06/22/2004 City CouncilJune 22, 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
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Acting Parks & Recreation Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic 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, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Marin requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. The agenda items approved
are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
t Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2004.
M
Approve I(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #71925 THROUGH #72144 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks JUNE 14, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $364,676.33. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #38380 THROUGH #38496 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JUNE 1
THROUGH JUNE 1.5, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,057,932.39.
Bulkhead (D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MID -WATERFRONT
Project WALKWAY/BULKHEAD PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 1
Resit 1066 (F) RESOLUTION NO. 1066 STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO
Sierra Place Right -of --Way VACATE A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SIERRA PLACE AND STATING
THE PRECONDITIONS FOR SUCH ACTION.
Item E: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Public Agency Facilities Agreement Between Snohomish County
and the City of Edmonds for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for Improvements at the South
Snohomish County Senior Center.
Councilmember Marin explained he pulled this item to abstain from the vote as he already had an
opportunity to vote on this issue at the Snohomish County level as a member of the Policy Advisory
Board.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER MARIN
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
CDBG Grants
for Senior (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PUBLIC AGENCY FACILITIES
Center Improvements AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER.
3. SECOND READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Olympic I WASHINGTON GRANTING OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT A NON -
view Water EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT MAINTAIN OPERATE REPLACE AND REPAIR
and Sewer
District A WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
lym�Y 1 we f awl] a Do 11 y[1:aI�CI�ICI�A�►11711► i 1►[!/_�I Y i►y l �l�i�����f.��i�1L
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this item includes an Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View
Water and Sewer District regarding the collection of certain fees. As a result of past case law, Olympic
View Water and Sewer patrons in the City of Edmonds did not pay the same water and sewer tax as City
water and sewer utility patrons did; the Interlocal Agreement put both on the same level. The Franchise
permits Olympic View Water and Sewer District to operate within the City of Edmonds like any other
utility. He explained the reason the two were linked was rather than pay a franchise fee, under this
ordinance Olympic View instead remitted that fee in lieu of tax which the Council authorized
approximately one year ago.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3506. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance
approved reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON GRANTING OLYMPIC VIEW
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT,
MAINTAIN, OPERATE, REPLACE AND REPAIR A WATER AND SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Point Edwards 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POINT EDWARDS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Settlement REGARDING TREE CUTTING. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED
Agreement/ ONLY ON THE RESULTS OF THE PEER REVIEW RECOMMENDATION AND ANY
Tree Cutting POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this was a continued public hearing on a
proposed Settlement Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Point Edwards LLC regarding the
violation of their permit approval by unauthorized tree clearing on the upper yard area of the former
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 2
Unocal property. He noted this matter was continued from the June 1, 2004, Council meeting to allow for
additional peer review and the development of a three party contract to retain a wildlife biologist. He
explained tonight's public hearing was limited to comments on the peer review and the proposed revised
Settlement Agreement. He noted the Council packet contained the peer review reports as well as the draft
revised Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Bowman noted there were exhibits referenced in the draft Settlement Agreement that were not
attached. He distributed Exhibit B, a letter he signed off in regard to compliance with his original letter of
April 30, 2004, establishing conditions that needed to be complied with. He pointed out the letter also
included the statement that it was subject to additional conditions that could be imposed by the Hearing
Examiner or via a Settlement Agreement. He also distributed copies of Exhibit C, a compilation of
additional conditions recommended by the geotechnical engineer and additional information identified by
the arborist David Reich regarding the maple trees on the slope. If the Council accepted the Settlement
Agreement, it would be revised to include all the exhibits and placed on a future Consent Agenda.
Mr. Bowman summarized the additional requirements contained in Exhibit C, 1) permanent surface
drainage improvements shall be constructed by October 1, 2004 on the upper edge of the slope, 2) the
geotechnical engineer shall monitor conditions of the slope within 48 hours (or the first business day)
following a significant rain event, defined as a % inch or more rainfall in a 24 hour period or other
occurrences of significant surface water release such as a broken irrigation or waterline or flooding, 3) all
monitoring reports prepared by the project geotechnical engineer shall be submitted in counterpart to the
developer and to the City within three business days except in emergencies in which case the report shall
be submitted within 24 hours, and 4) carry out the recommendations of the arborist David Reich
regarding maintenance, pruning and management of remaining maple stumps and new epicormic shoots
as specified in Site Inspection Report dated June 18, 2004.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to a question Councilmember Wilson raised today regarding what
standard should the Council use when reviewing the agreement. Mr. Snyder explained this Settlement
Agreement was a resolution of the issues that could be raised at a permit review or revocation proceeding.
Those provisions were contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 21.00.040
and provided a process where if conditions of permit approval have been violated, a process can be
initiated to determine whether new conditions should be imposed. Only if those new conditions cannot
mitigate the problem would a permit be reviewed. The Hearing Examiner is challenged to find, 1)
whether deficiencies exist and 2) whether they can reasonably be corrected by imposing new or changed
conditions on the permit.
Mr. Snyder summarized the purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to cut to the chase and impose new
conditions. Unlike the quasi judicial procedure, this negotiation has been reasonably cooperative. The
Settlement Agreement incorporates all the recommendations of experts within their field of expertise,
although he acknowledged there was some overlap. The Settlement Agreement also does a number of
things the City could not do during a permit review or revocation process — provide $100,000 in payment
for City programs, provide for ten times the fine on the City's enforcement process/mechanism (from
$100 to $1,000 per day) and providing for the City's costs. He concluded the City was getting everything
they would from the quasi judicial process without the potential for delay and appeal, reducing the cost
and greatly increasing the cost the developer would otherwise be required to pay.
Mr. Snyder explained there were a number of things the Settlement Agreement did not do. The
Agreement did not resolve code violations but the violations Mr. Bowman cited have been corrected. The
Settlement Agreement provides for ten times the normal fine for those violations. The Settlement
Agreement also does not resolve the moratorium issue; the moratorium has been imposed by Mr.
Bowman as required by the Forest Practices Act. He acknowledged the moratorium related to only two
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 3
buildings in this project, pointing out the two buildings had a fair market value of approximately $20
million. He noted the value of the buildings was considerably in excess of the vast majority of
development that occurs in the City, creating a significant hook for the developer.
Mr. Snyder explained the moratorium process will continue to be important because one of the issues in
lifting the moratorium will be to determine whether the conditions that have been imposed under the
Settlement Agreement have reasonably restored the stability the slope had in its precut condition. He
noted Buildings 6 and 7 would not be constructed for some time due to the moratorium. There was a
linkage between the moratorium and the buildings in that they were within a critical area setback at the
top of the slope. As part of the original process, the setback was reduced from 50 feet to 10 feet. The
assumptions upon which that reduction were made must remain the same; the bluff must remain in the
same relative position that it is today. Should these measures not be successful and the bluff retreats, the
City has the ability to reopen the critical area process and detennine the edge of the bluff for siting the
building.
Mr. Snyder explained another process the City has and will use with respect to the slope is ECDC Chapter
19.05, the City's landslide subsidence process. This process had been in place for 20 years and has been
successful in evaluating the impacts of development on or near steep slopes. He noted that process would
proceed independently so when the slope is evaluated over the next 3-4 years, if it has been stabilized, the
building permit should be issued and the critical area setback remain in place. If these measures are not
successful and the slope has retreated, the City has a number of tools to evaluate that retreat.
Mr. Snyder noted there had been one change in the indemnity agreement; negotiations concluded at
approximately 5:00 p.m. today. The developer had been very forthcoming in inserting an indemnity
provision so that the City would be indemnified from claims of third parties if the City were sued because
of the Council's approval of this agreement. He explained he requested the indemnity agreement
because, had the matter proceeded through the Hearing Examiner process, the City would have the
protections of the public duty doctrine. He wanted to ensure the Council did not assume any liability for
approval of this agreement via it being a Council decision. He noted the developer included the provision.
he requested regarding third party claims but included a cutoff of December 31, 2010. He noted his
concern that after the developer completed construction, there would be people with a significant
investment at the top of the slope as well as their mortgagors who could potentially bring suit. He noted
there was obviously a difference between having liability and being the subject of a lawsuit but he wanted
to ensure the developer was responsible and took the burden of defense in those situations. He noted the
developer agreed late this afternoon to remove the date shown on page 6 of the packet.
Mr. Snyder summarized staff s recommendation was for the Council to approve the Settlement
Agreement in principle subject to clarification of the exhibits, removal of the above date, and provision of
a clean version on the Council's next consent agenda.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether Exhibit C, Additional Requirements, was available to the public. Mr.
Bowman answered this had not been displayed on the City's website. Mayor Haakenson clarified these
were additional requirements and were part of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Mr. Bowman agreed,
explaining these issues had been discussed since the Council's last consideration of the Settlement
Agreement, receipt of the peer review and meeting with the developer and were issues that staff wanted
incorporated into the Settlement Agreement and Point Edwards LLC agreed. Mr. Snyder clarified the
public had seen the raw data from which these requirements were derived. These conditions were taken
from the peer review and the expert information and attached to the Settlement Agreement.
For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Haakenson read the four additional requirements (Exhibit Q:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 4
1. Permanent surface drainage improvements shall be constructed to prevent uplands runoff from
flowing onto the slope. The completion of these drainage improvements shall be monitored as
necessary by the project geotechnical engineer, Terra Associates, and shall be subject to the City
of Edmonds approval. The drainage improvements shall be completed prior to October 1, 2004.
A report from the project geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming that drainage
improvements at the top of the slope are adequate to prevent runoff from flowing onto the slope.
2. The project geotechnical engineer shall monitor the condition of the slope within 48 hours (or the
first business day following) a significant rain event, defined as 1/2 inch or more rainfall in a 24-
hour period, or other occurrences of significant surface water release onto the slope, such as a
broken irrigation or water line or flooding.
3. All monitoring reports prepared by the project geotechnical engineer shall be submitted in
counterpart to Developer and to the City within three (3) business days, except in emergencies, in
which case the report shall be submitted to Developer and the City as soon as reasonably possible
thereafter and within 24 hours after the event in question.
4. Carry out recommendations of arborist David Reich regarding maintenance, pruning and
management of remaining maple stumps and new epicormic shoots as specified in Site Inspection
Report dated 18 June 2004.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, advising comments were
limited to the peer review and revised Settlement Agreement.
mended
Carol Riddell, Edmonds, commented she was confused by the amount of information and 8i16/05
documentation being incorporated into the Settlement Agreement and changes made at the last moment.
She expressed concern with paragraph 1.1.3 in the Settlement Agreement that retained the three year
period for insuring the plantings. She referred to the geotechnical report which indicated that due to the
lack of ground seepage and springs on the hill, they were concerned some of the plants might fail after
three years and suggested the arborist reconsider whether the three year period was adequate. She
referred to a two year irrigation period followed by a three year maintenance bond to ensure the plantings
remained viable. She noted the geotech referred to the slope as a marginally stable slope that had been
damaged by the cutting and to be returned to a previous level of stability would require a longer
maintenance period for the plantings. She requested the Council consider that recommendation. She
questioned why the wildlife biologist's recommendations were not incorporated into the Settlement
Agreement. She expressed concern with the length (180 words) of the sentence in release clause 1.7 and
requested the sentence be shortened to clarify the intent.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to address the wildlife biologist's report. Mr. Snyder explained the
Settlement Agreement did not resolve the moratorium issues. When Mr. Bowman imposed the
moratorium, he ordered a wildlife biologist report; because the wildlife biologist's recommendations
include several items that will take time to establish such as converting existing trees to snags for wildlife
habitat, he recommended those issues be handled via the moratorium process.
Dell Lowell, 842 Dayton Street, Edmonds, commented the Council was fortunate to have a company
like Triad who was willing to pay more than a fair price in this situation. He acknowledged there were
issues and their timing was very poor, but what they proposed was more than what was necessary in that
they did not cut trees they otherwise would not have been allowed to cut. He concluded Triad had gone
the extra mile and he urged the Council accept the Settlement Agreement and conclude this matter.
Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Place SW, Edmonds, commented she was also confused. After reading the
materials that were available, she had several questions including why the trees above the 60 foot
elevation were excluded, why brushing of noxious weeds with pesticides and herbicides was referred to in
the landscaping report when the Edmonds "Take Care of the Water" brochure encouraged eliminating the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 5
use of pesticides particularly near waterways, the difference between the moratorium process and the
Settlement Agreement, and why recommendations in the Zipper Zeman Associates (ZZA) report were not
incorporated into the Settlement Agreement such as the risk of future landslides caused by excessive
water, use of a drip irrigation system to avoid risk from pipe breaks, sprinklers should be manually
operated, insufficient period of time for irrigation, and the City's right to enter the property to
independently monitor conditions. She expressed concern that not all the information was available to the
public for review. She urged the City to take another look at the Settlement Agreement and be
comprehensive, inclusive and detailed to ensure the City was held harmless in the long term.
Mr. Snyder acknowledged staff did not prepare the exhibits and the exhibits were not all available prior to
the Council meeting. He recommended the Council provide conceptual approval of the Settlement
Agreement subject to confirmation that the requirements were specifically attached as exhibits to the
Settlement Agreement.
Susie Schaefer, 1055 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, expressed her appreciation for the peer reviews. She
noted she was confused about the difference between the moratorium and the Settlement Agreement and
discouraged the Council from approving a Settlement Agreement that did not address the wildlife. She
noted there appeared to be some question whether the snags or perches would work without making the
slope less stable. She questioned how the City could guarantee that the wildlife biologist's
recommendations would be included if the Council approved the Settlement Agreement now. She
reiterated her suggestion that a Citizen Advisory Committee be established to monitor the restoration.
She questioned how the City's update of the Critical Areas Ordinance would impact this project.
Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, provided documentation regarding a wetland at the top of
the slope as indicated by the Brightwater EIS. He noted the ZZA report and their recommendations was
excellent. He expressed concern that there was not enough reference in the Settlement Agreement to the
recommendations in the ZZA report. He recommended the Settlement Agreement be delayed until the
moratorium was resolved and that the wildlife biologist's recommendations be included in the Settlement
Agreement. He commented the most important recommendation in the ZZA report was that the three
year maintenance period was inadequate and their recommendation was a three year period after the
irrigation was completed. He expressed concern with the lack of information available to the public on a
timely basis. He relayed staff informed him the information was only available on the Internet although
he recalled the Council requested information be available via the internet as well as paper copies. He
suggested paper copies be available in the future to ensure the availability of information to the public.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95t" Place W, Edmonds, commented Triad was spending $65 million on this
development, a huge risk. The consequences of the Council's action would be that future developers of
large projects would be deterred by the delays Triad encountered. He urged the Council, for Edmonds'
future, to accept the Settlement Agreement, noting the developer had said they were sorry, offered things
no other company was likely to do and were trying to fix their mistake as best they could.
Chris Guitton,1012 Viewland Way, Edmonds, agreed that Triad was offering the City a fair settlement
and it would be a bad precedent to make the company liable for issues that would likely exist anyway if
they had met all the code regulations. He asked what difference would there be if all the code regulations
had been met and one compared the situation that would have existed and the situation that will exist as a
result of the Settlement Agreement.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Mr. Snyder referred to Exhibit 7 in the Council packet, a matrix of the recommendations and how they
were addressed. With regard to the moratorium, Mr. Snyder explained part of his negotiating posture on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 6
the City's behalf was to refuse to include any reference to the moratorium in the Settlement Agreement
because the moratorium was not being settled at this time. The moratorium was imposed in accordance
with State law and when the City determined that precut stability had been restored via these measures,
there would be a public process whereby Mr. Bowman would determine that precut stability had been
restored and the moratorium should be lifted. Mr. Snyder assured Mr. Bowman's determination
regarding the lifting of the moratorium was appealable to the Hearing Examiner and reviewable by
Superior Court.
Mr. Snyder explained the purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to impose reasonable conditions on
the developer; whether the conditions worked would determine whether the moratorium was lifted. The
Settlement Agreement was intended to impose new conditions that were not part of the original approval
and were designed to return the slope to precut condition as well as incorporate the developer's offer of
additional funds. He concluded there was no linkage between the Settlement Agreement and the
moratorium on purpose; the moratorium was in effect and would be lifted in accordance with State law
and City ordinance and if the public did not agree, they had the right to appeal. The monitoring of the
wildlife measures, establishment of snags, etc. would take time and the moratorium lifting process would
consider the efficacy of those measures.
Mr. Bowman explained the city's normal bonding requirement was two years; in this case, the developer
was offering a three year bond. He clarified the monitoring and watering would occur for three years, not
two years of irrigation and one year of additional monitoring.
With regard to Ms. Schaefer's question regarding the update of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, Mr.
Snyder explained the developer was vested under State law to the ordinances and law in effect on the date
their application was approved, therefore, any changes to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance would not
impact the project unless the slope failed and the critical area buffer at the top of the slope was not
maintained.
Fred Grimm, President, Point Edwards LLC and President and Founder, Triad Development,
2801 Alaskan Way, Seattle, advised many of the same experts available at the last meeting were here to
answer questions including arborist David Reich, geotechnical engineer John Sadler, and landscape
architect Tom Rengstorf. He referred to the rhetorical question regarding what the difference would be
three years from now had they complied with the original arborist's report versus what was proposed via
the Settlement Agreement, commenting as a result of their mistake the City would receive $100,000 for
two programs as well as a fine of $78,000. He recalled under their permits they were to follow the
arborist's report which allowed them the option to cut these trees in a year if they had planted this year.
He noted if they had planted this year and cut next year in accordance with the arborist report, in three
years, the forest would basically be the same as it was planted now. He noted the only thing the City has
had to endure as a result of their mistake was a risk regarding the hillside due to the trees not being
planted in advance which they were willing to indemnify the City against. He concluded their proposal
was fair; they remained apologetic and humbled by it but they were anxious to move forward.
Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the indemnification clause would be the same other than the
removal of the time limitation. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting they would also work to reduce the length of
the sentence referred to by Ms. Riddell. Councilmember Dawson clarified the indemnification clause
would indemnify the City. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Councilmember Dawson recalled discussion regarding the indemnification running with the land and the
owners of the condominiums assuming the indemnification. Mr. Snyder advised that point was discussed
in negotiations. He explained this issue was something the City could not impose via a condition review
process and for that reason was something they negotiated toward. Councilmember Dawson clarified if
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 7
they would not agree to it, the City could not make them. Mr. Snyder explained Pt. Edwards LLC agreed
to indemnify the City but not to pass that obligation on to future property owners.
As requested by Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder explained the developer will indemnify — pay the
costs and protect the City from any loss — from any claim from a third party that the City was negligent or
did something wrong in executing the Settlement Agreement. They also indemnify the City from the cost
incurred in developing the Settlement Agreement. The purpose of the indemnity agreement is to place the
City in the same position they would have been before. If the City were sued based on the theory that the
City did something wrong in approving the agreement, Point Edwards LLC would defend the City and
pay any losses that were incurred.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether it was only Point Edwards LLC or any subsequent
corporations. Mr. Snyder answered it was their corporate form as it existed today. He noted there were
rules under State law regarding the ability to follow successor corporations.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the public's confusion between the Settlement Agreement and the
moratorium, noting it appeared issues related to wildlife would be addressed via the moratorium and
questioned whether it was appropriate to address the soil stability issues via the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Bowman answered staff has attempted to incorporate issues in Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement
but there were also issues regarding slope stability in the moratorium. Mr. Snyder clarified the conditions
to stabilize the slope such as hand watering, number of trees, etc. were in the Settlement Agreement. The
long term issues such as monitoring and the efficacy of the conditions such as whether the plants survive
and whether the slope was stabilized were subject to critical area review, the moratorium and Chapter
19.05 provisions regarding issuance of the building permit. He noted what they would do to correct the
situation was in the Settlement Agreement; whether it worked would be determined by the critical area
review, the moratorium and Chapter 19.05 provisions.
Councilmember Dawson noted the condition from the ZZA report regarding timed watering versus hand
watering was not incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Bowman answered it would be added
to the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Snyder referred to the Exhibit 7 matrix which indicated sprinkler
systems should be operated manually. Councilmember Dawson observed the developer was indicating
that was not something they were agreeing to. Mr. Bowman noted staff supported that recommendation
from the peer review. Councilmember Dawson preferred hand watering be agreed to in the Settlement
Agreement. Mr. Grimm advised their proposal did not include hand watering; the irrigation system has
been installed and the consultants were satisfied.
Councilmember Dawson requested one of the consultants address the recommendation in the ZZA report
regarding slope stability and the potential for pipes to break and destabilize the slope. Tom Rengstorf,
landscape architect, advised an automatic system was typically preferred over a manual system. He
explained there was a master valve control and the valve would only activate when a clock told it to and it
would turn off automatically by the clock or sensors. He pointed out the potential for human error with
manual valves, concluding there was typically better, tighter control with an automatic system than with a
manual system.
Councilmember Dawson noted the ZZA report indicated the greatest short term risk to slope stability was
leakage from sprinkler pipes or a break in the pipe system. Mr. Rengstorf noted there was no water in the
system unless the valve was turned on by the clock. Councilmember Dawson asked if Mr. Rengstorf
disagreed with the ZZA report. Mr. Rengstorf indicated his disagreement.
Tom Zipper, Zipper -Zeman Associates, explained the issue he raised was related to the possibility of a
break in the pipe and a timer automatically charging the system and allowing uncontrolled water to run
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 8
out of the pipe. He was not familiar with the type of control Mr. Rengstorf described. Mr. Rengstorf
assured it was not a sophisticated system; it was a valve controlled by a clock. He noted he had installed
the same system on numerous other projects. He stressed the system would not work unless the clock
turned it on; it could not fail because there was no water in the pipe until the master control valve turned it
on. He concluded this was a safer mode than the manual mode that could be impacted by human error.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether Mr. Rengstorf s explanation allayed Mr. Zipper's concerns. Mr.
Zipper answered yes as long as vandalism or a fallen branch that resulted in a broken sprinkler head while
the system was off did not charge the pipes. Mr. Rengstorf noted each zone was only on for 10-15
minutes. The major concern would be the whole pipe running all night. He noted there were velocity and
moisture sensors that could determine when the system has been running too long.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the ZZA report (page 20 of the packet, Item 3). It indicated they
found no evidence to confirm the groundwater seepage identified in the City Foresters Inc. report of April
27, 2004, as well as the November 2002 report regarding groundwater seepage from elevation 100 feet to
elevation 60 feet provides natural irrigation of the slope vegetation. David Reich, arborist, answered
when they first walked the slope in 2002, there were obvious areas of significant seepage from perched
water on the hill above. He believed that due to the effective hydroseeding and growth of grass, the new
vegetation and reduced rainfall, the moisture was being consumed by the new vegetation and may not be
apparent in the last two weeks.
Councilmember Dawson inquired whether he believed there was sufficient groundwater seepage to
continue to water the plants after the irrigation system was removed. Mr. Reich answered yes. He
referred to the ZZA report, noting it would be foolish to attempt to stop the water running down the slope.
Because of the steepness of the hillside, the trees did not benefit from rainfall hitting the root zone of
trees. The trees that were there now and the trees that existed before benefited from a combination of
perched water above and water runoff working its way down the hill and penetrating the slope.
Councilmember Dawson noted Exhibit C contained an agreement to prevent the upland runoff from
flowing down the slope. Mr. Reich emphasized the need to control upland runoff, explaining a system
that detained water and slowly released it down the hillside was preferable to capturing the water and
piping it away because the trees would lose the benefit. This issue was overlooked by the peer review.
With regard to the surface runoff from the upland onto the slope, Mr. Zipper noted the Terra Associates as
well as their field reports made the same recommendation. It was standard practice in a steep slope area
to collect surface runoff and prevent it from running across the slope to prevent erosion. With regard to
the groundwater seepage, he confirmed they saw no evidence of groundwater seepage. Councilmember
Dawson asked if he would expect to see the groundwater seepage given the recent dry conditions. Mr.
Zipper answered from the descriptions in the original November 2002 reports, it appeared there was a
fairly well developed band of seepage; they did not see any evidence of that. He noted that may be an
issue for future monitoring. Councilmember Dawson noted that may be an issue to be addressed in the
moratorium process. Mr. Zipper agreed, noting if the trees were dependant on inner flow, the survival of
the trees would confirm whether that inner flow existed.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether any of the consultants had reviewed the Brightwater EIS with
regard to the wetland. Mr. Grimm answered they considered it during the environmental review of the
project. He was uncertain whether the arborist or geotechnical engineer had specifically reviewed the
Brightwater EIS. Mr. Snyder advised the report was provided to the wildlife biologist.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the recommendation that the City be allowed to enter the
property to make independent review was discussed during negotiations. Mr. Snyder answered long term
monitoring of conditions would be handled via the moratorium process. Councilmember Dawson asked
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 9
whether the City had the right via the moratorium process to enter the property or did Point Edwards LLC
need to agree to it. Mr. Snyder noted the City had a great deal of leverage in the form of stop work orders
to obtain entry as well as the ability to obtain search warrants if necessary.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the length of time for the moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered the
key issue was restoration of precut slope stability. Councilmember Dawson noted there seemed to be
some dispute with regard to the time it would take to determine the efficacy of the slope stability
measures. It appeared the Settlement Agreement was the only way to ensure the long term stability of the
slope and to ensure there would be effective monitoring past three years. Mr. Snyder noted the developer
was making a $20 million bet, the fair market value of the buildings at the top of the slope, that these
measures were effective. With regard to the tools the City had, he referred to Appendix 70 to the
Uniform. Building Code regarding stability of hillsides, explaining that if there was significant sloughing
that impaired the critical area setback, the City could reopen that process. Via the building permit
provisions in Chapter 19.05, there would be an independent technical assessment of slope stability before
building permits were issued.
Councilmember Dawson questioned how the moratorium process guaranteed the slope stability if the
reports indicated it would not be apparent beyond a three year period but the moratorium process was not
envisioned to extend that long. Mr. Snyder noted those investigations and discussion would occur at the
time consideration was given to lifting the moratorium and there would be two years of history.
Councilmember Dawson noted the public wanted these issues incorporated into the Settlement Agreement
as this was their opportunity to have the Council address the issues although she understood some may be
more appropriately addressed via the moratorium process. With regard to the critical area setback
process, Councilmember Dawson questioned who in the City had the ability to reopen that process. Mr.
Snyder answered it could be triggered by staff and the Mayor, a vote of the City Council, or property
owners within 300 feet. He noted there were few property owners within 300 feet other than the Port and
Burlington Northern. Councilmember Dawson noted the public would have an opportunity via the
Council to reopen the process. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the reason the appeal was to the Hearing
Examiner was because the Council could not express an opinion at this time and then hear the appeal.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Ms. Miller's question regarding the trees that were to be retained
above the 60 foot elevation that were also removed, inquiring whether there was a replanting planned for
those trees. Mr. Bowman answered the project landscape plan addressed the area above the 60-foot
elevation. For the area below 60 feet, the arborist gave the option of leaving the vegetation or clearing if
certain conditions were followed. The Architectural Design. Board's (ADB) approval included a
landscape plan above 60-foot elevation and everything below the 60-foot elevation was indicated to be
left alone. Councilmember Wilson noted the landscaping above 60 feet was addressed via the ADB`s
review of the site landscaping.
With regard to the wetland identified in the Brightwater EIS, Councilmember Wilson noted the wetland
was .02 acres in size or approximately 871 square feet. He recalled the City Code did not regulate
wetland below 2,500 square feet. Mr. Bowman agreed. Councilmember Wilson summarized the wetland
did not meet the threshold for regulation and could be converted.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether natural vegetation was a preferred alternative or a common
practice used to stabilize a hillside. Mr. Sadler answered not specifically for slope stability but for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 10
erosion protection, which could impact shallow, superficial soils. Their studies indicated the slope was
stable with regard to deep seated failure. The tree cutting resulted in localized areas of exposed soil that
were susceptible to erosion; those areas were mitigated by the application of the erosion control blankets.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether vegetation and the roots were used for stabilization as well as
erosion control. He noted the erosion blanket was a short term solution to erosion to allow the vegetation
to take root to stabilize the soils. Mr. Sadler answered the erosion blanket was not just short term; there
were materials available that were extended term and some that were considered permanent. The product
installed on this slope was an extended term that would biodegrade eventually.
With regard to the irrigation system, Councilmember Wilson asked where the valve was located on the
top of the slope and whether water remained in the lines after the system turned off. Mr. Rengstorf
answered there was minimal water in the pipe between the master control valve and the sprinkler head
and no new water entered the line. If a break occurred, only the residual water would flow out and not a
continuous flow. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were protections if there were a break in
the line that prevented the master control valve from operating. Mr. Rengstorf answered there was a flow
monitor that would monitor the flow in the line.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the system's cycle. Mr. Rengstorf answered it depended on the
weather and moisture sensors in the ground but typically every 1-2 days, decreasing over time depending
on the soils, plant materials, etc.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the impact to the slope if there was a break in the line. Mr.
Rengstorf answered the impact would be less than minimal. He advised the master control valve was next
to the water meter and was protected by a box.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the difference of opinion regarding intercepting the flow at the top of
the slope to reduce erosion and asked whether there was a way to intercept and meter out heavy flows.
Mr. Sadler explained the intent was to collect all surface water and route it in a controlled manner to the
toe of the slope; there was no intent to collect it and reintroduce it to the slope. He noted uncontrolled
surface water runoff was a potential instigator of stability problems which they wanted to prevent.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the conflicting testimony regarding intercepting water at the top of the
slope and tightlining it off the slope and maintaining the use of the natural water. Mr. Reich agreed a
massive sheeting of surface water was not desirable. There were two different situations; when the
project was completed, it was not desirable to have water from pavement and rooftop flowing down the
slope. He relayed a story of a system designed for a ravine in Seattle where in the course of designing the
system they captured all the water and prevented it from benefiting the trees on the slope. The
consequence was that several large maples slowly died over a two year period from water deprivation and
subsequently fell in high winds levering massive amount of mud down the slope. He pointed out the
importance of establishing a middle ground where enormous amounts of water sheeting off impervious
surfaces from a finished development were prevented via standard drainage techniques but some upland
rainwater and perched water be allowed to benefit the vegetation on the hillside over the long term.
Mayor Haakenson requested Mr. Bowman explain the first requirement in Exhibit C. Mr. Bowman
explained water from impervious surfaces in the development (driveways, rooftops, etc.) would be
collected and drained away; the pervious surfaces would continue to flow in a natural direction toward the
slope. Mayor Haakenson noted the requirement that permanent surface drainage improvements be
constructed to prevent uplands runoff from flowing onto the slope would have been a requirement
regardless of whether they cut the trees on the slope; it was highlighted in Exhibit C to protect the slope.
Mr. Bowman agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page I I
Councilmember Wilson expected water from impervious surfaces would be collected but wanted
confirmation whether the natural flow could be metered or whether it was okay in its existing situation for
natural ground water to flow down the slope. Mr. Reich agreed. Councilmember Wilson clarified the
reports did not address the value of allowing natural flows to remain on the hillside, the reports only
addressed intercepting water from impervious surfaces. Mr. Zipper recommended Terra Associates
consider that in detail as some of the planned impervious surfaces would be pervious/undeveloped for the
next few years.
Councilmember Wilson referred to comments at the last meeting that a three year maintenance period was
fairly typical, pointing out this was not a typical landscape plan using ornamental plantings but rather was
a reintroduction of native species onto a slope. He questioned why it was believed a three year period
was adequate. Mr. Rengstorf answered a one year warranty was fairly typical, Edmonds requires two
years. In reviewing the plant material today and the amount of growth that occurred in the past months,
he expected to see a very high success rate in two years and a nearly total success rate in three years.
Councilmember Wilson asked for examples of other reforestation projects. Mr. Rengstorf referred to a
wetland reforestation for the Auburn High School and early projects for Triad at Harbor Point where a
three year monitoring/maintenance was acceptable. Councilmember Wilson asked if those were steep
hillside environments. Mr. Rengstorf answered the Auburn High School site was but the Harbor Point
site was not. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the three year survivability of the plant material was
adequate. Mr. Rengstorf answered yes.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about recourse if the Council agreed to a shorter timeframe and failure
occurred resulting in action against the City. Mr. Snyder advised the developer was indemnifying the
City from claims of third parties. The issue would likely be what caused the slide; the City was
indemnified from the approval of this agreement which did not change the rules of liability between the
developer and third parties. Councilmember Wilson clarified if a slide occurred onto the railroad tracks
and BNSF as the property owner wanted to take action against the City, the City would be indemnified.
Mr. Snyder answered yes, noting if the slide occurred because of the City's sole negligence such as a City
employee caused the slide, the City would not be indemnified.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the June 4, 2004 letter from Ross Woods and the statement that should
it be documented jointly that the plantings do not achieve at least 80% survival for either deciduous or
evergreen plants at the end of three years, all declining or dead plants shall be removed and replaced
before the maintenance bond is released. He inquired whether there was an additional protection for the
portion that was replanted. Mr. Snyder agreed they would be replaced but there would not be an
additional maintenance period. Mr. Bowman noted the issue would be the volume of material that failed,
sporadic or area -wide.
Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the City had the latitude to address that issue. Mr. Bowman
answered yes, particularly via the moratorium process. He did not suspect that would be a problem as the
plant materials were native and many were drought resistant; if those plants survived three years, odds
were they were well on their way. Mr. Snyder noted if the loss of plant material resulted in slope stability
issues, the City had a number of tools to address slope stability.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Moore requested staff address the use of pesticides mentioned by a member of the public.
Mr. Bowman explained limited application of herbicides was used to control grass that competes with the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 12
plant materials. Councilmember Moore asked whether noxious weeds would be controlled to protect the
native species that have been planted. Mr. Rengstorf answered the Himalayan blackberry was most
common and would be controlled. Mr. Reich advised the product would likely be Roundup; his
recommendation was the grass be killed in a 12-24 radius around each new plant to avoid competition for
water. He noted the spray should not pose a problem to any water.
Councilmember Moore referred to the three year maintenance period and asked about the length of time
that was anticipated for build -out of this development. Mr. Grimm answered it would depend on the
market, but it could be seven years. Councilmember Moore asked what would be done when the three
years had expired and before sellout with regard to the hillside and landscaping. Mr. Grimm answered
they would continue to monitor it and take care of it and if a problem arose they would address it. They
anticipated the amount of care and monitoring would be minimal.
Council President Plunkett referred to the comments that insufficient materials were provided in an
insufficient amount of time. He asked when the peer review information was posted on the website and
how much of the peer review information was on the website. Mr. Bowman answered the information
provided by the Town of Woodway and the ZZA report were posted approximately 1'/2 weeks ago and the
wildlife biologist's report as well as the monitoring information was posted Friday.
Council President Plunkett asked when all the materials were available to the public on paper. City Clerk
Sandy Chase answered it was available Friday afternoon when the Council packet was provided to the
Council. Council President Plunkett summarized approximately 80% of the information was available a
week before and 100% of the information was available Friday on paper and on the website. He noted the
information in Exhibit C was in the materials; Exhibit C was an extraction from the materials. Council
President Plunkett acknowledged the Council received Exhibit C tonight. Mr. Bowman advised the
Council also received Exhibit B tonight, the letter regarding having complied with his letter of April 30,
2004 that established five provisions regarding replanting subject to any additional conditions that may be
imposed by the Hearing Examiner or via a Settlement Agreement.
Council President Plunkett noted any Council action tonight with regard to the Settlement Agreement
would be in a conceptual format and a final version with all exhibits would be available for public review
on a Friday prior to a Tuesday Council meeting where the item would be scheduled for final Council
action on the Consent Agenda. He noted the public could lobby Councilmembers to take the matter off
the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Councilmember Dawson referred to comments from the public that they were told hard copies of the
information were not available. Ms. Chase advised paper copies would have been available Friday
afternoon. Mr. Bowman explained they typically charge for making copies, in this instance, he told Mr.
Hertrich he would make copies of all materials for him to review at their office but Mr. Hertrich left
without reviewing the materials. He also informed Mr. Hertrich that the information was available on the
internet and that there is a terminal in the City Hall lobby where the public can access the internet.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was staff available to provide assistance with accessing the
internet. Mr. Bowman answered the receptionist at the front counter often assists the public.
Hearing no further questions, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Marin noted this was an instance where Triad made a mistake, acknowledged their
mistake and accepted responsibility for their mistake and offered a good faith effort to restore the hillside.
He recalled when the Council last discussed the Settlement Agreement, Gary Smith, Native Plant
Steward, Washington Native Plant Society, provided materials which he asked Mr. Grimm to review to
determine whether some of the items could be incorporated into the revised Settlement Agreement. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 13
referred to the Native Plant Society's suggestion that 80% survivability was the target and Triad's
indication that 80% was not an acceptable level, 100% survival was their standard. He noted he was
impressed with that indication by Triad, pointing out this was not a company that was attempting to
dodge their responsibility. He noted Triad had a substantial inherent incentive to protect the slope.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO THE FOUR
CONDITIONS AND THE INDEMNITY LANGUAGE DESCRIBED BY MR. SNYDER AND
BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Orvis noted the primary question he asked himself was whether the developer had done
enough to make up for the damage. He reviewed what the developer had done — paid six figures in fines,
experienced months of delay, repaired the damage, paid to improve the site, paid for consultants to tell
them how to make the site better, paid for consultants to review the consultant's reports, and then endure
another public process to prove they did everything right in order to have the moratorium lifted. He
concluded the City had extracted its pound of flesh and more importantly, improved the site. He
expressed his satisfaction with the Settlement Agreement.
Councilmember Olson remarked she was also impressed; not only did Triad go to such efforts but Mr.
Grimm allowed the Council and the public to take pot shots at them. She summarized this was the kind
of company everyone wanted to be doing business in Edmonds; if there was a problem, they would try to
make it right.
Councilmember Wilson expressed shock with the public testimony that appeared to indicate the City
should forgive the errors of this development simply because of the value of the development, noting as a
Councilmember, he could not do that. He appreciated Mr. Grimm appearing before the Council and
answering difficult questions as well as the effort he has made to restore the site, noting the project would
bring great value to the community. He pointed out the necessity for a developer to accept the
consequences when an error was made. He commented on the Council's responsibility to ensure
developers adhered to the City's regulations and understood the consequences of even unintentional
errors. He disagreed developers would be dissuaded from building in the City as a result of this process.
Although he did not agree with the Settlement Agreement in its entirety, Councilmember Wilson
acknowledged it did address the issues that had been raised. He encouraged the Council to consider
requiring a longer maintenance period such as five years and a cash set aside rather than a bond. He
noted a bond cost the developer a nominal fee and could be a great source of aggravation for cities to
collect on. He expressed his appreciation for the work that had been done, commenting the Settlement
Agreement had done a great deal to reconcile the errors that were made.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with the suggestion for a longer maintenance period, noting there were
some other areas in the agreement she would have preferred be addressed differently. She pointed out the
importance of remembering this was a Settlement Agreement, not the City making demands, it was two
parties reaching a compromise. She noted there were likely issues in the Settlement Agreement that Point
Edwards LLC did not necessarily want to do but it was a compromise. As Mr. Snyder indicated, the City
had other tools to ensure the survivability of the replanting, wildlife issues, etc. She had confidence that
if matters were not proceeding as planned, the moratorium would not be lifted. She acknowledged the
buildings under the moratorium were only a percentage of the project but no one would profit without the
completion of those last two buildings. She noted if Mr. Bowman lifted the moratorium and the public
did not feel it met the proper standards, the decision could be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. She
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 14
concluded that even though there were some issues that could be improved on in the Settlement
Agreement in her opinion, this was likely the best the City would get at this point.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Six Year 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Transportation (TIP) AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR TIP AND DIRECTING THE
Improvement
Program SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD.
Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith explained the State TIP requirements were governed by RCWs which
required the City to update the TIP each year by July L. The TIP must contain all regionally significant
projects the City planned to undertake in the next six years; Edmonds has traditionally included all
transportation projects in the TIP. All jurisdictions' TIPS were then used to create a statewide TIP.
Mr. Smith explained the TIP was financially constrained in the first three years; the last three years were
not financially constrained because projects not identified on the TIP were not eligible for state and
federal grant funding. He relayed staff s recommendation that the Council approve the Six -Year TIP, and
adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Marin recalled the in -lieu -of parking program had been abolished and staff presented
plans to the Finance Committee regarding the use of the $140,000 in the fund. The Finance Committee
recommended referring the issue to the Public Safety Committee for further discussion on specific
projects. He suggested amending the TIP to add a line for citywide parking improvements in the amount
of $140,000. Mr. Smith agreed that could be done.
Councilmember Wilson asked in what years the funds for parking improvements would be allocated. Mr.
Smith recommended allocating the funds in the first three years due to the availability of the funds. He
stated there were a variety of parking improvements that could be undertaken, noting the actual
improvement would require Council approval before it was made.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the expenditure would need to be reflected in the CIP. Mr. Smith
answered yes.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman noted the $140,000 in -lieu -of parking funds would need
to be used for parking in the downtown area where the funds were collected.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked what type of parking improvements the funds from
the in -lieu -of parking fund would be used for. He then referred to the Edmonds Crossing project on the
TIP, questioning how much of the funds were City of Edmonds funds. He observed the signal at 9th &
Caspers was delayed until 2008/2009, questioning why it had been delayed when a recent survey
indicated that was the most dangerous intersection in the City and had the highest priority for a signal.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comments about Edmonds Crossing, Mr. Smith advised Community
Services Director Stephen Clifton had been very successful in securing state and federal grants for the
project. There was approximately $500,000 dedicated to the project from local funds which would likely
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 15
be Edmonds as well as other local grant partners. It was his understanding that the RTID would contain
approximately $160 million if the package were passed by a public vote. He noted Mr. Clifton has also
identified other federal funding sources but he did not want to tie up those funds until the project became
more likely with State matches.
With regard to 9th & Caspers, Mr. Smith noted there were a variety of improvements that could be made
to the intersection. The City's primary concern with that intersection is left turn movements onto 9th
toward Caspers and off SR 524 southbound on 9th and speeds around the corner. He noted that project
along with several others were delayed due to I-776.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out with the exception of one signalization, all the projects on the TIP
occurred in the last three years. Mr. Smith agreed they were scheduled in the last three years which were
not financially constrained. Councilmember Wilson noted the only signal improvement in the first three
years were at 9th & 220th due to the project on 220th. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Wilson
concluded if the City had more money, there would be more signal projects.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE SIX -YEAR TIP, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1067 AND AUTHORIZE THE
RECORDING OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE CITY CLERK WITH THE ADDITION OF THE
DOWNTOWN PARKING LINE ITEM WITH $140,000 PLACED IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, 504 6t" Avenue S, Edmonds, commented Mayor Haakenson's column in the June 17
G°vernment n Beacon contained mastatements that matched his views includingthe current initiative driven b Tim
Employees y t t
y
compensation Eyman that would reduce property taxes by 25% and the corresponding decrease in services. He would
not support the initiative because he did not want his essential services diminished. He stated the tax
reducing initiatives were succeeding because most taxpayers felt they were not getting good value of the
taxes they paid. The reason taxpayers were not receiving the level of service they expected was not that
they were not paying enough taxes, it was because too much of the taxes were consumed by excessive
compensation packages for government employees. He provided an example of the newly hired
Economic Development Director who was paid $91,000 and has only 5-6 years work experience. He
commented in private industry positions with that type of salary required much more work experience.
As the administration was not likely to lower the compensation of government workers, the solution was
to have fewer government workers which could be accomplished and services maintained or increased
without higher taxes via the consolidation of communities as described by Mayor Haakenson's column.
He hoped it would not take a 25% reduction to encourage elected officials to consider that option.
Rowena Miller, 871.1 1.82nd Place SW, Edmonds, responded to Council President Plunkett's comments
regarding the availability of hard copies. She remarked staff was very helpful and has given her all the
information that was available; the problem was some items were not available. She pointed out the
public paid for hard copies and must request them before 4:00 p.m.
Critical Areas, 7. WORK SESSION ON THE CRITICAL AREAS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Comprehensive
Plan Update
Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced Dan McShane, Stratton Group, the project geologist; Jim
Keany, the lead scientist; and Mark Greenig, landscape architect and planner and project manager,
EDAW.
Mr. Greenig explained the Growth Management Act (GMA) directed jurisdictions to protect human
health and safety and protect functions of natural systems. GMA requires the Critical Areas Ordinance be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 16
updated every seven years and mandates incorporation of Best Available Science (BSA) due to emphasis
on anadromous fisheries. He noted the update process was coordinated by the Department of Community
Trade and Economic Development (CTED).
Mr. Keany explained critical areas were divided into five categories (per CTED guidance), wetlands,
aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife
habitat areas. He commented on the inherent conflicts between GMA and Critical Area Ordinances —
GMA supports increased density within urban growth boundaries to reduce sprawl while Critical Areas
Ordinances require protection of resources within urban growth boundaries. He reviewed human induced
effects on aquatic systems both direct (habitat, flow regime and water quality) and indirect (energy
transfer and biotic interactions) that result in a biological response.
Mr. Keany explained the Edmonds Critical Areas update includes a critical areas inventory, comparative
code analysis, BAS review, code revision and update and supporting SEPA analysis. He reviewed
progress to date on the above tasks, noting the critical areas inventory, comparative code analysis and
BAS review had been completed and the update was on schedule. He explained in the near future they
would have work sessions with staff regarding changes to the code as well as opportunities for the public
to comment, and Planning Board and City Council input in the process. He displayed and reviewed an
aerial inventory map identifying potentially frequently flooded areas, streams and wetlands.
Mr. McShane displayed and reviewed an aerial map identifying potential geologically hazardous areas,
explaining the map was developed by EDAW using geologic mappings done in the Edmonds area and
combined steep slopes, soil types and underlying geology that in some areas causes instability.
Mr. Keany displayed and reviewed an aerial map of potential fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
which he noted included streams, a major change in how the City's code was organized. He reviewed
issues associated with streams with and without riparian corridors. He noted there were functional
streams within the City with intact riparian corridors usually within parks or steep ravines that had other
critical area associated with them. There were other areas in the City where there were streams with no
riparian corridor and lawns, driveways with bridges, etc. From this arises the question how the Code
would deal with streams in built areas. He noted it was a matter of setting priorities, preserving the best
existing habitat, and considering ways to preserve marginal habitat via restoration in some areas so that
development was not totally restricted. The third type of streams were the totally degraded streams;
CTED recommends not ignoring the worst streams but to seek opportunities at the time building permits
were issued to enhance poor habitat.
Mr. Keany displayed and reviewed the code comparison and BAS review for wetlands, geologically
hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. With regard to
wetland, he noted the classification system had changed; the City had a 3-tiered system and Department
of Ecology (DOE) and CTED advocated a 4-tiered system. Another change with regard to wetland would
be increasing the minimum size of wetland; the City's minimum is 2,500 square feet, most jurisdictions
are 100-1,000 square feet depending on conditions. He noted the City was generally in compliance with
regard to buffers, compensatory mitigation ratios, and general development standards but some minor
changes would be made based on the new 4-tier wetland system.
With regard to geologically hazardous areas, Mr. McShane noted the buffers in the City's Code were
fairly consistent with BAS. In the evaluation, it was noted the City's geologic hazard areas were divided
into four categories — erosion, landslide, steep slope, and landslide hazard areas — most other jurisdictions
divide into three, including steep slope in erosion of landslide or both. He noted this was an area where a
change may be made in the City's Code.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 17
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Keany reviewed minor changes that would be necessary to the Code with regard to frequently
flooded areas and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. He summarized the update of the Critical
Areas Ordinance would include a general reorganization to make the Code easy to follow, consistent code
cross references, limited geologically hazardous areas categories, revised wetland classification and
stream typing, retention of native vegetation on previously undeveloped parcels, flexibility for
implementation with an assured outcome, non -regulatory incentives and education, protection of existing
aquatic functions, priorities for enhancement of degraded habitats, administration implementation and
Shoreline Management Plan integration.
Mr. Keany reviewed next steps in the Critical Areas update including finalizing the BAS report, finalizing
the revised code text, presentation to the Edmonds City Council and Planning Board, SEPA, and CTED
approval.
Councilmember Marin commented the update was an opportunity to learn a lot and improve the process.
He encouraged the consultants to avoid unfunded mandates and ensure requirements were affordable.
Councilmember Wilson noted the consultant's reference to BAS referred to CTED and DOE, asking
whether that was the only interpretations for BAS. Mr. Keany answered there were hundreds of
references regarding BAS; the best were in peer review scientific journals; there was also a great deal of
information in government publications. He noted CTED also included thousands of references in their
guidelines. He cautioned one could get lost in the minutia so they attempted to identify the information
that was relevant to Edmonds. He pointed out BAS did not provide one answer because it depended on
the question being asked. For example, the appropriate size for a buffer for a Class II stream depended on
the goal and the need to protect resources and not totally restrict development.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the possible result could be an increase in residential density in
other areas of the City to offset the loss of land for additional buffers and/or enhancements. Mr. Keany
acknowledged that was a possibility. One of the issues the City may have to address in the
Comprehensive Plan is the large lot zoning. If the City was trying to meet guidelines under GMA for
density, the GMA Hearings Board likely will look to the large lot zoning. If there is no critical area
mapping information indicating those large lots were zoned in that manner due to critical areas, a question
may arise why there was large lot zoning.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a priority for enhancing a degraded habitat would be daylighting a
stream at the time of redevelopment. Mr. Keany noted it would depend on the situation; daylighting was
popular in urban areas, but often the benefit did not match the expenditure. He explained for urban
streams, often a judgment is required regarding what can be accomplished. Not every stream in Edmonds
would become a salmon -bearing stream but many could be enhanced to restore water quality, provide
wildlife habitat, etc.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was any new approach to addressing regulatory takings
using BAS. Mr. Kinney answered BAS would not address takings; policy would address that. He noted
what worked best was allowing a certain amount of flexibility in the Code to permit the planners to work
with responsible developers to develop a plan. He reiterated the need to balance protection with.
development.
For Council President Plunkett, Mr. McShane explained the yellow areas on the geologically hazardous
areas map identified primarily slope but also soil type. Council President Plunkett asked whether all
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 18
properties depicted as yellow on the map would be treated the same. Mr. McShane answered they could
be treated differently depending on the soil and the slope. He noted the initial assessment of the risk
should be a fairly simplistic determination of how far one needed to go to ensure it was safe.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the yellow areas on the geologically hazardous map could be
designated as critical slope areas. Mr. Kinney answered the yellow areas identified slopes of at least 15%
regardless of soil type. The area in red identified slopes of at least 40% and the green area represented the
Meadowdale landslide hazard area.
Council President Plunkett noted the City's development code addressed the Meadowdale landslide
hazard area and the potential critical areas. He asked whether the green area on the map could be
eliminated from the development code and the property addressed via the Critical Areas Ordinance. Mr.
McShane explained the green area was identified separately due to specifics that are different in that area.
He recommended retaining the extra diligence in that area. Mr. Keany noted regulations with regard to
geologically hazardous areas could be consolidated into the Critical. Areas Ordinance rather than.
contained in other areas of the Code.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the comment that BAS depended on the question that was asked, but
at some point policy decisions would need to be made. She questioned when the City Council would
have an opportunity to provide further input. Mr. Keany explained tonight's presentation was intended to
be an introduction to the process, resources and framework; staff did not expect input from the Council.
He noted they planned to schedule a future work session with the Council. Mr. Chave commented when
choices began to emerge, staff would report to the City Council and Planning Board, identifying areas
where policy decisions would be required. He advised another public workshop would be scheduled prior
to the work session with the Council.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Port District
Councilmember Orvis reported the Port reaffirmed their commitment to the arts by passing an art policy.
Community
Outreach I Council President Plunkett announced the Community Outreach Meeting on June 29.
seashore Councilmember Moore reported Councilmember Olson and she are the delegates to SeaShore
Transportation p g
Forum Transportation Forum; their recent meeting included discussion regarding Hwy. 522.
Downtown
Parking Councilmember Olson reported the Edmonds Downtown Parking Committee reviewed the 3-hour parking
committee zones and discussed how to get Community Transit bus shelters in the City.
Snocom Councilmember Dawson reported on SnoCom, advising Fire District 1 provided notice to SnoPae that
they would be withdrawing and joining SnoCom as a contract agency. The City of Mukilteo also voted
unanimously to withdraw from SnoPac and will join SnoCom as a member agency with one vote on the
board. She reported SnoCom is in ongoing negotiations with Fire District 7.
Snohomish
County Councilmember Wilson reported Snohomish County Tomorrow did not meet this month and the Hwy. 99
Tomorrow Task Force did not meet.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 19
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
used EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON FROM THE JUNE 15, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING.
ence
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON ABSTAINED.
munity Councilmember Marin reported in keeping with the Community Transit retreat's vision, "Think Transit
ransit First," he had ridden approximately 50 buses in the past two months, uncovering a number of flaws and
difficulties using public transportation. He planned to present a number of recommendations to the
Planning, Market and Operations Committee in hopes some changes would be made to make public
transportation more usable for Edmonds citizens.
ealth Councilmember Marin reported the Health District was sponsoring the July 4 Aqua Sox game with the
District theme, Strike Out Smoking, and he would be throwing out the first pitch.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
G H EN 19ON, MAYOR
1
Z, zz,-, -
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 22, 2004
Page 20
w AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 511 Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 D. m.
J U N E 22, 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 June 15, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #71925 through #72144 for the week of June 14,
2004, in the amount of $364,676.33. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #38380 through #38496 for the pay period June 1 through June 15,
2004, in the amount of $1,057,932.39.*
*Note: Claims information maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
(D) Report on final construction costs for the Mid -Waterfront Walkway/Bulkhead
Project and Council acceptance of project.
(E) Authorization for Mayor to sign Public Agency Facilities Agreement between
Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds for Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) for improvements at the South Snohomish County Senior
Center.
(F) Proposed Resolution stating the intent of the City Council to vacate a portion
of the right-of-way of Sierra Place and stating the preconditions for such
action.
3. ( 5 Min.) Second Reading: Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, granting
Olympic View Water and Sewer District a Non -Exclusive Franchise to
construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair a water and sanitary sewer
system within public rights -of -way of the City of Edmonds, Washington, and
fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
Page .1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
June 22, 2004
Page 2 of 2
4. (60 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on the Point Edwards Settlement Agreement
regarding tree cutting. Additional public comment will be received only on the
results of the peer review recommendations and any possible modifications to
the proposed Settlement Agreement.
5. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
proposed Resolution adopting the Six -year TIP and directing the same to be
filed with the State Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation
Improvement Board.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (90 Min.) Work Session on the Critical Areas and Comprehensive Plan Update.
S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at
(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a
delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.