19780124 City Council Minutes174
January 17, 1978 continued
I�
I MOTION:
I MOTION
I MOTION:
1.2, 1.3, and 1.5 on.page 2. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,
THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE UNION AGREEMENTS WITH THE POLICE AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPART-
MENTS. Councilman Gould qualified his second that it was with the understanding that the correc-
tions would be made by the Staff, changing "department" to "division" where necessary and including
the Animal Control Officer in the proper place. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
v
IRENE-VARNEY MORAN,6tity Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
January 24, 1978
The regular meeting of. the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag
salute..
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT •
Harve Harrison, Mayor Phil Clement Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Mike Herb Tom Carns Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Katherine Allen John LaTourelle,.Community Development Director
John Nordquist Noelle Charleson, Assistant City Planner
Ray Gould Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Larry Naughten Art Housler, Acting Finance Director
John Wallace, City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Harrison said the Staff had requested Items (F) and (I) be removed from the Consent Agenda
and be rescheduled for February 7. Councilman Naughten asked that Item (D) be removed, Council-
man Gould requested that Item (G) be removed, and Councilman Nordquist requested that Item (H)
be removed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE
THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent Agenda contained
the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of January 17, 1978.
(C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim .for Damages from Steve Burkhart in the amount of $99.17.
(E) Setting date of February 7, 1978 for hearing of preliminary approval of "Brookview."
(File P-1-78)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO RESCHEDULE ITEMS (F) •
AND (I) TO FEBRUARY 7, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE - SIERRA ST. TO SIERRA PL. [Item (D) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Naughten said that he had been advised by a citizen that there already was a Sierra P1.
in existence and the change would only create more confusion. However, during discussion the
Public Works Director dispelled the confusion by pointing out the locations of Sierra St.,
Sierra Dr., and the proposed Sierra P1. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1970, ESTABLISHING APPEAL PERIOD FROM DECISIONS OF BOARD OF APPEALS [Item (G)
on Consent Agenda
Councilman Gould inquired why an appeal from a Board of Appeals Decision could not go to the
Council, rather than having to go to court. City Attorney John Wallace responded that the
Building Code provides only for appeal to Superior Court. He said one particular reason was that
the appeal would be from a body of expertise of high degree. He said it probably would be best
likened to a Board of Adjustment where the appeal is to Superior Court. He said the Board of
Appeals is set up by the Uniform Building and Fire Code but it did not have a specified time
period for appeal, so the purpose of this ordinance was to make it uniform with Board of Adjust-
ment appeals since some variance authority is granted to the Board of Appeals in both Titles 10
and 11 of the Edmonds City Code. Ten days is the same appeal period as for Board of Adjustment
appeals. Councilman Herb suggested the appeal period might be lengthened to 20 days. Assistant
City Planner Noelle Charleson said the building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period
is elapsed and the number of appeals is usually very small, so for the overwhelming majority of
people who do not appeal they would have to wait another 10 days, and they usually are anxious
to get started. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (G)
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ADOPTING ORDINANCE 1970. MOTION CARRIED.
•
January 24, 1978 - continued
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1971, ADMINISTRATION REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL [Item (H) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Nordquist felt that the preface paragraph of the ordinance overused the words "Finance
Director" and he suggested more concise wording, as follows: "WHEREAS, a study of the present
duties and responsibilities of the Finance Director indicates that the position is overburdened
with administrative details and functions which results in having little time for more creative
and long-range aspects of the vital budgetary and financial management process, and"; and he
suggested paragraph (2) of 1.32.02.1 be amended to read: "Assist the Mayor, through the office of
the MAA. . ."; and, lastly, that paragraph (1) of 1.32.026 be amended to read: ". . . responsible
MOTION: for purchasing control, related record maintenance and purchasing." COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE ABOVE CHANGES BE MADE AND THAT, AS SO AMENDED, ORDINANCE
1971 BE ADOPTED AND ITEM (H) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilman Herb said he would like to bring up for discussion again the matter of informing the
public of matters coming up on the agenda. He said he would also like to have considered notifi-
cation to those living on streams when there is a matter relating to streams set for discussion.
MOTION: fie felt a good -faith effort should be made to notify those affected. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY
COUNCILMAN HERB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO SET FOR DISCUSSION AT THE FEBRUARY."21, 1978
MEETING A REVIEW OF AND SEEKING A BETTER WAY OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Nordquist advised that dinner arrangements had been made for next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m.
• at Sebastian's Restaurant, for a dinner -meeting immediately prior to the scheduled work meeting
in the.Council Chambers. The dinner -meeting will be open to the press and the public.
Councilman Nordquist announced that members of Boy Scout Troop 325 from Meadowdale were visiting
the Council meeting this evening. He said they were working towards. their merit badge in communi-
cations which included attendance at a governmental meeting, and they were welcomed by the Mayor
and City Council.
Councilwoman Allen questioned why the City was subscribing to the Wall Street Journal. M.A.A.
Charles Dibble responded that it was because of the City's investment activities.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison advised that the schedule of ex officio members to the Planning Commission and the
Park Board had been distributed. He said if the schedule was inconvenient for anyone it could be
changed.
Mayor Harrison made presentations to three.people in the audience in recognition of their service
to the City. Ken Thomas was recognized for serving on the Edmonds Disability Board from January 1974
to December 1977. Don McQuade was recognized for serving on the Board of Adjustment from February
1972 to November 1977. Larry Naughten was recognized for serving on the Planning Commission from
July 1973 to December 1977.
HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 578,.RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TO REDUCE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 60' TO 45' ON JAMES ST. (File ST-12-77)
Ms. Char.lesonshowed the location of the proposed right-of-way reduction on a vicinity map. It is
between 2nd and 3rd Aves. on James St. and is in conjunction with a condominium proposal. She
• displayed a drawing of the proposed condominium and of a proposed walkway on James St. which will
be constructed by the developer. She said the City had had hopes eventually to construct°a walkway
at this location but funds had not been available to do so, so when this development was planned
the Planning Department had suggested the walkway be incorporated into the development, which the
developer agreed to do. The applicant had proposed dedicating 15' and that the City reduce the
right-of-way by 15'- to accommodate the walkway. The Engineering Department had studied the proposal
and was in agreement. Ms. Charleson showed slides of the si.te. She said the Planning Commission
had approved the proposal and the Community Development Department and Public Works Department
recommended approval. The public portion of the hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and
MOTION: the public portion was closed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE 1972 PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 578. Councilman Gould inquired whether an adequate
..street could be built on a 45' right-of-way. Public Works Director Leif Larson responded that
there was the flexibility and possibility of making the traffic one-way there. He said the street
could not be built to a -commercial standard for a full street, but it.could be built to an apartment
standard. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED.
HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW OF SEAVIEW PINES #2 PRD (File PRD-1-77)
Councilman Nordquist was not present during this hearing nor for votes taken on this matter.
Councilman Herb said he had been concerned that the stream on this site could be affected and he
had called one or two people regarding this item as he felt people should be aware this was coming
up for discussion. He said he had walked through the site with Mr. Nelson. He asked the City
Attorney whether it would be necessary 'that he step down from the hearing. The applicant, Bjorn
Thuesen, was asked if he objected to Councilman Herb's hearing this matter. Mr. Thuesen responded
that he did not object. Assistant City Planner Noelle Charleson explained the PRO concept, stressing
that it does not increase -density. She showed the location of this site on a vicinity map and said
access would be from 194th. The zoning is RS-12. The proposal was to put six homes on the site.
January 24, 1978 - continued
There had been a previous proposal for this site to access from the south but that had not been approved
because the 20' access easement did not meet the street standards, there had been a lot of objection
from neighbors on the access easement, and to avoid the bad intersection at 88th Ave. and.196th St.
The current proposal was to access from the north over a 50' wide rockery which would be necessary to
cross the ravine on the site. The proposal had been approved by the Planning Commission and the Ameni-
ties Design Board, but when it came to the City Council the Council had requested more environmental
information. Ms. Charleson showed slides of the site, noting that the developer would do some land-
scaping at the entrance to shield the existing home adjacent to the entrance from the noise and traffic.
Regarding specific information which the Council had requested, Ms. Charleson stated that calculations
by Reid, Middleton & Associates indicated runoff would not be increased. From a siltation standpoint
she said they would not be pushing any fill into the stream and they will be using polyethylene on the
slope when working there so there will be little disturbance to the stream. There will be a culvert
in the bottom of the rockery for storm water. Ms. Charleson said the applicant is saying the stream
bed will not be affected because they will take appropriate engineering precautions to protect it. She
noted that the area is designated as an environmentally sensitive area. She said the developer was
asked to site all trees 8" or larger in diameter. She said there will not be many trees removed from
the location of the existing right-of-way. She did, however, point out trees that could be saved with
redesign of the houses. Regarding pedestrian traffic in the ravine, Ms. Charleson said the developer
felt the ravine would be policed better under private ownership than otherwise. She stated she still
felt this development would not result in a significant adverse environmental. impact on the area.
She said there was the question of whether the gulley should be filled in with dirt and rocks to provide
the access, and she pointed out that the previous proposal had been for five houses as opposed to six
in this proposal. In summary, she said it was a question of aesthetics --the aesthetic degradation of
the beauty of the valley versus the impact on the neighbors if the access were to be from the south and
the fact that the southern access did not meet street standards. Mayor Harrison inquired whether it
would be more expensive to build a bridge instead of a rockery. Bjorn Thuesen, the developer, responded
that it would cost about $15,000 more to construct a bridge. Mr. Thuesen then responded to Ms. Charleson's •
presentation. He stressed that there is no stream on the site. He said what is referred to as a
stream is the result of the City's drainage. He said this was a good subdivision with ample space
between the homes, and that the homes had been planned by an architect not to disturb the ravine. He
said any excess dirt will be trucked away and none will be pushed into the ravine. Further, that
ground cover w ould be planted when they are finished. He said exposed soil would be covered with
polyethylene during construction so that nothing would be washed away. He stated he wanted to do it
right and that it would be an asset to the City when completed.
Allen deSteiguer of Reid, Middleton & Associates, representing Mr. Thuesen, also stated that the site
did not have a stream and that the flow of water was present only when there was rainfall. He explained
the drainage plan, saying street runoff would be channeled to catch basins with controlled outlets and
roof runoff would be drained by a dry well on each lot. He said the rate of runoff would not be any
greater after development than before development and that the rockery bridge would not affect the
drainage because there will be an 18" culvert which.had been sized to meet the comprehensive storm
water plan of the City. Mr. Thuesen said one home will require pumping of sewage if a bathroom is put
in the basement. Councilman Gould inquired about the environmental impact of foot traffic in the
ravine. Mr. Thuesen responded that any place where there is vacant land there will be children.
Allen Morgan, also of Reid, Middleton & Associates, said they felt it would be detrimental to install
a fence there. fie said the ravine will be the back yard of three of the homes and he felt those home-
owners would prevent any problem. Mr. Thuesen said a neighbor, Mr. Knouse, whose home is 300' to the
north and west of his property, would complain but Mr. Theusen did not think the impact on him would
be great. Mr. Knouse had, at previous meetings, requested fencing to preclude access to the ravine.
Mr. Thuesen said he did not think a fence was the way to handle this and he said if anything was
required he felt a prickly hedge could be planted. Mr. Theusen then showed slides of other sloped
areas which have been developed in this area and of types of homes planned, which he said would be in
the $90,000 range.
Ted Chittenden of 19222 Olympic View Dr. said the stream had been a year-round stream and the 14• •
downstream homeowners were concerned. He said the runoff goes due west and down into the basin which
forms the source of their creek. He said when the natural cover of this area is changed the runoff
will be affected and he felt a calculated risk was being taken if the plat was approved without taking
certain safeguards such as taking a periodic water quality test and notifying the buyers of the homes
of the liability involved if, in fact, the runoff is detrimental to the downward residents. Public
Works Director Leif Larson then displayed a topographic map of the area and explained that the creek
is intermittent at the location of the proposal, but as it reaches Mr. Chittenden's area it is
year-round as it meets with other channels at a pond. Allen deSteiguer added that anytime you convert
a piece of land from just land to residences there will be some impact but he felt the impacts of storm
water runoff would be greatly reduced because of the recent implementation of a number of storm water
management practices. He said this development will not have much of an impact on the drainage channel
and that this two -acre site would have little impact compared to the other 50 acres that drain here.
Mr. Chittenden agreed with Mr. deSteiguer's remark comparing the impact of their site against the other
50 acres draining there. He said, further, that he would have no objection if the water quality is
controlled. Mr. Larson said that sedimentation and oil separation were the only quality controls the
City has specified. Allen Morgan then said he had done the drainage study and he discussed that: He
said Mr. Thuesen is planning on keeping the ravine in its present condition and he will not downgrade
it. He said the catch basins have oil separators designed to prevent oil from going to drainage
channels and siltation is also handled at catch basins. Also, any chemicals coming from homes would
be filtered by the soil before reaching the drainage channel.
Councilman Herb then reviewed the Environmental Checklist prepared by the applicant and pointed out
questions which he felt had been answered incorrectly, indicating no adverse impact when, in fact, he
felt there was adverse impact. Councilman Gould noted that he had made the same observation and had
questioned almost all of the same items which Councilman Herb had questioned.
•
January 24, 1978 - continued
4 7 7'
1
Fred Knouse of 9106 192nd S.W. said his property is about 40' from the subject property, although his
house is something like 300' from it. He said nothing had been mentioned about fire hydrants and he wanted
to know what fire protection there would be for the ravine area. He felt there would be an impact. He
said the stream was intermittent but chemicals, oils, battery acids, etc., will eventually drain down..
He said the subject site is an environmentally sensitive area and he asked that the PRD be held in
abeyance until such time as the Council chooses to direct the Planning Commission on what can be built
in an environmentally sensittive area. He said the ravine would not be supervised by anyone except him-
self and there was a danger of fires being started by unsupervised children. He felt adults would not
use the area. He felt a fence should separate the ravine from the rest of the site, if it were only a
2' stone wall in the northwest corner. He asked who would clean the filters of the controlled orifices,
to which Mr. Larsonresponded that the City would in the public.right-of-way but it would not on private
property. Mr. Brown of 1450 Olympic Ave. was concerned about children in the ravine and debris clogging
the water flow. William Nixon of 8919 196th S.W. said his property was immediately south of the subject
property. He said he had understood from the first hearings that if Mr. Thuesen changed his plans to
comply with the Council's ruling, that everything would be fine. He felt Mr. Thuesen should be permitted
to develop the property if he complied with what was previously ruled. He said Mr. Thuesen was being
asked to solve the whole ecological problem of that area. Mr. Nixon said he knew the stream ran only
intermittently as he walks it. He said that even though he had been against the development at the begin-
ning he was not now since Mr. Thuesen had complied with the Council's requirements. Eugene Taylor of
19310 89th P1. W. said he had yet to see one drop of water in the so-called stream. He said there is
a streambed but no stream.- He,said he is a civil engineer and he could not see how building of these
houses would significantly affect what is happening downstream. fie felt Mr. Thuesen was a competent
individual with the engbneering capabilities to satisfy the City ordinance and control the runoff
farther down.
• Mr. Thuesen then displayed a sketch prepared by former Community Development Director Joe Wallis shortly
after the first development plan was rejected. He noted that the sketch was similar.to what he was now
proposing. He said he had spent thousands of dollars already on this and that it was being blown all
out of proportion. He said he assumed he had development rights. Councilman Naughten asked Mr. Larson
if he was convinced there would be a minimum impact from this development, to which Mr. Larson responded
that the developer was taking all the necessary precautions. He said the Environmental Checklist did
not reflect the answers the Council wanted to see, but the requirements the City has are being met.
Regarding fire protection, he said a fire hydrant will besplaced at the cul-de-sac. The public portion
of the hearing was then closed.
1
•
MOTION:
1
Councilman Gould commented that the Environmental Checklists are accomplished by the developers and he
felt that to get a good statement it should be accomplished by the City Staff with the imput from the
developer. He disagreed with the Checklist submitted for this site, feeling that it was causing a sig-
nificant adverse impact. He said he did feel the water situation was being handled well but he objected
to the rockery. He cited the Edmonds Policy Plan which states that the City should assure that high
quality of site development is required in environmentally sensitive areas and ravines. He said there is
a section which requires streets to conform to natural topography and that the preservation of natural
slopes is required. He suggested one of the solutions to the problem may be that the City should be
the owner of the property. He said that from his view there was no way he could approve this PRD because
it violates the Policy Plan in too many ways. He asked the City Attorney what statement should accompany
a rejection, if the Council should reject this application. City Attorney John Wallace advised that
reasons should be specified. He said any approval must find it serves the public health, safety, and
general welfare, so a disapproval would require a finding that it does not serve the public health, safety,
and general welfare. He said the policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan have been adopted by ordinance
as the plan for the City. He added that the policies are the Council's "fondest wishes" and they are
implemented by the various codes. Councilwoman Allen said the Staff had stated that this plan meets the
present City ordinance. Mr. Wallace responded that the Staff is stating that,the plan meets present
ordinances,but present ordinances do not fully implement the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said the
Council had the choice to accept or reject,,;but it must state the specific reasons for rejection. Mr.
Thuesen said he had started this project prior to its designation as an environmentally sensitive area.
He went on to point out other such areas in Edmonds which had.been developed well. He said there, indeed,
would be fill and rockery at the access -to the site, but it would be done well.. Councilman Gould said he
recognized that Mr. Thuesen is a good builder and will do just as he says he will, but he said he believed
in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and he felt it was in the best Tnteres_t of all of the Citizens 'of Edmonds
that the Policy Plan be followed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. He said this problem would
be faced time and again when each of these environmentally sensitive areas comes up for development,
and possibly they should be kept as open space for all the citizens. Another possibility, he said, was
to find another way to build in there, possibly without so many residences and without rockery and fill.
He suggested that they might take another look at the previous plan.
Councilman Naughten said the thing that bothered him was that there would be so many structures in this
area. He felt it would be less impacted if there were fewer structures on the site. He said he had to
agree that the Policy Plan addresses this type of situation and it was difficult to ignore that.
COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
PRD-1-77 BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN (SECTION 200) AND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
SERVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE IN THAT PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES IS. NOT
ACCOMPLISHED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 12.14.062 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH
COUNCILMEN HERB, GOULD, APJD NAUGHTEN VOTING,YES, AND WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. deSteiguer said that what had been submitted was as required by State law but this was only an
assessment and was not.an•Environmental-Impact Statement. City Attorney John Wallace said the presentation
this evening was on the basis of a negative declaration and the bulk of the hearing was not only a review
of the Staff's finding of no significant adverse impact, but it also was the design review stage. He said
the Council by its motion had rejected the design review stage of this PRD and at this point there was no
reason to go on to an Environmental Impact Statement.
1 January 24, 1978 - continued
is
In reviewing the action taken, Councilman Herb said the stream had been paramount in his mind.
Councilman Gould said the water was all right as far as he was concerned. Ms. Charleson noted
that the major objections were the rockery as an access and the number of units proposed. She
said.it appeared the next step was to propose another plan to meet the objections the Council had
made. Community Development.Director John LaTourelle said the Staff would have a very difficult
time advising Mr. Thuesen as to what he should do now, particularly in view of the fact that the
Planning Commission rejected what was, in his view, a superior proposal --that of accessing from the
south. He said it would have required a variance in addition to getting positive public reaction.
He said it appeared the density was one of the keys. He noted the previous proposal did propose
fewer lots and did not have 370' of additional roadway brought in from the north. He agreed that
the Policy Plan did address such things as the proposed rockery, but he said the Staff was caught
in a trap. They could not ask the applicant to go back to the Planning Commission with a proposal
they have rejected and ask the applicant to develop access on that property with what is a sub-
standard •roadway by the City's own ordinance. He said that, in his opinion, in the main the appli-
cant had addressed all the significant issues this plat raised and there had to be some limit to
the amount of data that is gathered and submitted. He said he personally felt what was presented
here was appropriate. Councilman Gould stated that Mr. LaTourelle was not interpreting the Policy
Plan as he was, and Mr. LaTourelle responded that he had read the Policy Plan and had cited six
different sections in support of this proposal and, ironically, one of them was one which Councilman
Gould had cited against it. He said the word "significant" was very important, and that they, as
a department, must not be as sensitive as the Council about that definition. He said the Staff
needed to know what to ask of the applicant. He said also the adequacy of the environmental assess-
ment was a question, that some of the representations the Council did not agree with either because
they were not sufficient or because factually the Council could not agree with them. Councilman
Naughten said he wasn't concerned with the drainage or the road, but the northeast home on 194th
bothered him and for that reason he thought a delicate area was being overcrowded. He felt that
without that home there would not be the large negative impact. He said five units instead of six
would be acceptable to him. Councilwoman Allen said she felt neither the applicant nor the Planning
Department had been given any guidance. She felt the grounds on which this was rejected were
nebulous. There followed further discussion of the Policy Plan and its requirements regarding
natural contours. Councilman Gould said he could only state there was the problem but he could
not say how to do it differently, except possibly for the City to own the property. He felt
further that one or more of the homes should be eliminated. Councilman Herb said he had been con-
cerned mainly over the effect on the stream but after all the testimony and discussion he was now
MOTION: ready to reconsider. COUNCILMAN HERB THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE MOTION
TO REJECT PRD-1-77 BE RECONSIDERED AND THE MATTER BE TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR SEVERAL WEEKS TO
PERMIT TIME TO DISCUSS THE OVERALL SITUATION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERB,
ALLEN, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND COUNCIL MEMBER GOULD VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN HERB
MOTION: THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO CONTINUE PRD-1-77 TO FEBRUARY 21, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW Of EDMONDS WEST CABARET DANCE LICE14SE - 60-DAY TRIAL PERIOD EXPIRES JANUARY 29
City Clerk Irene Varney Moran reported that there had been no policing problems during the trial
period of this license and she therefore recommended that the license issued be extended to the
annual basis, with the requirement of continued approved security or police personnel in attendance.
MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN HERB, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE CABARET DANCE LICENSE
ISSUED TO THE EDMONDS WEST TAVERN BE EXTENDED TO THE ANNUAL BASIS, WITH APPROVED SECURITY OR POLICE -
PERSONNEL TO BE IN ATTENDANCE. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION:
MOTION:
REVISION TO SEPTIC TANK CODE
Public Works Director Leif Larson reported that home owners may design and install. their own septic
tank disposal systems, but many had not been done in accordance with standard practices for sewage
disposal. He said that with the increase in building activity and the economic pressure on
developing marginal properties more professional analysis of individual sites was needed. He recom-
mended that the Code be changed to require that only certified persons design and install septic
disposal systems. Councilman Gould said he thought, for the protection of the City, it was necessary
to have the systems designed by professionals but he ;saw no reason why a person could not install
his own system if it were designed by a certified.professional.. Mr. Larson responded that on
installation it could be marginal whether the percolation.was all right and the person could
indicate it was all right then have septic tank failure. He said the City.is becoming more dense
and water quality control is increasing, and septic tank failures lead to degradation of water.
He said it was important that they be professionally des.i;gned and most people do have them installed
by a contractor. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,.THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY
BE INSTRUCTED TO REDRAFT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISING THE SEPTIC TANK CODE, DELETING SECTION
11.20.100, AND THAT THIS MATTER BE CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 7 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
SET HEARING DATE ON ALTERNATIVES FOR EDMONDS 201 FACILITY PLAN (SEWAGE TREATMENT
As requested by the Public Works Director, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO SET JANUARY 31, 1978 AS THE HEARING DATE ON ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EDMONDS 201
FACILITY PLAN. MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, ty Clerk
1
1
E
1
1
1
•