09/21/2004 City CouncilSeptember 21, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
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 AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve
/UNANIMOUSLY.
(A) ROLL CALL
9/7/04
Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2004.
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #73829 THROUGH #73926 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve I(C)
Claim Checks
SEPTEMBER 6, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,370.25. APPROVAL OF CLAIM
CHECKS #73933 THROUGH #74078 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $514,254.84.
Accept Deed
re: 2201h St.
(D) ACCEPTANCE OF STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED FROM JASON T. AND ANN M.
SW Project
MILLER FOR PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 220TH STREET SW
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
Accept Deed
(E) ACCEPTANCE OF STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED FROM CYNTHIA L. BURGETT
W Projj Project St.
SW Pr
S
FOR PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 220Tx STREET SW
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 1
2001 Street
Overlay O REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2001 STREET OVERLAY
Project PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
2002 Street
Overlay (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2002 STREET OVERLAY
Project PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
Senior Center
Improvement (H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 24, 2004, FOR THE 2004 SENIOR CENTER
Project WINDOWS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO RCC
($28,135.40, INCLUDING SALES TAX).
Chelan Co.
Agreement for (I) APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CHELAN COUNTY FOR JAIL
Jail Services SERVICES.
School
Resource (J) APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
Officer FOR COMMUNITY -ORIENTED POLICING AGENT (SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER)
w Agreement for (K) APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE WOODWAY INTERLOCAL
Fire and EMS AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND EMS SERVICES.
Utility Rate (L) APPROVAL OF UTILITY RATE STUDY CONTRACT.
Study
Constitution (M) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF CONSTITUTION WEEK, SEPTEMBER 17 — 23, 2004.
Week
Brian 3. APPROVAL OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN McINTOSH TO THE POSITION OF
McIntosh, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.
Parks and
Recreation
Director ( Mayor Haakenson explained over the last few months, over three dozen applications were reviewed,
seven applicants were interviewed and Mr. McIntosh was selected from among three finalists. Mayor
Haakenson explained Mr. McIntosh had been with the Parks & Recreation Department for 20 years and
has an extensive knowledge of the department.
Mr. McIntosh thanked Mayor Haakenson for his recommendation to appoint him to the position of Parks
& Recreation Director. He explained he had been a public servant all his working life and would
continue to work hard for the City. He noted the position of Parks & Recreation Director was a great
opportunity for him to work in this wonderful City.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
CONFIRM MAYOR HAAKENSON'S APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN McINTOSH TO THE
POSITION OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Snohomish 4. PRESENTATION BY SNOHOMISH CITIZENS AGAINST THE RACE TRACK (SCAR).
Citizens
Against the Ernie Fosse, Snohomish Citizens Against the Race Track (SCAR), explained SCAR was a group of
Race Track
(SCAR) north Snohomish County citizens who had serious concerns with locating an IAC racetrack in north
Marysville. He advised of their intent to address all cities in Snohomish County to ensure everyone was
aware of the potential impacts. They have looked to existing NASCAR cities with regard to auto racing's
economic impact and found the cost to regions as far away as Edmonds to be very high and the economic
benefits far from certain. He enumerated five areas that would be negatively impacted by the location of
a racetrack in north Snohomish County — noise, traffic, Arlington airport, environment and responsible
economic growth.
Mr. Fosse explained there were many complaints regarding noise at existing IAC racetracks and he cited
residents in Fontana, California who contacted local law enforcement with complaints about the noise.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 2
He noted Marysville's noise consultant acknowledged there was no practical mitigation to reduce noise
levels to surrounding communities for such open air facilities.
With regard to traffic, Mr. Fosse noted Washington State Department of Transportation already had $600
million in road improvement projects, most delayed due to lack of funding; the road and highway projects
described in Snohomish County's proposal as necessary for a racetrack would be in addition to those
currently identified transportation requirements. He questioned where funding would come from and
what other projects throughout the State would be eliminated to add the new projects. He noted IAC has
indicated they do not intend to pay for infrastructure and WSDOT has no funds budgeted for further
improvements on I-5 north of Everett or SR-9. He commented on the potential for traffic to impact
Edmonds due to the unlikelihood that motorists in traffic would leave the freeway to come to Edmonds.
With regard to Arlington airport issues, Mr. Fosse noted the airport was currently in good financial health,
creating $24.7 million per year in direct regional economic impact and nearly $90 million per year in
ancillary business income. The presence of a NASCAR racetrack this close to the airport (immediately
south of the main north -south approach runway) would result in some existing businesses relocating
elsewhere. Arlington is home to the third largest recreational aviation event in the U.S. and in other areas
such shows struggle with temporary flight restrictions like those imposed around NASCAR facilities. He
noted Marysville was willing to risk the $90 million in income to spend hundreds of millions on a
racetrack that by their own estimates might produce $87 million in income and that only if NASCAR
provided Snohomish County with two Nextel Cup races every year for the next 20 years while bonds and
debt service were paid off.
With regard to the environment and recreational lands, Mr. Fosse explained the IAC's efforts would be
exclusively on building the racetrack and they had no plans for involvement in athletic fields or recreation
areas. Sewer, water, moving three streams, draining and mitigating wetlands and protection of the
Arlington -Marysville aquifer and Olympic pipeline are unknown at this time. He noted the EIS and
biased phone survey completely omitted any mention of costs to the State, County or City taxpayers.
With regard to responsible economic growth, Mr. Fosse explained the study on responsible economic
benefits was based on two Nextel Cup races per year. SCAR's research indicates only the Nextel Cup
races are profitable and minor races are not. NASCAR establishes the number of races at each track and
if they chose to schedule only one Nextel race, the EIS estimates would need to be reduced by half and if
they scheduled none, the EIS was irrelevant. He summarized local businesses rarely benefited from a
racetrack nearby due to the traffic. He pointed out flaws in the survey of Snohomish County residents
including that not everything the survey stated was supportable by known facts and they completely
ignored the costs to bring the racetrack to the Marysville site.
Mr. Fosse referred to an alternate vision for the land that would achieve the hoped for goals. He
commented on the commercial and light industrial growth occurring in Smokey Point which he noted
would continue without a racetrack. He asserted the racetrack may consume so much land that it retards
the natural economic growth that would have occurred and would likely prevent a diverse business base.
Mr. Fosse summarized his concern that Snohomish County and Marysville had not done adequate
research in their rush to bring the proposal to the IAC and that the racetrack would affect all Snohomish
County communities. He disputed answers to FAQ on Snohomish County's website regarding lighting
and property values. He pointed out there were 17,000 people living in 6,000 homes living within a two
mile radius of the proposed racetrack site. He urged the Council to continue asking questions and do their
own research. More information is provided on SCAR's website, www.SCAR-info.net.
Mr. Fosse cited the number of jobs, net sales and taxes that could be derived from the development of a
Costco warehouse and commented Cabela's was interested in coming to Washington. He commented on
the importance of developing a joint master plan that envisioned five large retailers, a high tech industrial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 3
campus, several upscale restaurants, a multi -screen cinema and entertainment complex that could generate
annual net sales of $1 billion from which Snohomish County could realize $20 million in taxes.
Mr. Fosse urged the Council not to support an IAC racetrack at the north Marysville site until all the
information was known.
Earth 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
Subsidence PROPOSED ECDC 19.10 ORDINANCE CHANGES
and Landslide
Hazard Area
Ordinance Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this was a public hearing to follow up an earlier
public hearing and community meetings conducted on the proposed ordinance changes.
Building Official Jeannine Graf advised the Council packet contained the proposed draft ordinance,
minutes from the Council meeting of March 23, 2004 and the July 27 work session, as well as the
September 13 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting. She explained the
purpose of updating the 20 year old earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas regulations was to
streamline the regulations and make them easier for applicants as well as staff. At the July 27 Council
work session, the City's geotechnical consultants provided a geological history of the landslide hazard
area, staff discussed citizen comments raised at the May community meeting, and the draft ordinance was
presented. Staff was directed to return to Council with the draft ordinance for a public hearing.
Ms. Graf explained when Title 19 was rewritten with the adoption of the International Building Code, that
title was renumbered, therefore the Landslide Hazard Area 19.05 had been renumbered to 19.10, She
described the following proposed changes:
• Eliminate the architectural stamp requirement — architectural plans are currently required to
be stamped by an architect and structural plans are required to be stamped by a structural
engineer. Staff determined the more important coordination of plans was between the
geotechnical report recommendation and the structural plans and the architectural plans could be
completed by a designer/builder/lay person as the key coordination was the geotechnical to
structural plans.
• Extend the application and permit timeline to two years — currently all permit applications are
valid for 180 days and can be extended for an additional 180 days; the proposal would allow
applications to be valid for two years, a major benefit to permit applicants. Current building
permits were valid for one year and could be extended for a second year for half the fee; the
proposal would allow earth subsidence landslide hazard permits to be valid two years from the
date of issuance. Ms. Graf noted the additional two years would be beneficial to applicants due to
limitations on certain groundwork during the wet season.
• Require vicinity map with greater detail of adjacent hazards — a vicinity map is currently
required to locate the site; staff recommends the map also identify landslide masses or debris
flows on or near the site to provide greater clarity and acknowledgement of the geologic
conditions.
• Create a summary report of the Roger Lowe and GeoEngineers reports — Landau Associates
was tasked with combining the two reports into a synopsis report that would benefit applicants by
providing a more concise geotechnical history and information on earth subsidence and landslide
areas.
• Requirement for daily erosion control inspections during winter months — currently the City
requires weekly inspections; the proposal would require daily inspections by the contractor on
site during the winter period (October 1 through April 30). Adequately maintained temporary
erosion control reduces complaints, reduces the cost of cleaning City catch basins and ensures the
City is in compliance with Best Management Practices. Within 48 hours after a storm event (one
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 4
inch of precipitation in a 24 hour period), the geoteehnieal engineer makes a site inspection to
determine temporary erosion control is adequately performing.
Geotechnical concurrence on winter groundwork — groundwork is currently limited from
October 1 through April 30 (foundation, drainage, grading); however, some sites warrant
allowing working during winter weather due to site specific conditions. The proposal would
provide a process for the applicant's geotech to make a request to the City, with peer review
concurrence, that the site was geotechnically feasible to allow certain construction work to
continue during wetter periods.
Eliminate landslide hazard percentages on the GeoEngineers Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard map — the current and proposed maps are identical with the exception of the
proposed map would eliminate the percentages. The City's consultant concluded the percentages
were no longer needed due to the effect of long term groundwater lowering, allowing designation
of all the areas within the mapped boundary as having a less than 30% chance of failure in a 25-
year period.
Adopt concept of hazard zones and design to mitigate - a new hazard zone cross section would
be adopted as a reference that would detail typical hazard zones that summarized relationships
between locations and type of landslide hazard. For each type of landslide hazard identified on a
property, the design team must identify the site specific processes associated with the hazard and
include design features to reduce the hazards or mitigate impacts.
Ms. Graf referred to a packet of citizen comments/questions that were received in the past few days. She
advised the questions regarding the term "stable" would be addressed by the City Attorney and questions
regarding steep slope hazards and maps had been responded to by Landau Associates. In response to a
packet of information that was submitted by John Heighway late today, Ms. Graf advised the LIDAR
would be a part of the fall budget process, a process in which Mr. Heighway could participate. She noted
Debra Ladd, Professional Engineer, Landau Associates, and Don Tubbs, PhD, Tubbs GeoSciences, were
also present to answer questions.
City Attorney Scott Snyder stated an issue today as well as an issue in 1984 when the original ordinance
was adopted was whether the City was unfairly stigmatizing property in this area. He pointed out the
ordinance contained no reference to Meadowdale and referred to earth subsidence and landslide areas. He
noted the question regarding stigmatization was also related to the Real. Estate Form 17 that property
owners used, which was not sufficient. He explained the City had an independent duty under Washington
Law to disclose the existence of a hazard. He referred to Brown V. MacPherson, a Washington State
Supreme Court decision in 1975..In this decision, State owned forest land was sold to private
development interests. Over the years, the State had mapped avalanche chute areas in that area; when
they sold the property to developers and properties were subsequently purchased and developed, there
was no notice of the existence of the slide areas. Slides occurred, three people lost their lives and the
State paid wrongful death claims and the value of the property. He quoted from an October 26, 1984,
memo that the Supreme Court found an obligation on the part of the State of Washington to communicate
to the public a report that they received related to risks.
Mr. Snyder noted in 1979, when the City imposed a moratorium, it used as the basis for the moratorium,
investigation of what was then known as the Meadowdale Landslide Mass. He noted this geologically
active area was well known and one of the best known sites in the United States from a scientific
perspective due to repeated studies of this area from the 1950s through the 1970s. The study
commissioned by the City in 1979 showed a 90% probability of earth movement in the area ranging down
to 30%. At the date the moratorium was lifted, the City commissioned a second study which found a 30%
probability of earth movement ranging down to 10%. The City used these studies to lift the moratorium
and as the basis for an LID to construct storm drainage improvements which facilitated development of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 5
property in the area. The City is, therefore, in possession of learned studies that define a risk that the City
has an independent legal obligation, independent of the property owner, to reveal.
In 1984 a variety of options were reviewed with Meadowdale residents at Community Club meetings,
many were unpalatable such as putting up signs identifying the entry to an earth subsidence and landslide
hazard area, providing notice to people when they signed up for utilities, and recording a blanket notice
on property which proved to be infeasible. The City Council at that time adopted a policy that has been
consistently applied over the years that the City would do everything possible to permit development in
that area as long as it complied with the State Building Code but that the citizens of Edmonds would bear
no additional liability; development would occur at the property owner's cost to conduct the investigation
and a covenant to notify future purchasers was developed. The information referenced in the covenant to
notify is specific to each building site and developed by professionals rather than a general statement. In
addition to the covenant to notify where building permit information can be reviewed, the covenant also
contains a release that the property owner would not sue the City for issuing a permit to build on the site.
In order for that release to run with the land and bind future purchasers of the property, it must be
recorded in the land records.
With regard to why Real Estate Form 17 was not adequate, Mr. Snyder explained Form 17 asked very
general questions. He pointed out although property owners had a duty to reveal this information, the
City had a separate and independent duty to reveal the information it has. He emphasized the information
one would find in the file was that the situation has improved a great deal and continues to improve over
time. The City's approach has been consistent and over the 20-year period, the City has paid out less than
$40,000 in claims; all related to damage caused by the City's installation and maintenance of storm
sewers and not the issuance of permits.
With regard to the question raised by the Hillmans with staff s position that professional reports would
not be required to individually assess probability of earth movement and specifically a question with
regard to the terin "stable," Mr. Snyder explained the term stable was included in the State Building Code
from the late 1970s through the recent adoption of the International Building Code but was not defined by
State law. In 1983, staff requested the State Building Code Council define the term which they refused to
do. In an effort to do whatever possible to permit development in the area, the City defined stable as
having 30% or less probability of earth movement. The State Building Code Council subsequently
approved the City's ordinance in 1985. He noted that although the term stable used 30%, it did so to give
property owners an opportunity to the greatest extent possible when they build. In the proposed
ordinance, rather than defining a percentage, Section 19.10.040.0 states the professionals will provide as
part of the plan submittal statements by geotechnical engineers that in his/her judgment, the risk of
damage for development will be minimized and that the proposed development will not increase the
potential for soil movement. He clarified that rather than a percentage, the ordinance required a
geotechnical professional to certify to the City that the construction would not make the situation in the
area worse than it already was.
Mr. Snyder addressed another of the. Hillmans' concerns that Section 1.9.1.0.070.13 and E violated the
basic premise of State law that the issuance of building permits was a ministerial act. Mr. Hillman
asserted a ministerial act was one where the official did not exercise discretion. Mr. Snyder explained the
Building Official verifies construction practices and materials but the issue was how to address very
technical information as the City did not have a geotech on staff. He explained it has been the City's
practice over the years that property owners bear the costs associated with development, therefore, a
property owner must hire a geotechnical engineer to assess the risk. Under the current ordinance as well
as the updated ordinance, the City uses a panel to ensure the statements provided are in accordance with
generally accepted engineering practice. The proposed ordinance adds Best Available Science (BAS) as
required under GMA and the State's critical area provisions. In Section 19.10.060.C, the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 6
recommendations are reviewed by a geotechnical panel peer review and if they find the recommendations
are in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice and in accordance with BAS, they certify
the result to the Building Official who accepts it. Therefore, the Building Official is not exercising any
discretion but relying on the statement of the professional hired by the property owner and whether the
review was done in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice as determined by the peer
review.
With regard to the Hillmans' reference to burden of proof, Mr. Snyder pointed out burden of proof only
applied at Superior Court; for the property owner to overcome the determination must show by a
preponderance of evidence that the Building Official was incorrect.
Councilmember Marin asked whether the changes staff enumerated were included in the draft ordinance.
Ms. Graf answered yes.
Council President Plunkett noted an issue that has been raised repeatedly and may need clarification was
that the extension of the application and permit timeline would be detrimental to property owners. He
asked staff to clarify why this was a benefit rather than a detriment. Ms. Graf assured the extension had
nothing to do with staff wanting to extend the issuance of permits; it was a benefit to applications that
took longer than a year so that property owners were not penalized the second year. She noted currently
when the permit expired after one year, the property owner was required to file a new application and pay
all plan review fees. Council President Plunkett clarified the additional time was for property owners
who needed it, not additional time that staff needed. Ms. Graf answered it was not time staff needed, it
was to benefit applicants.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Doug Grier, 16431 74t" Place W, Edmonds, stated he moved into the Meadowdale area P/z years before
the storm event and saw problems on adjacent property including tree cutting. In addition, the storm
drainage system appeared to be in disrepair although he was assured by the City everything was in
working order. Following the storm, when a slide occurred above, across and below his property, he
contacted the City requesting they dig out the drains and was told it was too dangerous for City staff.
Simultaneously on the other side of the slide, his neighbor was told he would be subject to a $50,000 fine
and 90 days in jail if he did not dig out the slide and make immediate repairs. He noted it was later
determined the LID failed and they were told to submit a claim to the City to which there was no
response. He and his neighbors sought legal remedy to get the City to accept liability for the failure,
which they did not do. As a result, he determined it appeared the City Attorney's policy was they would
rather spend $100,000 fighting a claim than spending $50,000 to make repairs because of the potential of
setting a precedent. He asked whether the purpose of the proposed ordinance was a recourse/remedy for
the City to bolster arguments in the future against future claims. Mayor Haakenson clarified the storm
event Mr. Grier referred to occurred in 1996.
Carl Pearson, 1.631.1 75th Place W, Edmonds, commented the biggest issue was that the mapping
process was very unscientific. He referenced a U.S. Geological Survey Department of Interior study of
the number of slides that occurred in Edmonds in the 1996-1997 storm events, noting they found 41
documented events and 80% were outside the City's Meadowdale Hazard area. He noted of the 41 slides,
30 were on steep slope areas and 24 were outside the mapped landslide hazard area. He pointed out there
were an additional 11 slides on the Burlington Northern track and 76,000 square feet or 97.8% of the slide
material on the track was outside the Meadowdale area. He advised the study also documented 82 major
slides in the Washington area as a result of the February 1996 storm; neither Meadowdale nor Edmonds
were on the list. He summarized although in the past Meadowdale had a problem, that situation has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 7
changed. Mr. Pearson also submitted written materials (Facts Regarding Landslide Hazard Maps) to the
City Clerk for the record.
Phillip Lehn, 16202 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to Mr. Snyder's claim that no property owners
within the current hazard area had difficulty obtaining homeowner's insurance during the past 20 years.
He stated insurance companies were reluctant to insure potentially unstable property not because of what
they may need to pay for damages to the insured property but what they may need to pay for claims of
damages against the insured, affecting those who live above the bluff more than those who live below it.
He commented on the cancellation of his homeowner's policy after the landslide that occurred on his
property in 1998, his inability to obtain insurance from other providers, and subsequent reinstatement of
insurance from their policy holder. It was reinstated when they proved that a forgotten city dry well and
infiltrating storm water had been the principle cause of the slide and that the City intercepted and
eliminated their dry well. With regard to mischaracterized comments in staff s response to additional
questions, he regretted that staff singled him out by name and mischaracterized his position without first
discussing it with him. He clarified his statement that many slides have been caused by faulty septic and
stormwater structures and have been subsequently repaired, replaced or eliminated. In addition to the
slide affected by the City's dry well, he noted two other slides were caused in 1997 and 1998 by faulty
storm water structures, one a broken manhole and the other a storm water pipe spilling over the bluff that
were subsequently repaired or eliminated. Observing that risks had been substantially reduced, he
questioned why the City was seeking to increase rather than reduce regulations governing the area. He
submitted additional written materials (letter dated September 21, 2004) to the City Clerk.
Michael King, 16711 761h Avenue W, Edmonds, a licensed geologist and registered geologic engineer,
objected to the basis of the ordinance on a map where the boundary of the hazardous area was based on
one geologic data point. He relayed his understanding that staff planned to fly new air photographs,
stating it was premature to pass an ordinance until the problems were identified and could be specifically
addressed. He noted the ordinance was vague with regard to the definition of adjacent areas and was not
specific to hazards throughout the City. He concluded the ordinance defined geologist and civil engineer
but did not refer to engineering geologists who were licensed and qualified with regard to landslides.
Andy Dulin, 7212 1641'' SW, Edmonds, concurred with Mr. Grier's comments. He recalled when they
developed their property, they often did one thing as advised by staff and then were required to change
what was done. He noted this cost him time as well as a relationship with his neighbors. He relayed his
understanding that many slides had to do with weight, water saturation and sloughing of soil surfaces.
Many of the geotechnical surveys he has initiated indicate that when the weight is removed from the hill,
largely due to trees, and the water down the hill is managed, problems are eliminated. He preferred a
management approach to slopes via drainage, trees and maintaining existing systems. He noted staff was
not held accountable but property owners were. He objected to including notice on his title and the
potential loss in value due to the stigma.
Phil Sacks, 16238 72"d Avenue W, Edmonds, read from Mr. Lehn's statement. With regard to slope
retreat rates, staff has not identified the retreat rate they intend to use to evaluate applications or the
evidence the City's consultants have to substantiate the rate. As the concept of slope retreat rate had not
been proven to be controversial and conjectural and open to different circumstances and interpretation, he
questioned how the requirement could be administered fairly and expeditiously in a ministerial rather than
discretionary way. The letter also raised the following questions: which properties would be required to
record the proposed covenant on their title and how would the exact boundaries of the affected districts be
determined; will the proposed ordinance prohibit existing as well as proposed swimming pools, hot tubs,
ponds, other artificial impoundments of water, watering or irrigation systems, temporary or permanent
stockpile of fill on top or bottom of slopes, gardens, patios, retaining walls and sheds; what are the
boundaries of the earth subsidence landslide hazard area•, how will the boundaries be determined; who
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 8
will determine the boundaries; is there a relatively inexpensive way for an applicant to challenge a staff
decision to include a lot within the area; can building and critical areas permit review process be
conducted concurrently; and why should peer review lengthen the permit review timeline.
Mary Ashby, 16320 751" Place W, Edmonds, commented property owners had no recourse if they were
included within the boundaries on the map. She pointed out the map was scientifically inaccurate and the
risk had decreased due to improved stormwater systems. She asked how a property could be removed
from the map.
Dan Morrison, 16320 751h Place W, Edmonds, asked why Meadowdale was singled out? It was his
understanding the United States Geological Survey Professional Paper indicated a high risk for landslide
for the entire Edmonds shoreline. Next, he questioned why other jurisdictions were not adopting this
approach. He used Seattle as an example of a city that did not use this as a permit standard but rather as a
guide for emergencies.
Lin Hillman 15915 74"' Place W, Edmonds, referred to two years experience building a house under the
existing earth subsidence ordinance as well as many years of experience as a plan check engineer writing
and enforcing building code ordinances. She complimented staff on the update, pointing out there were
many details that needed refinement prior to adoption. Due to the amount of research residents have
conducted and the interest many had in the issue, she suggested forming a committee of local design
professional and interested citizens to further discuss issues and provide additional input at an open
format, perhaps at the Meadowdale Clubhouse. She asked how buyers of homes built in Meadowdale
prior to 1984 were notified of the area -wide hazard.
Dorothy Sacks, 1238 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to Section 19.10.020.17 and the statement that
presumption of risk shall be rebuttable and the decision of the director or Building Official that any area
lies within, or adjacent to, such earth subsidence and landslide hazard area shall be appealable as a staff
decision to Superior Court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act. She objected to the Building
Official being the sole determinant regarding hazard area. She noted an appeal to Superior Court was too
costly for many, therefore, often not an option. Due to the numerous other issues raised with regard to the
ordinance, she recommended there be more input and encouraged the Council not to approve the
ordinance in haste.
Robert Stivers, 9514 2241" Street SW, Edmonds, recalled a major slide between Edmonds and
Richmond Beach that destroyed a section of the Burlington Northern track. He described the conditions
under which the slide occurred including the saturation of the hillside during a rainy snow melt.
Normally this would drain away without incident, however, a subsequent freeze dammed the hillside,
semi -liquefying the clay, resulting in a slump of the hillside when the ice melted and triggered by the
vibration of the train. He suggested when hazards and instability were considered, freak events and their
consequences should also be considered.
Michael Kerr, 1731.2 164th Street SW, Edmonds, commented when he purchased his property, only a
corner was within the landslide hazard area and now the entire 3.5 acres was labeled because a portion of
it was included in the landslide hazard area. He noted his property was 90% sand beneath a clay layer
and most of the water was deep and drained well, yet he was identified as being in a landslide hazard area
that had water problems. He recommended the City consider site specifics rather than labeling properties
on a map. He pointed out the impact on property owners' ability to get insurance, sell their property, etc.
He concluded other areas of the city had landslide issues and recommended properties with landslide
hazards be determined via the permitting process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 9
Dolores Dean, 16315 751h Place W, Edmonds, recalled when they found their property, they recognized
there were problems with stability. They were told the City had done work to prevent erosion and slides
and their geotech conducted the required reviews, etc. prior to the completion of their home. She referred
to the Meadowdale plot map posted on the corner of 75th Place W, pointing out the difficulty of
explaining this to a prospective purchaser. She concluded it was up to the individual property owner to
make disclosures regarding their property. She objected to the stigma placed on Meadowdale.
Grady Helseth, 20214 76th Avenue SE, Snohomish, (property owner at 15730 75th Place W, Edmonds),
commented Meadowdale residents were promised a new ordinance with a streamlined and simplified
permit process but instead the same problems continue. Although Section 19.10.000.C. promised to be
ministerial rather than discretionary, he pointed out the use of words and phrases such as reasonable,
sufficient, potential, excessive, inadequate, adjacent to, significant, generally accepted, normally useful
life, selectively waived, and reasonably could be anticipated to be in danger. He noted these required
subjective judgment by the Building Official. The ordinance created three burdens on Meadowdale
property owners, 1) myriad subjectively interpreted documents required for building permit, 2)
combination of two year periods for both permit processes and barring of appeals, 3) continued
notification requirements of future purchasers. He objected to the proposed peer review as the applicant
paid for their own consultant, paid the City's review fees, and then paid additional outside consultant fees
to review his consultant's product. He suggested Council direct staff to provide a chronology of slide
events that had occurred since the stormwater and sanitary sewer improvements were installed. He
objected to the two year period for expiration of permits. He found the requirement to notify future
purchasers unreasonable and discriminatory to this single area of Edmonds. He pointed out the impact
this would have on property in the area and recommended property owners appeal the value of their
property to the Board of Equalization. The ordinance was not designed to simplify or streamline but to
burden the applicant with time and financial requirements while requiring the applicant to completely
absolve the City from any responsibility. He recommended permits for this area be processed under the
Critical Areas Ordinance and that the Council direct staff to integrate the Meadowdale area into the
Critical Areas Ordinance update currently underway.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Yong Namkung,15516 72°d Avenue W, Edmonds, commented his property has a great deal of sand and
gravel and water on his property disappeared in a short amount of time. He noted the City's installation
of catch basins in the area also eliminated a lot of problems. He was opposed to the proposed ordinance
and hazard map.
Brett Gaspers, 16623 741h Place W, Edmonds, requested the map be labeled "draft" pending the LIDAR
overflight which staff indicated would occur in January. Residents were informed at the May meeting at
the Meadowdale Clubhouse that the LIDAR overflight would be used to revise the 25-year old map. He
was concerned that if the ordinance was passed prior to the LIDAR overflight, more scientific assessment
of the landslide hazard area would not be reflected on the map. He agreed with previous comments that
the map was an artificial construct and expressed concern that the landslide hazard was limited to one
area when it was well known that there were significant landslide dangers along the coastline.
Frank Bonipart, 7429 North Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, recalled when he built his home in 1990 it
took three years to get a permit. He expressed concern that although the hazard has decreased, his title
still says 30%. He referred to potential purchasers of a neighbor's house who were deterred by the 30%
indication on their title. He asked how notice regarding 30% chance of failure on the title could be
reduced or removed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 10
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, provided his interpretation of the information provided,
1) with regard to the map, there appeared to be a need for specifics by area as properties are included on
the map that have had no problems on their property, 2) a number of terms in the ordinance can be
interpreted in different ways, 3) the appeal process to Superior Court should be changed so that appeals
are to the Council, and 4) inconsistency with regard to staff interpretations. He agreed with considering
the map a draft, continuing to work with citizens via more meetings and seeking additional input from
their experts as well as the City's experts.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Mr. Snyder referred to the audience's frequent assertion that the ordinance applied only to Meadowdale;
he referred to page 9 of the ordinance which defined the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as
areas designated by a map, areas with slopes greater than 15% (the Critical Areas definition), areas which
exhibit geologic characteristics of earth movement, or any other area identified as having a history of
earth movement. He noted staff intended to integrate this ordinance with the Critical Areas Ordinance.
He summarized the ordinance applied not only to the mapped area but any other area in the city where
these conditions applied.
In regard to Mr. Grier's reference to the lawsuit against the City, Mr. Snyder explained he advised the
City but the City was defended by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). He pointed out
none of the legal provisions of the ordinance had been changed; they were the same as in the existing
ordinance. The intent of the updated ordinance was to address problems in administering the ordinance
and there were no enhancements or changes in any of the indemnification or notification requirements.
With regard to Mr. Helseth's comments, Mr. Snyder explained it was not the Building Official but rather
the design professional who rendered opinions. Peer review merely indicates whether the review by the
professional was in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and BAS. He noted peer
review was much quicker and did not constitute a second opinion.
With regard to the provision for appeal to Superior Court, Mr. Snyder explained this had been in the
ordinance since 1984. The Council adopted that provision at the time due to the realization these were
scientific issues, not political issues, and were best reviewed by a court in a neutral atmosphere. With
regard to Ms. Hillman's question regarding notification of property developed prior to 1985, Mr. Snyder
acknowledged those property owners were not being notified although the City would like to identify a
method to notify them such as a brochure. The City's duty to those individuals under the Brown case was
considerably different as those houses were constructed prior to the installation of the improvements and
before the City obtained any of the information.
Mr. Snyder explained staff has acknowledged the map information is generalized. One of the hopes when
this initial process began in 1984/1985 was that over the years the information acquired via the building
process would become increasingly specific. With regard to Mr. Bonipart's question regarding 30%, Mr.
Snyder pointed out the notification did not reference 30%, it referenced the building permit file that
contained the opinion of the design professional involved in development of that property. He
acknowledged the notification would also direct a potential purchaser to a map, thus staffs
recommendation to eliminate percentages on the map.
Mr. Snyder pointed out staff was justifiably proud the ordinance has worked over the years and that was
one of the reasons there had been fewer slides in addition to the City's and individual property owners'
dewatering. Observing that the regulations were working, he pointed out ceasing to regulate would not
improve the situation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 11
With regard to why these regulations were being imposed in Meadowdale but not Seattle, Mr. Snyder
advised the provisions of the landslide hazard ordinance are virtually identical to the process Seattle
enacted. The difference is Seattle maintains a geotechnical expert on staff to make decisions; Edmonds
defers those decisions to property owners' design professionals and the Building Official only determines
that all the information provided by the property owner's design professional are in accordance with
generally accepted engineering practices.
Mr. Snyder noted there was a misconception that this was a new regulatory scheme; in reality, it has been
in effect since 1984/1985. Staff s intent was to improve and streamline the regulations. With regard to
the engineering geologist, Mr. Snyder advised staff could expand the list if approved by the Board of
Licensing.
Ms. Graf responded to the following questions submitted by the Hillmans:
• Paragraph 19.10.010 A.2 contains a reference to 19.05.010 but the latter section does not
exist — when Ordinance 3502, International Building Code, was adopted, the sections were
renumbered and the references are now under Title 19.
• Allowing a permit applicant to submit plans without an architect because an
unsophisticated person would submit plans that would not conform to the extremely
complex issues — staff considers the key coordination of the plans to be the geotechnical design
requirements that are incorporated into the structural plans not a non-structural plan.
• The peer review cycles added onto long staff review times cause the entire process to take a
minimum of eight months — the current peer review process timeline for an earth subsidence
permit is 45 business days for the initial review. In the specific case of the Hillmans, the original.
review of their application took 41 days, the second review took 39 days, and the subsequent
reviews took 23 days for a total City review time of 103 working days or 3.4 months (not
including the time for the Hillmans to resubmit plans to the City).
• Permits in landslide hazard areas should enjoy special staff treatment and priority service
especially if the cost of special treatment is borne entirely by the applicant — the City
currently averages less than two earth subsidence permits per year. The City's review policy is to
require a vigorous application submittal to verify a completed application and the peer review
submittal materials are immediately forwarded to consultants.
Debra Ladd, Professional Engineer, Landau Associates, responded to the following questions
submitted by the Hillmans:
• How long would it typically take an engineer to measure the bluff retreat rate in an area
that might not show any signs of change over 10 years — the ordinance does not require the
bluff retreat rate to be measured, only that it be estimated, analyzed and evaluated. It is expected
geologic and engineering evaluations and judgment would be used.
• Section 19.10.070(G) does not allow for properties that contain bluffs that are not
significant to development on the property and for a building site beneath the bluff what
does the retreat rate matter — the bluff is defined in the ordinance as a certain height and
inclination and an estimate of bluff retreat rate could be important for properties on the face of the
bluff to recognize the amount of landslide debris that could be generated. Mr. Snyder added that
in Section 18.05 the International Building Code requires the identification of the top of the slope
and that setbacks and bluff retreats be calculated.
Mr. Bowman pointed out much of the ordinance was not changed at all, for example the bluff retreat rate
was in the original ordinance. With regard to the question concerning the use of the map and/or
identifying the map as draft, he advised it was not necessary to adopt a new map as the existing map
could be used until the LIDAR information was available. He described LIDAR which used lasers to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 12
provide a very accurate reading of topographic and contour information. He noted plans were to conduct
LIDAR this winter; the 2005 budget package includes a decision package for the geotechnical consultant
to analyze that information and soils information to develop a new map. He noted a public hearing
process would be conducted prior to adoption of the new map. Mayor Haakenson clarified that
technology was not yet available; it would be in the Mayor's preliminary budget and would require
Council approval.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 60 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO DELAY FINAL DELIBERATIONS UNTIL AFTER THE LIDAR MAPPING HAD BEEN
COMPLETED.
Councilmember Marin commented the biggest issue was making it equitable to all properties in Edmonds
and the only way to resolve it was via a scientific method that mapped the area properly. He noted the
intent of the LIDAR information was to allow property owners to build as safely as possible. He referred
to a can of solvent he used in plumbing that contained a stringent warning. Because he ignored some of
those warnings, he sustained a hearing loss in his left ear. He stressed the warnings did not stop him or
other plumbers from using the product incorrectly but the warning was important so that the user was the
one who bore the responsibility. He recalled a Council decision in Mukilteo where a subsequent lawsuit
exceeded their liability insurance and Mukilteo was required to levy an increase in utility taxes on all
citizens to pay the lawsuit. He commented on his displeasure if he were required to pay increased taxes if
there were not precautions in place to protect the homeowner as well as citizens of Edmonds.
Councilmember Marin noted a statement on a property owner's title would not destroy the property's
value. He suggested LIDAR be done on all areas of the City where there was potential for earth
subsidence and landslide hazard.
Mayor Haakenson suggested any Councilmembers with questions submit them to staff.
Councilmember Dawson commented the delay would provide more opportunity for discussion at a
community meeting and/or one-on-one with staff. She suggested anyone who had questions to contact a
Councilmember.
Councilmember Orvis agreed with obtaining the LIDAR information and suggested instead of using
maps, identify the specific characteristics of property as the Critical Areas Ordinance does for slopes. .
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
CONTINUE DELIBERATION ON THIS ITEM UNTIL THE LIDAR INFORMATION IS
AVAILABLE
Mayor Haakenson pointed out this presupposed the Council would approve the LIDAR decision package
in the budget.
MOVED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Earth 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Subsidence
and Landslide Phil Sacks, 16238 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, suggested scheduling another community discussion at
Hazard Area
Ordinance the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 13
John Quast, 15714 75`" Place W, Edmonds, a member of the Friends of the Edmonds Library, advised
Pest nook past the 25 ears the Friends have spent more than $400 000 in support of the library Poster Contest over p years, p � pp and
community. Although there are a variety of sources, their income is derived predominately from book
sales. He reported on the "Best Book Poster Contest," explaining the contest, now in its eighth year, was
an annual event sponsored by the Edmonds Arts Commission and Friends of the Edmonds Library in
conjunction with the National Children's Book Week to promote reading and visual arts. Third grade
students in the Edmonds Schools are invited to create posters representing their favorite book. The
posters would be judged by a committee of three from the Edmonds School District, Arts Commission
and Friends of the Edmonds Library. He explained 40 posters would be selected of which 20 received
honorable mention and 20 were rated outstanding. The Friends purchase $10 gift certificates to the
Edmonds Book Shop that will be awarded to the outstanding poster winners. The posters are displayed at
Frances Anderson Center. He invited the Council to a reception held for the winners and their families
with a noted children's author or illustrator on Friday, November 11 at 6:00 p.m. in the Frances Anderson
Center gym.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he normally tried not to make comments
about any specific employee although at the August 24 meeting he commended Arvilla Ohlde personally
for her grant writing abilities. He referred to Mr. Bowman's comments at the conclusion of the
City Traffic September 7 Council meeting, pointing out Mr. Bowman misinterpreted his comments as he had not
Engineer specifically mentioned the Engineering Department. Next, Mr. Hertrich pointed out all the "patting on
the back to the engineer" did not take away from the fact that he is paid a very high salary even though
there are very limited funds for roads in the next 5-8 years. He suggested the City contract with
Snohomish County for those engineering services. He suggested during the budget deliberations, the
Council consider the amount of road work in the coming years and the amount paid to the engineer.
7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
public safety Public Safety Committee
committee Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee first considered an amendment to the Woodway
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and EMS Services. She explained this would simplify the process by
linking the annual payment to the percent increase in fire labor costs as measured by total cost of
compensation (TCC) per employee for IAFF Local 1828 using the 2004 payment as a base year. This
item was approved on the Consent Agenda as Item K. The Committee then discussed the December 7
American Red Cross Heroes Breakfast that honors public safety personnel and discussed who might be
nominated. The Committee directed the Fire and Police Chiefs to return with additional information.
Next, the Committee discussed the Interlocal Agreement with the Edmonds School District for the School.
Resource Officer with the City continuing to pay 50% of the officer's salary; this item was approved on
the Consent Agenda as Item J. The Committee also reviewed the Interlocal Agreement with Chelan
County for jail services for prisoners serving longer sentences which was approved on the Consent
Agenda as Item I. The last item the Committee considered was a proposal from an anonymous citizen for
a Civilian Oversight Board. It was the consensus of those present that the perceived problems to be
addressed by a civilian review board were already addressed by existing mechanisms and practices in the
City and State and no further information/action was necessary.
Community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee
Development Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee was provided a presentation regarding the draft earth
Services
Committee subsidence and landslide hazard areas ordinance and staff responded to Committee members' questions in
preparation for tonight's public hearing. Next, the committee reviewed a draft of the nuisance ordinance
provisions prepared by staff for presentation to the Planning Board. Staff responded to Committee
members' questions and the draft nuisance ordinance was referred to the Planning Board for review at a
public hearing prior to presentation to the Council. The Committee then discussed the design guidelines;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 14
staff suggested and Committee members agreed that any action on the design guidelines be delayed until
the City completed its current review of the Comprehensive Plan.
finance
Finance Committee
Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee reviewed a Utility Rate Study contract which was
approved on the Consent Agenda as Item L. The Committee also reviewed a list of proposed third quarter
budget amendments which will be forwarded to the full Council for review.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
otonzed Mayor Haakenson advised the proposed Motorized Scooter Ordinance provided to the Council by the
Scooter
Ordnance City Attorney would be available on the City's website on September 22, 2004.
9/28iO4 Mayor Haakenson advised the September 28, 2004 work meeting included two closed record reviews, 1)
Council the Planning Board's recommendation to deny a proposed contract rezone for the property located at 546
Meeting Paradise Lane, and 2) appeal of a Hearing Examiner's decision to deny an appeal of a staff Code
interpretation on a tree house in the Seaview area. Mayor Haakenson noted there was a request to
continue the appeal to a future date that had been approved by the Council President but a response had
not yet been received from the appellant.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Moore thanked the regular curmudgeons who wrote letters to the editor and mentioned
her name for the free publicity they provided. She referred to an editorial in the Edmonds Beacon last
week where she was given credit for leading the Council on an issue which she pointed out was far from
the truth. She explained the Council was comprised of seven individual citizens who had the courage to
run for office, all of whom she respected for their ability to think, analyze and articulate their opinions.
She noted with Councilmembers, it was all about the issues and facts; they did not lead her and she did
not lead them. The writer insulted the Council by saying anyone led them as they were decent,
responsible, active citizens in the community who thought for themselves.
Councilmember Moore noted Ron Wambolt, the citizen who stated she was leading the Council,
sometimes had good ideas but were couched in bitterness. Conversely, other commentators speak about
possibilities, issues and freedom to engage in civil conversation among reasonable people without
personal attacks. She emphasized there was a difference and her message was to the curmudgeons who
did not understand the difference. To those who wanted a serious role in government, she urged them to
stop blaming, operating without the facts and being mean. She concluded it was already a scary, tattered
society and the disinformation campaigns were not necessary and only made it worse. She preferred to
protect Edmonds as a haven for civility. She concluded she was available to talk to any citizen.
Fire Councilmember Dawson reported on the Fire Centennial celebration this weekend, commenting it was a
Department eat celebration of the 100 ears of service provided b the Fire Department. She offered her thanks to
Centennial � y p y p
Celebration the professional and volunteer firefighters, the Fire Chief and the Fire Foundation for everything they do.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
NSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2004
Page 15
1
I
LL AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 51" Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
SEPTEMBER 21, 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 September 7, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #73829 through #73926 for the week of September 6,
2004, in the amount of $115,370.25. Approval of claim checks #73933 through
#74078 for the week of September 13, 2004, in the amount of $514,254.84.*
`'Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acceptance of a Statutory Warranty Deed from Jason T. and Ann M. Miller for
property in conjunction with the 2201h Street SW improvements project.
(E) Acceptance of a Statutory Warranty Deed from Cynthia L. Burgett for property
in conjunction with the 220"' Street SW improvements project.
(F) Report on final construction costs for the 2001 Street Overlay Project and
Council acceptance of project.
(a) Report on final construction costs for the 2002 Street Overlay Project and
Council acceptance of project.
(H) Report on bids opened August 24, 2004, for the 2004 Senior Center windows
improvement project and award of contract to RCC ($28,135.40, including
sales tax).
(1) Approval of the Interlocal Agreement with Chelan County for Jail Services.
(J) Approval of the Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds tSchool District for
Community -Oriented Policing Agent (School Resource Officer).
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
Page 2 of 2
(K) Approval of the Amendment to the Woodway Interlocal Agreement for Fire and
EMS Services.
(L) Approval of Utility Rate Study Contract.
(M) Proclamation in honor of Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 2004.
3. ( 5 Min.) Approval of Mayor's appointment of Brian McIntosh to the position of Parks
and Recreation Director.
4. (10 Min.) Presentation by Snohomish Citizens Against the Race Track (SCAR).
5. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area proposed
ECDC 19.10 ordinance changes.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (10 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of September 13, 2004.
8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
3arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk a
'425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as
ielayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.