HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 10/04/2005 KENT
SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING W A S H I NG T 0 N
Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Deborah Ranniger, President; Tim Clark,
R041W , r�2 Ron Harm An, Julie Peterson,,Debbie Raplee, Les Thomas, Bruce White
ocTOBf2 4 2oosC�C' ��LV10.d C _ ytt 2 r?ti071�1 �i(J
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
5:30 P.M.
Item Description Speaker Time
1. Suburban Cities Association Policy Position Councilmember Clark 15 min
regarding Growth Management Board
2. WRIA 9 Update Public Works Staff 30 min
COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL,ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC—Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or
raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor.
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month
B. Economic Development Update
C. Government Finance Officers Association Award Presentation
D. Recreation Equipment,Inc. (REI)Donation Presentation
E. Proclamation—Roberto and Araceli Gonzales Month
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting —Approve
B. Payment of Bills—Approve
C. Kent Reservoirs Seismic Strengthening and Painting Project—Accept as Complete
D. S.277`b St.Trail Filling and Grading Project—Accept as Complete
E. Fund Authorization Grant Agreement for S. 228`b St.BNSF Railroad Separation Project—Accept and Amend Budget
F. Fund Authorization Grant Agreement for Downtown Sidewalk Improvements—Accept and Amend Budget
G. Department of Community Trade and Economic Development Grant Agreement, Critical Areas Ordinance Wetlands
Inventory—Accept and Amend Budget
H. 2006-2011 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan—Set Hearing Date
I. Horseshoe Acres Stormwater Pump Station—Accept as Complete
J. Regional Automated Information Network Memorandum of Understanding—Authorize
K. Law Enforcement Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding—Authorize
L. Valley Special Response Team Addendum One—Authorize
M. Public Safety Testing Subscriber Agreement—Authorize
N. Center for Advanced Manufacturing Grants from State of Washington and Federal Economic Development Administration—
Accept and Amend Budget
O. Sub-grantee Contract with the Kent Chamber of Commerce for the Center for Advanced Manufacturing—Authorize
P. King County Performance Network Grant for 2005 Performances—Accept and Amend Budget
Q. Washington State Arts Commission 2006 Organizational Support Program Grant for Canterbury Arts Festival—Accept and
Amend Budget
R. King County Arts Facilities Grant for Portable Staging—Accept and Amend Budget
S. Purchase of Portable Staging—Authorize
T. Department of Natural Resources Grant for SE 240`h Street Tree Planting Project—Accept and Amend Budget
U. REI Donation for East Hill Skate Park—Acceprand Amend Budget —
V. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Grant for East Hill Skate Park—Accept and Amend Budget
W. Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development Grant for Wilson Playfields Acquisition—Accept and
Amend Budget
n cn n n O an = o v a O- O
? Q o fl O O Q - r+ n O < �_ O vQq
E CD
O
Oo
w n CD CO O _ . C<D O -< S n .nn •
Q cn n c
co El Q � n w s � (D -� *. 3 Quo .. •
po E j o �" n o Q O p C
Z nrD C
zrD n � �� 0 � N �
w n n CD n' -O n p S O n O cD CAD n c o o
cm
CD
n w „ n o 3
� — n
co up
l ) O
o m o 2 m
n o fi r*• Un
N r N C >`<
w n w n Cn0 � ) n y
O n p ^ QOO 0 � �� r�r00 rlrn.�r
� n n � l ) O v N N CD
T N W — N
(D V V N •• co Cl
ZOO
O 2 N s 3 •
CU C
�� < N n
N n
v (D
n O Z
N w N O
(<D
z r�r
z
z
noc n � c no3y nE3n � n o on < nnnoo Qoo � no-3on rD _ n
n o a n a n 7 n a n rD rD O O o � - c c 6 n <
n n � n n -o irm
2n G �'n = n3, Cho -D "` n n � = O �� c
a wo ww w L, w w w � CD °: . c n w 3 0 n n �' a N'
`d a3 a 2� ova LL � 0 ro O O o * n o s� (� n O 0- 3 n CD
3O � w 3 � _{ 70 w no n 2 n n rtnn
2nco w�0 o w CTOIQ— CD a c 3 a w 0� S n o nq, n �- 0 c n nrm
� s3 < O- 0 < c n (> r.. � 0n 3 rts� ^ n o = Nn- o
o n W n o w O 7J n cn n n W rD Z3 �O n . o O p' CD O A) • ' CD� S� �n m 3
s .+ D pCD CD
i<r cCD CD 1 D =n� - . < I3 O C"
fD CD n w 3 On
n
`nn n , 3 'ten m � p r3D Q ° < a n. �
Ua p o n w < n c n ,�. �; �.�I C7—o
C v T 'C Op p K O T p Q < N' _r iGa n 3
N
LA n O
Attachment 2 PT
C Agenda Sept 21, 2005
APPROPRIATE URBAN DENSITIES
Briefing for SCA Public Issues Committee 9/21/05
Issue: Potential loss of local discretion and greater uncertainty in local "urban density" decisions
under GMA.
Recommendation from Sammamish
✓ Renew legislative efforts to amend the GMA. Amendments would clarify the "urban densities"
requirement and preserve/enhance local discretion.
✓ Draft a letter from the SCA Executive Board to the Governor stating that the appointed
Hearings Board members have exceeded their authority, and cities are concerned with Board
decisions on the appropriate urban density issue.
Other options include working through GMPC to amend the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to
locally define appropriate urban densities, or through PSRC to amend the Multi-County Planning
Policies (MPPs). These options would avoid the uncertainty of the legislative process, but could be
time-consuming and difficult. PSRC white paper on this subject is due in October.
Background: The GMA contains several goats and requirements for Urban Growth Areas (UGAs),
including that "Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and
open space areas" (RCW 36.70A.110). Suburban cities in King County recognize the duty, under the
GMA, to plan for and accommodate their share of future population and job growth.
In decisions over the past few years, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (HB)
has established a "bright line" threshold of 4 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac), above which local
land use and zoning designations would constitute "appropriate urban densities." Densities below the
4 du/ac threshold have only been found acceptable when the HB's criteria have been met, mainly
where there is a demonstrated need for lower density to protect high value critical areas. The HB has
also considered other factors, including capacity to accommodate 20-year growth targets, efforts to
promote and stimulate compact urban growth, proportion of lower density designations, development
potential of the lower density land, and growth phasing plans.
Recent appeals of city plans/regulations to the HB by Futurewise (aka 1000 Friends) and other parties
have been filed alleging city failure to permit urban densities. They include Kent, Auburn, Bellevue,
Normandy Park, Bothell, Issaquah, and Sammamish. The HB decided the following cases this summer,
others are still pending. One court case is also relevant.
Kaleas et at. vs. City of Normandy Park (No. 05-3-0007c): Normandy Park's plan found non-
compliant with GMA and invalid. The city is appealing the decision in Superior Court.
1000 Friends of Washington vs. City of Issaquah (No. 05-3-0006): With one minor exception,
Issaquah's comprehensive plan to be compliant with GMA. Issaquah is not appealing.
Fuhriman et at. vs. City of Bothell (No. 05-3-0025c): Bothell's comprehensive plan found to be
compliant with GMA.
Viking Properties Inc. vs. Holm, et at. (Sup. Court docket # 75240-1): Supreme Court ruled areas
covered by pre-GMA covenants that limit density to be another urban density exception. The
court's dicta also limited Hearings Board authority to establish policy "bright lines" and recognized
local discretion in land use decisions within a GMA framework.
During the 2005 legislative session, bills amending GMA were introduced in both houses. Senate Bill
5907, and House Bill 1967, would have given counties and cities broader discretion in accommodating
projected growth than indicated by HB decisions on the matter. Both bills subsequently died in the
House.
C:\Documents and Settings\mhmartin\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI A9\Appropriate Urban Density Issue and Options-
Attachment 2.doc
€CIA 9
Salmon
Habitat Plan:
" "Making Our
Dennis Clark Watershed Fit
Gordon Thomson nI »
pp
Watershed Coordination for a ng
Services Team
October 4,2005
Presentation Outline
I. Salmon Habitat Plan Overview
II. Review, Adoption, and Ratification
Process
III. Implementation Role of Local
Governments
The future of the Saimon Habitat Flan
is in your hands
;.:. Water Resource
Inventory Area 9
". includes the
�sawaiash:d`� GreenlDuwamish
River watershed and
small streams flowing
s n t—hRa into Puget Sound
bwai I d �,k y`-•
LO b GIRRR NFvRr
SubwRt hed
u l Sh.cn«2
•. :� SubWaRetd
1
Salmon and People: Both
Deed Healthy Land and Water
Drinking water ,
Food .
Forest products 74
Flood protection
R
y
Recreation
Beautiful ,��
environment , i 7
It's about fish and
it's about people. � -
I. Salmon Habitat Plan Overview
t,
ti LR:t't`liCY FOR WRIA 9 S.AL NION, IGtItTl:A:T 6°t:A;�iTdT,k`t
3n",ry R'"rzee$tar&s scxzd h4iRe�Renrs -
tT
awa ;nuv zxs _,�.a> _max nws
HANTAT
2
WRIA 9 Watershed
`w`, Steering Committee
➢Citizen-stakeholders representing:
. Nine cities including
Kent
. King County N
. Water district
. Port of Seattle
Environmental groups
. Business interests
. State and federal agencies
Habitat Plan:
Steps to This Point
• Public review draft released March 10,2005 followed by
45 day public comment period. Steering Committee
extensively revised Plan based on comments.
> Preview copy of the WRIA Salmon Habitat Plan
distributed to Steering Committee and Forum members
on July 7.
• Steering Committee voted unanimously to adopt a
motion recommending the plan to the Forum of Local
Governments on July 14.
v Forum voted unanimously to accept Habitat Plan on
September 21.
Salmon Habitat Plan:
,
Synopsis
➢77 on-the-ground capital improvement
projects and 57 protection projects
➢56 high priority on-the-ground capital
improvement projects (estimated cost:
$198—291 million over 10 years)
➢Projects founded on sound science and
ecological economics analysis
➢Improve Watershed = Increase Benefits to
People
3
. Salmon Habitat Plan:
Projects
Set back levees and reconnect side channels to
provide refuge for fish
Add spawning gravel and large tree trunks to
river channels
Protect good functioning habitat through
purchase,easements,incentives,and/or
information for private property owners
r increase"transition zone"habitat in the
Duwamish(Tukwila and Seattle)
Remove marine shoreline bank armoring where
feasible
Salmon Habitat Plan:
Policies and Programs
Maintain the Urban Growth Area line
Promote low impact development
techniques
Retain/promote forest cover
Road maintenance and stormwater
management programs
Incentives
Education & stewardship
. Ecological Economic Basis
for Strong Habitat Plan
Ecosystem services were quantified
to assess benefits
➢Ecosystem provides $1.7 billion to
$6.3 billion in economic benefits
annually
Habitat Plan actions should preserve
and increase the benefits, including
recovery of salmon
4
4 Salmon Habitat Plan: Kev
Recommendations Tor Kent
Chapter 3 Policies (p. 3-17 to 3-24)
Chapter 5 Policies (p. 5-16 to 5-18)
Lower Green River Subwatershed
Policies, Programs, and Projects
(p. 7-53 to 7-54 and p. 7-58 to 7-69)
Chapter 8 Implementation Policies
(p. 8-19 to 8-28)
Habitat Plan Projects in
Kent Area
Three projects in the Horsehead Bend
area (LG-3, LG-4, LG-5)
NO-
, F
Habitat Plan Projects in
��axv°v Kent Area
Multifold project on Lower Mill Creek,
Riverview Park, Hawley Road Levee and
Lower Mullen Slough (LG-7)
`} wy
5
e
Habitat Plan Projects in
Kent Area
➢Rosso Nursery Off-Channel Rehabilitation
and Riparian Restoration (LG-9)
d3 s�}y yy C F
�. �e �� CCU✓
ff i p J
Habitat Plan Projects in
� s
Kent Area
➢Mainstem Maintenance including the
Boeing Levee Setback and Russell Road
Levee Setbacks (LG-10)
3 �
Habitat Plan Projects in
Kent Area
rKmoarlm
➢Briscoe Off-Channel Habitat Restoration
(LG-12)
6
Salmon Habitat Plan:
Key Points
Implementation of the Habitat Plan
demonstrates local leadership in response to
Endangered Species Act"listing"of Chinook
salmon and bull trout in Puget Sound
Implementation of the Habitat Plan will create
a healthier environment for people and fish,
both today and for future generations
The Habitat Plan builds on the good habitat
protection/restoration work of the past and
present
NSalmon Habitat Plan:
-Niii-"LMV Key Points (cont)
The Habitat Plan is based on sound science
The Habitat Plan recommends actions across the
watershed,in most communities
The Habitat Plan relies on:
Federal appropriations for the Green/Duwarrish Ecosystem
Restoration Prooct,
State and federal grants from theSalmon Recovery Funding
Board,and
Mitigation funds for major capitd projects
King Conservation District funds will provide a local
match
Salmon Habitat Plan:
Key Points (cont)
v $1 million in local funds is budgeted to begin
implementation 2006 and leverage funds from
other sources
The Habitat Plan provides guidance for all
aquatic ecosystem projects in the watershed,
including those funded by mitigation dollars
7
II. Review, Adoption, and
Ratification Process
or e
Nearshore Boat Tour off
Normandy Park
Y �
� P
�za
REVIEW and ADOPTION
PROCESS
➢SEPTEMBER 21:
1. Forum of local governments ADOPTED
the Plan.
2. Plan was officially transmitted to local
governments for ratification.
3. Forum approved 2006 WRIA 9
interiocai Agreement budget.
Interlocal Agreement
Cost Shares
➢Current Total (all 17 jurisdictions):
$470,051
Proposed Total 2006: $368,635
➢ Kent Current: $5.3,237
➢ Kent 2006: $42,115
8
Z7 ,
RATIFICATION
PROCESS
Goal for Ratification Completion:
End of November
Plan is ratified when a minimum of five
local governments with at least 70% of the
population within WRIA 9 adopts the Plan.
III. Implementation Role of Local
Governments
14
3{� t
IMPLEMENTATION
FUNCTIONS of LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
As resources allow and as a ppropriate given their
location in the watershed,local governments should
implement the Salmon Habitat Plan by:
Continuing to work with other local governments and
partners to make decisions about watershed habitat
(e.g.,through the WRIA 9 Forum of Local Governments);
Coordinating and integration of projects and programs as
appropriate at:
Watershed level WRIA 9 Salmon Habtat Plan)
Regional level(Puget Sound Salmon Recovep Plan)
9
RIM
IMPLEMENTATION
(continued)
v Further prioritizing,refining,and developing projects and
programs to prepare them for implementation;
Implementing programs within jurisdictions(e.g.,
stormwater management NPDES Phase II permit
provisions);
Implementing selected restoration projects within
jurisdictions,either as lead or in cooperation with other
entities;
Protecting habitat through jurisdictional regulations and
voluntary conservation programs;
IMPLEMENTATION
;_. (continued)
Encouraging citizen participation in habitat
restoration/protection projects;
r Encouraging salmon-friendly practices(e.g.,Natural
Yard Care);
Monitoring implementation and success of projects and
prog rams;
Evaluating results of monitoring and revising Habitat
Plan implementation to"adaptively manage"salmon
habitat recovery;and
IMPLEMENTATION
tk'4 (continued)
Fundraising to support both local and
watershed-wide project and program
priorities.
F t
10
I
I
Presentation Summary
I. Salmon Habitat Plan Overview
II. Review, Adoption, and Ratification
Process
III. Implementation Role of Local
Governments
The future of the Salmon Habitat Plan—and the
health of our watershed—is in your hands
° Contact Information
Dennis Clark, Public Outreach
206-296-1909
dennis.clark@metrokc.gov
Gordon Thomson, Plan Manager
206-296-8013
gordon.thomson@metrokc.gov
Visit:www.govlink.org/watersheds
11