May 2001 Bulletin

Next Board Meeting
Tuesday, June 5, 2001
7:30 PM, Clubhouse

Agenda for June 5, 2001 Meeting:

Remodels

• Knoetgen/Lesely, 17730 13th Ave NW.  Addition at rear of house.
• Armour/Gross, 826 NW Innis Arden Dr., Kitchen expansion

SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
INNIS ARDEN SPECIAL BOARD MEETING,
APRIL 4, 2001 ON GROUSE RESERVE

Roger Lowell explained that a group of 15 families had brought a plan to the Board at the March 13 meeting for cutting and replanting all of Grouse Reserve. They had asked the Board to sign the application to the city for a clearing and grading permit. Because there had been no prior notice to the Board or to the community, the Board scheduled this special meeting to allow for community and Board discussion of the plan. The group had sent, as required, letters to 45 families living near the Reserve.

Lowell stated the agenda: 1/2 hour for presentation of the plan by the group, without interruption; then, with Al Wagar chairing, 1 hour for community questions and discussion; finally, Board discussion and possible action. Lowell stressed that he expected all to be courteous and to stick to the issue of the plan before us. There were large-scale maps of Grouse Reserve showing where trees were to be removed and the varieties of plantings that would replace them. The Board also received letters from Eric Larson and Kathryn A. Zufall-Larson about the history and future of Grouse Reserve as it affects their property.

Mike Jacobs (18301 8th Ave. NW) began the presentation. He stated that a group of families had decided last summer to do something about the trees in Grouse Reserve that were obstructing their views. Last August they hired professionals to develop a plan for Grouse Reserve. He asked the Board to sign the application for the clearing and grading permit. He stated that the group is prepared to spend $75,000 to remove 117 trees, replant 271 - the plan lists the trees, shrubs, ferns, and groundcover to be planted. Himalayan blackberry would be hand removed. The cost is to be borne by the Grouse Reserve Neighborhood Association. No one else will be asked to pay. He stated that they have a professional opinion that the soil is stable and that the potential for soil movement is nil. Their idea is to further the goals and objectives of the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for habitat, view corridors, lower canopy, maintain the trail, and to revegetate the Reserve with beautiful plants.

Eva Burmeister, of Northern Arboriculture then spoke. She asked that everyone sign in on the sign-up sheet, and explained that the comments of the meeting will be recorded and submitted to the City of Shoreline. Everyone who will be affected by the plan must have a chance to participate. She described some of the history of previous work in Grouse Reserve: topped conifers, deciduous trees cut that later regenerated; because there was no maintenance, blackberry and scotch broom proliferated. The goal was to find a plan with a lower-growing canopy, while preserving habitat, in a cost-effective way. There is a Class 4 stream on the site which affects the soil. They plan to leave snags for habitat and incorporate berries, nuts, native food sources. She stated that the definition of “significant tree” is 12-inch diameter at breast height for deciduous trees, and 8-inch diameter at breast height for evergreens.

Tim Waterman, owner/arborist of Northern Arboriculture continued the presentation. The replanting plan is extensive, with emphasis on the lower part of the reserve. The upper area has some replanted trees that are to be kept. When they’re done, there will be no blackberries. Several trees in the stream buffer that are view blocking can be converted to snags (stems), and replanting would include lower-growing trees such as vine maple. The cut wood would be left for habitat on both sides of the swale, placed by hand. The Hunt’s Point arborist, Kate Day, walked the site with him and approves of the plan; she made some suggestions which they have on record and are available to anyone who wants
to see them.

The maintenance plan is for two years. During that time, blackberries will be taken up by their roots. Watering is to be done by residents of the Association.

The community discussion began with Al Wagar as chair. He repeated the admonition to be courteous and to stick to the issue, and wielded an enormous gavel.

Michael Rasch asked how they planned to get rid of the root systems of the trees to be removed without heavy equipment; what about grading; and will the work be inspected by the city. Waterman responded that the roots would not be removed so as to maintain soil stability and that new shoots would be removed as they develop; there will be no grading; he did not know about city inspection but would assume there would be; a geotech engineer will be on site. Bob Phelps asked if, by some miracle blackberries came back after two years, what plan to keep them down does the group have?

Larry Bliss stated that we had started revegetation of Grouse 10 years ago, that he maintained it until 1997. In three years since then, the blackberries are back. It’s a long-term process, 10-15 years, to maintain plantings. If trees are taken out, it should not be done all at once but over a period of two years to revegetate successfully. The planting plan is reasonable, but there’s a lot of room for more planting. Maintenance on a long-term basis is critical. Russ Castner agreed with Larry on maintenance. The soils up from the creek bed are spongy - he disagrees with their soil engineer. Jacobs replied that the group is investing money for maintenance.

Eric Larson, 18211 Ridgefield Rd NW, said that his property is one of the most affected. There is evidence of soil instability. He thanked Larry Bliss for the years of labor of love for his work in the Reserve. He questioned the location of the boundary between the Reserve and their property, and said that some of the trees scheduled for cutting may be on his property. Some of the people who will be most affected by this plan were not consulted as to what to plant. We can’t rely on the goodwill of people to maintain this. He suggests that there be a performance bond beyond two years for the protection of the individuals and the Board. A $1 million bond is no better than the life of the company.

Joe Knight said that experts can say what the people who hire them want said. He asked if Waterman had managed an area like this before that has been successful. Waterman said he had worked on a project in King County above I-90, involved in removal and crown reduction for three weeks. The maintenance was not done by an arborist but divided up among home-owners. Some didn’t get done. A lot of the maintenance doesn’t need an arborist, it’s grunt work. Burmeister added that Kate Day is also a landscape architect and is earnest and objective.

Guy Michelson said that there are critical slopes all about neighbor properties. Is the group financially prepared to reimburse neighbors? Jacobs replied that the application to the City relies on the group’s experts. If it turns out that they’re wrong, there is no plan to
reimburse neighbors. Michelson asked if they are paying for a survey to make sure the trees are in the Reserve? Will there be a performance bond if the work isn’t done to insure that watering and other maintenance continue? Larry Bliss pointed out that every tree on the slope is to be removed, making the slope unstable. The plan would produce a significant modification of the environment that the trees now occupy - it will be hotter (no transpiration), dryer soils, watering will be more critical and must be done more frequently. He said he was trying to help them to have a successful project.

Steve Link said that maintenance is the main concern, and should be longer term. He would rather see some trees remain, preserve some canopy. Jeanne Link asked about the size of the trees to be planted. Burmeister replied that for every significant tree to be removed, they would replant two, and for every 3 inches thicker, an additional tree up to four trees. They intend to replant 271 trees, unless the number of trees to be removed is changed. Link said that there would not then be a natural succession, and asked what number of years they would recommend for maintenance. Waterman replied that it takes maintenance all the time, but this plan is not high maintenance. After two growing seasons, root systems are in place. Blackberries can come in, but will be substantially less, and other plants will be established. Burmeister added that it’s not that they maintain it for two years and then turn their backs. Another company can provide maintenance thereafter. This is important for 10-15 years down the line. Estimate 5,000 hours for maintenance.

The question was asked about how many trees of any significance will be left - 80 trees are marked for removal. Waterman said that the goal is to provide views. We need to provide sunlight. The upper trees are most critical for views. He opposes topping as the worst thing to do with trees. Bliss said that by removing all significant trees, while the root systems will remain alive for 5-10-15 years and hold the soil, the environment will change. The evergreens are shade-tolerant. This is complicated.

Castner agreed with Larson, Link, and Bliss, but added that neighbors will be exposed on both sides, so he prefers topping to preserve privacy and hold soil. Don’t take out a 100-foot tree and put in little ones. They bought their property next to the reserves for the trees and privacy.

Eva Sledziewski 17736 15th NW asked how old the trees are that are to be removed, and Waterman and Bliss said 60+ years old. She said that a different environment doesn’t mean a worse one, and supports the plan. It’s not fair to expect them to maintain it for the rest of their lives.

Larson said he didn’t realize that Northern Arboriculture engaged the geotech people, and asked how they did the work. Waterman responded that he didn’t know. Larson said you can ask people who have lived there for 20 years. We’ve had engineers, and I wonder if this report was adequate. Wight said he was president of the Board during the view covenant period, which was so contentious. We should start looking at these conflicting views and resolve them. It’s worthwhile to fulfill a commitment in a slow, methodical way, not be in a rush. Thin the trees, manage, then make it work. Bliss recommended that some trees can be selectively removed, suggested going slower.

Blair stated that the Grouse people have come to the Board with a plan, at their own cost, and asked the Board to take on faith that they will maintain it, and also asked the Board to approve this tonight. Anne Knight said that she appreciates the knowledge, integrity of the arborial practices, but that the concerns expressed about maintenance are well-founded; two years is not enough. There are some marvelously beautiful Douglas fir and cedar trees at the bottom of the Reserve the plan intends to remove. This will be a loss to wildlife - we need some tall trees for diversity. We should return to the VMP, created by people who honored both views and environmental values. Priceless large trees should be preserved. Everyone in the community has an interest in this.

Kathryn Zufall-Larson said that they don’t know the names of the members of the group proposing this plan and would like to have open communication with them. The Board should consider a 10-year performance bond, indemnity, long-term maintenance. We must have financial and legal commitments, not on faith but money on the table and in writing. Michael Rasch asked if this plan is modifiable if the Board decides some big trees must be left, and also wanted to know if the hydrologist’s report is available for review. Jacobs said he has a copy of Nelson’s study. This is the plan the group developed. If the City wants changes, they’d have to think about it. Rasch asked if the community and the Board wants some trees to stay, would the group stay with the plan, and Jacobs said he couldn’t answer that.

Al Wagar asked for a show of hands to get a sense of the members present:

• for the plan: 11 or 12
• against: 10
• modify plan: 8

Roger Lowell resumed the chair for Board discussion. He suggested that we should deny without prejudice so the group could come back with additional information. He stated that we should ask the group to provide a long-term maintenance plan - 20 years, and establish the private property lines bordering Grouse. Pam Smit queried the 75% survival rate, asking if it’s less than that, would they replant, and the answer was yes. She also asked how the neighbors will water. Jacobs said that the Wolfs live next to the Reserve, and a water pipe could be brought up. Wagar pointed out that the governor has just put limits on lawn watering. There may be a surcharge. Should keep track of the water - trees are expensive.

Phelps agreed with others that the maintenance plan was far from adequate, and she questioned the estimated costs, pointing out that on March 13 we had been told the plan would cost $60,000, but tonight we heard $75,000 without any explanation as to how either of these numbers had been arrived at. Since the Club had already spent $35,000 on replanting just a fraction of the area of this reserve, she thought the amount for the entire reserve, including cutting down so many trees, seemed unrealistic. Smit asked, if a tree dies after topping, why not top to start with, then plant later, doing it in stages. Waterman replied that you need light penetration, and that arborists don’t top trees. Wagar cited the summary comments of Waterman’s report showing that all mature trees currently blocking views are to be removed. He sees the cherry trees as a nightmare. He sees two strategies: (1) put before the Board and City a plan that recognizes all values, or (2) push the City as far as we can. Are we being asked to approve something we’ll live with, or are we looking for a compromise from the city?

Lowell also addressed long-term maintenance, saying that it was essential. He also asked about slash removal. Waterman stated that it would be chipped and left for habitat. Phelps read from notes stating her concerns about the plan in addition to maintenance: (1) we were told it is an all or nothing plan - there are no parcel by parcel steps that would enable us to see the results in small areas before permitting the entire reserve to be committed to this plan; (2) the replanting plan has no specifics about how much of which plant/trees will be used (the explanation offered is not satisfactory); (3) the preservation aspects of the VMP have been totally ignored when it comes to preserving mature, healthy, intact, long-lived trees, all of which appear destined for removal by this plan which would take down 117 trees; (4) the water shortage will seriously impact this plan.

Laskin said she approved putting off a vote on the plan. But this is a view community, and the only covenant commitment we have is to views. The Board has an obligation to restore and maintain views in the Reserves. The Board lacks expertise, and such matters as soil stability should be reviewed by the city - that’s what their requirements are for. As for environmental issues, the Board should require a permit from the city, using the SEPA standards. Laskin said that financing is vital and we need a mechanism, by contract, and substantial bond, but she is not sure that the group should have the total burden for this. As for liability, the Board is strictly liable for any ground movement to adjacent neighbors – we could be sued. We must explore insurance and whether the group would indemnify neighbors. It would be far better to have the city’s environmental standards rather than our own.

Phelps said that this is not just a view community, and that there are many homes in Innis Arden that will never have a view of water or mountains even if every tree were cut. The Reserves and all the trees in them belong to every shareholder, not just to those whose views are affected by them. Wagar said that the city is not geared up for technical work. The Board has to face up to two things: (1) technical stuff, and (2) emotional and other values that must be respected. Skeel said that the policy of $1 million is not adequate, and relying on the group’s technical experts is not enough for good faith. The Board should hire and pay for technical experts of its own. Property owners along the boundaries of the Reserve need to be satisfied that the plan is workable, and the group must pay for an indemnity bond for each owner individually. There is strict liability - if a tree is cut and the slope fails, you don’t need much proof to win, and the litigation can be expensive and messy. We need an insurance bond, and for more than two years.

Fosmire read from an e-mail that had been sent to the Board by Bob Allen: “As stated in the second paragraph of the Approval Procedure for Supplements to the Vegetation Management Plan for Sensitive Areas in Innis Arden ‘Nothing, however, precludes Innis Arden residents from going directly to the City with a full vegetation management plan, as contrasted with a supplement to the Innis Arden VMP. And, nothing precludes the City from seeking the Board’s opinion before approving such a plan.’ Therefore, the Grouse Reserve Group are within their rights to present a full vegetation management plan directly to the City of Shoreline, with the Board or individual Innis Arden residents afforded the opportunity to register its/their opinions regarding the same.”

Phelps said that she did not understand why Fosmire read this because she had e-mailed to the Board a reply to Allen’s statement, and she read from it: “No individual or group has the right to do anything in the Reserves without prior Board approval. And the direct approach to the city does not apply to the Reserves, but only to private property. For action on private property, the option is for the homeowner to go through the Board first, ‘piggy-backing’ on the VMP (which makes the process easier and cheaper) or go directly to the city without consulting the Board. The latter option is not available for Reserves plans, which are solely under the Board’s authority.”

Howard said that she concurred with Jim. The Board should hire a surveyor, and it should not be responsible for neighbor’s damage. We have to work to get both: We started out as a view community, and we must maintain views and enhance the environment. Phelps said that there were also problems with the process, and outlined some concerns: (1) an undertaking of this scale should be brought before the Board and the community at the start of planning, not at the end; (2) all plans must be amendable by the Board; (3) site visits should be made to every property to see whether trees obscure the view or are simply in the view before the Board acts; (4) site visits to the reserves must also be made and must be announced sufficiently in advance to give the community adequate time to participate; (5) the Board must have a bond for completion and maintenance in advance of the start of any work; (6) money must be in the bank before the work begins; (7) the Board must determine if the funds proposed will be adequate to complete and maintain the plan; (8) maintenance must be done by professionals, not volunteers.

Laskin moved and Smit seconded the following motion, with a friendly amendment by Lowell, and the Board unanimously approved:

Board Action: We defer the permit application request to the May meeting and invite the Grouse Reserve Association to present to the Board in the intervening month a proposal for longer-term maintenance and financing of the maintenance and a proposal for insuring or indemnifying the Board and adjacent homeowners for potential liabilities, and the Grouse Reserve Association will give the Board a line survey clearly identified by marker where the Reserve boundary is.

Elaine Phelps, Secretary

SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
INNIS ARDEN BOARD MEETING,
MAY 1, 2001

* Wastewater Site Al Wagar reported on the possible sites for the new wastewater (sewage) treatment plant, stating that both Woodway and Edmonds are actively seeking it, while Shoreline wants to annex Pt. Wells, one of the potential sites. Jim Skeel said that such plants produce very unpleasant effluent and odors in the adjacent waters and air and questions the wisdom of siting any such plant close to the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park.

VIEW COVENANT LIAISON Marc Weinberg was nominated to serve as the Chair of the community group and liaison to the Board on issues concerning trees on private property not in compliance with the view covenant. After discussion, the Board voted 8-1 in favor of the following motion:

Board Action: We approve Marc Weinberg as the chairperson of the view information committee concerning trees on private property and for liaison between the committee and the Board.

TREASURER June Howard reported that $77,300 has been paid in dues and she considers us to be in good financial shape. The following motion was adopted unanimously to bring the budget into conformity with past Board action:

Board Action: We approve the addition to the budget of $5,000 for paving.

Kate Laskin stated that Howard has been working on the tax status of the Club. We’re a for-profit organization, which incurs some tax liability. To become non-profit, we need to amend the Articles of Incorporation at an annual meeting. We could have up to 10% outside income and still be non-profit. For 2001, it’s probably best to keep our current status until the annual meeting.

ACTIVITIES Pam Smit reminded us that the next Activities meeting will be on May 21. The Salmon Barbecue will be in September, after Labor Day. No decision has yet been made as to whether to have it on the week-end or midweek.

CLUBHOUSE Dave Fosmire reported that the Clubhouse manager, Wendy Morales, would like to have approval to have the floors stripped and cleaned semi-annually, and this was agreed to. The question of upgrading the lighting was put off for future discussion. On the question of outside rentals, after discussion the Board unanimously approved the following motion:

Board Action: Inform Wendy Morales to stop renting to outsiders who are not sponsored by an Innis Arden resident.

RESERVES Al Wagar reported that:
(1) Jim Skeel organized a work party to remove a big sofa and other trash from Blue Heron. After they got the sofa out, someone came by and took it, thus eliminating the disposal problem.
(2) At the lower end of Blue Heron, a pipe under the concrete bridge is being undermined by water flow.
(3) Ed Barnes and helpers released several thousand salmon fry in Boeing Creek. Some of the kids gave names to their fry.
(4) Wagar provided copies of two documents: (a) the paper trail for the previous Grouse Reserve work and (b) the report prepared by Richard Galster and Larry Bliss on the geology of the reserves and the analysis of the soils.

GROUNDS Jim Skeel reported that the Dornays have asked permission to cut down trees on IA grounds that shade their fruit trees. Dornay stated that 17 years ago there was no vegetation along the edge, now there are 100-foot tall trees. Lowell suggested that some of Dornay’s own trees shade their fruit trees, but Dornay said this was not so, that the shade varies depending upon the time of year. Skeel asked if Dornay would sign a release for any damage if the Board agreed to let him cut the trees. Dornay said he would cut the trees to fireplace size which would be free for the taking, and would chip the rest if the Board would share the cost of renting the chipper. Anne Knight suggested that if the trees are cut, the stumps should be ground and replanting should be done to mitigate the loss. After further discussion, the following motion was proposed.

Board Action: We authorize Mr. Dornay to cut the trees himself, remove the debris, with a 50% contribution from the Board for the chipper, and with a waiver of liability for the Board.

The following amendment, proposed by Phelps, did not receive a second, and so failed. Mr. Dornay will replace the cut trees with other plantings for mitigation.

The original motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 7 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention.

Skeel reported that the repaving around the Clubhouse will begin Thursday [May 3] and should be finished by Friday except for the area near the swimming pool, which will be done on Sunday. He is confident that the job will be done well. Skeel said that the landscaping is looking good, and that a youth has been hired to clean up trash around the Clubhouse. He asked that residents report to him if they notice something that needs doing on the grounds. Skeel, with the help of others, took out 5 garbage sacks full of beer cans and other trash from Blue Heron Reserve. A resident who lives at the end of 17th reported that kids have banged up the mailbox. The Board should fund construction of a gate that will limit access on both sides, to be opened with the same key used for Boeing Creek Reserve. He believes that it is not IA kids who are trashing the reserve and being rowdy. Lowell suggested that we have the fence constructed professionally. The
Board approved having Skeel obtain bids for the fence. Lowell reported that the pool had been broken into twice by people going over the fence near the Clubhouse. The Swim Club is thinking of installing concertina wire, or a security system. Blacktop under the jungle gym is of concern to Skeel, who suggested that it be removed. Smit queried whether this would loosen the structure. Wagar suggested covering it with the same chips that will be bought for the whole area. He estimates the chips would cost about $1,000 at $23 a yard delivered, and 40 or so yards for decent covering. The Activities Committee might consider this as a project. Lowell asked about the Little League insurance, and Skeel said he’d provide a copy.

BUILDING & REMODELS
* Peterson, 17781 15th Eric Peterson described the exterior changes sought - squaring off the roof - there were no objections by any neighbors, no issues of setbacks. The Board unanimously passed the following motion.

Board Action: We approve the Peterson remodel.

* Scudder, 17764 15 NW There are no objections to the remodel, but there are objections to the vegetation and trees. This remodel was denied without prejudice last month to allow time for site visits. Since then, Scudder has done some tree trimming. Lamb said that the cutting has opened some view, but he continues to have strong objections to what’s planted at the back of the property, since it’s now above roof line, and the large cedars on the south side haven’t been cut sufficiently. Causey said that Scudder indicated he would cut the big pine but it has not yet been cut. To the east are 15-foot high junipers which will be problems in the future. All shrubbery should go no higher than the fence line. Lundli, who lives to the south, said that Scudder did have the cedars topped and will have the sides trimmed, and do more next year, so this is helpful. Lowell read from the Master’s report that the pine is necessary to stabilize the soil but can be windowed and topped. Skeel said that unless we have an adopted policy, we can’t condition remodels on vegetation. Causey disagreed, saying that they moved here 45 years ago and their title says they would have an unobstructed view. By allowing Scudder to block the view, it clouds the title and the Board might be subject to a suit. Lowell also disagreed with Skeel. Laskin said that she is sympathetic to the idea that landscaping should be part of the approval process in the future. She did some research: if we are perceived by the court as changing rules in midstream, we could have problems. If the Board wants to tie together remodels and landscaping, we should seek our lawyer’s advice. Allen said that tying landscaping and remodeling together bothers him a little because this excludes those who do not remodel, and is also a problem when the building is not objected to, unless we have a formal policy on landscaping. Phelps agreed with Skeel and Allen saying we should have a discussion of policy, with community input, and develop precise guidelines. In answer to a question from Smit, Scudder said that he intends to have more cutting done, and that he has to wait for the first crop on the cherry tree before cutting it. The Board passed the following motion by a vote of 5 yes, 3 no, and 1 abstention:

Board Action: We approve Mr. Scudder’s remodel.

Wagar commented that Clyde Hill also has view issues, and if neighbors can’t agree, it goes to mandatory arbitration.

Board Action: By a vote of 6 yes, 3 no, the Board TABLED the following motion:
Any remodels brought to the Board subsequent to tonight, in order to get approval, must be in compliance with the view covenant.

* Carlson, 1450 NW 186 This is an expansion of the kitchen to the rear of the residence, to the same height as the current roofline. There are no objections from neighbors – two are in support, the third neighbor is a vacant new construction for sale by Sundquist. Howard asked if Sundquist had been contacted, and suggested that this should be done. Allen stated that he’s not an interested party because he doesn’t plan to live there. Howard asked if the remodel would affect the sale of Sundquist’s house, and Allen replied that it would not. Phelps pointed out that the remodel fulfills all of the covenant and remodel policies. It was suggested that Sundquist be informed as a courtesy of the Board’s action. The Board unanimously passed the following motion.

Board Action: We approve the Carlson remodel as proposed.

VIEW PRESERVATION Marc Weinberg announced that there would be a meeting of the group concerned about trees on private property on Friday, May 4, 7:00 p.m. at 17730 14th NW.

GROUSE RESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PLAN Lowell outlined the procedure for discussion: first, a brief statement by the GRNA (Grouse Reserve Neighborhood Association), followed by time for questions from the audience, followed by questions and discussion by the Board.

Mike Jacobs, president of GRNA, stated that the plan calls for pruning, removal, and replanting to provide a lower canopy to restore views so that there will not be a continuing problem. The GRNA will provide all the funds for implementing the plan and for the maintenance. He stated that: (1) they asked their arborist, Tim Waterman, to prepare a 5-year maintenance plan to follow the removal of 127 trees and the planting of 270 trees; (2) they will purchase a general liability policy of $2-$3 million indemnification to protect the Board and the GRNA; (3) they asked the Board to provide an irrigation meter for the reserve, but they will pay for the watering - the rates for irrigating are about 1/6 of the normal rate; (4) they have hired a professional arborist, horticulturalist, geotechnician and others at a cost of $12-$14 thousand already spent. They estimate the full amount to be $75,000.

Tim Waterman, the arborist and owner of Northern Arboriculture employed by GRNA, added that the plan was designed to increase views and be low maintenance, that tree removal would all be done by hand, and that the trees that had been previously replanted would be protected.

Eric Larson stated that he and Kathy had only found out about the plan when the group started to look at the trees. They object to the way the plan was developed. It is radical, and their experience tells them that the problems are very serious. He said they should concentrate at the top of the reserve and that a better way would be stepwise, topping and thinning without the need for an entire set of hearings and reigniting tree wars. Kathy Zufall-Larson said that this well-organized group was totally unknown to them until a month ago. The contact is so recent that it was only last night that someone called to ask if there were any trees they could mark to keep. There are areas that are beautiful. She said they’re feeling a little rail-roaded by this. Given time, they could find professionals who would say the plan would destabilize the slopes. They should have been given advance notice, instead of at a hearing. In response to a question as to whether there would still be a trail, the answer was yes.

Larson asked if they planned to maintain the entire reserve, if they planned to insure adjacent home-owners, and the answer was they would name Larson as well as Wells and Wolf. Larson said that this should be in writing.

R. L. Smith asked what if costs run over $75,000, what if one of the 15 families of GRNA moves out? We need guarantees if something doesn’t go as anticipated. Jacobs replied that they’re asking for a permit from the city; if approved, the group will have the money deposited to cover costs.

Larry Bliss said that originally the plan called for the removal of all existing tall trees at once, which is not good. Tim Waterman replied that studies show that doing it in stages is worse, to which Bliss replied that, as an ecologist, he disagreed. Ray Pelley said that a great deal of energy went into developing the VMP (Vegetation Management Plan) and wanted to know why it was being abandoned.

Lowell said that the VMP doesn’t work. Phelps said that this was not correct. Wagar said that the vegetation in the lower reserve needs care too. Phelps said that Lowell had stated that the GRNA had deliberately avoided coming to the Board and neighbors. Laskin said they had gone to Wagar in September, we’ve had several hearings. Laskin asked Jacobs if he were willing to make a contractual agreement with the Board, after approval from the city; that is, if they get the permit, would they enter into a contract with the Board promising to go forward.

Wagar said that we should clarify if we can do anything without going to the city. Larson believed that there could be some lowering at the top, but Wagar said that he was not aware that we have such permission. Phelps suggested that we talk to the city and ask them. Bliss stated that trees that had been trimmed in the past can continue to be trimmed, but that’s not this plan. Allen asked who had provided the $75,000 figure and was told that Northern Arboriculture had done so. Waterman said that prices vary on trees and they may have to plant more than they thought. Allen asked how many trees have already been trimmed, and Bliss said that the mature trees have all been trimmed in the past, but that if we want to do major work, we need approval.

Skeel asked Lowell if the Board actually is making the application, and does this mean that if things don’t go right we can have changes. Lowell replied that it’s like a house remodel, people come to us and to the city. This process would unfold similarly. Once approved by the city, then the Board has to look at proposed changes. Lowell stated that nothing would happen this summer, that the city probably would take 90 days to act. Skeel said that in fact it’s not the group making the proposal, it’s the Board that has some say in how it’s implemented. Phelps said that this was not so.

Phelps asked why GRNA did not come to the Board at the start of the planning. Jacobs said that he had told Wagar, and told him to tell the Board. Wagar stated that he did not think this had to go to the Board until there was a plan, and Allen agreed. Allen asked Bliss and Wagar how much the city has involved itself in tweaking plans. Bliss said they
didn’t tweak it but they did cut it back. Skeel said that in any of this, as the plan goes along, the Board will have oversight. As the months go on, the Board must have supervision because the reserves belong to the whole community. Laskin said that these oversight responsibilities can be taken care of contractually, and Howard agreed.

Wagar asked if the group had been interacting with the city, and Jacobs said that the plan was based on what Snedeker had said. The Board agreed to extend the time for discussion and for community questions and comment.

Knight said that we had developed a plan, the VMP, to preserve some tall trees, and surely a few can be kept. Jacobs replied that if the city says we have to leave tall trees, that’s what we’ll have to do. The group is flexible.

Dan Lyons said that the last cutting was a disaster. He uses the reserve regularly, and knows that Bliss worked hard on the previous plan. He wants any plan that’s accepted to have Bliss’s approval first. The reply was that the GRNA plan calls for cutting and replanting, that large trees are being cut to let in light for new plantings. Betty Ward said that they had contacted only those people whose views were in jeopardy, they needed a plan before they presented it to the Board, and that Wagar had said that a notice had to be put in the Bulletin in advance of cutting. Ward showed pictures of her earlier view and what had been lost in six years.

Bliss said that all or most of us here want to work on the reserve, but that to take out all and start over doesn’t make ecological or environmental sense. This will result in not having enough shade. Trees can be limbed, leaving enough tree to provide shade. He suggested that we should delay the process so we can come to an agreement on modifying the plan before submitting it to the city, because as it stands it is a flawed plan.

Kathy Larson said that she was in favor of the Board tabling the decision so that we can continue to work on this. In response to a question from Tony Morales, Larson asked to have two months. They’ve already given many hours to this in a short time, and would welcome Bliss’s help. Bliss said he would be glad to help, and that we could get something in a month.

Joseph Bozick said he was the last to join GRNA. They had spent two days in the reserve marking the trees to be removed, and it is by no means all the trees. Bonnie Jardine said this should be tabled, that we could wait another month. Robert Blair objected to waiting another month, and said we should get on with approving the application for the permit. Eva Sledziewski said that postponing this month after month will not change anything. Jim Vincent said that the group is committed, that they’d spent out of their own pockets to comply with SEPA. Anne Knight said that to many of us having some tall trees is beautiful, and Vincent said that not everything is being cut. Jardine added that the blackberries had returned in just three years. Wolfgang Kluge supported a month’s delay for Bliss’s input and Larson’s too.

Each Board member in rotation then commented. Wagar said that this is a work in progress, and that voting it up or down is a bad strategy. He would agree to forward it to the city as a basis for discussion, but not as a plan with our approval. Pam Smit said that we should vote tonight. Bob Allen asked if this is the same plan delivered to us at the last meeting, and was told that it is. Noting that the group had worked with Shoreline, he said that he is disinclined to stem this at this point. Skeel said that he does not think it is a great plan, but that we should forward it. Phelps said that the group is offering us this plan and not an opportunity to alter it in the future. Laskin said that it is a good plan and that we should go forward with it. Fosmire said that he wants to vote tonight. Howard said that there is some room to maneuver, and that in the process these needs will be met. Lowell said that we need to consider that if something doesn’t happen immediately, there’s great danger of killing off what’s been planted.

Phelps then introduced the following motion.
We deny approval to submit the clearing /grading permit application for Grouse Reserve to the City of Shoreline. We will reconsider this application only after the plan has been revised in the light of the following actions:

(1) A professional tree preservationist, from a group like Tree Amnesty [Plant Amnesty], shall evaluate the trees for those most particularly worth keeping. On the basis of this information, we can then work toward a compromise of what’s to be cut and what kept.
(2) The plan is revised so that the work is done in stages rather than all at once. A careful time schedule must be included as to what will be done when.
(3) Site visits are made to each of the homes in question to see and take pictures of the impact the trees have on their views. Pictures are taken of the reserves as they are now, in particular the special trees as designated by (1). All of this information is to be made available to the community to help it evaluate the situation.
(4) The plan should be made to conform as closely as possible to the VMP (other than the basal area requirement) and to its spirit of striking a balance between tree preservation and view preservation. In particular, the VMP calls for underplanting before trees are removed, so that younger trees are growing under the taller trees, which can then be removed at a later date after the establishment of the new, lower-growing trees. The trees that are to be eventually removed can be windowed and pruned to allow for the necessary light for the new growth. The plan should fulfill these requirements.
(5) A precise maintenance plan, not just a sketchy outline, is to be established.
(6) The revised plan should be put before the community with advance notice of a special meeting to discuss and evaluate it.

The motion failed for lack of a second.

Laskin then moved, and Allen seconded the following. After discussion (see below), the vote on the motion was 7 yes, 2 no, with Wagar and Phelps voting against.

Board Action: We authorize the President of the Board to sign the Grouse Reserve Neighborhood Association’s application to Shoreline for a clearing/grading permit, and authorize the President of the Board to enter into side contracts providing for indemnification of the Board and adjoining neighbors, for insurance, and for maintenance.

Wagar said that he would like to have a cover letter saying this is the start of negotiations. He said that he does not recommend the plan. Lowell suggested saying something like “we recognize that there will have to be negotiations”. Skeel said that a letter like that is more likely to get a plan through. Allen said it should be more narrow, that we’re approving applying for this. Phelps said that we need to state that this does not conform to the VMP, so that they know that we know it. Smit said we should try to keep it narrow. Skeel said he agreed with Smit - we should say something like we can work with the plan, hope you can give your approval. Wagar suggested we say that the Board is going forward with the application, but is not endorsing this plan. He said that he could not approve of this plan, that there are too many things wrong with it. Gabe [Snedeker] and he have a great deal of rapport. He wants to forward it without endorsing it. Skeel said that when we sign off on this, this is the Board’s plan. Jacobs has already said that they haven’t decided on the plantings. But we have to get started. Allen said he agreed that we could acknowledge that this doesn’t follow the VMP. This might imply some lack of endorsement. Laskin said that saying we don’t endorse it is sending mixed signals. It’s appropriate to offer a cover letter saying this doesn’t conform to the VMP.

After Wagar said that he did not want to be the contact person on this with the city, Smit suggested that Lowell fill that role, and this was agreed to. Allen said that Laskin is right. A cover letter can assuage some feelings, but it should only be informational. Skeel said that the cover letter should be neutral.

Elaine Phelps, Secretary

Final Push for Mandatory Dues: Deadline July 4, 2001!

Judy Allen and the Activities Committee are working to get the final ballots to pass the Mandatory Dues amendment to the covenants.   If you already have a ballot and have not yet mailed it in, please do so before July 4, 2001! If you are a notary and would be willing to help notarize signatures, please contact Judy Allen at 17225 12th NW, 542-3219;  Chris Kocher at 533-1223 or  Pam Smit, 553-01240 (co-chairs of Activities Committee)

New Board Member for Innis Arden

The Innis Arden Board appointed Marc Weinberg to the position of chairperson of the View Information Committee concerning trees on private property.  This Non-Voting Committee Chair serves the role of 1) educating the community regarding views on private property 2) exploring the feasibility of a community survey regarding view preservation on private property and 3) working with the Building & Remodels chair to develop a protocol for landscape review to be incorporated into the approval process.

Marc has lived in the Seattle area since 1972 and in Innis Arden four years.  His focus has been resolving conflict in the corporate world. He worked on land use planning and development at Paine Field for 6 years.  His conservationist views on the environment are evidenced by his and his wife Marion’s lifetime membership in The Sierra Club and The John Muir Society. His commitment is to provide an avenue for communication in which to support the “promise of the covenants”. Marc is available to consult with you or answer questions regarding private property issues: by phone at 546-8952 and by e-mail at Mwoodfie@aol.com.

Women’s Tennis Flights Begin in June

• Beginner/Intermediate:  Wednesdays at 8:30 AM
• Advanced:  Thursdays at 8:30 AM

Starting date is June 20 and 21.  For more information please call Joyce Garcia, 546-1258.

Point Wells Development:  Express Your Opinions

Innis Arden residents may want to take a look at the plans for Point Wells and consider how it will affect them. This plant will impact some Innis Arden views. In addition, another regional park may bring the same concerns and issues that the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park has brought over the years. Currently there is a public comment period for six future sites of the new Metro sewage treatment plant. The Web Site for Point Wells is http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/brightwater/sites/site-pw.htm. As noted on the website, “The site is considered suitable primarily because of its minimal conveyance length, industrial use, enhancement opportunities and community nomination.” Those enhancement opportunities include increased public access to the beach and shoreline.

Neighbor to Neighbor

Is your property over-assessed? Although a view of Puget Sound or the Olympic Mountains is priceless, the King County Department of Assessments has assigned the following values:

Based upon the 2001 Levy Rate (14.09466 per $1000 assessed value), the amount ranges between $422 and $3382 of your property tax bill. Approximately 13% of land parcels in Innis Arden have unobstructed bluff views, another 21% have no views, but the remaining 66% either enjoy, are losing, or have completely lost views. Assessments don’t always reflect the diminishing views experienced in our community. Call the King County Department of Assessments at (206) 296-7300 to see if you are overpaying.

--Submitted by the View Preservation Group

View Preservation Group Meetings

The View Preservation Group meetings are being held on the 3rd Thursday of every month, 7:00 PM at 17730 14th N.W. Neighbors concerned about restoring or preserving their views are encouraged to attend. The next meeting is May 17th.

Thanks!
--Submitted by Carol Solle

Activities Announcements

Salmon BBQ

Mary Cleveland will not be able to chair the Salmon BBQ in July. She will be busy getting ready for Bite of Seattle the following weekend. If folks want to have the event in July (as opposed to September) we need to find a new Chair. Otherwise, Mary said she could do the event in September.

Changes at the Bulletin

Starting next month, Carol Solle will edit the Innis Arden Bulletin and Carol Smith will do layout and design.  Please send all bulletin materials to Carol Solle by e mail (preferably) csolle@earthlink.net or by regular mail to 17061 12th NW, Shoreline, WA  98177, telephone 542-4978.  Congratulations to Carol and Carol from David and Duane!

Innis Arden Bulletin Board

NEED A HOUSESITTER?

I have been housesitting in the Innis Arden neighborhood for 4 years. I manage property, plants, pets and people! If you are going out of town this June-September, for 1 week or a month, give me a call. Katherine Thumlert 425-260-3121 or ktmotives@hotmail.com. Innis Arden references available

Summer Job Wanted

An Occidental College junior student (economy/business with interest in law) is looking for a summer job (office, store, restaurant, construction to name a few) starting end of May. He is an intelligent, reliable, hard working person, has excellent computer knowledge, communication skills and sense of humor. Please call 546-3466 or e mail azs13@home.com.

Bazyl Sledziewski

Got Trash or Yard Waste?
Student w/ pickup available to haul refuse to dump. I also haul dirt, gravel, wood etc. Plus, most yard work and manual labor. Available after June 1st.
Chris 542-9505

RUMMAGE NEWS

Kit Hart (546-0871) and Johanna Warness (542-6984) are Rummage co-chairs. Call them if you have any questions about donating rummage or getting involved.  Thanks!

Community Notices (no anonymous items) – Carol Solle, csolle@earthlink.net, 542-4978
Send written ads to:  Solle, 17061 12th NW, Shoreline WA 98177

Remodels -- Bob Allen, 546-8461