HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2005 - Agenda Packet9
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
April 25, 2005 7:00 p.m.
501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA
A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vail-Spinosa)
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Mayor
2. Council
3. Staff
D. DISCUSSION
1. Citizen Survey
2. Administrative Variances
3. Loop Driveway Access Policy
4. WRIA 8 Conservation Plan
5. Council Agenda Calendar
E. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Labor Negotiations
F. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Medina City Council encourages public participation and values input from citizens. In an
effort to conduct meetings in a fair, but efficient manner, the City Council will follow previously
adopted procedures, which are available in the City Clerk's Office.
All comments shall be addressed to the Council as a whole in a courteous and respectful manner.
Derogatory comments directed toward individual members of the City Council or City staff will not
be permitted.
Citizens wishing to address the Council should complete a speaker card and submit it to the
recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Speaker cards are on the podium prior to the
start of the City Council meetings.
Meeting Agenda is subject to change prior to approval of the agenda during the meeting.
Persons interested in a specific agenda item may wish to call the City Clerk at
(425) 454-9222 before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to confirm agenda items.
ITEM D-1
of MF�f��
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
wvvw.modina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Citizen Survey Topics
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion of citizen survey scoping and identification of topics to be
included in citizen survey questionnaire.
BACKGROUND: During the January 24t" Study Session, the City Council requested
samples of surveys conducted by other cities, which were provided in the
February 14, 2005 agenda packet. In addition, the City Council requested
and received a list of suggested topics/objectives to be considered for the
survey questionnaire. The attached list is a comprehensive list of
suggestions from the Planning Commission, Park Board and various City
departments.
Bruce Brown from PRR, Inc. will attend the April 25th Study Session to
discuss the survey with the City Council and assist with the scoping and
identification of topics.
Citizen Survey Questionnaire Topics
-DRAFT -
Various stakeholders have provided the following list as potential topics for the proposed citizen survey. These
items are not worded as research questions, simply as topics to be considered. This list of questions and topics is
provided to the full council so that the list of topics may be narrowed or refined.
This is not a final draft of issues of interest. That list will be defined by the City Council during the April 25th
meeting.
1. The interest and willingness of residents to share in the cost of underground utilities.
2. Is it appropriate for the City of Medina to set regulations determining and enforcing maximum house size.
3. What is liked and disliked about the current land use code?
4. Do citizens consider the permit process unduly onerous?
5. Do you think we have the appropriate regulation for nonconforming structures.
6. Is it appropriate to regulate for accessory structures?
7. Do residents feel the zoning code creates an undesirable community character?
8. What do you see as the strengths of Medina that you would like to preserve?
9. What are the weaknesses in City government that you would like to see the Council strengthen, and why?
10. What City improvements would you like to be a priority?
11. What City services do you expect Medina to provide for Emergency Preparedness?
12. Does the level of current police protection make you feel secure in Medina?
13. How would you rate the level of service for police protection in Medina? Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor
14. Please rate how satisfied you are to response time of the police in Medina?
15. Is there any additional regulation that you feel is necessary for waterside issues?
16. If participation and funding permitted would you like to see the Lifeguard Program
Reinstituted?
17. Do you think that we have enough officers to protect Medina citizens?
18. What is your perception of the crime rate in Medina? Develop a rating system and code accordingly.
qW 19. What is your expectation for the level of service for police investigations that Medina residents should expect
from the police department?
20. Should the Police Department install surveillance cameras in key locations?
21. Should the City fund a School Resource Officer?
22. What is the current understanding of Medina Residents about the Leash Law?
23. Would Medina residents be interested in funding more landscaping for parks?
24. What, if any issues do Medina residents perceive around the playground?
25. Should playground equipment in Medina Park be upgraded for a wider age range?
26. Should athletic fields be provided in Medina? Youth? Adult?
27. Would you like to have park/recreation programs provided in Medina (i.e., crafts, tennis, sailing, fly fishing,
etc.)?
28. Should lights be installed on the tennis courts in Medina Park and/or Fairweather?
29. Should the City complete the Fairweather Park and Nature Preserve improvements approved in 1999?
30. Is there enough on street parking in Medina?
31. What things would you like to see changed, if any, on the waterfront.
32. Do you consider drainage your problem or your neighbor's problem and why?
33. Would you support the city imposing a permit fee for tour busses?
34. Would you be interested in learning more about "quiet streets"?
35. What features would you like to see improved on the Medina City Website?
36. How often do you use the website to get information about Medina City events?
37. Do you regularly read the City Newsletter? What improvements would you make to provide even better
communication?
38. When Medina has an important issue would you rather be contacted by a-lerts, direct mail, special notices, or
other means. If other, please identify.
0 39. When you are looking for information about the City of Medina what source do you use?
0 Page 2
King County Journal Seattle Times, Seattle PI Radio TV City Website
40. What are the priorities that the Council should focus on in 2005 and 2006?
41. When you need to reach City staff how accessible are they?
Very accessible Medium Not accessible
42. When you call City hall do you receive call backs within a reasonable amount of time?
43. Are there any noise abatement issues that the City should be addressing?
44. Would you like to see lighted streets? If yes, why, if no why?
45. Do you want to continue to fund airplane noise abatement programs? Yes, No and why?
46. What is the most important thing that you would like to see protected to preserve Medina's character?
47. How would you suggest improving community participation in important decisions?
48. Are you regular user of the City Park?
49. What is the most important use of the City Park that the Council should work to protect?
50. Is there any one thing that you would suggest to make Medina an even better place to
live? Would you support funding that item?
51. Fundamentally, the Park Board would like to know how the community wants parks used, improved and/or
changed. Does the community want more activities available or should the parks remain primarily passive
use areas?
52. Park Board suggested an open ended questions, which would encourage suggestions for improvements to
parks and/or programs.
n your evaluation of what items will belong in the survey please consider what questions you may want to ask
about the permitting process, and comprehensive plan, property taxes, and any festivals or special events that bring
Medina together as a community.
ITEM D - 2
°%
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
www.medina-wa.gov
'►�i_L�►�iC�1`7iI!�il
425.454.9222
DATE: April 18, 2005
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services
RE: Administrative Variances
RECOMMENDATION: Review the Planning Commission's recommendation on changes to the
scope of variances decided administratively and provide further direction to staff or the Planning
Commission.
POLICY IMPLICATION: Since a variance involves the City granting an exception to Zoning Code
requirements, it is imperative that the system for reviewing and deciding variances involves objectivity
and a uniform application of the decision criteria.
BACKGROUND: When the City Council recently finalized the Planning Commission's work
plan, topics that could lead to building permit streamlining were given priority. For this reason, the topic
of changing the scope of variances decided administratively was placed near the top of the work plan.
The City Council created our current administrative variance process with Ordinance 737 in 2002. It is
codified in MMC 14.08. It established a very limited scope of variances to be reviewed administratively
rather than by the hearing examiner. This scope consists of:
• fence and wall height variances no greater than eight feet
• structural lot coverage variances of no more than 1 % of the lot area.
Many cities rely heavily on administrative variances. Provided that the appeal process is not unduly
burdensome, switching variances from a hearing examiner system to administrative decision is fair to
applicants and it provides a significant savings in time and fees. Our current fee for hearing examiner
variances is $1,850 plus consultant charges while the administrative variance fee is a flat fee of $500.
An administrative variance application takes between one half and two thirds of the time required for a
hearing examiner variance — measured from the date of application to the date that the applicant is
made aware of the final decision.
In addition to the streamlining benefit of administrative variances, it is compelling to note that the staff
recommendations and hearing examiner decisions have matched for all but one variance case in the
more than two years that Robin Baker has been Medina's hearing examiner.
ITEM D
Typically an administrative variance process does not involve a public hearing but normal variance
noticing is performed and the notices invite all interested parties to review the case file in the City Clerk's
office and submit their comments in writing within 15 days. While some citizens may consider it a
disadvantage to not have a public hearing, there could also be advantages. On various occasions in the
past, applicants have expressed the attitude that variance hearings are neighborhood popularity
contests. As a result, an applicant's desire to avoid this "drama" may discourage otherwise valid
variance requests.
The Planning Commission's discussion of how to change the scope of administrative variances focused
on the issues of fees, schedule, the value of a public hearing, and the effort required for citizens to
comment on an administrative case. The Commission concluded that the reduced application fees and
turnaround time were compelling reasons to shift many types of variances to administrative decision but
that controversial cases warranted the extra opportunity for public comment involved with the hearing
examiner system. In an effort to respond to the patterns of controversy with past variance proposals -
while keeping the new scope relatively simple for applicants to remember — the Planning Commission
settled on the following recommended new scope for administrative variances:
• up to a three-foot departure from maximum building height, fence height, and setback standards
• up to a 15% departure from coverage standards (structural lot coverage and impervious
surfaces)
It should be noted that the 15% departure from coverage standards is to be calculated as 15% of the
standard percentage. For example, the maximum possible administrative lot coverage variance in R-16
would be 28.75% (15% more than the standard zoning percentage of 25%).
i�
•
Page 2
ITEM D - 3
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.med1na-wa.9ov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services
Joe Willis, PE, Director of Public Works
RE: Street Access Standards
RECOMMENDATION: Review the overview of street access issues found in this report and
formulate policy that addresses the issues.
POLICY IMPLICATION: New code provisions for street access standards would supplement
existing traffic safety and community character -based code provisions.
BACKGROUND: Recent home redevelopment projects have raised street access issues
for staff. We could be more effective and efficient in handling these issues if they were addressed more
directly in the Medina Municipal Code. The two specific issues are whether there should be a restriction
on the number of driveways serving a given residence and what authority staff should have to prevent
driveways that cause visibility problems near street intersections.
The question of multiple driveways per residence is particularly timely because staff have encountered a
conflict in the existing policy on the topic and we've detected a design trend towards more frequent
proposals for loop driveway designs. The Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan
contains several policy statements on the desired character of Medina streets, particularly our collector
streets. Most of these policy statements have corresponding regulations in the Tree and Vegetation
Code (MMC 12.28). However, there are no regulations corresponding to the Comprehensive Plan
policy stating that the amount of right-of-way adjacent devoted to driveways on collector streets shall be
minimized. Lacking any other direction staff have nonetheless cited this statement in prohibiting new
loop driveways. When an applicant's attorney recently challenged this staff practice, we identified the
statement in MMC 12.28.050-D that also reflects a policy direction of minimizing driveways. This
presented a new problem, however, because it seems to address all streets whereas the
Comprehensive Plan statement only references collector streets. And while the Comprehensive Plan
statement seems to address the problem more directly, the City Council should be aware that many
recent proposals for loop driveways have been on narrow lots on local streets. Since the aesthetic
impacts of a loop driveway are more pronounced when confined to a narrow lot, the Council may feel
that some restriction is warranted for all street types.
ITEM D
•
The Comprehensive Plan's mention of driveways is found amongst several other policies aimed at
preserving the semi -rural character that has always been the part of the identity of Medina. These
policies stress that a large component of this character comes from the extensive and informal
vegetation found in the unimproved portions of City rights -of -way. The language explains that excessive
driveway construction works against this character through the starkness of paving as well as the
interruption to the natural streetscape.
Chapter 10.08 of the Medina Municipal Code (MMC) lists the functional classifications of the City of
Medina streets. These functional classifications are based upon Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) designations. The purpose of the classifications is to provide both function and design criteria
for the streets.
Within Medina, there are two street classes, "Collectors", and "Local Access." Collector streets are to
function as streets connecting neighborhoods and typically connecting to arterials or other neighborhood
collectors; whereas, local access streets provide circulation and access within residential
neighborhoods.
Basic design criteria for streets include items such as maximum grade, minimum pavement width,
design speed, maximum curvature, stopping sight distance, entering sight distance, access. By function,
a "Collector" would be more restrictive as to access points onto the street than a "Local Access" street
since its function is to connect traffic generation areas with higher level traffic capacity streets.
The Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan were based upon the above function and criteria. While
the parameters were not spelled out in those documents, the overarching principals still remain:
• "Collector" streets should provide for all modes of transportation.
• Limit driveway access onto "Collector" streets to minimize traffic conflicts. This was considered in
the drafting of MMC section 17.72.050.
• Traffic conflicts include all modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian.
Concern for traffic safety is also applied as follows:
• Residential driveways should be located a sufficient distance away from intersections and
adjacent driveways to avoid vehicle turning movement conflicts and to provide for sufficient
sight -distance.
• Limiting the number and location of accesses is intended to reduce the number of conflicts and
to provide for the most advantageous location of those accesses.
The common approach to providing for the siting and regulation of residential accesses is to require
approval for the construction of them; limit the number allowed per lot; limit the location of them relative
to other street intersections, property lines, and street fixtures such as light standards or fire hydrants.
Whichever approach the Council chooses to take, a certain about of flexibility to the standards may be
warranted given the wide variation in the street and parcel pattern across Medina. For example,
prohibiting loop driveways may be appropriate for most Medina lots but a few lots have substantial
frontages in the neighborhood of 300 feet.
Page 2
ITEM D - 4
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wam
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services
RE: WRIA 8 Steering Committee's Proposed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed plan document and decide what comments the
City may wish to submit to the forum before the May 26, 2005 deadline.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The general policy direction of the proposed plan is consistent with the
Medina Shoreline Management Master Program. The proposed plan discusses some habitat
enhancements not presently required by the Master program but these enhances would be voluntary
according to the proposed plan.
BACKGROUND: In 1999, the Chinook (King) Salmon was listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). This prompted the formation of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
Forum body with the mission of developing a Chinook Salmon conservation plan for the Lake
Washington / Cedar / Sammamish watershed area and funded through an interlocal agreement
between the 27 jurisdictions within the watershed. Several iterations of commenting on the final plan
have been occurring in the last year. A public comment period occurred in December 2004. The
proposed plan is presently undergoing a 90 day review which is hoped to culminate in ratification of the
plan by the Forum members on May 26, 2005.
The proposed plan comprises three volumes. I have attached the executive summary. The remaining
chapters can be accessed online -- http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wdas/8. For the last several years the
Steering Committee has been overseeing development of the plan and various scientific analyses. The
science has identified three different populations of Chinook salmon in the resource area: the Cedar
River, North Lake Washington and the Issaquah populations. While the critical spawning activity occurs
in streams in these areas, Medina's shoreline plays a potential role in the migratory and rearing aspects
of the salmon lifecycle.
While the proposed plan stresses that the science is evolving and that strategies will have to adapt to
the results of monitoring, it does identify three categories of conservation actions: 1) land use, planning,
and infrastructure, 2) site -specific habitat protection, and 3) public outreach and education. With
Medina's shoreline being almost entirely single family residential and playing migratory role, site -specific
projects are unlikely to be proposed for Medina. At this time the direction of the plan is to make all of the
r�
ITEM D
land use / infrastructure actions voluntary. Public outreach actions, of course, do not involve any loss of
development rights. As a result, the proposed plan does not represent a significant encumbrance for
Medina or its citizens.
From a liability standpoint, it appears that support for the WRIA 8 proposed plan is the best action for the
City. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has not produced any other type of model
ordinance to give local governmental jurisdictions a clear route to ESA compliance. Chapter 8 of the
proposed plan — Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation -- discusses the hypothetical
process of a local government jurisdiction committing to certain conservation actions in exchange for
indemnity from the federal government. While this is an attractive idea, the chapter makes it clear that
no such agreements have been made by the federal agencies.
At least three Medina residents have written to the City Council providing comments on the proposed
plan.
Page 2
•
•
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Steering Committee Proposed WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
Why is there a plan and what is it?
The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 81), located in western
Washington, is home to three populations of Chinook salmon: Cedar River, North Lake
Washington, and Issaquah. Each year Chinook salmon spawn and rear in the WRIA 8
rivers and streams, and use the lakes, rivers, estuary, and nearshore to rear and migrate to
the ocean. Development in the watershed for human use has dramatically altered habitat
that salmon need to survive. Chinook salmon (known more commonly as king salmon) are in
trouble; they are far less abundant now than they were even in recent decades, and all three
populations are at high risk of extinction. In 1999, the federal government listed Puget
Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
Salmon have historically been, and continue to represent, a vital part of the culture and
economy of this watershed. The health of salmon populations is an indicator of overall
watershed health. Condition of fish habitat is linked to the quality of the environment and
the benefits human inhabitants reap from it. Concerned about the need to protect and
restore habitat for Chinook salmon for future generations, 27 local governments in WRIA 8,
including King and Snohomish counties, Seattle, and 24 other cities in those counties,
signed an inter -local agreement in 2001 to jointly fund the development of a conservation
plan to protect and restore salmon habitat.
The WRIA 8 Steering Committee developed this Plan through a multiple stakeholder
planning process. The Steering Committee is composed of city and county elected leaders,
concerned citizens, scientists, and representatives from business and community groups,
water and sewer districts, and state and federal agencies. The Steering Committee
Proposed WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan is the result of these collaborative
efforts. It is a science -based plan that contains recommendations for prioritized actions to
restore and protect salmon habitat, and a collaborative approach for implementing these
actions over the next ten years.
The decline of Chinook and other salmon has generally been attributed to four factors:
habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries. This Plan focuses on conservation of Chinook
salmon habitat because local governments have responsibility for the habitat -based aspects
of Chinook survival. Local governments and other WRIA 8 partners can make the most
impact on habitat where salmon spawn and rear, particularly through implementation of land
use and stormwater management policies and programs, local protection and restoration
projects, and public involvement opportunities. The state and the tribes, who are the legal
co -managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for addressing harvest and hatchery
management in WRIA 8. Puget Sound Shared Strategy will integrate harvest and hatchery
recommendations with habitat recommendations.
As noted above, bull trout have also been listed as threatened in WRIA 8 under the ESA.
Bull trout use some of the lower watershed for migration, overwintering, and foraging.
Although much less is known about bull trout's habitat needs, it is hypothesized that
The watershed is also referred to as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
February 25, 2005
Page 1
Executive Summary
proposed improvements to Chinook habitat (especially in the Lake Washington, Ship
Canal, and Puget Sound Nearshore subareas) will also benefit bull trout. The bull trout
in the Upper Cedar River watershed, i.e., in Chester Morse Lake, are included in the City
of Seattle's Habitat Conservation Plan.
Next steps to finalize the Plan
The Steering Committee has provided significant guidance in the Plan's development
and sought input from the public before finalizing the Plan. A public review process was
held from November 12t" through December 17t", 2004. The public provided comments
at four open houses and submitted 57 comment letters and emails. This feedback was
considered by the Steering Committee and the plan was revised.
Through this proposed Plan, the Steering Committee recommends local jurisdictions and
other WRIA 8 partners make commitments to implement actions and monitoring over the
10-year plan horizon. However, the proposed Plan does not commit jurisdictions or other
partners to fund or implement the recommendations. Before commitments can be made,
this Plan needs approval of the WRIA 8 Forum, composed of local elected leaders
representing the 27 jurisdictions that have funded the planning effort, and review and
ratification by local jurisdictions.
The proposed Plan is now being submitted to the Forum for their review and approval.
The Forum has 90 days to approve or remand the Plan, and recommend how ratification
by local jurisdictions should occur. Upon ratification, the Forum will submit the final Plan
to the Puget Sound Shared Strategy to become part of the regional recovery plan for
Chinook throughout Puget Sound (technically referred to as the Puget Sound Chinook
is Evolutionarily Significant Unit - ESU).
The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed covers 692 square miles and contains
two major river systems (Cedar and Sammamish), three large lakes (Washington,
Sammamish, and Union), and numerous creeks including Issaquah and Bear creeks. The
basin drains into Puget Sound through the Ship Canal and Hiram Chittenden (Ballard)
Locks. The WRIA includes the marine nearshore and a number of smaller creeks that drain
directly to Puget Sound between West Point in the City of Seattle northward to Elliott Point
in the City of Mukilteo. WRIA 8 is located predominantly in western King County, but about
15 percent extends northward into Snohomish County. Over 53 percent of the marine
shoreline is located within Snohomish County (see Figure 1, a map of the watershed).
Prior to the 1850s, the aquatic areas in WRIA 8 were a network of lakes, streams, sloughs,
marshes, islands, beaver ponds, and estuaries. The watershed consisted of forested land
through which meandered rivers and creeks. However, later in the 1800s, major alterations
began with heavy logging of old growth forests, which degraded forest cover, hydrology, and
instream habitat. At the turn of the 20t" century, Seattle built the Landsburg Diversion Dam
and tapped the Cedar River as its main source of water. Between 1910 and 1920, the Ship
Canal and Ballard Locks were built, which created a new connection between Lake
Washington and Puget Sound. The connection changed the outlet of Lake Washington from
the Black River at the south end of the lake, to the Ship Canal at the west end. This caused
Lake Washington's water surface elevation to drop about 10 feet, which in turn also dropped
the level of Lake Sammamish and dried up much of the wetlands along the Sammamish
River. About the same time, the Cedar River was channelized and re-routed to flow into
February 25, 2005
Page 2
•
i
Executive Summary
Lake Washington. In addition, the Sammamish River was straightened and its banks were
hardened. Thus, salmon were faced with a highly altered migration route to reach their natal
habitat, as well as an abrupt, artificial estuary to pass through as they moved in and out of
the WRIA 8 system.
Agriculture, and later, urban and suburban development during the 20t" century have further
altered the watershed's land cover and hydrology. Loss of forest cover and increased
impervious areas, increased water withdrawals to serve urban and agricultural areas, and
flood control activities (such as channelizing and confining rivers and streams) have all had
significant impacts on local instream habitats and the landscape processes that create and
maintain these habitats. Salmon have also been affected by development along lake
shorelines and the introduction of non-native fish and plants.
WRIA 8 is the most densely populated watershed in Washington. Approximately 55 percent
of the land area in the WRIA lies inside the Urban Growth Area. The population in 2002 was
approximately 1.3 million people; the projected population for 2022 is 1.6 million.
Scientific Foundation for the Plan
WRIA 8 Chinook populations
The Plan is built around the need to support recovery of three Chinook populations in the
watershed: the Cedar River population, the North Lake Washington population, and the
Issaquah population (see discussion below under Uncertainties). The Cedar River
population spawns in the Cedar River's mainstem and to a lesser extent in its tributaries.
When juveniles leave the river in the spring, they rear and migrate in shallow habitats along
Lake Washington's shorelines, particularly in the south end. The North Lake Washington
population spawns in the tributaries to northern Lake Washington and the Sammamish
River, including Bear, Little Bear, North, and Kelsey creeks. Issaquah Chinook spawn in
tributaries to Lake Sammamish, including the Issaquah Creek system and Lewis and
Laughing Jacobs Creek. Propagation of this population occurs through both natural
spawning — in the wild — and artificial spawning in the Issaquah Hatchery. Salmon from all
three populations migrate in and out of the watershed through the lakes, Ship Canal, and
Locks; juveniles rear in the marine nearshore areas of Puget Sound before heading to the
ocean. WRIA 8 Chinook populations are unique from other populations in the Puget Sound
ESU as they are the only ones that use a lake for rearing and migrating.
Current habitat conditions and limiting factors
Development in WRIA 8 for human uses has dramatically altered aquatic habitat conditions
and the processes that form and maintain them. The factors that limit salmon habitat are
similar for the lakes, rivers, and creeks in the watershed, although the magnitude of impact
varies by type of water body and specific watershed area. It is important to understand that
the limiting factors interact with one another to worsen the habitat problems seen in the
aquatic systems. The factors that limit habitat include:
• Altered hydrology (e.g., low base flows, higher peak flows following storms, and
increased `flashiness', which means more frequent and rapid responses when it rains)
• Loss of floodplain connectivity (e.g., reduced access to side -channels or off -channel
areas due to bank armoring and development close to shorelines)
• Lack of riparian vegetation (e.g., from clearing and development)
• Disrupted sediment processes (e.g., too much fine sediment deposited in urban streams,
or sources of spawning gravel disconnected from the river channel)
February 25, 2005
Page 3
Executive Summary
Loss of channel and shoreline complexity (e.g., lack of woody debris and pools)
• Barriers to fish passage (e.g., from road crossings, weirs, and dams)
• Degraded water and sediment quality (e.g., pollutants and high temperatures)
What the science says
The WRIA 8 Technical Committee is an inter jurisdictional, multi -stakeholder committee of
science professionals who developed the science foundation for the Plan. The Technical
Committee used three analytical tools to create the conservation strategy for Chinook
habitat protection and restoration. Those tools were a Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)
framework based on NOAA Fisheries guidance, a Watershed Evaluation, and an Ecosystem
Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) habitat model adapted to WRIA 8. NOAA Fisheries is
applying the VSP concepts to salmon recovery efforts throughout the West Coast; the
Watershed Evaluation was developed by the Technical Committee for application in WRIA
8. The EDT river habitat model has been used by the state and other entities around
Washington, and it was customized by the Technical Committee to include the lakes, Ship
Canal, and Locks.
The conservation strategy provides the framework for development of Plan actions and is
founded on basic ecosystem objectives, including:
• Protect and restore habitat Chinook salmon use during all of the life stages that are
spent in the WRIA 8 watershed, from egg to fry to smolt to adult
• Protect and restore the natural processes that create this habitat, such as natural flow
regimes and movement of sediments and spawning gravels
• Maintain a well -dispersed network of high -quality habitat to serve as centers for the
population
• Provide safe connections between those habitat centers to allow for future expansion.
The VSP assessment of the relative risk to the long-term viability of WRIA 8 Chinook salmon
determined that all three Chinook salmon populations are at extremely high risk of
extinction. Consequently, habitat actions, in coordination with actions by harvest and
hatchery managers, are needed to address all three populations. The Technical Committee
has hypothesized that the Cedar population is at the highest relative risk (because of steeply
declining abundance trends), followed by the North Lake Washington population, then
Issaquah. Therefore, the conservation strategy recommends that actions focus on areas
used by the Cedar Chinook population as first priority, followed by the North Lake
Washington population, and then Issaquah. This strategy could change pending results of
the genetics study (described in the Uncertainties section below).
The Watershed Evaluation divided areas used by each of the three populations into tiers,
based on relative watershed conditions and Chinook abundance and use. In general, Tier 1
subareas have the relatively highest quality habitat and highest fish abundance and/or use,
while Tier 3 subareas have the relatively most degraded habitat and infrequent Chinook use.
Actions in Tier 1 subareas generally are higher priority than Tier 2, but Tier 2 actions are
needed in many subareas to expand the Chinook populations spatially over the long term to
reduce the risk posed by having key life stages such as spawning and rearing occur in only
one stream or stream segment. In addition, actions are needed at the landscape scale to
protect and restore watershed processes that create and maintain Chinook habitat for all life
stages. Therefore, it is essential that land use and public outreach actions are implemented
in all three tiers. In general, actions recommended for the Tier 1 subareas should protect
and restore remaining high quality habitat and related processes, Tier 2 actions should
February 25, 2005
Page 4
Executive Summary
focus on protecting remaining habitat as well as restoring habitat to Tier 1 conditions, and
Tier 3 actions should focus on maintaining and restoring water quality and natural hydrologic
processes (stormwater and instream flows).
The EDT modeling phase of the technical work resulted in restoration and protection
priorities at both the landscape scale and reach scale. The conservation strategy identified
objectives for actions in each of the Chinook population and migratory areas; these are
summarized in Table 1 in the section on Actions below.
Working with and resolving uncertainties
This Plan reflects the most up-to-date scientific information available regarding the current
health of Chinook populations and their habitat in WRIA 8 and management actions that are
advisable and necessary to improve their health. However, there remain several areas of
scientific uncertainty that influence choices about which actions offer the most benefit
toward reaching the Plan's goals and objectives. Some of these uncertainties will be
addressed through research, and the research results will be incorporated into the Plan
through adaptive management. These uncertainties include, but are not limited to the
following:
• While the WRIA 8 Plan is based on three Chinook populations, the NOAA Fisheries
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT) identifies two: the Cedar River
Chinook and Sammamish River Chinook (which includes North Lake Washington and
Issaquah sub -populations). The WRIA 8 Technical Committee decided to take a
precautionary approach and plan for three populations. A genetics study of WRIA 8
populations, under way at this time, will help address some of the questions surrounding
current genetic differences that exist among Chinook stocks in WRIA 8.
• Uncertainties about salmon -habitat relationships and interactions among habitat,
hatchery, and harvest management decisions (including the relative contribution of
hatchery strays on spawning grounds and their impact) have not been fully explored.
• The Steering Committee mission and goals require that the Plan set a combination of
biological goals and habitat performance goals that focus on the habitat processes,
functions and structures that support the biological goals. The PSTRT and the co -
managers have identified biological goals (referred to as `planning ranges and targets')
for most Chinook populations in the Puget Sound ESU.
o Immediately prior to the publication of this Plan in February 2005, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provided recovery planning targets for
WRIA 8. These numbers were generated by WDFW using the WRIA 8 Technical
Committee EDT habitat model assuming "properly functioning conditions" for
habitat in rivers and streams and template (presumed historic) habitat conditions in
the lakes, Ship Canal, Locks, and estuary.
o The Technical Committee will continue to evaluate potential performance
measures, including the planning targets identified by WDFW, as part of the
evaluation of conservation actions during 2005.
• It has not been determined which actions provide the most habitat benefits per dollar
spent, and how far suites of actions will get us toward Chinook recovery. The treatment
phase, the "T" of the EDT model, to be completed during 2005, will provide additional
analysis and direction. Risk of not taking specific actions has not been determined.
• Effects of global warming have not yet been analyzed for the watershed. Puget Sound
Shared Strategy is providing analysis of global warming effects on salmon.
February 25, 2005
Page 5
I* Summary of Major Recommendations
•
Executive Summary
Adaptive management approach and implementation timeline
Plan implementation will be guided by the basic principles of adaptive management, which
encourage taking advantage of opportunities to assess progress and learning from actions
taken in order to make better decisions in the future. Given the complexity of salmon
recovery in WRIA 8, adaptive management can help stakeholders spend limited resources
in a more cost-effective way. This approach calls for setting quantitative and qualitative
goals for what WRIA 8 partners hope to achieve through the Plan and monitoring to
measure success towards achieving those goals. It also calls for establishing a
collaborative process to secure resources to carry out actions over the Plan horizon. The
Steering Committee made specific recommendations about organizational structure,
monitoring, and funding to implement the Plan adaptively, as summarized below.
The Steering Committee recommends an initial ten-year horizon for Plan implementation.
While setting this timeframe recognizes that stakeholders can more easily commit to taking
actions in the near term, it also acknowledges that salmon response to habitat
improvements — and detecting that response — will require a very long time. The Plan calls
for an annual report to keep stakeholders and the public informed on progress of
implementation, along with an assessment every three to five years to determine action
effectiveness and implications for Plan priorities.
Organizational structure
The Steering Committee recommends that the Plan be implemented collaboratively, to
continue the collaboration that has characterized current planning efforts in WRIA 8.
Coordinated efforts should include tracking actions, technically assessing action
effectiveness, communicating progress, and securing funding.
The Steering Committee's proposed organizational structure features:
• An Oversight Body to provide direction to ongoing Plan implementation activities and
guide work of committees and shared staff. This body would consist of representatives
of Plan implementers and funders, including government agencies, citizens, and non-
governmental organizations; it would meet at least quarterly.
• A Summit Advisory Body that would meet less frequently and would serve as a forum
where information about Plan progress could be widely shared. This body would advise
the Oversight Body on Plan priorities, resource allocation, and major Plan
improvements.
• Three working committees, made up of members from WRIA jurisdictions and
stakeholder organizations and consisting of a Technical Committee, an Action
Committee, and a Public Outreach Committee.
The Steering Committee recommends retaining a few shared staff to help keep jurisdictions
engaged in action implementation, support ongoing technical work to evaluate actions,
secure funding, staff WRIA committees, and to support collaborative implementation needs
generally. One of the proposed positions would be a high -profile Executive Director to lead
and facilitate efforts among WRIA partners, work with the Oversight and Summit Advisory
Bodies, secure external resources through lobbying, and network with the broader recovery
effort.
February 25, 2005
Page 6
•
Executive Summary
Actions to protect and restore habitat
The actions recommended in this Plan are intended to prevent further decline of Chinook
habitat and restore habitat that is now degraded. Actions were developed for all areas
where the three Chinook populations spawn and rear, and for the migratory and rearing
corridors Chinook use to travel to and from the ocean (Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish,
Sammamish River, Lake Union, Ship Canal, Locks, and Puget Sound Nearshore).
The habitat actions were developed through a collaborative bottoms -up process that
involved extensive participation of local stakeholders, jurisdiction staff, environmental and
business representatives, project experts, and the WRIA 8 Technical Committee. The
actions were developed with guidance from the Steering Committee mission and goals, the
conservation strategy, the Near -Term Action Agenda, and other existing habitat efforts such
as the Cedar River Legacy and Bear Creek and Issaquah Waterways programs. Table 1
summarizes the actions, organized by objectives outlined in the conservation strategy and
focused on specific scientific outcomes.
Actions for the Plan were developed in three broad categories:
• Land use, planning, and infrastructure: actions that address habitat -forming processes at
a landscape scale, and focus on accommodating future growth while minimizing impacts
to salmon habitat. Included are incentive programs, regulations, best management
practices, low impact development recommendations, enforcement actions, and policies
• Site -specific habitat protection and restoration projects: actions that protect or restore a
specific area or parcel through acquisition or easements, and restoration projects such
as levee setbacks, revegetation, addition of large woody debris, and removal of barriers
to fish passage
Public outreach and education: actions that support the land use and site -specific
actions or educate and encourage behavior that benefits habitat health, such as through
workshops for shoreline landowners, a regional marketing campaign, and promotion of
stewardship by businesses and community groups.
Site specific projects in the Plan are identified and prioritized for all Tier 1 and 2 subareas.
Land use and public outreach actions are provided for all tiers, including Tier 3. Actions are
presented in two forms: "comprehensive lists" of 1,200 actions that can be used by
implementers at any time to identify and carry out actions, and a much shorter "start -list" of
170 priority actions on which regional funding and analysis (e.g., the treatment phase of
EDT) will focus during the first ten years of Plan implementation. These lists will evolve
through the adaptive management process based on monitoring results and new science.
February 25, 2005
Page 7
Executive Summary
Table 1: Objectives and Focus of Actions Based on Conservation Strategy
Cedar River
North Lake Washin ton
Issaquah
MigratorylRearing
Objectives of actions for
Objectives of actions for Tier 1
Objectives of
Objectives of actions:
Tier 1 and 2 subareas:
and 2 Subareas:
actions for Tier 1
Reduce predation on
• Protect/restore habitat to
• Protect/restore habitat to
subareas:
juvenile migrants in
increase numbers of
increase numbers of Chinook
• Protect existing
lakes by increasing
Chinook salmon
salmon in Bear and Cottage
habitat and
rearing and refuge
• Improve habitat to
Lake creeks
ecosystem
opportunities
support juvenile rearing
• Expand distribution of Chinook
processes
Protect and restore
• Increase numbers of fish
into Tier 2 subareas to reduce
• Reduce risks of
natural estuary and
and life histories in Tier 2
risk of relying on Bear Creek
hatchery strays to
nearshore processes
subareas
other populations
Objectives of actions for Tier 3
(Note: All Chinook
Objectives of actions for
subareas:
streams in Issaquah
Tier 3 subareas:
• Maintain and restore water
are designated as
• Maintain and restore
quality and natural hydrologic
Tier 1)
water quality and natural
processes (stormwater and
hydrologic processes
instream flows)
(stormwater and
instream flows)
Focus of actions:
Focus of actions:
Focus of actions:
Focus of actions:
• Protect water quality
• Protect/restore water quality
Protect existing
Lakes Washington &
• Protect/restore instream
(reduce sediments and high
habitat and
Sammamish
flows
water temperature)
processes, such as
• Restore shallow
• Protect/restore riparian
• Protect natural hydrological
water quality,
water habitats and
habitat
processes
forest cover,
creek mouths for
• Remove/set back levees
• Protect/restore riparian
riparian cover,
juvenile rearing and
to restore connections
habitats
LWD, and channel
migration
with off -channel habitat
• Reduce bed scour from high
connectivity
Sammamish River
• Restore sources of large
stormwater runoff flows
• Hold on restoration
• Restore floodplain
woody debris (LWD) and
• Reduce confinement of the
actions until
connections and
add new LWD to restore
channel
additional
channel meanders
pool habitat
• Restore sources of LWD and
guidance comes
• Restore backwater
i
install new LWD to provide
from NOAA
pools, LWD, riparian
juveniles refuge from
Fisheries and
vegetation
predators
others as to how
Ship Canal/Locks
such actions would
• Reduce high
affect other
temperatures and
populations due to
restore shallow water
hatchery strays
habitats
• Continue to improve
fish passage through
Locks and Ship
Canal
Nearshore/Estuary
• Restore feeder bluffs,
"pocket" estuaries,
marine riparian
vegetation
• Restore riparian
vegetation and
freshwater mixing
zone downstream of
Locks
• Remove armoring
along shoreline
February 25, 2005
Page 8
Executive Summary
Measures and monitoring
The Steering Committee has recommended a strong monitoring program, recognizing that
effective monitoring can help provide certainty that funding is targeted to the most critical
actions and determine whether actions are achieving objectives. Three types of monitoring
are particularly recommended: implementation, direct effectiveness, and cumulative
effectiveness:
• Implementation monitoring asks how many and where actions are being implemented,
as well as their intended objectives.
• Direct effectiveness monitoring asks if specific actions (e.g., the addition of large woody
debris) have met their specific objectives (e.g., creating pools).
• Cumulative effectiveness monitoring asks whether and how multiple actions across a
basin are improving habitat and if salmon survival is improving because of those habitat
changes. Cumulative effectiveness is measured through such tools as aerial imagery to
evaluate habitat changes, and juvenile outmigrant (i.e., smolt) traps and spawner
surveys to evaluate changes in Chinook survival
The Steering Committee has identified cumulative effectiveness as the highest priority for
collaborative monitoring, and recommends that it encompass programmatic actions (i.e.,
land use and public outreach) and actions that reduce predation as well as site -specific
projects. Several elements are crucial to the success of the monitoring program. These
include: securing stable, consistent funding for monitoring; avoiding duplication of efforts
and creating partnerships with other entities involved in monitoring; focusing monitoring on
areas of greatest uncertainty; communicating monitoring results to decision -makers and the
public; and identifying endpoints to show when goals have been achieved. The Oversight
Body and Technical Committee will need to work closely with other entities in the very near
term to develop a comprehensive monitoring and data management program, and to find
funding for and implement the range of monitoring tasks.
Funding Plan implementation
The Steering Committee recommends a high level of effort to implement the Plan in order to
successfully protect and restore salmon habitat. Current funding, which includes
contributions from local, state, and federal agencies for projects that are focused on and
have direct benefits to salmon, is roughly estimated at $11 million per year. The Steering
Committee recommends funding for future Plan implementation in three areas: continued
regional collaboration (i.e., the shared staff and committee support described earlier),
implementation of site -specific and programmatic actions, and monitoring. In order to meet
this level of effort, the Steering Committee is proposing a funding strategy at a level that
exceeds current funding by 50 percent. A 50 percent increase would mean an annual
budget for the WRIA 8 Plan implementation of about $17.3 million. The adequacy of this
funding level reflects an assumption by the Steering Committee that the current level of in -
kind contributions of staff time from participating entities will continue during Plan
implementation.
The Steering Committee recognizes that in order to go beyond current funding levels, a
number of important steps are necessary, including the following:
• Support continuation of local and regional sources (e.g., King Conservation District and
King County Conservation Futures Tax)
• Develop local grant -writing and lobbying capacity
• Collaborate to secure new state and/or regional funding sources
February 25, 2005
Page 9
Executive Summary
• Encourage increased funding from federal sources, e.g., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
It should be noted that the proposed level of effort and funding is not based on the number
and type of actions that would need to be implemented annually to achieve a specific level
of salmon response. Additional information about what is necessary to achieve a specific
level of salmon response may become available through the adaptive management process
and the treatment phase of the EDT model.
Commitments
Implementation of the Plan is expected to offer many benefits to fish and humans,
including healthy salmon populations; improvement in overall ecosystem health (e.g.,
water quality); a legacy for future generations of salmon swimming through WRIA 8
streams and lakes; and assurances from federal and state governments to local
governments in exchange for commitments to fund and implement the ongoing
collaborative effort, proposed actions, and monitoring. The Steering Committee
recommends as a minimum commitment that jurisdictions pass resolutions to formally
consider the Plan as guidance, and possibly further, that jurisdictions commit to
implementing particular actions or adopting the entire Plan. The Steering Committee
supports various means to engage federal and state agencies, developers, landowners,
citizens, and other non -local government entities in actions that they could implement.
In exchange for making commitments to take action, the Steering Committee recommends
that jurisdictions work with the federal and state governments to negotiate potential benefits
and assurances. These could include funding, expedited permitting, de -listing criteria, and
standing of the federal government with the local jurisdictions should there be legal
challenges to the sufficiency of the Plan. The more assurances desired from the federal
government, the stronger the commitments will need to be. The Steering Committee
recognizes that this aspect of the proposed Plan is in its initial stages and is part of an
iterative discussion involving federal agencies and other entities participating in salmon
recovery. There will need to be a dialog among appropriate parties (such as the Forum,
Puget Sound Shared Strategy, federal, state, and local governments, and the co -managers)
to define and refine the final commitments, assurances, and expectations that will benefit
salmon recovery.
Future of WRIA 8 Salmon
With this Plan, the WRIA 8 Steering Committee — with the help of governments,
businesses, developers, shoreline landowners, community groups, gardeners, and
citizens — hopes to lead the region towards a legacy of healthy, harvestable salmon and
improved water quality for future generations. In the next 12 months, many decisions
about the recommendations in this Plan need to be made. What will be implemented, by
whom, and with what funding?
How we build our communities, the land and resources we choose to protect, and the
shoreline we select to restore all influence salmon habitat. The choice is up to the
residents, businesses, and governments in WRIA 8. Will we lose Chinook salmon
forever or alter our habits and learn to better co -exist with them? Will we leave only a
legend of the king salmon that once swam in our waters, or will we ensure the legacy of
thriving Chinook that migrate every year through our shared watershed? Decisions on
whether and how to implement this Plan will help determine the answer.
February 25, 2005
Page 10
2005
(.niinr.il (.Aenciar
•
r--,q
L___A
Description
January 10,
2005 Regular
Meeting
January 24,
2005 Study
Session
February 14,
2005 Regular
Meeting
February 28,
2005 Study
Session
2005 Study Sessions
Resolution
Adopted
2005 Leg Action Plan
Moved to 2/14
Approved
50 Anniversary
Planning
Completed
Annual Retreat Date
Completed
ARCH Budget
Approved
Citizen Survey
Moved to 2/14
Moved to 2/28
Moved to 3/14
Facilities
-City
Comprehensive Plan
Moved to 2/28
Moved to 3/14
consent
-Update
FY 2003 Year End
Financial Report
Completed
Labor Negotiation
—Strategies/Health Ins.
Moved to 3/14
Medina Park Off -leash
Rules
Completed
Public Relations Policy
Completed
PW & Bldg Code
Enforcement Contract
Services
Moved to 3/14
Side and Setbacks
No Action
Site Plan Review
Moved to 4/11
for public
hearing
Special Event
Involvement
-Policy/City
Tree Replacement —
84th Avenue N.E.
04/20/2005 Page 1 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\randyr.MEDINA-WA.000\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD6\2005
City Council Calendar.doc
2005
City Council Calendar
04/20/2005 Page 2 of 7
CADocuments and Settingslrandyr.MEDINA-WA.00O\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD612005
City Council Calendar.doc
C:
2005
City Council Calendar
March 14, 2005
Regular
Meeting
March 28,
2005 Study
Session
April 11, 2005
Regular
Meeting
April 25, 2005
Study Session
2006 Labor Agreements
Move to 4/11
ss
'
50th Anniversary
Planning
Moved to 4/11
Budget Amend.
Adopted
Administrative
Variances
Discussion
Citizen Survey
Completed
Contract
Authorized
Discussion
Comprehensive Plan
Update
Adopted
Critical Areas Ord.
Adopted
Financial Report — 1 s
Quarter
Moved to 5/9
K-9 Unit Gift
Acceptance
Authorized
Moved to 5/9
Loop Driveway Accessst:166i
Policy
Discussion
Medina Beach Park
Project
DiSGUSSin
Completed
Newsletter Policy
Moved to 5/23
PW/Code Enf Services
Interlocal Agreement
Discussion/Action
I Site Plan Review
Hearing
Continued to 5/9
Special Event
—Policy/CityInvolvement
Moved to 5/23
-Policy/City
Tree Replacement —
841" Ave NE
Moved to 5/23
WRIA 8 Conservation
Plan
Discussion
04/20/2005 Page 3 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\randyr.MEDINA-WA.000\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD6\2005
City Council Calendar.doc
0
2005
City Council Calendar
` Description
May 9, 2005
Regular
Meeting
May 23, 2005
Study Session
June 13, 2005
Regular
Meeting
June 27, 2005
Study Session
2006 Labor Agreements
Discussion
Administrative
Variances
Public Hearing
CIP/TIP — 2006 - 2011
Discussion
Citizen Survey
Discussion
Discussion
1 S Quarter Financial
Report
Discussion
Newsletter Policy
Discussion
Discussion/Action
Police Canine Unit
Discussion/Action
Regional
Communications
Project
Discussion
Site Plan Review
Public Hearin
-Special Event Policy
Discussion
Discussion/Action
Tree Replacement —
84th Avenue NE
Discussion
I
04/20/2005
Page 4 of 7
C:1Documents and Settingslrandyr.MEDINA-WA.000\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Filesl4LKD612005
City Council Calendar.doc
•
zoos
Citv Council Calendar
Description July 11, 2005 July 25, 2005 August 8, 2005 August 22,
Regular Meeting Study Session Regular Meeting 2005 Study
Session
2006 Budget Discussion
2006 Labor Agreements Discussion
Citizen Survey Discussion
Financial Report — Mid Discussion
Year
Medina Park Off -leash Discussion
Rules Revisit
04/20/2005 Page 5 of 7
C:\Documents and Settings\randyr.MEDINA-WA.000\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD6\2005
City Council Calendar.doc
1U__j
li
2005
City Council Calendar
September 12, September 26, October 10, October 24,
2005 Regular 2005 Study 2005 Regular 2005 Study
Meeting Session Meeting Session
2006 Budget
2006 Labor Aareements
Financial Report — 3'u Discussion
Quarter
Property Tax Lew I I I I X
04/20/2005 Page 6 of 7
CADocuments and Settin strand r.MEDINA-WA.000\Local Settin s\Tem ora Internet Files OLKD
g y 1 6\2005
g p rY
City Council Calendar.doc
I *
� 0
2005
City Council Calendar
Description November 14, November 28, December 12, December 26,
2005 Regular 2005 Study 2005 Regular 2005 Study
Meeting Session Meeting Session
Budget - 2006 Hearing Discussion Hearing/Action
-Property Tax Levy Hearing/Action
04/20/2005 Page 7 of 7
CADocuments and Settings\randyr.MEDINA-WA.000\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD6\2005
City Council Calendar.doc
o
o o
o
�cN
� R
y
8
u = C.
a o
not
3
C
a
v
n[�
3
D r
(D p)
`G
Q
a 4'
iakee
$ 4J duav'ffi S
i
r
Medina Municipal Code
2.78.070
2.78.040 Hearing examiner pro tem.
In the event of the absence or the inability of the
hearing examiner to act, the examiner pro tem shall
have all the duties and powers of the hearing exam-
iner. ( Ord. 701, 2001)
2.78.050 Conflict of interest.
The hearing examiner shall not conduct or par-
ticipate in any hearing or decision in which the
hearing examiner has a direct or indirect personal
interest which might influence the examiner, inter-
fere with the decision making process or raise an
appearance of fairness concern. Any actual or
potential conflict of interest shall be disclosed to
the parties immediately upon discovery. In the
event of a prehearing contact regarding a matter at
issue, the hearing examiner shall disclose said con-
tact and shall not participate in the hearing unless
all parties agree in writing to have the matter heard
by that hearing examiner. Nothing in this section
may be construed to prohibit the city manager or
any official or employee of the city from appearing
before or submitting written information to the
hearing examiner in the normal process of conduct-
ing public hearings for the city. (Ord. 701, 2001)
2.78.060 Rules for hearings.
The examiner shall provide rules for scheduling
and conduct of hearings and other matters relating
to the duties of the office. Such rules shall provide
for the admission of evidence, examination and
cross-examination of witnesses, rebuttal evidence
and all other matters relevant to the conduct of the
hearing. The examiner may limit the time allowed
to parties testifying on an equal basis, may establish
time limits for initial or rebuttal evidence, may limit
cross-examination of witnesses and may limit the
number of witnesses to be heard. (Ord. 701, 2001)
2.78.065 Variances — Conditions for
granting.
Where unnecessary hardships and practical dif-
ficulties are created for the landowner in the appli-
cation of the provisions of the zoning ordinances,
the hearing examiner shall have power, in passing
on applications therefor, to grant a variance in har-
mony with the general purpose and intent of said
zoning ordinances and such variances may vary
any rules, regulations or provisions of the zoning
ordinances relating to the use of land and/or struc-
tures so that the spirit of the ordinances will be
observed, public safety secured, and substantial
justice done.
A. The hearing examiner shall not vary any of
the rules, regulations, or provisions of the zoning
ordinances unless it finds, after public hearing, that
all of the following conditions exist in each case of
an application for variance:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances apply to the property itself, such as lot size,
shape or topography, which do not apply generally
to all other properties in the same zone or vicinity.
Qualifying circumstances shall not be the result of
the actions of the applicant or of the wrongful
actions of any previous owner that the applicant
was aware of or that the applicant should have been
aware of with the exercise of reasonable care.
2. The variance is necessary for the preserva-
tion of a property right of the applicant substan-
tially the same as is possessed by owners of other
property in the same zone or vicinity.
3. The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone
in which the subject property is located.
4. The granting of a variance will not consti-
tute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the same zon-
ing district.
5. The variance is necessary to relieve a
material hardship, which cannot be relieved by any
other means. The material hardship must relate to
the land itself and not to problems personal to the
applicant.
6. The variance permitted is the minimum
variance necessary.
7. The variance is compatible with and meets
the spirit of the comprehensive plan.
B. In determining whether to approve an appli-
cation for a variance, evidence of variances granted
under similar circumstances shall not be consid-
ered.
C. In authorization of a variance, the hearing
examiner may attach such conditions regarding the
location, character and other features of the pro-
posed structure as he or she may deem necessary to
carry out the spirit and purpose of the Medina zon-
ing code and the public interest. (Ord. 752 § 1,
2003; Ord. 701, 2001)
2.78.070 Hearing examiner - Duties.
The hearing examiner shall review and act on
the following:
A. Appeals of administrative decisions/deter-
minations, including but not limited to SEPA deter-
minations, lot line adjustments, short subdivisions,
administrative interpretations, code enforcement
2-25 (Revised 11/03)
City of Medina
Public Opinion Survey - Topic Area Categories
• Community character
• Service delivery
• Infrastructure improvements and financing priorities
• Regulations
• Police and safety
• Recreation and parks
• Communications with citizens
I
Public Opinion Survey
PRR was founded in 1981 to serve clients in the area of public affairs, research,
marketing, and information services. Its thirty-seven person, award -winning
staff has directed thousands of research, community relations and public information
programs. PRR focuses on providing our clients with services that inform, engage, and
empower them with the data they need for good decision -making. Because we offer the full
range of research and public involvement services we have the unique capacity and track -
record to develop creative citizen input tools to assess the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
of diverse constituencies.
Purpose
The community survey will help the City of Medina understand the opinions, needs and
preferences of the population it serves so that resources can be best utilized and so that
decisions will be informed and data -based. A variety of issues can be addressed in the survey
and our team will work with the City of Medina to identify those 'topic areas of most
importance and assist in prioritizing these for inclusion in the survey.
Approach
Early in the project PRR will meet with the City of Medina to clarify the project's objectives
and determine the project scope. Knowing exactly how the research results may be used will
help us answer key research design questions. It is vital to consider all potential uses of the
data and design an approach that will provide valid and reliable information.
PRR brings extensive training and more importantly, years of experience in the survey
research planning process. Regardless of the topic, each project will entail making good
decisions around issues of sampling, measurement, data analysis, and reporting. It is this
up -front research design phase where we most clearly see research as a unique blend of
science and art. Well -designed survey research is not just the application of technical skills.
Rather, it is the marriage of these technical skills with the ability to see the end result of the
research producing research designs that clearly, reliably and cost-effectively achieve our
clients' goals.
Research must reveal the people behind the statistics. If research doesn't address the right
issues, with the right questions, it won't be helpful. At PRR, we listen to our clients to make
sure they get what they need. And that's answers, not research.
City of Medina Public Opinion Survey PRR, Inc.
101
2
Data Collection Options
Telephone Survey
PRR has developed and implemented thousands of telephone surveys
using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). As our
strategic partner, PRR subcontracts the actual telephone survey fielding
„ to Pacific Market Research. Pacific Market Research utilizes a team of
approximately 150 data collection specialists trained under Market
Research Association guidelines and uses an 95-station centralized
telephone system networked with CATI interviewing software.
An added bonus of using PRR's online survey system is that the City of Medina will be able
to view the tabulation of responses to survey questions in real time by logging onto a secure
website. This means that much of the data analysis is done automatically as the data is
collected resulting in cost savings. Finally, by using online surveys the City of Medina is
building the capacity to re -administer the surveys at some time in the future at significantly
reduced cost, thereby allowing for efficient and cost-effective trend analysis. For more detail
about PRR's online survey system go to http://www.prrbiz.com/servicesicust pulse.asp
Advantages and Disadvantages of Data Collection Methods
City of Medina Public Opinion Survey PRR, Inc
3
Project Work Plan
• Develop, in collaboration with the City of Medina, a survey designed to measure key
variables related to project goals. The survey will be designed to take either 10 or 12
minutes to complete. Given the variety of topic areas that may be included in the survey
(and the fact that different topic areas may have different numbers of questions
associated with them) it is difficult to estimate the number of topic areas that would be
included in a 10 versus a 12 minute survey. However, based on our past experience, we
would estimate that approximately 30 questions can be included in a 10 minutes survey
(including demographic questions) and about 35 can be included in a 12 minute survey.
Recent work contained eight topics in a 10 minute survey for the City of Bainbridge
Island and twelve topic areas for South Fidalgo Island.
• Establish a sampling frame for the City of Medina area through the purchase of a
random digit dialing list (to allow for the inclusion of the approximately 40%+ of unlisted
phone numbers) and/or mailing list for mail and online survey options.
• Ensure confidentiality/anonymity to respondents in order to obtain good response rates
and accurate information.
• Include adequate pre -testing to ensure that survey questions are understood and that
the survey is not experienced as an intrusion to respondents.
• Consult with City of Medina on methods to make citizens aware of impending survey in
order to increase response rate.
• Field the survey and obtain a minimum of 400 completed surveys, resulting in a margin
of error of + 4.43 percent (based on a population of 2,195 residents 1is years of age or
older).
• If a telephone survey is used, in order to control for sampling bias at least four attempts
to contact each randomly selected household will be made at different times of the day
and different days of the week. We are offering two sampling options, both of which are
standard in the telephone surveying business, but the second of which is superior at
reducing sampling bias. (See Attachment A for a description of these two methods.)
Statistical Analysis
PRR will analyze results of the surveys using appropriate statistical techniques that will validly
summarize the data (descriptive statistics), as well as indicate the strength and nature of
relationships between and among variables (bi-variate and multi-variate analysis). Tests of
statistical significance will be conducted so that the City of Medina will be able to have
confidence in the results as a tool for decision -making. In addition, logistical regression can
be used to determine the relative impact of specific citizen characteristics on their opinions
and future behaviors. Cluster analysis can be used to identify any relevant citizen segments
relative to community opinions.
Reporting and Presentation
PRR will write a final report in a clear and focused style so that results, conclusions and
recommendations are easily understood by a variety of audiences. As important as the
content of a report is, it is equally important to focus on how that information is presented.
PRR's information architecture and Edward Tufte trained approach ensures that research
results will be effectively delivered and understood.
City of Medina Public Opinion survey PRR, Inc.
4
Tinlplinp
Option Combinations
Total Costs
Data Collection
Total Costs
(with least expensive
(per
Common Tasks
Options
(per option)
phone option)
combination)
identify data collection
approach & topic areas
$1,157
Online
$1,829
$13,752
Mail & online
$16,608
Develop survey question
$2,797
Mail
$2,856
$14,779
Online & telephone
$21,254
Data analysis, reporting
Telephone (10 minute,
& presentation
$5,597
standard sampling
$7,502
$19,425
Mail &telephone
$22,281
Telephone (10 minute,
Project management
1 $2,372I
advanced sampling
! $8,3021
$20,225
lOnline, mail&telephone
$24,110
Telephone (12 minute,
Common Task Total
$11,923
standard sampling
$8,477
$20,400
Telephone 112 minute,
advanced sampling
$9,278
$21,201
Additional option:
■ Online survey with automatic online data tabulation and customized online reports. - $8,155
Why Choose PRR?
• Full -service research and public involvement firm
• Decades of experience working with municipalities and city councils
• Extensive experience in the land use, transportation and community growth arenas
• Advanced quantitative and qualitative data analysis capabilities
• Extensive public opinion and public involvement activity
• Easy and fun to work with
• Always, always looking for ways to leverage client funds
Project Team
Bruce Brown, Ph.D. - Director of Research, PRR
Katherine Schomer, M.A. - Research Associate, PRR
Alex Sobie, B.A., Lead Designer, PRR
Kelly Snyder, BA, Roth Hill
Andrew Rosenkranz, J.D. - Managing Director, Pacific Market Research
City of Medina Public Opinion Survey PRR, Inc.
Jt-
Attachment A: Telephone Survey Sampling Options
Option 1: Regular random sampling using random digit dial phone lists
Prior to the start of each project we use the CFMC Survent software to set a maximum
number of attempts on each piece of sample and to distribute attempts on different days of
the week and at different times of the day ("day -parts"). We generally set the maximum
attempts to each household at 4 attempts and set the software so that follow up attempts to
reach a household will be spread through different day -parts and on different days of the
week. We only attempt viable numbers 4 times. For instance, if a telephone number is
disconnected, that number is considered "dead" and will not have 4 attempts.
Usually when making 4 attempts, we make sure that the attempts are spread as follows:
• 1 attempt: Monday -Friday, 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm
• 1 attempt: Monday -Friday, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
• 1 attempt: Saturday or Sunday, 10:00 am - 6:00 pm
• 1 attempt: Made on any day/time of the week after the 3 previous attempts have been
made.
Option 2: Random sampling for legal cases using random digit dial phone lists
This approach is identical to that described above except that we divide the sample into reps,
with each rep containing a specific number of telephone records. On any rep that is "worked"
(where we dial a telephone number within that rep) all the sample within that rep is
"exhausted". By exhausted we mean that every piece of sample is dead or has been dialed 4
times In the initial week of data colter ion Wn try tC dntnrMine the number of raps we will
...1• I L I11 ..dI week data 1�..%- I Y\. LI \-L%—I III `. 11\.. IJ%_1 I %_ Y\.. 111
need to work in order to reach our total quota of completes. Because we work a rep until all
the sample is exhausted, we may finish with slightly more completed surveys than our
original quota. For example, if we are attempting to get 900 completed surveys, and we have
rens of ?no telanhnne ni 1mberc which Ara vielriinn nn a �rarana of 1 , d r^mm�latac nor ran Win
v'..i �'../V' 1 \... 11 .�. �.. I ..r l ./ M �.. V I i I. I \.. V I I I✓ 1 �r 1. V J '.J �r I 1 V t.J , • V�
will need to work 63 reps in order to get the 900 completed surveys, and will end up with
approximately 907 completed surveys.
City of Medina Public Opinion Survey PRR, Inc.
To answer these vital questions, we must first assess what needs
independent nn�proftt
are — and are not — being met in our community. This important
corporation, xHs serves as
research is a needs assessment, a process called for by the City of
Bainbridge Island's official
Bainbridge island's Comprehensive Plan.
advocate advisor for
In November and December 2002, the Health, Housing and
human services and re-
Human Services Council (HHHs) conducted a needs assessment with
sonsible fore
a special focus on identifying the unmet needs or gaps in human
Human Services Element
services. This assessment is an important first step to begin ad-
of the C'ity,s evrnprehen-
dressing unmet needs and to align the city's human services fund -
sive flan a realit)t
ing with our community's needs.
HOW THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE
z
Community Demographic Profile — To create an up-to-date
picture of the island's population, we used census data and
other information such as Bainbridge island and Kitsap County
agency reports, City of Bainbridge island data and Bainbridge
island resident surveys.
Survey — We surveyed 82 Bainbridge island human service pro-
viders and other persons knowledgeable about island human
v
services and needs to determine which needs are being met,
and where there are gaps in services.
Focus Groups — We conducted focus groups with consumers of
human services (seniors, youths and single parents) as well as
with community opinion leaders to further understand the
island's human service needs.
We had excellent response to the assessment and we received
consistent feedback and information from survey respondents and
"I think people
appreciate the
services they know
about, but might
be in the dark
about what is
available. "
Bainbridge island's population is growing and chary-
ing. Compared with both Kitsap County and the state
as a whole, our population has grown significantly in
the past decade, increasing by almost 30% between
1990 and 2000. However, the growth rate is expected
to slow in the next five years to only about 30/6 be-
tween 2002 and 2007.
Perhaps even more significant than the sheer in-
crease in numbers is how our community is changing.
The human seYVICeS dilemma —
Only about a third of households have school -aged
children while the percentage of female -headed house needs amidst affluence
holds with school -aged children continues to rise. Compared to Kitsap County and Washington State,
Based on current figures and projections to 2007, Bainbridge island is characterized by higher educa-
we can expect fewer young children (0-9 year -olds) tion levels, lower unemployment, higher median
and a decrease in the percentage of adults in the main incomes, fewer female -headed households, higher
childbearing years (25-44 year -olds}. On the other rates of homeownership and less crime. However, real Isla
hand, we can expect many more middle-aged persons human service needs exist and there is less affluence t0 l
and pre -retirees (45-64 year -olds) with the percentage on Bainbridge island than commonly assumed. he
of residents 85 and older also expected to increase. 7.5% of Bainbridge island children live in poverty
Thus, Bainbridge island is both growing and gray- and nearly one out of four households (23.7%) have
ing. This will result in increased demand for human ser- annual incomes of less than $35,000. it's not surpris-
vices, especially for services designed to meet the needs ing that fully 70% of survey respondents feel that
of an older population. increasing housing costs have made a major impact
35
30
0
co
a 25
0
a
20
0 15
o
v
2 10
v
CL
5
0
Under 9
10-19
"Many people on the human services system, and that the ability of
don't realize people to afford to live on Bainbridge Island is per -
how much of a ceived to have decreased.
need there is." The reality of human service needs within a
relatively affluent community has created a special
human services dilemma: Since Bainbridge island's
needs are less visible, there is a perception that most
people's needs are met, and consequently it's hard for
1990
2000 people to ask for services.
est. 2007 "We probably have. many
eligible for services who are
access them bases
20-24 25-44 45-64 65-84 65 £t older
age categories
CHANGES IN AGE CATEGORIES
expressed as percent of total population on Bainbridge Island
fur unmet human service needs
Our community's strong commitment to our human services system
is demonstrated by city funding, private donations, volunteer activ-
ity and support from local non -profits, the school district, the park
district, the fire district and city government. Survey respondents
report that many human service needs are well met through an ex- "We have a relatively Complex
tensive human services system of skilled service providers. offering of services, well
supported by the community
SURVEY RESULTS for a community our size. "
While the majority of human service needs are being met, there are
some needs that are perceived as not being met well. These are areas
of need where there is a significant gap between the perception of MEETING HUMAN SERVICE NEEDS
how big a need is and the ability of providers to meet the need. The gap analysis of survey respondents
largest perceived gaps are in:
� Affordable assisted living For seniors ' How big an issue is this? (1 = not an issue at all; 5 =very big issue)
How well is need being met? (1 = not met at all; 5 = met completely)
Fyou work on the • Affordable medical and dental care
you can't afford • Affordable housing options Adult day care services`
e here. If you live • Alcohol abuse among youthti�"l
Alcohol abuse -youths WNIWOMWIN
you can't afford • Drug abuse among youth
Child care for special needs children
to work here. " • Child care for special needs children p "11WI NOWAN:S
• Adult day care Drug abuse - youths NON
These areas were also identified as growing,.���
Affordable housing options
needs in the last twelve months.
Affordable medical Et dental care
FOCUS GROUP FINDINGSAffordable assisted -living for seniors \
Focus group participants identified their top A&W
1 2 3 4 5
human service concerns.
Seniors noted a lack of medical and dental services, affordable pre-
scriptions, adult day care, companionship opportunities and mental
health services on the island. "Teenagers here have
Youth noted a lack of family planning, rape, assault and suicide a hard time finding
prevention services, as well as the need for a stronger vocational things to do ... after
track in the school system. 7 PM Bainbridge pretty
Single parents noted the need for domestic violence services, child- much shuts down."
adividuals care for parents who work off the island and services for special-
luctant to needs children. They echoed the sentiments of youth through
)n pride. " their desire for a stronger emphasis on vocational training in the
school system.
`If you don't have a car, it's difficult
to get around to buy groceries and
see a doctor.
0
Health, Housing -and Human Services Council
Health, Housing and Human Services Council
221 Winslow Way West, Suite 203
Bainbridge Island, VITA 98110
206/84 -9335
hbhsobainbpdgc..net
Challenges to meeting human service needs
in the big picture of human service needs, several challenges remain.
AWARENESS OF NEEDS AND SERVICE SYSTEM
Providers, consumers and public opinion leaders believe there is a
"Guilt and
general lack of awareness of both Bainbridge island's human service
embarrassment
needs and the existing human services system.
are enormous
ACCESS TO EXISTING SERVICES
barriers, especially
In addition to the lack of awareness, about two-thirds of those surveyed
in such a prosperous
believe there are reasons people can't access the existing human services
community. "
system. These reasons, also noted by focus group participants, include:
• Perceived stigma associated with using services. Prosperity and af-
fluence have set a high standard, making it harder for those in need.
• Concerns about confidentiality. Going to a human service provider "Because this is
is believed to be noticed in such a small community. an island and a
• Transportation problems. Public transportation options are perceived relatively intimate
to be oriented towards the needs of commuters and less towards the Commun ty, I
needs of those traveling on the island during non -commute hours. think individuals
needing help are
Moving forward - our next steps notforthcoming."
Share the information we've learned as broadly as
possible through the media and presentations
to community groups. if your group would
like a presentation, please call or email us. What do you thin..k?
Create a steeringcommittee and action teams '
Call our toll -free Interactive ` Voice
to work on the unmet human service needs Response line at 206/343-3962 to
we've identified, building on the work of ex- offer your suggestions on how to best
isting groups where possible. address the unmet human service 'nee ds
Continue to work with the City and human ser- on Bainbridge Island.
vice agencies to develop policies and funding Your ideas can make a difference)
that support needed improvements in our hu-
man services system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to the HHHS Needs Assessment Task Force, our consultant PRR, inc., printed on recycled paper
Joel Sackett Photography and our funders, the Glaser Foundation and the City of Bainbridge island May 2003 ,