HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-25 Council Minutes - Work SessionKENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
OCTOBER 25, 2001
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
MAYOR JOHN J. WILLIAMS, PRESIDING
Council Present: Williams, Bookey, Porter, Bannock, and Moore
Staff Present: Freas, La Shot, Graves, Kornelis, Snow
Harbor Commission: Rogers, Graves, Foster, McCollum, Thompson
P&-Z Commission: Bryson, Glick
Others: Molly Graves, Glenda Landua, Helen Donahue, Debbie
Sonberg, Ronald B. Hansen and Paul Fuhs and Dennis
Nottingham, Petratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. (PND)
The work session began at 7:02 p.m. Williams noted the agency response letters
which were distributed to council prior to the work session and available to the rest of
the attendees.
Paul Fuhs reviewed the steps taken by PND in preparing for submittal of the permit
application, noting the process began in May at which time they met with all the
agencies and asked their specific concerns in order to focus on and address them in
the application. Studies were made of the sand dunes, circulations and sedimentation
patterns and their effect on dunes, marine mammals and salmon. They then hired Dr.
Orson Smith, Coastal Engineering Program to review the agency response letters and
answer the questions they posed for an independent analysis. They concluded
• the sand dunes were wind-blown sand and not a marine definition of
sand;
• the sedimentation from the river bank was not building the dunes and
wouldn't have negative impact on them;
• the siltation was coming down the river and the eroding bluffs and noted
it was a south -to -north migration.
• there would not be any major negative impacts to the river from stopping
the erosion of the bluff.
This information was circulated and he wrote several letters and emails to the
agencies and requested them to comment on the study, issues raised, etc. After about
two months, no objections had been received from the agencies, and they were
instructed to submit the application. The application was submitted and no
comments were made until the day before the end of the comment period at which
time the letters (distributed to the work session attendees) were received.
Fuhs stated his disappointment in the responses and the manner in which they were
offered. He noted, among the comments, there were none that specified concerns.
The studies the agencies requested, he estimated, would take ten years to do and cost
more than the project.
Nottingham noted PND included an alternative design with a letter distributed at the
� beginning of the work session. He explained this design would place a sea wall above
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
October 25, 2001
Page 2 of 3
the mean high tide line and would not require any permits. Though Plan B would not
be as attractive, it would accomplish the task and cost a lesser amount than Plan A.
Fuhs suggested a letter be written to the agencies and request specific issues; meet
with the congressional and state legislative delegations and request their assistance as
well as continue requesting funding for the overall project; and, hold a public meeting
to hear concerns of the community and how united the community is in supporting
the project.
Discussion followed with the council and information garnered as follows:
• With the alternate plan, how would it affect the north side of the river?
The alternate plan would place the wall above the water line.
• Will use of the Plan B allow repair? The piles are driven into the ground
and wouldn't undercut, therefore there wouldn't be any maintenance.
• Will Plan B affect the buy-back of property needing to be required for
grading of the slope? In some cases more land may be needed.
• Will Plan B be more costly? No. Both plans could be brought forward to
final design for either an alternative bid or only one plan. There won't be more cost to
the engineering of the project. However, if permitting goes forward, requiring
additional studies, costs would increase.
• Would loss of sands off the bluff be detrimental to Plan B? The Corps
has no permitting authority on dry land, however there could be other rules and
regulations that could come into play.
• Is there a difference in the cost of maintenance between Plans A and B?
Corrosion above the tide line is not a rapid process in Alaska and it is believed the
structure would last 100 years for either of the Plans with very little maintenance.
It was suggested a letter be written to Senator Stevens to repudiate comments made in
an email to him from K. Tarbox. Williams noted, the Kenai River Management group
was commenting on actions that would take place below the bridge and this was out of
their jurisdiction.
There was general agreement of council and commissioners in their disappointment
with the letters of objection received from the agencies and that the city continue with
Plan A as it was noted by Bookey, that plan would be better for the city and the
project. It was also suggested that because Fish & Game would not prefer the use of
sheet piling, it could help in their reassessment of their concerns.
Debbie Sonberg -- Stated it would be interested to see what projects the agencies did
approve of this nature in order for the city to go look at them.
It was suggested by Commissioner Graves that litigation could be an avenue to use by
researching agency roles, if they overstepped their authority in other cases, in order to
develop an inventory of facts to strengthen the city's position. It was noted litigation
would slow the project for many years. Graves offered her help in the research.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
October 25, 2001
Page 3 of 3
Strategy Z Conclusions:
• Plan A is preferred, however leave Plan B as an option.
• Inform agencies of Plan B and request them to specify their concerns and
objections in writing, giving a time line for their response.
• None of the concerns are insurmountable, if the agencies act in good
faith. Plan A offers protection for the salmon smolt from other fish varieties.
• Write a letter to the state and congressional delegations informing them
of the progress of the project and concerns related to misinformation sent in letters
from agency representatives and others.
• Arrange a meeting with the public, agencies, area legislators, and
congressional delegations or their staff members (suggested holding the meeting at the
Senior Citizens Center or Armory) .
• Continue the hold on the application until after the letters and meetings
are held so that additional comments can be made by the city and the agencies. If the
process is resumed at this time, the only comments on the record will be the current
agency comments.
• Council/ staff should make presentations to local clubs and organizations
to educate the public about the project. (Develop a Power Point presentation with
pictures of the bluff erosion, design drawings, project information, etc.)
• Encourage public letters of support of the project be forwarded directly to
the Corps of Engineers.
The work session ended at approximately 8:22 p.m.
Notes prepared by:
Carol L. Freas, City Clerk