Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-08 Committee of the Whole MinutesCity Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Council Chambers MINUTES The Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was called to order by Council President Saul at 7:05 P.M. December 8, 1980 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES DISCUSSION Prop. Ord. amending 1980 Budget approp. funds for Municipal Court Recording Sys. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, Council President DANIEL J. SAUL, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 24, 1980 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Greg Trzaska, Lanier Business Machines, said the State has standardized one vendor for the recording system for the courts. They will have to provide a four channel recording system for the courts, using 4 tapes. The State and Lanier have agreed that because of the extremely high value performance bond there are certain requirements that will have to be adhered to. Basically, they are that they would not tie into P. A. systems or use existing microphones because there is the possibility of jeopardizing the operation of the unit and then it comes to the performance bond that they have with the State. The question for tonight seems to be why cannot that be done? Councilman Van Dusen said in order to continue using the microphones we have to record Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings it will affect the warranty. They will not give the City a warranty on that system, but that does not void any of the court require- ments. In lieu of this the City would have to purchase a service contract for this system. Mr. Trzaska said the cost of a service contract would be approxi- mately $165 a year on a manual basis. Councilman Van Dusen said he suggested that the Council use the recording systems that we have, it might cost a little more for the service contract, but it would be worth it. The other cost not mentioned is that Lanier would have to switch us over from the 4 mikes they would use for court to all of the mikes used by the Council. They would also have to check the wiring. Mr. Trzaska said they would like to ask, because of their responsi- bility with the State and the immenseness of the contract with the State, that they draft a letter and have someone from the Council approve it, relieving them of liability with the State if the machine happens to break down at one of the Council meetings and the court needs it on a subsequent morning. They would not want the State to hold them to their commitments in terms of fixing the equipment in a certain period of time because it did not break down in a court room situation. Councilman Van Dusen said Lanier would be fixing it under whatever agreement the Council agrees upon. Mr. Trzaska said that was correct. Councilman Harris said it appears that the City should have two of them in order to have a back -up in case of a breakdown. What would be the installation cost for the additional? Mr. Trzaska said the installation for an additional unit would be approximately $500, not including the cost the the unit. The unit would cost $1,399. Councilman Van Dusen asked if the Council could have the exact figures for the cost of the installation of the comprehensive system so the Council can make a decision Monday night as to whether they go to that system or go back to the original proposal that Lanier presented. Mr. Trzaska said they would present the cost information at next week's meeting. Councilman Bohrer asked for an explanation as to how the Council microphones might harm the recording system. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Ord. amending 1980 Budget approp. funds for Municipal Court Recording Sys. contd. Gail Schwanke, service technician for Lanier, said there is an infinite possibility of things that could happen. Basically they want to protect themselves. They have a performance bond they have to protect and an agreement with the State that they would not inte- grate. Councilman Bohrer said the State prohibits Lanier from saying they can use the City's microphones? Mr. Schwanke said the State does not prohibit it, but the terms of the contract are that Lanier is install- ing their system and they are not to interface with another system. That is their protection. The State is protected by Lanier posting a bond. Lanier is protected by the fact that they are not integrating with other systems. They know what the Lanier system will do, if their system breaks they are responsible to fix it. For that reason, because of the turn- around limitations the State has put on Lanier, eight business hours to fix it and have an operating system, they have not tied in other P. A. systems because they do not know, there is a wide variety of P. A. systems across the State in different court rooms, and they do not know the technical aspects of all of them. Councilman Bohrer said surely it is possible to establish a design requirement for a recording system which is all this is, so it can be sold from any of a hundred companies. Why doesn't the State do that approach rather than letting out a bid to one bidder? We have no competition. We are forced by the State to buy the Lanier system. It is a monopoly situation, we are going to have to fight the State to get them to repay the City for any portion of the cost. It seems that it would be very possible to set up the specification for the system and let any of a hundred companies bid on it individually. Mr. Schwanke said this has already been done. Lanier did bid on the contract. This is the way the State purchasing operates. The State lets contracts on various categories of equipment and all vendors are invited to bid, they send in their bids, and the State purchasing selects a particular vendor for a particular category of equipment. Two years ago for other types of equipment it was a competitor. Councilman Bohrer said the question is, is it not possible to establish a specification for what has happened here and let the City choose what equipment it wants? Mr. Schwanke said he was sure it is possible, but that question would have to be addressed to the State. Someone at the State level decided that it would be done at State level and it has been done. The contract was let at the State level. It could have been let at the County level. Councilman Bohrer said he had no problem with what the State has done. He said one problem he has is that he does not understand the proposal that has been presented, what the City is to get, what it is going to cost the City. He said he would like to see what the City agrees to purchase, also a written description from Lanier as to how the microphones can harm the Lanier recorder. Mr. Schwanke said on one of the proposals that has been discussed the microphone will not feed directly into the Lanier system. All of the microphones would feed into the amplifier, they are all mixed together, and you get an output which is a total output of all micro- phones. That is the signal that would be fed into the Lanier recor- der. That same signal also feeds the speakers, it is taken off a slightly different point. A voltage surge coming out of the amplifier, for instance, could overload and cause a problem in the recorder. Councilman Bohrer asked if they were not providing an interface unit between that device and the recorder? Mr. Schwanke said they had not got into those details yet. He said he got the model number off the equipment that is being used but he had not found the specifications for it. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 3 Prop. Ord. amending 1980 Budget approp. funds for Municipal Court Recording Sys. contd. Councilman Bohrer said if he has not gone into the details yet how can they say it will harm their recorder? Mr. Schwanke said he had not said it would, and they have said it to all of the courts across the State, but it could. Due to the fact that Lanier has a $350,000 performance bond with the State Lanier has chosen not to take the chance, not to expose themselves, because under the contract they are not required to. Councilman Bohrer said then because of Lanier's desire not to take that risk, and he said he understood that, the City is exposed to higher mandated costs from the State than it might otherwise be. By selecting Lanier and putting them in a monopoly position the State is not only mandating costs on the City, but it is establishing that those costs are higher than they might otherwise be. Mr. Schwanke said the contract was basically for the purpose of the court use. What the Council is doing is trying to use it for double duty, to get the most out of the system. The contract was written for the court room use. Councilman Bohrer said the City has a number of recorders, would it not be possible under this system to take one of those and plug it directly into the amplifier so the output goes directly to the recorder. Mr. Schwake said that was possible. Councilman Bohrer then asked if there was a way of uncoupling that amplifier from the microphone in a fashion, that lets the City use the Lanier recorder without the possibility that Mr. Schwanke has talked about? The mere fact that the City has microphones that they want to use puts the City in a situation that Lanier cannot accept the risk? Mr. Schwanke said all possibilities can never be eliminated. With an interface device there would be a very low probability of the P. A. system causing any damage to the Lanier equipment. In other words, you would not have a direct connection. For Council meetings all of the microphones could be run into the P. A. amplifier, mix them as is being done now, and there is an output, a mixed output available out of the amplifier, which Lanier could take and run into the recorder. There would be no direct connection from the microphone into the recorder. Councilman Van Dusen said we are changing the contract that Lanier has established with the State and we have to establish a separate service contract. After one year we would have to go to a service contract. We would be starting one year early. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to see a comparison of what the items are, what the circuit diagrams are, what the system that is being proposed would provide under the contract with the State, what we are asking to be done here and what the costs would be. He said until he sees that comparison he cannot tell whether the City is saving money or not. Councilman Van Dusen said Lanier has been asked to provide this information for the next meeting. Councilman Bohrer said because the State has passed a law early in December saying we have to have something by the first of January, it does not commit him to jump through that hoop. Mr. Schwanke said what the City wants is a one track recording. There is no need for the purpose of the Council meetings to separate the microphones on different tracks. Councilman Bohrer said it was his understanding that even if the City used the Lanier recorder we were not going to do that, they were mixing all of them. Mr. Schwanke said that was the simple way to do it. Councilman Bohrer said he was interested in the comparison, one, the system that was discussed with Councilman Van Dusen, and two, the system that Lanier is providing to all of the people that the State calls for. He said he would also like to see a listing of the costs. Maxine Anderson, City Clerk, said the system has to be in by January 1, 1981 and ready for court on January 2, 1981. Mr. Trzaska said the equipment is in stock. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 4 Prop. Ord. reclassify- ing certain lands from R -1 -12 to R -3 R -4 within City as descri- bed in Planning Dept. Master File #80 -38 -R. McAllister Condo Proj. Waiver: Dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units each. 304 Council President Saul said the proposed ordinance would be discussed at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting on December 22, 1980. Council President Saul said since the discussion on this matter could be quite lengthy, he suggested that a meeting be held on December 29, 1980 where just this one item could be discussed. He said since the applicant is present at the meeting, a preliminary discussion could be held at this time. William McAllister, applicant, said they would like to have the Council reponsive to their proposed project. He said they have something to present to the Council and it might take some time. Councilman Hill said he felt in all fairness to the applicant the Council should have a meeting just for the purpose of the discussion. Mr. McAllister said he had been working on the project for two years. Council President Saul said the applicant could present a preliminary overview of the project so the Council can be thinking about it prior to the meeting on December 29, 1980. Lee Loveland, architect, presented a drawing of the proposed project. The present zoning classification was established in 1971; the westerly portion is R -4 and the remainder is C -l. On the basis of that zoning they would be allowed 120 units on the land. There is a comprehensive plan not yet approved. That plan shows this prop- erty to be divided into 3 zones: commercial, single family, and medium density. He said they have done significant research on this and their conclusion is that single family zoning makes no sense because of the topography and sub -soil conditions; the commercial zone poses some problems with ingress and egress. Their proposal is for 58 units of multi family housing in 12 buildings. In Chapter 18.46 of the new land use ordinance there is a special section identified as Special Unit Developments which states it is the "purpose of the chapter to encourage imaginative site and build- ing design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this code." He said their office has been involved in other cities where they have specific planned use development. They have tried to handle the design of the proposed project in a creative way. According to the zoning they could develop up to 120 units, their plan is for 58 units. Their project proposal is less intensive; there is a clustering of buildings and a green belt maintained all of the way down to the road. Mr. Loveland said they had some difficulties with the Staff Report with regard to the action recommended which is to table the application pending the review of the new zoning ordinance text and map as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said they have spent time and money on the proposed project. A tree count has not been made. They cannot continue the project analysis unless approval of the project is indicated. He said they would like to work with Staff and Council and mitigate any difficulties the City might have. Councilman Bohrer asked if there has been a site survey? Mr. Love- land said they have completed a soils investigation of the site. Their engineers feel they can design the project on the site. Some parts that are steep will be left in the green state. There would not be commercial plans for the area. Councilman Bohrer said it appears that parking lots and buildings cover about 75% of the area. Mr. Loveland said the acreage is 4.68; the buildings cover 39,150 square feet, the landscaping 117,650 square feet and paving 40,700 square feet. Mr. Loveland said they did not survey the steep part as it was not practical to build on it. He said if Council would like to visit the site they would be glad to meet and point out the project. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 5 DISCUSSION Contd. McAllister Condo Proj. Waiver: Dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units each contd. Council President Saul stated perhaps one reason they have planned only 58 units is because it is so expensive to build and another reason is probably the steepness of the hill. Mr. Loveland said the cost of excavating the property might be in excess of $450,000, they have not received a bid on it. 3 Councilman Phelps asked if there is a project they have built that the Council might look at. Mr. Loveland said he would provide that information to the Planning Department. Councilman Bohrer asked if they would consider building on pilings rather than excavating. Mr. Loveland said they would, as they get into the site that would be a consideration. Sconzo Associates, Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said in December 1979 repre- Appeal of BAR decision. sentatives of LDR and Normed, Inc. petitioned the City Council to vacate 44th Place South (former public street, dividing the adjacent sites of the two industrial concerns). The petitioners, in requesting the street vacation, asserted that private use of 44th Place as a joint driveway serving the two sites would reduce the number of individual curb breaks opening on South 134th Street and would facilitate a coordinated approach to design and development of the two sites. The two projects were reviewed jointly by the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Architectural Review, in September 1980. As a means of reinforcing the concept of a coordinated appearance to two projects, LDR was required to provide a 5' wide planter strip on their common boundary with the non vacated 44th Place South. To provide this planter setback will require reducing the width of the planned LDR building by 5' as no side yard setback on either the north or south edge of the building is proposed. The applicants are appealing the BAR's decision to the Council in hopes that the side yard requirement will be overturned. Mr. Caughey said before vacating 44th Place South, the Public Works Committee negotiated a Developer's Agreement with both LDR and Normed, the property to the north, the terms of which governed use of the vacated 40' right -of -way. Provision 2 required a 5' sidewalk and a 5' wide landscape berm on the north edge of the vacated area adjacent to Normed. During the review the BAR determined that visual coordination of the two adjoining sites could be enhanced by providing a 5' wide planter area on both sides of the driveway, serving the two sites. The LDR building was designed in 1978 and included parking and other private land uses within 44th Place South. They contend that further modifications of their design concept, beyond what has already been done to comply with terms of the street vacation developer's agreement, is an unwarranted hardship. Mr. Caughey said it is the staff recommendation to uphold the BAR decision and require a 5' wide planter area setback on the north edge of the LDR site adjoining 44th Place South. The M -1 zone in which this property is located, does not require any side yard setback. They believe that the Board has acted in the public interest in requiring a 5' side setback in order to preserve the coordinated development concept, establish development standards for the area, and to be consistent with the new zoning ordinance. Chris Anderson, Sconzo Associates, said their engineering and architectural plans were issued in 1978. In May they were asked for additional landscaping and setback beyond that required in Resolution 729. He said he and Mr. Aden expressed their concerns about the landscaping. He said they feel that the additional land- scaping along the side would mean they would have to redesign the building. This would be a hardship. Resolution 729 asked for land scaping and sidewalk on the north side after vacation of the street. Access to the building was by the vacation of the street. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 6 DISCUSSION Contd. Sconzo Associates, Appeal of BAR decision contd. RECESS 8:30 8:38 P.M. Foster Golf Course Foot Bridge Report. Councilman Van Dusen said he recalled sidewalks and landscaping would have been required but some particular reason was given and we agreed to it as long as there was a sidewalk and land- scaping on the other side. Mr. Anderson said the landscaping and sidewalks were discussed and the type of foot traffic there would be on the site. At the time the people from Normed had 10' landscaping strip and turned it into a 5' sidewalk that would be sufficient. He said their building had been done based on that decision. Larry Shaw, Normed, said they originally contacted the City in 1979 and felt they had a good project and could work with the City and Planning Department if they agreed to certain setbacks. He said he thought the important point was that when the building was designed by LDR the street was not vacated. At that time it was his understanding that the setback was required. The building was developed and planned in 1978 and at that time the street was a City street. The reason they would like to see the landscaping is that the street was vacated and they have to go down the road to their building and they would be looking at the bleak walls of the building. This was discussed with the Planning Commission and they agreed there should be some kind of landscaping. We will have a concrete wall looking at us. There could be safety problems also. We have agreed to move the building back to have landscaping. They would like to have it also on the other side of the street. The City codes require setbacks. It was Normed who requested the street vacation. A 5' setback would not destroy their project. He said they could not get a site plan from Sconzo.., Mr. Anderson said the site plans were available and were developed before Mr. Shaw bought the property. 303) Councilman Bohrer said the street was a public street in 1978 and if there was not a 5' setback it was not according to code. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE SCONZO ASSOCIATES APPEAL OF BAR DECISION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 15, 1980 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Councilman Harris asked if both of these buildings are in the formative state? Mr. Anderson said neither have been built yet. He said they have agreed to modify the offices and put on a lot of wood to make the building more attractive. They have no intention of putting up an unsightly building. It is difficult to camouflage a warehouse. Mark Caughey, Planning Department, said the developers have agreed on most aspects, LDR has agreed to change the surface of the building, they are trying to cooperate. We are down to the landscaping. The Council is the appeal authority for the BAR. Council President Saul said the Council would like to know the effect of reducing the 5' setback from the street. Mark Caughey, Planning Department, said he would have a building report from the Fire Department for the next meeting. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Saul, with Council Members present as previously listed. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, stated on November 28, 1980 the golf course manager observed the loosening of one of the suspension cables, which caused the sagging of the suspended TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 7 DISCUSSION Contd. Foster Golf Course Foot Bridge Report contd. walkway. We concluded the bridge should be closed. On December 1 the Public Works Department made a field inspection of the bridge. Due to extensive nature of the problem, Entranco Engineers was requested to evaluate the problem. They were selected as they are considered the most knowledgeable of the bridge details and they could respond most expeditiously to the City's concern. We had made some corrections and modifications in 1979 to the bridge. Entranco had recommended at that time that the City monitor the cable for movement as their study did not evaluate the condition of the buried anchors which the cables are connected to. During the 1980 summer the Public Works' inspection indicated no movement. The recent failure of the anchor cables indicates a total failure of the anchoring system. The loosening of the cable, on one of the west anchor connections, caused the west tower to tilt towards the river, causing the walkway to slant. Public Works has now provided a secure barrier at each end of the bridge and cordoned off the area to restrict public access. In discussion with Entranco Engineers, a decision was made to place a temporary above ground anchor and attach a temporary cable to absorb part of the cable stress. This will assure safety for Public Works personnel who will then proceed to remove large portions of the existing dead load on the bridge. This dead load is comprised of the walkway planks and stringers. Removal of this dead load will relieve the loading on the anchors and permit construction of permanent new anchors in the future. Entranco was requested to develop preliminary alternative plans and cost estimates: 1) Minimal cost plan to open the bridge for public use by March 1981; and 2) Modify existing bridge to provide a suitable bridge with a life of at least 40 years. This alternative could mean a new bridge if modifications become too extensive and approaches the cost of a new bridge. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said approximate costs on repair or new bridge would be: 1. Replace anchors, utilizing existing bridge material, which would serve one to two years: $65,000. 2. New cables and anchors: $140,000. 3. In addition to above repairs, a new tower and bridge deck: $170,000. 4. New bridge: $200,000. The cost of the new bridge would be based on how wide the bridge should be. S03 Councilman Phelps asked what other types of construction might be considered for the bridge other than suspension type? Mr. Uomoto said it could be a truss type of construction, it depends on what the City wants as far as traffic over the bridge is concerned. The bridge distance is 175 feet. Councilman Harris said it has always been called a foot bridge, it has now developed into a cart bridge. Councilman Bohrer said the function of the bridge is use and maintenance of the golf course. Don Williams, Recreation Supervisor, said just 9 holes on the golf course are being used due to the bridge. January, February, and March are low play months although we will lose some play for those wanting to play 18 holes. This will affect the revenue at the restaurant and pro shop. Roy Moore, golf course manager, said the breakdown of the bridge will affect the revenue. The revenue is down about $2,000. This affects them as managers. The minimum rent will be higher than the receipts. If the bridge is going to be out of operation for any period of time they will be coming to the Council asking them to look at the contract. The fees were less than $250 over the week end. The economical impact of the bridge will be felt. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 8 DISCUSSION Contd. Foster Golf Course Foot Mr. Moore said they do not take mowers across the bridge, but they Bridge Report Contd. do take a tractor across it. The present bridge has served the golf course for 50 years. A golf cart weighs about 800 pounds. Prop. Ord. concerning water rates regula- tions. Mayor Todd asked how much the green fees would have to be increased over the next two to three years to fix the bridge? Mr. Moore said 25 to 50 cents to recover the cost. He said he could give this information to the Mayor tomorrow. 3o33 Councilman Van Dusen asked about the engineering costs on the estimates presented by Mr. Uomoto. He asked if the City has per- sonnel who could do part of the work. Mr. Uomoto said it would cost more if the City did the work in increments. He said the City could construct the anchors. Also a soils study would have to be provided. Mr. Uomoto said if the City wants something temporary the bridge should be repaired and then look toward a new bridge. Last year $11,000 was spent on repairs to the bridge. Councilman Bohrer said he felt the Council did not have the necessary information to make a decision on whether to repair the bridge or build a new one. Nothing has been suggested as to how the City might finance the bridge. We understood the bridge was a risk area when the City acquired the golf course. We do not know if we should band aid it or go ahead with a new bridge. If the green fees are increased 25 to 50 cents we do not know what repair that will cover. It may be necessary to increase the fees to $1.00, $1.50, or $2.00 to make the repair. Council President Saul asked Mr. Uomoto to present this informa- tion at the next meeting. Mayor Todd said if the bridge is replaced it will be necessary to have a Coast Guard permit. Council President Saul said the matter will be considered at the next meeting where the requested information can be presented. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said the proposed ordinance shows a revision of the rates in accordance with the past discus- sions. He said they have come up with the average cost of the 3/4" meter. Ted Freemire, Public Works Superintendent, said in averaging up the costs they did not have the records for 1978, this was a guess; in 1979 they had better records, and in 1980 the records showed an actual overhead of 16.9 Councilman Van Dusen said Horton and Dennis said overhead should be 25 Mr. Freemire said the 25% included benefits and things for the Water Department itself. Discussion continued on the percentage overhead. Council President Saul said the cost of installing a meter has increased to $750. He said he called Auburn and they have a charge of $275 plus the meter, so it would cost $675. It seems $750 is a bit high for installation. Mr. Freemire said he had made some calls and the City of Kent considers it takes 4 hours for 2 men to install a meter if the ditches are dug. Mr. Freemire said the Water Department is supposed to be supporting itself. In Renton they consider it takes two men 6 hours to install a meter. Councilman Bohrer said our experience shows the average is $669. He said he thought $750 was reasonable, based on that information. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE CHARGE BE $650. MOTION FAILED, WITH SAUL, BOHRER, AND HILL VOTING NO; VAN DUSEN, PHELPS, AND HARRIS VOTING YES. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING )ecember 8, 1980 Page 9 )ISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Ord. concerning eater rates regula- tions contd. Prop. Ord. providing For Cumulative Reserve =und for purpose of renewing replacing )lant equipment for eater system. Prop. Ord. amending )rd. #934, repealing )rd. #1136 to increase Metro rates. Prop. Ord. amending )rd. #1165 to provide reduced Metro rates For Senior citizens. =inal acceptance of the 57th Ave. S. 3. 147th Str. Improve nent Project. B. $3,000 to cover additional expenses for the Corridor Map Board System. $1,250 approved under BTM #80 -35. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE RATES BE ROUNDED UP TO THE NEXT EVEN DOLLAR. MOTION FAILED, WITH VAN DUSEN, HARRIS, AND SAUL VOTING NO; BOHRER, PHELPS, AND HILL VOTING YES. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE WORD "WHICH" BE DELETED FROM THE THIRD LINE OF SECTION 7 (a) OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 15, 1980 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH HARRIS VOTING NO. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said Valley Cement Construction Company, contractor, has completed the 57th Avenue South and South 147th street improvement project. There were a few minor items that needed to be completed before final acceptance. Those items have been completed. The project has been completed according to the plan, specifications, and change orders. The workmanship and materials are guaranteed by the contractor through his performance bond for a period of one year from date of final acceptance. The original cost of the project was $224,983.00. The final construction cost is $212,329.75. The major reason for the difference in the construction cost is the result of changes made in the field which reduced some unit quantities or final quantities were simply less than the estimated quantity. He said he recommended the street improvement project be accepted as final. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. Budget Transfer Motions: 4. $22,000 to allow Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, stated the $22,000 transfer funding for unexpected request represented other items than unexpected expenditures in expenditures for gasoline. It represents repairs and maintenance to police cars gasoline. and other parts and supplies. Councilman Harris said the printout would tell how much was for gasoline, and how much for other items. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER AND VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. Council President Saul said he would like a breakdown of the expenditures for next week's meeting. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 10 DISCUSSION Contd. Budget Transfer Motions: C. $8,000 unanticipated major fire truck repairs. D. $2,100 to cover Civil Service Secretary wages in excess of budgeted amount. E. $16,585 to cover extra labor budget trsfr. correction. F. $625 part -time labor vacation coverage. Letter from Charles E. East- wood concerning uncompleted project on private property under 59th Ave. S. Str. Improvement Project. Letter from Ronn Griffin re guidelines for devel. of Tukwila Pond property. EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:15 10:51 P.M. 3035 It was noted that this is a transfer of funds within the Fire Department. Councilman Bohrer said he would like a breakdown of the expenses. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION BE MOVED FnRWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION FOR THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION FOR THE CITY CLERK /MUNICIPAL COURT TRANSFER MOTION BE MOVED FORWARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE LETTER FROM CHARLES E. EASTWOOD CONCERNING UNCOMPLETED PROJECT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THE 59TH AVENUE SOUTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.* Councilman Van Dusen said Mr. Eastwood had been informed of the action the City would take on his property. He was informed that anything he wanted done over and above that he would have to pay for. Councilman Phelps asked if Mr. Eastwood agreed to the offer made by the Council? Ted Uomoto, Pubic Works Director, said Mr. Eastwood did not agree to the offer. Councilman Hill said Mr. Eastwood would not accept the rockery or the cyclone fence, he wants a concrete retaining wall and a fence of simulated wrought iron. Councilman Bohrer said he thought Mr. Eastwood's reference to work the City has done on other property was a case of property owners having provided for part of the expense and the City had added the safety features. Councilman Van Dusen suggested that the City notify Mr. Eastwood that the Council will not provide further improve- ments. *MOTION FAILED. Council President Saul said the Public Works Department would write a letter to Mr. Eastwood stating the City Council will offer what they did before. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE LETTER FROM RON GRIFFIN REGARDING GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TUKWILA POND PROPERTY BE REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL CLOSE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. The Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Saul with Council Members present as previously listed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 11 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Ord. repealing provisions of Ord. #973 establishing separate depts. of Planning, Building, and Recreation in the City. ADJOURNMENT 11:24 P.M. Mayor Todd explained his position on eliminating the position of OCD Director. He said the portion was not justified. Councilman Bohrer asked the Mayor about his intentions of filling the position if it were funded by the Council. Mayor Todd said he would not fill it. Councilman Bohrer said since the Administration had not filled the OCD Director position the function has not been operating satisfactorily to date. It has been a disaster; examples of agenda items such as Sunwood and the sign code have repeatedly been coming to the Council. There will be little saving in elevating three supervisors to Department Heads over hiring an OCD Director. The discussion continued. Council President Saul said he sat on the Council when the position of OCD Director was created and he feels it is more economical not to have it. A reorganization of the OCD elements seems more efficient. Councilman Harris said she felt it is more efficient to have an OCD Director than three department heads. Councilman Phelps said she felt there is a need for a Planning Director to administer SEPA, zoning and other City laws pertaining to planning. It is appropriate to place the building official under the direction of the Public Works Director as long as the Council is discussing combining inspection duties with the building inspector for water /sewer. She said she had no particular opinion on the organization of recreation. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 973 AND ESTABLISHING THE SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND RECREATION IN THE CITY BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 15, 1980 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Dan Saul, City Council President Norma Booher, Recording Secretary 50,36. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Tukwila: City Council, Mayor Todd, Department Heads FROM: L. C. Bohrer, Councilman DATE: 15 December 1980 SUBJECT: Council Direction to the Staff —or Conflict of Interest and Intimidation? At the 8 December Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Todd stated; 1) that I, as Councilman, had issued direction to a member of the city staff; and 2) that direction necessitated the expenditure of seven staff manhours to prepare the response. That response included a survey to determine the elevation of fill on his property at 58th Avenue and Interurban Avenue. He stated that other Council members had also issued direction to the staff and that he would shortly act to insure that all Council inquiries to the staff were channeled through the Mayor's office. Copies of my memorandum to the Building Official (the purported cause of the Mayor's statements) and his memorandum in reply are attached. Also attached are the chronology of events from my point of view and a related memorandum from the Public Works Director. My comments on this subject and other matters follow. 1. DIRECTION TO THE STAFF 1.1 The Memorandum--Note that all items except the last end with question marks. They can hardly be interpreted as direction. The last item does request an answer by 5:00 p.m., but gives the official a choice between: 1) the answers to my questions, presumably in pre- paration since my verbal request 11 days earlier as noted in the chronology (item 2); or 2) the date when said answers would be provided. The alternative effectively nullifies the issue of direction. 1.2 The Survey--The level of response was established by the administration. I did not request the survey or the re- survey (see my memorandum). An "eyeball" estimate (see chronology item 1) or a five minute task with the city -owned hand level would have been adequate. Either approach would have indicated whether a violation existed. Normal City policy, in the event of possible violation, would be to require the developer to run the survey, stake the site and verify compliance with conditions. In this instance City funds were expended to perform a function that should have been provided by the developer, Frank Todd. Note from Mr. Pieper's memorandum that the investigations revealed two violations; 1) the fill elevation exceeded the permitted elevation; and 2) fill had been pushed into the river zone. To: Tukwila City Council, Mayor Todd, December 15, 1980 Department Heads Page Two 1.3 Notification--The Mayor was informed of my request before either survey was performed (see chronology item 4.2). Thus, the actions following ensued at his direction, or with his concurrence, or at the initiative of the Building Official. 1.4 Conclusions--The Mayor's charge of "direction to the staff" is unjustified. City policy has been that; 1) city staff promptly answer routine questions from the Council; and 2) the city staff seek concurrence and /or prioritization direction from the Mayor if the Council request is more than routine. This policy is a reasonable one and was followed apparently in this instance. 2. ACCESS TO THE STAFF 2.1 The Mayor's Authority--The Mayor has no authority to preclude Council access to the staff for discussions of city problems and answers to questions. To so limit the Council would be an intolerable interference with the function of the city's legislative body. 2.2 Council Requirement--The Council must have direct access to the staff; 1) to obtain the opinions and information of our professionals and administrators; 2) to insure a timely flow of information and speed the legislative process; 3) to permit independent determination of the condition of the city and circumstances that may require Council action; 4) to develop individual projects prior to presentation to the Council or the administration; and 5) to determine the effect of Council actions and policies on the condition and direction of the city. 2.3 Intimidation--Mr. Todd has made clear his displeasure with Council inquiries directly to the staff on numerous occasions. It is therefore clear that staff who interface directly with the Council risk the Mayor's displeasure. Some of the staff are obviously reluctant to discuss this issue. Mr. Todd's opinions have constrained staff /Council` interface and have served as a smokescreen to impede this and other Council actions and investigations. 2.4 Conclusion--I believe that the staff interface policies outlined in paragraphs 1.4, 2.1 and 2.2 are reasonable ones and I plan to continue to act in consonance with them. I will expect the continued full cooperation of the staff. 2.5 Recommendation--Mr. Todd to endorse these policies and make them a written element of administrative policy. 3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 3.1 Background--Conflict of interest results when an elected official or an appointed official, charged with acting in the public interest, has the power to influence city policies to benefit his own personal and financial affairs. The conflict is, then, are his actions in the public interest or his own personal interest? The conflict may arise from the official's action or inaction or by influencing his subordinates to act or fail to act to his benefit. To: Tukwila City Council, Mayor Todd, December 15, 1980 Department Heads Page Three 3.1 (Cont'd) This topic has received daily coverage in the national news as president -elect Reagan's potential cabinet appointees are discussed. Many have refused appointment, reputedly because they were unwilling to comply with the conflict of interest statutes. The classical solutions include divestiture, blind trusts, and other approaches. The question arises, "Why should local standards for isolation of private versus public affairs be any less stringent than national standards 3.2 The First Issue--The surveys performed by city personnel at Mr. Todd's site exceeded normal city procedures. It is not pertinent whether the surveys were performed at Mayor Todd's direction, with his concurrence, or at the initiative of his subordinate. In any case, city resources were expended for Mr. Todd's private benefit. Recommendation-- That Mr. Todd should be billed for these services, including direct labor, overhead, and expenses. 3.3 The Second Issue--The city has suffered the disruptive effects of Mr. Todd's conflict of interest since he assumed office in January 1980. The resolution can come most readily from his individual action. Recommendation--That Mr. Todd take appropriate action by 16 February 1981 to eliminate all potential conflict of interest and to verify these actions to the public, the press and the Council. 4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Problem Solved--Since the fill has been regraded to bring it toward compliance (see chronology item 7), the argument may be advanced that the problem has now been solved. However, development of the site has only begun and the potential remains for further conflict of interest. 4.2 Other Instances--In fact, the above is not an isolated instance of conflict. 1. Hometel Corporation on Interurban Avenue currently has litigation in progress against Mr. Todd. This litigation is related to the location of the boundaries of South 149th Street between Hometel and the Southcenter Plaza development adjacent to the south. Mr. Todd once owned both properties and Hometel still owes him a substantial sum. It has been alleged that Hometel constructed a building without proper permits. No action has yet been initiated by the administration or staff to resolve the latter issue. Mr. Todd's financial and legal involvement make it impossible for him to act for the city. 2. On the Southcenter Plaza site (previously owned by Mr. Todd) there are apparent violations of the shoreline management act and other city ordinances. Because of the association with the Hometel dis- pute adjacent to the north, the Tukwila City Council created an Ad Hoc Committee to review and administer further actions on this site. To: Tukwila City Council, Mayor Todd, December 15, 1980 Department Heads Page Four 5. RECOMMENDATIONS In sections 2.5, 3.2 and 3.3, I have made specific recommendations. In addition to these, I recommend that the Council: 1. Put this entire topic on the agenda of the Commitee of the Whole meeting of 12 January 1981 for a thorough discussion of the status at these three developments. 2. Ask the city attorney for an interpretation of the Washington State conflict of interest and appearance of fairness laws as they apply here, plus an opinion on whether the Mayor has the power to exclude Council access to the staff, for presentation at that meeting. 3. That we increase the professional services line item in the Council budget to provide for additional staff help, special consultants, and /or legal assistance, as may be necessary. The issues of the powers of the Mayor versus those of the Council and the issue of Mr. Todd's conflict of interest have been continuing sources of disruption of city business for the year of 1980. I want to resolve these issues and remove the Council from the role of "watchdog" over city affairs. When that is accomplished, we can all devote our energies to more productive tasks in governing the city. TO: Bud Bohrer FROM: Al Pieper DATE: 12 8 80 SUBJECT: Your memo dated 12 -7 -80 Item 1. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor MEMORANDUM 1.1 The permissible level is elevation 21 per item 4 of Conditions of Ap- proval form dated February 8, 1979. 1.2 The level of elevation 21 has been exceeded in the built up area used for unloading or dump area but has not been exceeded over the major portion of the site. After final grading the site will probably require some ad- ditional fill to reach elevation 21. 1.3 Wes Jorgenson and I researched the available records and then used normal surveying procedures to establish unknown elevations relative to known elevations. Note: I would normally rely on the elevations supplied by the licensed surveyor that made up the topog. Item 2. City owned'Maule ave.has been filled with an undetermined quantity of material. The implied permission to place fill on Maule Avenue is contained in item 5 of the Conditions of Approval dated February 8, 1979. Note: A portion of Maule Avenue was in a Swale and subject to ponding prior to the fill. Item 3. Fill has encroached on the river zone in the N.E. area. The quantity of fill is approximately 20 to 50 yards. The owner of the site has assured me that this will be removed as soon as conditions permit. The attached items are reference material for your convenience. The red entries on the plot plan are elevations at the approximate locations shown, starting with location 1, etc. Since the fill appears to meet all regulations (except the minor encroachment) no further action on my part is anticipated. Some monitoring will be required during final grading to insure that the drainage is resolved and the encroachment area is restored. AP /blk Thank you 1. No cutting of any trees between the identified fill area and the river. 2. The northern toe of fill area is to be staked and inspected prior to issuance of grading permit. No fill to disturb existing groves of trees. 3. Stake all property corners prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4. Fill only allowed to bring the level of the identified fill area up to an elevation of 21 feet. (100 -year flood elevation) irrespective of whether it takes 45,000 cubic yards or not. 5. Raise present top cover of sanitary sewer man hole on Maule Avenue to 21 foot elevation. 6. Submit an erosion control plan to show location of temporary holding pond. 7. This permit to expire one year from the date of approval by the Department of Ecology. A maximum of a one -year extension may be allowed by the ap- proval authority upon written request of property owner. At the end of one year, if a renewal is not granted, or at the end of two years, if a renewal is granted, this permit shall be void and all conditions of this permit shall be complied with. Upon expiration of shoreline permit for fill, applicant must submit new application together with new filing fees and other application requirements in order to continue or re- institute fill activities. In order to approve the one -year extension, the appli- cant must demonstrate: 5 ieit/t.l,o Kjell $toknes, O.C.D. Director CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON TODD SHORELINE PERMIT (MF 78- 40 -SMP) FOR FILL BETWEEN 58TH AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH 143RD STREET a. That the site is not unsightly; and b. That erosion control is effective. ___F 44/1/ Date Herman Huggins Northwest Regional Office Department of Ecology 4350 150th N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Dear Mr. Huggins: King County Statelashington John D. Spellman, County Executive Department of Public Works James W. Guenther, Director 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone: (206) 344 -2517 AUG 9 197g We are enclosing a State Flood Control Zone Application and plans submitted to this office by ank Todd -for placement of a fill in Section 14, Township 23, Range 4 East, W.M. We have reviewed the application and are submitting the following comments: 1. Reference is made to attached correspondence between the City of Tukwila and this office concerning the impact of the proposed landfill to adjacent properties. Our comments in the letter dated April 25, 1979 remain unchanged. 2. The water surface elevation for the Green River with a controlled discharge from the Howard Hanson Dam of 12,000 cfs as measured at Auburn (Porter Gauge), is 20.8 feet (roman Sea Level Datum) at the subject site. The proposed finished grade elevations are shown to be at elevation 21.0 feet. Future structures on this site must be flood proofed to elevation 20.8 feet. 3. No fill or structure /improvements shall be placed within 30 feet of the existing top of bank. 4. Additional improvements to this site will require State Flood Control Zone Permits. If you have any questions, please contact Larry Gibbons of our office at 344 -3874. R ECF PUGlJf: ti•. Sincerely, Cffy or G. E. WANNAMAKER, P.E. Acting Manager Division of Hydraulics CEv /CC /ab enclosures cc: Al Pieper City of Tukwila AOC ie i919 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT NOTE THIS PAGE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY Type of Action Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Variance Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby granted to Frank Todd (name of applicant) 14446 59th Ave. So. Tukwila. Washington 98188 Application No. 78 40 SMP Administering Agency Tukwila (City or County) Date received 27 November 1978 Approved X Denied Date F4AuaR\, t 9 h 7 1 to undertake the following development the placement of 45.000 cubic (be specific) yards of fill along with a 12 inch storm drain and on -site storm water retention pond upon the following propert Lots 1. 2, 3. 4, 5. 6 and 7 of Blue Hillman's (legal description, i.e., section, Sea Garden Tracts. King County. Washington township,, ,range) The project will be within shorelines of statewide (be /7) significance (RCW 90.58.030). The project will be located within a Urban designation. The following master (environment) program provisions are applicable to this development Chapter 6. General Regulation 10 (state the master program sections or page numbers) Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions (SEE ATTACHED 7 CONDITIONS) This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordi- nances or regulations applicable to this project, but not incon- sistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.-58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 (7) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL,THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE FINAL ORDER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED.' e (Da "q 7g THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE. Date received by Department of Ecology Approve Denied This substantial development permit with conditional use/ variance is approved by the Department of Ecology pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: (Date) (Signature of Authorized Department of Ecology Official) 0 Dir-ctor, Office of Community Development rear /1 /5 4/ Z i A 1 4 At t- .0 6 WOO D f f' l .r i APT) rOX/!rTn'' r.' f 2Q n V .K ri lJ �f i i f 1 4; .4,4 ;Ir t :v o .o eye e c 1 ;4„ 'f Lr �1 c.. r. 1 1 1:? roposec sforin -•.tom t TPt /1 6 !r'/1. rf ff 4y Tox L.d '7 Tofu x t Ip A CC) 4 Fti 111[[i[[i 1. r /S •f i r 7 S w /J- 04; /8 6 rf c 1 E"e:a 4. 8 December 1980— CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS REGARDING TODD PROPERTY AT 58TH AVENUE AND INTERURBAN AVENUE Attachment to Memo Dated December 15, 1980 This chronology is based on my notes and discussions with numerous members of the city staff. 1. 23 November 1980--I visited the site in response to complaints about mud on Interurban Avenue from the fill operations. The visit revealed the fill elevation was apparently three or four feet above the eleva- tion of Interurban Avenue and that fill had been pushed into the river zone. 2. 26 November 1980--I reviewed the Building Department file on this site with the Building Official. The site map (see Al Pieper memorandum dated 12 -8 -80) indicated the elevation of Interurban was 20 to 21 feet. The conditions of approval for the shoreline permit established the maximum fill elevation to be 21 feet, thus, fill on the site apparently violated the permit levels. On that day, I verbally requested that the Building Official independently verify the apparent violations of the fill level and the river zone and to act as necessary. 3. 7 December 1980 —Since ten days had passed and I had not received a reply to my verbal request, I prepared a written request to the Building Official for the same data (my memorandum dated 12- 7 -80). I also submitted a "fall -back request" with the Public Works Director (my memo to Ted Uomoto dated 12 -7 -80) to verify the elevation of Interurban Avenue independently. 4.1 The Building Official and Building Inspector visited the site. The inspection revealed fill debris in the river zone and confirmed the fill elevation to be well above Interurban Avenue. 4.2 The Building Official reported the inspection results to the Mayor and discussed my request with him. 4.3 The Building Official and Junior Engineer returned to the site and conducted an elevation survey. 4.4 Upon return to City Hall, the site fill elevation was determined to be substantially above the reference point of 24.9 feet at the floor of the adjoining Oak Harbor Freight facility. The in- consistency of this elevation reference with other references was then noted. Chronology of Events Page Two 4.5 The Building Official and Junior Engineer returned to the site. Points from the first survey were re- established relative to new elevation reference points. 4.6 Upon returning to City Hall, the fill elevation of the site was determined relative to the new references. 4.7 The Building Official prepared his typed report to me. 5. 8 December 1980--The Public Works Director replied to my memorandum. (See item 3 above.) 6 13 December 1980— Extensive regrading was done on the site. Elevations are unknown, so compliance with the fill permit is undetermined. Un- determined also was whether fill was removed from the river zone. TO: FRO DATE: /2- 7 -80 SUBJ ECT: 11064.4 ,GGM 4 v 40. oota ,e-ce -Q V...41444 4.9 ,4e� 074/4 5-48' 7I� A 4 -11•9 ,ZtO <-i. 94� //e e 7 (t) OFFICE MEMO CITY o F TU KW I LA ec c7 e %oz- �i� -,tir �LI rcr hi h St.C- j Gk L L C 1C C G�i -1 i `j CSC Z� 6 ^4'G< C.'LL. Dc. nta G'- Z` .i, 4 c u6.� «t ,s td4rt t,„ 2 2,Lc Z 2 s (-.-J u�. 4f /l�f {fit r 14x.11 7 r7C !-y fc rr G: �C v im/ i/i! J