and Triad was
no longer involved, the burden would be on the taxpayer. He concluded it was the Council's
responsibility to consider the City's liability and urged them to require a bond as protection for the City
and taxpayers.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 8
Susan Matty, 1152 2nd Avenue S, Edmonds, commented she was not opposed or in agreement with
what happened and would leave the decision to the Council. She commented on how the removal of the
trees had affected her, explaining she purchased her property due to the setting, serenity, faint ferry horn
and faint train whistle. She explained she now had a loud train whistle and could hear the train as it
passed over the tracks. She noted she was not aware of what had occurred on the Pt. Edwards site until
April when sleeping with the window open and she was awakened by the train whistle. She concluded
this has taken away some of the serenity of her home.
Paul Sorenson, 1045 3rd Avenue SE, Edmonds, commented he was the great-grandson, grandson, and
son of the founders of Edmonds who owned five of the eleven mills in Edmonds and were responsible for
removing trees in Edmonds although they later grew back. He found the Pt. Edwards project to be a great
project that removed an eyesore and an environmental hazard that had existed since the 1920s. He
recommended the Council accept the Settlement Agreement in recognition that what happened was an
accident that occurred a year early.
Christina Brown, 14107 NE 4th Street, Edmonds, commented she was the great-granddaughter,
granddaughter and daughter of the founders of Edmonds. She liked the changes that had occurred in
Edmonds over the past 50 years including the removal of the tanks on the Unocal site. She commended
Triad for the improvements they have made to the property and efforts to enhance Edmonds. If a mistake
were made, she recommended the City accept their offer and watch how wonderfully the site was
transformed.
Kim Bailey, 117 Olympic Avenue, Edmonds, noted this was not really improvements to the tank farm;
although most agreed that was an improvement, that project had been approved. This was about the
misconduct and violation by the contractor. She agreed a very clear message needed to be sent to
contractors to obey their permits or there would be steep consequences.
Bill Rengstorf, 621 Laurel Way, Edmonds, explained they moved to Edmonds to enjoy the nicest town
in the State due to views of the water and Olympics. When he heard the tanks were being replaced with
living space, he believed this would be a good thing for Edmonds property owners, recalling the
community's battle with King County to make it a possibility. He acknowledged when Triad began their
work, too many trees were removed and the City called foul. Triad admitted they were in error and
offered to make good on the grievance. He referred to Triad's offer to replace the threatened, deciduous
trees with a variety of evergreens and as a gesture of goodwill, partnership and neighborliness, donate
$100,000 for the Beach Ranger Program and flower displays. He concluded Triad had worked faithfully
as good partners with the City during design changes and their proposed offer demonstrated their
continued effort to be fair and reasonable. He noted in the big picture, the new trees would be an overall
improvement. He urged the City to move forward as neighbors in the nicest and fairest town in the State.
Don Kreiman, 24006 96th Place W, Edmonds, recalled on November 15 he wrote his first letter to the
Editor of the Enterprise concerned about loss of views and he attended ADB meetings with regard to this
project. He provided the Council a Seattle Times article regarding what Triad had done in other
communities including $100,000 to Wallingford to build steps to Lake Union, elevators for the disabled
in the area and a viewing platform, amenities they were not required to provide. He noted when the ADB
approved Triad's third design, he realized they were "pretty good folks." He noted this was not a good
place for birds because there were few insects due to the volatility of the material that was previously in
the tanks and on the ground. He urged the Council to accept the proposed Settlement Agreement and
continue to be ever vigilant. He urged the Council to give Triad a chance, noting they were not trying to
make excuses but were asking for forgiveness.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 9
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 60 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Carla Nichols, 22440 Dogwood Lane, Woodway, commented she represented the Woodway residents
who were the closest to this site. She commented on efforts to obtain $1.4 million in grants to purchase
approximately 18 acres of urban wildlife habitat in Woodway and their reference in their grants to the
connection between these trees and the marsh, thus she shared the Audubon's concerns regarding the
impact this had on bird habitat. She recalled a letter she wrote to the City Council and Mayor Haakenson
raising five concerns; three days later Mayor Haakenson delivered a great deal of information including
the original geotechnical reports and geotechnical reports done after the tree cutting, reforestation plan,
draft ordinance for increased fines, proposed Settlement Agreement, field reports, and descriptions of
erosion control blankets. After reviewing the information her assessment of how her five points were
addressed was as follows:
• Replanting plan has more than just conifers — the plan provides for rich and diverse vegetation.
and has deciduous and conifers as well as a wide variety of plantings that will provide different
canopy levels for birds.
• The Town of Woodway's arborist be allowed to review the reforestation plans — this was agreed
to and a report will be provided to the City by Friday.
• As the slope is connected to Woodway's slope and bluff, the stability of the slope is of utmost
importance. After reading the report by Terra Associates, she called Shannon & Wilson,
Burlington Northern's engineers who are the experts in the stability of these slopes. Upon
inquiring regarding whether Terra Associates was a reputable firm, she was assured their
geotechnical knowledge was well thought of throughout the community. Shannon & Wilson
indicated if erosion control measures were in place and water was diverted off the site, it was
stable as it did not have landslide debris similar to the Woodway slide.
• Impact to birds and wildlife — a wildlife biologist report is being prepared as part of the DNR
moratorium. She encouraged the City to incorporate the Audubon Society's recommendations.
• With regard to the fines and Triad's offer to pay increased fines — Ms. Nichols commended Triad
for their offer and the City drafting an ordinance that would increase the enforcement for any
future situation.
Ms. Nichols recommended the Council approve the Settlement Agreement.
Laurie Dressler, 15714 75t" Place W, Edmonds, pointed out the reality was the trees were gone and
bewailing the fact was not productive. The trees have been replaced with what would become a better
habitat as well as better visually. She agreed a strong message should be sent which the proposed
Settlement Agreement would do. She found the Triad's voluntary effort admirable and urged the Council
to accept the Settlement Agreement. She thanked Pt. Edwards LLC for admitting their mistake and for
their willingness to take responsibility
Jan van Niel, Conservation Chair of Pilchuck Audubon Society, endorsed the issuance of strong
penalties for future developers who did not follow the requirements of their permit. He pointed out this
area, the Edmonds Marsh, the Edmonds Fishing Pier and the beach at Brackett's Landing were the
cornerstone of the Cascade Loop for the Great Washington Birding Trail, a combined effort of Audubon,
the State Department of Wildlife and State Department of Tourism to publicize this area as one of the
prime eco-tourist places. He noted people came from all over the world to bird watch, an activity that
was the fastest outdoor recreation exceeding the income communities receive from hunting and fishing.
With regard to the short term of the bond Triad proposed, he urged the City to extend the bond to extend
the maintenance and control of noxious weeds. He concurred with the improvements that resulted from
the removal of the tanks and the associated environmental hazards, but pointed out the clean-up was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 10
required because of Unocal's contamination of the site and their responsibility to clean the site. He urged
the Council to strengthen their rules and move on.
Cheryl Bringam, 5528 151't Place SW, Edmonds, acknowledged a major error had occurred and a
number of solutions had been proposed. She urged the Council not to lose sight of how the error took
place and how to avoid it occurring again in the future.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the reason for this public hearing was to
reach enough of an agreement to lift the six year moratorium imposed by the State for violation of
forestry practices. He preferred the donation offered by Triad be placed into a fund and only the interest
spent. He found the time limit on the bond acceptable. He recommended as part of the Settlement
Agreement, the City investigate the source of the water in the soil for summer growth and whether the
construction uphill would interrupt that water; investigate slope failures referred to in the forestry report,
and recommend Ross Wood be fired due to this error. He referred to the SEPA Checklist which did not
refer to Puget Sound or ground water or slope failure, noting that the permit violation should make the
Checklist null and void and require the process to begin again. With regard to views, he referred to one of
the consultants' references to view corridors. He also commented on the destruction of eagles perching
habitat, recommending artificial perching snags be provided.
At Mayor Haakenson's request, Mr. Snyder responded to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding the
correlation of this issue with the moratorium. He read from Section 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement that
nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion and/or actions of the Mayor, his delegated staff
of the City Council with respect to the lifting of any moratorium imposed pursuant to and in conformance
with the Washington State Forest Practices Act and the City's implementing codes and ordinances
promulgated thereunder. Mr. Snyder explained the Settlement Agreement settled only the City's existing
enforcement action which had $100 per day fines. As part of the moratorium, Mr. Bowman has ordered
the production of a report by a wildlife biologist and the many citizen comments with regard to wildlife
habitat would be relevant to that process.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the moratorium had nothing to do with Council action tonight. He explained
if the Council were to accept the Settlement Agreement, $50,000 of the $100,000 donation in the
Agreement would go into a gift/rainy day fund established for the Flower Fund and $50,000 would be
placed in a similar fund for the Beach Ranger program.
John Quast, 15714 75t" Place W, Edmonds, acknowledged Pt. Edwards admitted their mistake. He
described his visit to the site and his conclusion that the clear cut was not intentional as he was unable to
see any economic gain from their action. He pointed out all indications were that Pt. Edwards wanted to
make amends to the City and citizens and wanted to be good neighbors. He commented they had been
good neighbors in the past, supporting the City's efforts to oppose Brightwater, and likely would continue
to be good neighbors. He found their offer appropriate, fair, and timely. He reminded this project when
completed would bring millions in additional tax revenue to the City, schools, fire, and hospital districts.
He urged the Council to accept the Settlement Agreement tonight and "let's all be good neighbors."
Finis Tupper, 711 Daly Street, Edmonds, commented he had participated in City land use issues in the
past and had found it disturbing over the last 20 years the tendency of this administration and previous
administrations to selectively enforce the Edmonds Community Development Code, one of the most
inappropriate times to be unfair. He pointed out the Council had the duty and responsibility to uphold the
City's regulations but also State statutes including SEPA and the Shoreline Management Act. He recalled
when Mr. Bowman reported to the Council previously, he stated the City had become aware of the tree
cutting actions at the Pt. Edwards site and that there were provisions in the code that required them to
replace as many as three trees for each one cut. He noted this provision could only be found in Chapter
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 11
18.45 but that had not been discussed this evening. He recalled Mayor Haakenson's letter to the editor
that if one read the code more clearly, ADB projects were exempt. Mr. Tupper pointed out under
exceptions there was a clause that stated ADB approved projects that were done in accordance with the
approval was exempt. He referred to one of the first "Whereas" in the Settlement Agreement that states
they violated their ADB approval. He noted their SEPA application indicated the arborist report was part
of their ADB approval. He concluded the Council could not accept this Settlement Agreement without
reviewing the standards and criteria in Chapter 18.45 and ensuring the Settlement Agreement satisfied
those standards. One of the requirements was that this project be returned to the ADB for further review.
He noted there was also a requirement in the City Code that no development occur for one year while this
reforestation project was underway. He urged the Council not to ignore the code.
Kevin Clark, 23924 107t" Place W, Edmonds, recalled his experience with a clear cut on the property
adjacent to his backyard, noting that although he was one of the most angry NBMY's, he had been
impressed by the developer of Woodway Highlands. He noted there was a 15-foot reforestation strip
behind his house that had a three year maintenance requirement which the developer has maintained
better than some neighbors who have done plantings. He disagreed with the concept of extortion, holding
this developer hostage, noting that was not being good neighbors. He referred to the losses the developer
would incur with a six month moratorium for the cutting of trees on their own property. He commended
the leadership of the City and Mr. Snyder for crafting a Settlement Agreement that looked at all issues
and made them fair. He cited a lecture by Abraham Lincoln that discouraged litigation and favored
encouraging neighbors to reach compromise and stated that regardless of the winner, both were losers in
terms of fees, expenses and wasted time. Mr. Clark believed the Council would do what was right to
continue an environment where people could be forgiven. He noted the donation and increased fines
were not a gift but recognition that they needed to make restitution beyond what was required by the law.
Harry George, 22608 96th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented he did not have any particular background
to bring to the story other than spending time with his family in the marsh area. He recommended
Edmonds not just accept this as a mistake but investigate the code for necessary changes to ensure it did
not happen again.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
With regard to comments about habitat, Mr. Grimm displayed a view of the Pt. Edward's site and
surrounding area, pointing out a great deal of forested areas still existed. He explained consideration was
being given to how to provide snags and their consultant would seek the input from the Audubon Society.
With regard to the suggestion for citizen input, he welcomed input on the wildlife report and assured the
Council they would be under close scrutiny as the project proceeded. With regard to the three year
period, he noted quarterly reports would be provided as well as the three year bond.
Landscape Architect Tom Ringsdorf explained they had been monitoring the reforestation for the past few
weeks along with the City Forester and had reached very favorable conclusions with regard to the
installation. With regard to survivability, he noted specifications for projects include a one year guarantee
for plant material to cover decline/death during the first growing season. He anticipated a very high
success rate for the plant material on the site due to the method of installation and its current condition.
He noted three years was well within any monitoring standard for the small number of plants that may
need replacement during that time. He noted this was a very diverse habitat and three years would more
than meet any criteria for mitigation of a project of this scale.
Mr. Grimm referred to the discussion by Mr. Pierce regarding economic value and assured there was no
value to the removal of the trees as there was no increase in views from cutting below the 60-foot
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 12
elevation and no value in the wood that was cut. With regard to comments about slides, particularly
Woodway Mayor Nichols who relayed Shannon & Wilson's indication that the slide that occurred in
Woodway was a different situation than exists on this site. He displayed a photograph of the very
westerly boundary, noting the cutting was done on the other side of the trestle and tracks in this location
still had trees intact, thus the highest area for slide potential was further from the tracks and closer to the
lower yard of the Unocal site. With regard to train sounds, he noted the train sounds to adjacent property
owners were likely increased by the removal of the tanks and once the condominiums were built, they
would provide a sound barrier between the tracks and residences.
With regard to several citizens' urging that the Council take a strong stand and send a message to
developers that they couldn't get away with this type of activity in Edmonds, Mr. Grimm assured a strong
message had been sent to the development community. With regard to the comment that on the one hand
they were apologizing and on the other hand saying things were better, he explained both were correct.
He assured they were sorry and did not want their explanation of what they were doing to undermine that
apology, yet things would be better due to the reforestation they were doing to compensate for the
problems they created by their mistake. He acknowledged although there was a short term loss, there was
a long term gain from their restitution.
Councilmember Dawson commented she did not want to place blame but asked how this had happened.
Mr. Grimm explained they had a 60-foot line above which they could cut and replant after cutting; below
the 60-foot line, they were not to cut until after planting was completed. He noted they began cutting on
the northern side of the property and the cutting continued over a two month period as workers could not
do other tasks on the site. He noted the cutting was due to a failure to follow the arborist report that was
submitted a year earlier.
Councilmember Dawson asked for clarification of whether they forgot they were only to cut a portion,
thought they were able to cut the whole hillside, or bad instructions were provided to workers. Mr.
Grimm acknowledged they forgot that they were supposed to plant before they cut before the 60-foot line.
Councilmember Dawson noted that forgetting they were to plant a year in advance may not sound very
credible to some people. Mr. Grimm agreed it was inexcusable, noting that apparently they were doing
too many things at one time.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the proposed Settlement Agreement was as far as they were
willing to go or would be willing to incorporate citizens' concerns. She noted it appeared Pt. Edwards
LLC was planning to do some of the things suggested by the public but they had not been incorporated
into the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Grimm noted they had described things they were willing to do
including snags and habitat. He noted the Settlement Agreement was not necessarily a take it or leave it
proposition. He summarized they were not here to litigate, they wanted to resolve the problem, noting if
they wanted to take a different approach, they would have proceeded to the Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her hope that a compromise could be reached. She recalled a
suggestion regarding the addition of perches and asked if Mr. Grimm would be willing to add that to the
Settlement Agreement. Mr. Grimm answered he would, subject to the wildlife biologist's approval. He
relayed her comment that providing perching in an area that eagles did not use previously may not be
appropriate. Mr. Snyder reiterated Mr. Bowman ordered a wildlife biologist report as part of the
moratorium process. He explained those issues were not discussed when the Settlement Agreement was
drafted due to the assumption they would be part of the moratorium process. He noted staff was
uncomfortable imposing requirements prior to the completion of the wildlife biologist's assessment.
Councilmember Dawson asked what part of the site would be impacted by the moratorium. Mr. Snyder
answered the moratorium would affect two of the buildings at the top of the slope out of a total of ten
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 13
buildings. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether some of the issues that were addressed in the
moratorium process such as the recommendations of the habitat consultant could be incorporated into the
Settlement Agreement. Mr. Grimm explained they were interested in resolving the Settlement Agreement
as soon as possible. The opportunity for input regarding wildlife was available via the moratorium
process. He was uncertain whether they would be willing to retroactively include in the Settlement
Agreement the requirements agreed to in the moratorium process.
Councilmember Dawson inquired when the habitat consultant's report would be prepared. Mr. Grimm
answered next week. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether Mr. Grimm would be agreeable to the
Council delaying its decision on the Settlement Agreement pending the habitat consultant's
recommendations. Mr. Grimm answered he did not have any objection other than the wildlife biologist's
report was being conducted as part of the moratorium process which was not before the Council.
With regard to independent consultants, Councilmember Dawson noted there was a saying among
attorneys that you could hire an expert who would say anything. Although she assured she was not
implying that was the case in this instance, a number of citizens would be more comfortable if an
independent consultant reviewed the arborist report and the landscaping consultant's reports. She asked
whether Mr. Grimm would be agreeable to someone suggested by the Pilchuck Audubon Society
reviewing these reports. Mr. Grimm answered he would not object to an independent consultant
reviewing the reports. He pointed out the consultant they used was accepted by the City at the beginning
of this process and not someone brought in after the fact to push forward an agenda. He suggested to
ensure the consultant was truly independent, he/she should be suggested by the City. He noted the
Audubon raised a number of issues with regard to habitat which was not the issue before the ADB;
neither the vegetation nor the arborist report addressed habitat.
Councilmember Dawson presumed there was a reason for the requirement to replant before the trees were
cut. She surmised that part of the reason was maintenance of habitat. Mr. Grimm answered at the 60-foot
elevation the topography changed dramatically and the issue was slope stability. Arborist David Wright
answered the main reason he stipulated pre -planting prior to removal of trees would be that in
approximately one year a new stand of trees would have taken root and more importantly would provide
erosion controls on the slope. He noted a new forest could not have been planted in the greenbelt without
eliminating the blackberries that dominated the understory. By eliminating the blackberry and placing
erosion controls in accordance with or exceeding best practices, a new stand of trees and understory
would have had a year to establish which would have addressed the concern with erosion hazard.
Councilmember Dawson observed Mr. Wright indicated the primary reason was for erosion control and
asked if there were any other reasons. Mr. Wright stated that was their main reason. He acknowledged
they were not habitat experts but their observation indicated the only wildlife on the site were crows,
songbirds and squirrels. He noted they did not address habitat in their recommendation. He noted there
were trees remaining on the site near the Burlington Northern right-of-way that needed to be pruned or
removed. He concluded the only reason pre -planting was recommended was for erosion control.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether Mr. Grimm had any objection to postponing Council action until
the Woodway arborist concluded her review. Mr. Grimm answered he would not.
Councilmember Dawson relayed Councilmember Wilson's preference for a 10-year performance bond
rather than three years in an amount that represented 200% of the original materials and labor in a 10-year
cash set -aside account. Mr. Grimm was agreeable to the percentage but found the three-year term of the
performance more reasonable.
Councilmember Dawson recalled the consultant's indication that three years was typical for mitigation
they had done in the past. She asked what was typical and whether there had been other instances where
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 14
mitigation was required for this type of clear cutting. Mr. Grimm answered this was typical as compared
to landscape bonds the City required for a project's landscape plan. He noted if nothing had been done to
the hillside, they would still have an extensive landscape plan throughout the project and once the
landscaping was installed and approved by the City, typically a three-year or shorter bond was required.
He noted the landscape bond required by the City for this project was two years and was not provided
until the landscaping had been accepted by the City. He noted that would be for the landscaping in Phase
l and not the landscaping in the reforestation as the reforestation would have a separate bond for a longer
period of time than the City required.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Dawson relayed Councilmember Wilson's question whether Pt. Edwards LLC would be
willing to provide written or oral monthly reports either to the Council or the Community
Services/Development Services Committee. Mr. Grimm answered they would.
Councilmember Moore inquired whether there were plans to control the noxious weeds referred to in the
arborist's report. Landscape Architect Tom Ringsdorf explained the noxious weed plan was typically
removing the Himalayan blackberries, then the native plants that were selected would reduce the
prevalence of noxious weeds. Councilmember Moore asked whether noxious weed control would be
covered by the bond. Mr. Grimm answered that the bonds were to ensure the survivability of the
plantings which would include controlling the weeds but he did not believe the bond addressed noxious
weeds specifically.
Councilmember Moore inquired about wildlife restoration. Lori Anderson, wildlife consultant, advised
she was contacted about two weeks ago at Mayor Haakenson's request that Pt. Edwards LLC retain a
wildlife review. She noted she had no prior knowledge about the project and had been learning about the
project during the past two weeks. She noted in some circumstances, there were wildlife restorations such
as habitat improvements or mitigations when warranted. One of the most important things to do for
wildlife was to get plants and trees growing, provide a diverse habitat and plant native plants which were
being done. She noted there were other mitigations such as replacement of snags but unfortunately once
all trees had been removed it was difficult to create a snag but for some birds such as raptors and bald
eagles who may have been using the dead trees as places to perch, the snags were extremely important.
One possibility may be constructing a perch structure to provide a perch. She noted one difficulty she had
was that she had no knowledge of the habitat before the tree removal and replanting. She invited the
community to contact her with specific data with regard to birds.
Councilmember Moore inquired whether the risk for failure of the slope was greater now or could a slide
have occurred before. Geotech John Sadler reiterated the tree cutting would not have a significant impact
on slope stability with regard to deep seated failure. He noted the tree removal may have increased the
potential for erosion which could cause shallow, superficial soil movement down slope; however, the bare
soils that were exposed had been adequately mitigated with the installation of the erosion control
measures.
Council President Plunkett asked Mr. Bowman to describe his responsibility with regard to this project.
Mr. Bowman explained as the Development Services Director he was responsible for building, planning
and engineering and it was his responsibility to ensure any permit violations were enforced.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the independent reviews Councilmember Dawson expressed
interest in could be accomplished within 30 days. Mr. Bowman answered most likely they could. He
explained the City would need to hire an independent geotechnical firm to review the geotechnical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 15
reports; one of the speakers, Gary Smith from the Washington Native Plants Association, had provided an
independent assessment of the replanting. Council President Plunkett asked whether Mr. Bowman could
return to the Council with the independent analysis in 11/z months. Mr. Bowman answered yes, likely
sooner.
Council President Plunkett inquired who would pay for independent review. Mr. Bowman answered that
if the Council did not ask the developer, the City would pay for it. Council President Plunkett asked
whether the Council could request the developer fund the independent consultants' review. Mr. Snyder
answered there was no harm in asking. Mr. Snyder pointed out a less costly and much quicker process
that the city frequently used was a peer review.
Council President Plunkett asked whether Pt. Edwards LLC would pay for peer review. Mr. Grimm
answered yes.
Councilmember Moore inquired whether the moratorium applied only to the area where the trees were cut
below the 60-foot elevation. Mr. Snyder answered the entire area including two buildings at the top of the
slope was affected by the moratorium as was the city water line down the slope. He explained the Forest
Practices Act was designed and intended to require people who clear cut to reforest to protect Washington
forest lands.
Councilmember Marin noted the Council may extend the deliberation to obtain additional reports. He
asked whether Mr. Grimm would be willing to consider the report prepared by Mr. Smith and incorporate
some of his suggestions in the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Grimm answered yes.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Tupper's comments regarding Mr. Bowman's description of a
3:1 tree replacement. Mr. Snyder explained Mr. Tupper was referring to an exemption in Section
18.45.030.0 which exempts projects requiring ADB approval. He noted the ADB chapter and tree
clearing chapters incorporate the same standards; the ADB applies the standards of the chapter. However
the remedies of the chapter clearly apply only to violations of the tree clearing chapter. He noted the
legislative record was very clear, he recalled reading to the Council a portion of the minutes when this
chapter was originally approved regarding whether the tree clearing chapter covered all development to
which Mr. Bowman answered only clearing done in anticipation of development.
Councilmember Dawson recalled the penalties applied only for a short period of time and the maximum
penalty was $10,000. With regard to the 3:1 tree replacement, Mr. Bowman explained that was the
provision in Chapter 18.45 and 3:1 was a normal replacement ratio. Mr. Bowman reiterated this was not
being enforced under Chapter 18.45 but under the ADB approval. Mr. Snyder noted only so many trees
could grow in a certain area, therefore, it was more scientifically sound to follow the recommendations in
the arborist's report to plant a variety of species with room to grow and establish themselves. He noted
the 3:1 was a landscaping requirement aimed at signature trees in development, not a native growth or
slope stability requirement.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any requirement to return this to the ADB. Mr. Snyder
answered there was no provision for that type of review. He explained the City was using a code review
provision that could only be initiated by the Mayor or Council because there were no residents within 300
feet. This was an enforcement process not a condition process. He noted the ADB established the
landscaping provisions but did not enforce or provide mitigation.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether there would be any value in returning this to the ADB when the
developer was already doing what the ADB required but in a different way than originally required. Mr.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 16
Bowman answered this was being reviewed under an approved permit process; it would normally go to
the Hearing Examiner with staff doing a review and the Hearing Examiner providing a decision.
Councilmember Moore referred to letters received from citizens and concern with Triad no longer owning
the site. She asked how many years Triad would own the property. Mr. Grimm answered 6-7 years
depending on the economy and when the phases were complete.
Mayor Haakenson inquired about responsibility for a slide in the future that impacted the railroad and
Port property. Mr. Snyder answered the property owner, Burlington. Northern and the Port would be in
court, not the City. He referred to citizen comments regarding responsibility running with the land,
explaining that was not incorporated into the Settlement Agreement because the terms proposed were
susceptible to completion within a period of time. After listening to comments, if the Council wished, the
Settlement Agreement could require the control of noxious growth run with the land. He referred to a
suggestion for a 20-year bond, explaining the City's ordinances typically provide for bonding and the
amount is the value of replacing public improvements damaged should the slope fail. He noted if the
Council wished it could require a bond for the replacement of public improvements.
Council President Plunkett inquired about peer review. Mr. Bowman answered the City had a consulting
geotechnical engineer that could review the geotechnical reports, the wildlife biologist Pt. Edwards
retained could conduct the wildlife analysis and the report provided by Mr. Smith evaluated the replanting
and included suggestions with regard to maintenance requirements that could be incorporated into the
reforestation plan. Council President Plunkett suggested the Woodway arborist's report also be a
consideration. Mr. Snyder suggested the wildlife biologist be hired under the City's Third Party contract.
Councilmember Marin commented most of the City was extensively logged and in the 114 year history,
this may be an unprecedented restoration project. He asked whether the City had ever required a
developer to remove scruffy, diseased, non-native, noxious vegetation and replace it with native growth.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock agreed this was by far the largest project constructed in Edmonds so almost
everything was unprecedented. He noted smaller projects have been required to do wetland
enhancements and other enhancement or mitigation projects but not to this scale. He agreed their
proposed reforestation plan was very significant. Councilmember Marin agreed their proposal was
significant and would provide habitat that was far superior to the existing habitat.
Hearing no further Council questions, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO EXTEND THIS DELIBERATION FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX WEEKS TO ALLOW THE
REPORTS TO BE PREPARED AND PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL.
Council President Plunkett suggested the peer review of the geotech, report from the wildlife biologist,
Mr. Smith's maintenance suggestions and Woodway arborist's review be presented to the Council at a
public hearing on July 6, subject to the City reaching agreement with Triad regarding payment. He also
suggested the draft Settlement Agreement be presented to the Council on July 20 for a public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONDUCT PEER REVIEW INCLUDING WOODWAY
ARBORIST, SUBJECT TO REACHING AGREEMENT WITH TRIAD TO PAY FOR AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW, SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 6 AFTER THE PEER
REVIEWS ARE SUBMITTED AND THE DRAFT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BE
PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 20.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 17
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether one public hearing would be sufficient. Council President Plunkett
answered the two public hearings would allow the Council and public sufficient time to absorb the
information provided at the July 6 meeting.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the Settlement Agreement currently before the Council included a $1,000 day fine
until certain actions took place. He assumed when staff reasonably believed the initial requirements
imposed by staff had been resolved, they would issue an administrative determination that would stop the
fines on that day. He noted the Council could not extend the time for this to come back and allow fines to
continue to accrue.
Mayor Haakenson suggested extending the hearing until June 8 to allow Pt. Edward LLC to meet with
Mr. Bowman to determine what studies were needed and who would pay for the studies. He noted this
would allow staff to estimate the timeline for providing that information to the Council.
The following was added to the amendment:
STAFF TO PROVIDE A REPORT AT THE JUNE 8 MEETING AND COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH
FUTURE DATES FOLLOWING THAT REPORT.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would meet on June 8 at 7:00 p.m. He then declared a brief
recess.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Local Option
5. PRESENTATION ON LOCAL OPTION GAMBLING
Gambling
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements recalled at the Council's Strategic Planning Retreat there
were suggestions regarding obtaining objective information regarding local option gambling. He advised
representatives from the Washington State Gambling Commission were present to answer Council
questions. Mayor Haakenson clarified at the Council retreat, Councilmembers asked questions about
gambling. Staff did not have those answers, therefore, representative of the State Gambling Commission
were invited to answer the Council's questions.
Greg Thomas, Northwest Regional Manager, Washington State Gambling Commission, explained
the Washington State Gambling Commission was a law enforcement agency covered by the State to
enforce the provisions of the Gambling Act of 1973 and their mission was to protect the public to ensure
gambling was legal and honest. He explained the Gambling Commission was created in 1973 to regulate
and control gambling. They are governed by an independent Citizens Commission comprised of five
members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate for six year terms. All revenues are
derived from fees and they are a non -appropriated agency that is not part of the General Fund.
Mr. Thomas described unique things about their agency including that by statute they could not limit the
number of gambling licenses for an otherwise qualified applicant; they were the State authority for
licensing and regulating of gambling with exception of the Horse Racing Commission and Lottery
Commission. He enumerated the types of gambling they regulate — cardrooms (mini -casino), pull tabs,
bingo, raffles, amusement games, co -regulation of tribal casinos. He noted there were five separate
divisions within the Washington State Gambling Commission — field operations, licensing service
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 18
investigations, special investigation, tribal gaming unit, electronic gambling and described the
responsibilities of each division.
Mr. Thomas described gambling occurring in Snohomish County, explaining there were five cardrooms
in unincorporated Snohomish County, three in Everett, two in Mountlake Terrace, and five in nearby
King County and Shoreline. He reviewed gross fiscal receipts for 2003 for cardrooms statewide ($250
million) and for Snohomish County ($28 million) noting this did not include tribal gaming. He explained
gross revenue for 2003 for pull tabs totaled $475 million statewide and $61 million in Snohomish County,
revenue for bingo totaled $119 million statewide and $12 million in Snohomish County and other activity
totaled $30 million statewide and $1 million in Snohomish County for a grand total of nearly $900
million in gross gambling receipts statewide and $100 million in Snohomish County.
Mr. Thomas enumerated local gambling taxes paid to cities, counties in 2003 — nearly $27 million for
cardrooms statewide and $2.7 million in Snohomish County; over $15 million for pulltabs statewide and
$2.3 million in Snohomish County; $1.3 million for bingo statewide and $112,000 in Snohomish County
for a total of approximately $44 million statewide and $5 million paid to cities in Snohomish County. He
reviewed the top five cities in Snohomish County in collection of gambling taxes — Everett $1.9 million,
unincorporated Snohomish County $1.3 8 million, Mountlake Terrace $1.1 million, Lynnwood $246,000
and Marysville $1.52,000. He noted Edmonds collected $77,000 in pulltabs and $13,000 in bingo
although the bingo establishment had since closed.
Mr. Thomas reviewed allowable gambling tax rates for cardrooms, pulltabs and bingo, advising Everett's
rate was 7.5% for cardrooms, Snohomish County's rate was 10% and Mountlake Terrace's rate was 5%.
With regard to impacts, he referred to a study done by the Washington State Gambling Commission
regarding the impact cardrooms had on local law enforcement for the period 1999-2001 which found
there was an average of 20 law enforcement calls per cardroom per year, the number of calls varied
depending on the size, location and other activities. He noted preliminary numbers from a similar, more
recent study indicated about the same or slightly less law enforcement calls.
Arlene Denniston, Staff Attorney, Washington State Gambling Commission, explained one of her
duties was to bring administrative charges against licensees to deny, revoke or suspend their licenses. She
referred to material provided to the Council that outlined what denials, revocations or suspensions were
based upon. She stated she had been asked by Mr. Clements to provide pros and cons of gambling and
impact on the city; she noted other sources of information for the Council included the Recreational
Gaming Activity Association or local law enforcement, or the Liquor Control Board, and Washington
Council on Problem Gambling. She referred to current and pending litigation involving gambling. She
noted some studies show 3-5% of people who gambled were problem gamblers and there may be crime
associated with that.
For Councilmember Moore, Ms. Denniston explained State statute gave the Washington State Gambling
Commission sole authority to regulate gambling and their mission was to keep gambling legal and honest.
She noted the most recent decision in the Edmonds case was whether a city could zone gambling and
Edmonds' ordinance with regard to regulation of gambling had since been repealed.
Councilmember Dawson relayed Councilmember Wilson's questions regarding the proposed gambling
initiative and how revenues would be distributed. Amy Blume, Administrator, Washington State
Gambling Commission, explained I-892 would be regulated by the Washington State Lottery not the
Gambling Commission. The way the initiative was proposed, revenue would be collected by the State
with no option for taxing by local jurisdictions. Councilmember Dawson observed all revenues would be
collected by the State General Fund.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 19
Councilmember Dawson relayed another question from Councilmember Wilson that Edmonds may have
the worst of all worlds, it did not get the revenue from cardrooms but on its borders there were several
cardrooms and the City likely was impacted by the associated negative affects. He asked whether any
negative affects on the City had been observed. Police Chief David Stern answered no official data had
been collected with regard to the impact of cardrooms in surrounding cities. His conversations with the
Police Chiefs in those cities indicated the issues were primarily alcohol related, similar to issues that arose
at any establishment that served alcohol to large numbers of people. He assumed Edmonds did get some
spillover from that activity but exactly how much he was uncertain.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the number of law enforcement calls was higher, lower or the
same as other alcohol -licensed establishments. Mr. Thomas answered they did not have any official data
but anecdotal information indicated calls were similar to other establishments serving alcohol.
Councilmember Orvis clarified there were two parts in the case Edmonds v. Edmonds Shopping Center
Associates, a ban and other stuff. He noted the other stuff was struck but the ban was upheld therefore
Edmonds continued to have a ban on gambling. Ms. Blume agreed, explaining cities may prohibit
gambling but could not limit or regulate gambling.
Councilmember Dawson explained Councilmember Wilson and she agreed it was not appropriate to have
this discussion in a vacuum. She acknowledged no one particularly liked gambling necessarily; the only
thing people may like was the revenue. She noted in the future the City would need to consider additional
sources of revenue or substantial cuts — the question at some point would be which was the lesser of all
the evils for revenue sources. She noted sources of additional revenue include increased property taxes,
B&O tax, and gambling and a decision in the future would need to be which people disliked the least, not
necessarily liked the most. She emphasized the ban on gambling could only be lifted at the behest of the
citizenry via a public vote. She noted gambling was not anything anticipated in the near future, although
depending on the outcome of initiatives, the City may need to discuss revenue and cuts in the near future.
She concluded at some point the Council would need to make a decision between all the bad options for
increasing revenue and needed all relevant information to make those decisions.
Councilmember Marin, chair of the Highway 99 Task Force, recalled residents who attend their focus
groups indicated they did not want gambling on Hwy. 99. Therefore neither the consultant report nor the
Task Force's white paper included a recommendation for gambling.
Councilmember Olson inquired whether having a lot of gambling places in one area diminished the
return. Mr. Thomas responded there continued to be approximately 80 statewide, as one closed another
opened.
DNR 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3499 AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION
Moratoriums AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC CHAPTER 20.100 TO ADOPT A NEW SECTION
20.100.050 RELATING TO DNR MORATORIUMS AND AMENDING SECTION 20.100.040 TO
INTEGRATE MORATORIUM PROCEDURES WITH REVIEW OF APPROVED PERMITS
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the Council adopted Ordinance No. 3499 on
May 4, 2004, which established an interim moratorium to implement procedures for lifting moratoria
associated with DNR Forest Practice Violations and set tonight as the public hearing. He pointed out the
ordinance in the Council packet included several minor housekeeping revisions to clarify that the decision
of the Director was an appealable staff decision. He recommended the Council adopt the amended
interim ordinance and refer it to the Planning Board for review and recommendation.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 20
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out all references in the ordinance were to the
Development Services Director. He referred to the wording in the ordinance relating to safety and
esthetics, violations of any City permit, violation of City Code will be fully mitigated. City Attorney
Scott Snyder explained the decision of any City official was required to have standards for the exercise of
discretion. The issues Mr. Hertrich referred to were the issues he (Mr. Snyder) identified as those that
should be reviewed prior to lifting the moratorium. Mr. Hertrich noted there was no requirement for a
public hearing. Mr. Snyder explained this was notice required, a staff decision with a staff hearing and
appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Hertrich pointed out moratoriums were important issues and should
have a public hearing at the Council.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
Mr. Snyder reiterated staff's decision would be made after opportunity for public comment and the public
had the right of appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
Ord#
3504
Amenddinging COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Ord# 3499 — ADOPT THE AMENDED INTERIM ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 3504) AND REFER THE
DNR MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION
Moratoriums CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.40.020 ALLOWING
Historic BUILDINGS ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES TO QUALIFY AS
Buildings
HISTORIC BUILDINGS FOR RESTORATION UNDER THE CITY'S NON -CONFORMING
RULES
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this amendment was requested by the Edmonds Historic
Preservation Commission. The non -conforming provisions of the City's code have exceptions for
building on the State and National Register. Now that Edmonds has a local register, the amendment
would add building on the local register to the list of exceptions.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation
portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR APPROVAL ON THE
NEXT AVAILABLE COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
E:�\i17 i �►[�19CK�7►� iu 191►YIE.y
of July
Chris Guitton, Chamber of Commerce Director, 1.012 Viewland Way, Edmonds, advised the
celebration Chamber was in the midst of their fundraising campaign for the 4th of July celebration. He appealed to
everyone to contribute and send donations to the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, PO Box 146,
Edmonds 98020. He expressed their appreciation for the partnership with the City, Police Department,
Fire Department, and Public Works.
Gambling Warren Schweppe, 8524 2151" SW, Edmonds, commented the City needed additional revenue and
Issues recommended the Council stop pontificating and moralizing about the affect of cardrooms on the City.
He noted revenue from cardrooms would restore cutbacks in Police and Fire and eliminate the need for
Edmonds residents to go to Mountlake Terrace. He noted Mountlake Terrace's Police Chief indicated
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 21
they have had no problems with cardrooms and they collect over $1 million in revenue. The cardrooms
have their own security and local police do occasional walkthroughs. He quoted Council President
Plunkett as saying if we were to have a cardroom, we'd put it on 99. (Council President Plunkett
clarified this comment on the following page). Mr. Schweppe preferred a location on the waterfront. He
recommended the Council repeal the current ordinance against cardrooms, noting if there were problems,
the cardrooms could be closed.
Mary Jo Bevan, 19201 94th W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to cardrooms. She referred to an Everett
Gambling Issues Herald article about a town in the Mid -West who was sorry they allowed gambling due to the increased
cost for police, increase in mafia-types, perverts, homeless, prostitutes, drug addicts, etc. as well as
political problems including bribery, threats and forcing. She was opposed to the image of Edmonds
being violated by gambling, pointing out efforts to construct a Performing Arts Center that would attract
visitors and increase revenue for the City. She suggested the City explore parking meters as a source of
revenue.
Comprehensive Don Kreiman, 24006 96Ih Place W, Edmonds, encouraged the public to submit comments on the
Plan Update Comprehensive Plan update. He noted issues being considered included increasing building heights,
minimum first floor heights, Edmonds Crossing, design guidelines for builders, setbacks downtown,
Hwy. 99 development, and the Downtown -Waterfront Plan. He noted the relevant documents were
posted on the City's website at ]iitpJlwww.ci.edmonds.wa.us. Citizens could also request to be added to
the mailing list by making a request of the Planning Division at City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, Edmonds
98020 or calling (425) 771-0220. He encouraged the public to familiarize themselves with the issues and
then inform the Planning Board and staff what they thought. The Planning Board could be accessed via
email to Diane Cunningham at Cunninghamgci.edmonds.wa.us or Rob Chave at
chave(&ci.edmonds.wa.us or contact him with questions at don3k(),cs.com or call him at the number in
the telephone book. He urged the public to get involved.
Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to allowing gambling in the
Gambling Issues City. She recalled a petition that was circulated a few years ago that kept gambling out of the City and
indicated they'd do it again if necessary. She recalled surveys they did of other cities on the negative
aspects of gambling including drinking and driving, prostitution, increased suicides and increased
domestic violence. She encouraged the City to contact other casinos to discuss what occurs in their
parking lots. She urged the Council to not even consider gambling and to identify other ways of
increasing revenue for the City.
Council President Plunkett referred to Mr. Schweppe's quote, noting what he actually says to anyone who
asks is, "People think we would put it on 99 when in fact it would go right in downtown Edmonds."
Mayor Haakenson clarified gambling was illegal in Edmonds and no one had suggested that gambling be
allowed. The Council only wanted to ask questions.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson wished Council President Plunkett a Happy Birthday today.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Gambling Councilmember Dawson pointed out the only way gambling could be allowed in Edmonds was if a
Issues majority vote of the people wanted it; the Council had no authority over the matter. Until a vote to allow
gambling occurred, it would not happen.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 22
Councilmember Moore thanked everyone who came to testify and particularly Mr. Kreiman for urging
s Tuesday— the community to comment on the Comprehensive Plan. She noted the first meeting on the fifth Tuesday
Community would be held on June 29. She explained the Council would be present, staff and the Mayor would not,
Outreach the meeting would not be televised and is intended as an opportunity for citizens to talk to the Council.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
G Y ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2004
Page 23
AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 51h Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JUNE 11 2004
7:00 D.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 May 25, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #71420 through #71586 for the week of May 24,
2004, in the amount of $196,619.38.
"Note: Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
(D) Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Municipal Employees' Benefit Trust
Plan Committee.
(E) Authorization to call for bids for the Alder Street Utility Replacement and 2318t
Place SW Storm Improvements Project.
(F) Authorization to call for bids for the 2004 Street Overlay Program.
(G) Proposed Ordinance rezoning certain real property located at 7023 and 7025
174Ih Street SW from Single -Family Residential (RS-20) to Single -Family
Residential (RS-12).
3. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of Amtrak's Empire Builder 75th Anniversary Celebration,
Friday, June 11, 2004.
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing for City Council consideration of Point Edwards settlement
agreement regarding tree cutting.
5. (20 Min.) Presentation on local option gambling.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 1, 2004
Page 2 of 2
6. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3499, an interim zoning regulation amending
the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.100 to adopt a new Section 20.100.050
relating to DNR moratoriums and amending Section 20.100.040 to integrate
moratorium procedures with review of approved permits.
7. (10 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed amendment to Chapter 17.40.020 allowing
buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to qualify as historic
buildings for restoration under the City's non -conforming rules.
8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
1
11
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.