Resolution 5459 - Laserfiche WebLink

8. The south side of Bigelow Creek is a sloped area that extends to the top of the bank. According to the Appellants, the area has been overrun by non-native plants, including blackberry bushes. The blackberry bushes are thick and have impeded the function of the slope. In addition, the thick growth has become a collector of unwanted garbage that has been thrown from the right-of-way of 49th Avenue SE. The garbage included trash bags, tires, batteries and other junk. (John Arendt testimony) 9. The Appellants contended that the blackberries on the south slope were cut back for the purpose of removing the non-native plant and cleaning the general area of the accumulated garbage. They submitted that this activity was an improvement for the quality of the stream because it removed potential toxics from batteries and other pollutants from flowing into the stream. (Arendt testimony) The City contended that the removal of the blackberries and the clearing of the south slope was in direct violation of the Environmentally Sensitive Area Ordinances of the City of Everett, and in particular EMC 19.37.040, and, a violation of the Environmentally Sensitive Area Protective Covenant (exhibit 2) between the Appellants and the City. (Landles testimony) 10. The Appellants contended that they never sought approval from the City to remove the vegetation on the south slope, but they did not consider such approval necessary because of the nature of the vegetation and their intent to clean the property. (Arendt testimony) 11. The Appellants contended that significant amounts of labor and money were expended to remove the debris and the blackberries from the south slope; and as a result of this activity, the buffer zone on the south side of Bigelow Creek has been enhanced in a manner consistent with the City of Everett Planning Director's decision. They contended that the activity has improved the site, and it far outweighs the adverse impacts of garbage on- site. (Arendt testimony, exhibit 31) 12. The Appellants contended that it was their belief that the Environmentally Sensitive Area Protective Covenant signed on August 31, 1998, allowed clearing to occur in order to install the modular home. With the replanting proposed by the Appellants and the activity that occurred, it was the understanding of the Appellants that the covenant applied to development of the site and not the removal of the vegetation on the south slope. (exhibits 2 & 31, Arendt testimony) 13. The City submitted that it is seeking relief because the south slope buffer zone that has been denuded is now less functional than the undisturbed buffer for this site. The clearing has created potential instability of the slope and allows invasive materials to protrude into the general area. (Landles testimony) The Appellants, however, submitted that the 5