PC Comment Summary Table10-20-05

Ddonovan

Description

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005 Comment Comment/Initials Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission Number Code Amendment (if Recommendation applicable) 1. Overlays: The proposed changes to Comment noted. Please see staff No further changes identified. the Overlays appear to reduce the responses in Public Comment effectiveness of the intent of the Response Matrix (item 35). The Overlay Districts. See specifically overlay section would be moved from the Tilliacos and Stahl comments. SMC 21A.85 to SMC 21A.50 SH primarily for ease of use, particularly for the public. Having all of the What is the reasoning (which you applicable provisions located in the may have explained, but same portion of the code assists the information overload sometimes public in determining the occurs) of moving the Overlays into requirements applicable to their other code sections, rather than property. Moving the overlays within keeping them as a stand-alone? Is Title 21A has no effect on their there any particular reason against regulatory authority; regulations keeping the Overlay codes separate? protecting the overlays will apply to SH properties regardless of location of standards in the code.. 2. Incentives: The general and Comment noted. Please see staff Additional language is currently multiple comments about penalizing ...

Informations

• Publié par: Tanid
• Nombre de lectures: 35
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   Comment Comment/Initials Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Plannin Commission Number Code Amendment if Recommendation applicable) 1.    Overlays: The proposed changes to Comment noted. Please see staff No further changes identified. the Overlays appear to reduce the responses in Public Comment effectiveness of the intent of the Response Matrix (item 35). The Overlay Districts. See specifically overlay section would be moved from the Tilliacos and Stahl comments. SMC 21A.85 to SMC 21A.50 SH primarily for ease of use, particularly  for the public. Having all of e th What is the reasoning (which you applicable provisions located in the may have explained, but same portion of the code assists the information overload sometimes public in determining the occurs) of moving the Overlays into requirements applicable to their other code sections, rather than property. Moving the overlays within keeping them as a stand-alone? Is Title 21A has no effect on their there any particular reason against regulatory authority; regulations keeping the Overlay codes separate? protecting the overlays will apply to SH properties regardless of location of  s andards in the code.. t   2.    Incentives: The general and Comment noted. Please see staff Additional language is currently multiple comments about penalizing responses in Public Comment being developed for the Planning property owners who already are Response Matrix (item 28). Wetland Commission’s consideration. doing “the right thing” by restoring and stream buffer enhancement buffers and rewarding those who incentives are provided in proposed have already “ruined” their land buffer reduction code sections (Tiliacos) is compelling. Comments (21A.50.290 (7) and 21A.50.330 (6). on this point will be useful. SH, RC In addition, staff is considering an  alternative approach that would Bill Way, a professional in this require a prescriptive buffer from the field, cautioned about over- OHWM of lakes with buffer regulating. SH reduction options such as vegetation  p eservation and restoration, etc. r Perhaps stronger language and

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   incentives for restoration required in the code. SH, RC   3.    Lake Buffers: One presenter A 150 foot prescriptive buffer is not Additional language is currently commented about the circumstance proposed for lakes. In the current and being developed for the Planning in which a property adjacent to a proposed code, buffers are to be Commission’s consideration. property that is adjacent to the lake required from the critical area itself (Pine Lake in his example) would and are not affected by property lines. be subject to the 150 ft buffer Buffers, setbacks and other requirements, and that this seems regulatory restrictions are only unreasonable. I tend to agree on required if/when a permit is needed to principal. Further discussion on this authorize an action and then only circumstance is appreciated; and applied to the property being does it make sense to alter the code permitted. to allow for this circumstance? SH    4.    Study Costs: The idea of requiring Response to this issue was included Include language to allow people to undertake costly studies in the public comment summary development to use past studies for a deck or shed within buffers matrix, provided to the Planning from neighboring properties, if was a point of concern expressed by Commission on October 13, 2005 and adequate. the PC. This discussion was updated on October 20, 2005 deferred to deliberations. Staff suggesting potential code changes as Modify language which currently discussion required. SH noted. Buffer reduction options tied identifies a 215 foot study  to restoration incentives are provided threshold to instead state "within Can the implementation of low in conjunction with required wetland the distance equal to the largest impact development techniques aid and stream buffers. Incentives potential required buffer" to in some of these buffer include some low impact avoid studies when clearly encroachment and costly study development techniques, which outside of buffers.   issues? This ranges from the would still require City review to aforementioned deck and shed to ensure that they are implemented as homes, etc. Should this be written intended. Please see additional staff into the code as a way to avoid responses in Public Comment costly environmental studies for the Response Matrix (item 4). small, back-yard do-it-yourselfer? SH    

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   5.    SO-190 Overlay: The Stahl Response to this issue was included Additional code language and presentation on the SO-190 overlay in the public comment summary information will be forthcoming is detailed and deserves a detailed matrix, provided to the Planning for Planning Commission response in the fashion of a Commission on October 13, 2005 and consideration. submittal to a DEIS and FEIS updated on October 20, 2005. Please response. SH see staff responses in Public  Comment Response Matrix (item 36). What is the basis for the city seeking to, in essence, reduce the Staff supports overlay district size of the overlays? Specifically, changes presented in the staff memo what studies have been done to and attached table dated September support the proposed changes? SH 29, 2005 that would expand the  application of the overlays in some Please provide a before-and-after instances, provide for some map of the changes to the overlays discretion, and increase consistency and highlight the changes. SH with the zoning code. Further  revisions to is memo are being th considered by staff based on further review of comments, related mapping issues, and other information. In addition, staff have sought information from current and former King County staff to help clarify the intent and effect of the East Sammamish Basin Plan and related studies.   6.    Lake Definition:  Staff has There was a period of time when No further changes identified. provided a definition of “lake,” yet King County designated Pine and KC also identified Pine Lake and Beaver Lakes as Class 1 wetlands for Beaver Lake was Class 1 wetlands. regulatory purposes, but this was I’ve always been confused about prior to adoption of the Department this and any different treatments in of Ecology’s wetland manual. King codes the competing classifications County now follows Ecology’s call for. Guidance on this will be guidance on small lakes, which greatly appreciated. SH would designate only those portions

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   of the lakes meeting wetland criteria, including vegetation, as wetlands. This County administrative change resulted in some lake shore properties having no wetland restrictions at all, some properties having Class 3 wetland buffer restrictions, some properties having Class 2 wetland buffer restrictions, and some having Class 1 wetland buffer restrictions. The City’s current regulation of these lakes under the Shoreline Master Program is consistent with this previous County administrative direction   prior to the City’s incorporation. The City also regulates wetlands and streams that occur along shorelines under our current regulations. The proposed regulations regulate lakes and naturally-occurring ponds as critical areas. This topic is further discussed in the October 6, 2005 Planning Commission packet materials.   7.    Structure Replacement: A The proposed code revisions would No further changes identified.   presenter raised the question about not alter the non-conforming use replacing a home within a buffer section of the code, Chapter 21A.70 that’s destroyed by fire [or other SMC. This section allows for natural disaster]. Please discuss. SH replacement of a non-conforming  structure on the same footprint within 12 months of its destruction.   8.    Wetland Alterations: A presenter The current and proposed code Staff suggests revision of queried the proposal to use a regulates whether and how any 21A.50.300 (7) (b). wetland as an R&D pond (Section wetlands may be used for stormwater

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   A, pg 37, 7(b)); and the elimination detention. Staff agrees that of LSRA and RSRA from language. stormwater detention should not be A-Pg. 38 (c). SH allowed in wetlands. Staff suggests  revision of 21A.50.300 (7) (b). Please see staff responses in Public Comment Response Matrix (item 24).   The Locally Significant Resource Area (LSRA) and Regionally Significant Resource Area (RSRA) designations pertain to King County code and do not have effect within the city of Sammamish.   9.    Created Critical Areas: Presenter Staff is considering an alternative Additional language is currently   Burkholder (spelling?) testified he approach that would require a being developed for the Planning    created a wetland through prescriptive buffer from the OHWM Commission’s consideration. restoration and now is penalized of lakes with buffer reduction options   because of the larger buffer that such as vegetation preservation and now applies. SH restoration, etc. Please see staff  responses in Public Comment Response Matrix (item 28).   10.    Reasonable Use: Presenters Reasonable use exceptions are No further changes identified. repeatedly claimed 150 foot buffers currently utilized to allow reasonable make their lots unbuildable and use of property that is entirely question the “reasonable use constrained by critical areas and exception” as a way to build. Please buffers. Flexibility in each of the discuss. SH sections has been built into the  proposed code and should reduce somewhat the need for reasonable use exceptions. Please also see staff responses in Public Comment Response Matrix (items 9 and 10).   11.    Lake Buffers: Bill Way discussed Staff is considering an alternative As noted previously, alternative some complex things concerning approach that would require a language related to lake

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   “wind edge” and said buffers of 5- prescriptive buffer from the OHWM buffers/fish and wildlife habitat is 30 feet are the most critical areas. of lakes with buffer reduction options being drafted which will also Please discuss. SH such as vegetation preservation and address this issue.  restoration, etc. Please see staff   responses in Public Comment Response Matrix (items 30 and 31).     Comments Related to S ecific    Code Lan ua e:   12.    “Significant” vs. “Considerable” Staff recognizes the lack of clarity A staff revision is underway. language, as discussed at the PC. regarding “considerable impact” and SH will prepare a revision that removes   “considerable” from the sentence.         13.    A-6, 21A.50.060 Partial Exemptions Comments noted. Staff have No further changes identified . (e) (i) and (ii). This entire section is reviewed the proposed language and poorly worded and difficult to have not found areas where language understand. SH could be improved, however the Planning Commission may request changes as a result of deliberations.     14.    A-6, (3): introductory graph does On page A-6, 21A.50.060 Partial No further changes identified .   not place any time frame “where Exemptions (3) (d) limits the time   previous critical areas reviews” frame to 5 years. Provision (d) have been done. This theoretically further states that if more than 5 years (and perhaps legally) could mean have passed since previous studies 10-15 years ago or more. I don’t were conducted and accepted and site believe this should be open-ended. conditions have clearly not changed, SH the director may determine that  additional studies are not needed.   (d): “if a new review would be This allows the City to reduce study unlikely to provide new requirements and costs for an information….” How is this applicant when previously supplied determined? Who makes this studies clearly remain adequate.   

 

 

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   determination? This seems subject to arbitrary and capricious” “ challenge. SH    15.    A-9, 21A.50.090 about half-way No, this is a listing of the available No further changes identified . down: “The wetland management maps and inventories of critical areas. erosion hazard near sensitive water bodies….” Does this conflict with previous “landslide” references in any way? SH   16.    A-10, 21A.50.120 (1): The first No, the last sentence adds those areas No further changes identified . sentence discusses landslide hazard not covered by the first part of the areas; the last sentence refers to section to those areas in which a erosion hazard areas. Is there any critical areas study is required. conflict in language? SH   17.    A-25 (7): “The following are This section allows an exemption No further changes identified . exempt….” I think I prefer “may from the landslide hazard provision be” rather than “are.” I’m leery of a for natural slopes of 40% or steeper, blanket exemption, unless I am but under 20 feet vertical elevation misunderstanding the intent here. change. The exemption would be Please discuss. SH granted after the review, and city   approval, of a geotechnical report if no adverse impact would result. The intent of the second exemption related to created slopes, is to grant the exemption to artificial slopes. Re-grading of a created feature (road side slopes, engineered fill, etc.) is subject to all other requirements of the Sammamish Municipal Code, King County drainage manual and other applicable requirements.   18.    A-28, (3) (a). I raised the question Multifamily projects would be No further changes identified .

 

 

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   of the definition of “commercial” at considered residential use. However, the PC meeting and received a in most jurisdictions, these types of satisfactory answer, but I wonder if structures are issued as “commercial” a clarifying definition somewhere building permits. This is due to the else is needed considering that King differing code requirements, and County (from whence we got our sometimes the different staff who code) defined multi-family as process and inspect the permits. “commercial.” SH  Mixed use projects would be How does a mixed use project like considered commercial, if both Saffron get defined? As commercial and residential uses are commercial? SH located within the same structure, for  the purposes o this section. f   19.    A-36 21A.50.300, the introductory The introductory paragraph refers to No further changes identified . paragraph, refers to “complete the different categories of exemptions exemptions, partial exemptions and listed elsewhere in the ordinance. exceptions…” Please discuss this one a bit more. SH Introduction of non-native or invasive  wildlife would include circumstances (3) There shall be no introduction such as bringing in non-native frogs, of…wildlife…” What does this mammals, etc. that could negatively mean, exactly? (What is the affect the natural ecosystem. meaning of “introduction”?) SH    Enforcement would be through How is this enforced? SH project review of proposed mitigation  plans and the species proposed for What about domesticated animals, planting. Code enforcement action is horses, goats and cattle, etc? SH an option, if areas in critical areas or  buffers are disturbed and/or landscaped with non-native vegetation.     Domesticated animals would not be considered wildlife, and are addressed elsewhere in the code.

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005     20.    A-37 (5) (a). This does not allow for The City should consider the No further changes identified . the possibility that a pump station opinions of the sewer providers in may be preferable from an determining the feasibility of pump environmental standpoint to sewer stations versus gravity flow systems. lines for gravity. (This obviously is a sewer district thing. SH The code currently contains a  definition for “native vegetation” (f) Does “native” vegetation (to (21A.15.790) that refers to vegetation Washington state) need to be native to the Pacific Northwest. identified? Is something that is native to Eastern Washington This section has multiple provisions acceptable to Western Washington? that would limit and require What was the rationale behind mitigation for any vegetation removal deleting native to King County? SH proposed by a provider to develop a  new sewer utility corridor. (g) and (h): The sewer district is infamous for wanting to mow down a 50-foot wide swath of trees and vegetation to build a narrow pipeline corridor. See Section 36 and the sewer line extension from 32nd St. to the Jarvis compound as two examples. This was also the proposal in my old neighborhood. I believe restrictions need to be written into the code for this propensity to rape-and-scrape on the part of the sewer district. SH   21.    A-38 (iv): Why was this reference Information on the Puget Sound No further changes identified . deleted and what is the Research Wetlands and Stormwater Research Project? SH   Project can be obtained from the following weblink:   http://splash.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   weturban.htm    City staff will continue to learn from research such as this project and consider future code amendments to reflect those results.   22.    A-40 21A.50.310 (4). “In-kind” is Comments noted. Ms. Mockler’s No further changes identified . not defined (though perhaps that’s studies have documented a high rate what the ratios are about later on?) of mitigation failure, and recommend SH improved mitigation guidance as a  result. That is largely why higher I still note that Anna Mockler  mitigation ratios are proposed .   concludes wetland mitigation does   not work. SH   23.    A-41 (6) (c) iii: how can “proposed” A mitigation plan based on proposed No further changes identified . mitigation conducted “in advance” impacts can sometimes be be shown to be successful for at implemented in advance, depending least one year? Please discuss this upon the specifics of the project. entire section. My first reaction is This might be particularly useful for a negative. SH road or utility project where the   mitigation may be proposed in an area to be unaffected by project construction. The mitigation plan would include maintenance and monitoring provisions, and the mitigation would be evaluated to determine success after one year. In one year’s time you can tell a lot about the success or failure of grading, soil amendments, hydrology design, planted species, and other conditions in a mitigation area.   24.    A-42 (8): Why is this section about The substantive material from this No further changes identified .

 

 

 

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Planning Commission Comment Summary & Staff Response – In Process October 20, 2005   restoration deleted? SH section has been moved to   21A.50.310 (page 40) and improved.   25.    A-43: 21A.50.315 (3): The PAB Comment noted. The city may pursue No further changes identified . extensively discussed wetland creation of a mitigation banking banking and opposed it, noting that program and your comments should building a wetland somewhere else be considered in the specific does nothing for the damage done requirements of that program. Staff “here.” The most egregious example would support requirements for a is the Port of Seattle building geographic “nexus” between the area wetlands in Auburn while impacted and the area destroying them in at the airport for protected/enhanced in any banking the third runway. The water and program. Please also see staff sewer district is a big proponent of responses in Public Comment this one. As far as I am concerned, Response Matrix (item 26). this is a get-out-of-jail-free card. SH   26.    A-44 (2) (b) and (c). What is a In this context, a “discussion” would No further changes identified . “discussion”? SH be a textual description and analysis  in the critical areas study.   27.    A-46 (g) (vi): “Requirement of a Buffer preservation that does not No further changes identified . performance bond, when include planting or restoration necessary….” As determined by the activities would not require a bond, Director??? Who makes this while implementation of a mitigation decision? SH plan that includes planting of vegetation would generally require bonding. Public agencies are exempt from this requirement pursuant to state law. The director has the administrative authority under the code to make the final decision 28.    A-48 21A.50.330 (1) (a): in the Item (1) (a) references an existing No further changes identified . context the PC has had over buffers circumstance where a roadway was and restoration, I think requiring constructed in the past in an area that restoration or planting of native falls within the presently required