Public Comment Summary Table10-31-05

Ddonovan

Informations

• Publié par: Chiev
• Nombre de lectures: 26
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations - Public Comment Summary
Including Staff Response & Planning Commission Final Recommendation
October 31, 2005

Item # Comment Staff Response Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission
Code Amendment (if Recommendation
applicable)
ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 BAS: Is BAS really Best available science is a term from the Growth No further changes identified No further changes.
science? Management Act and criteria for determining BAS is
provided in WAC 365-195-905. Characteristics of a
valid scientific process include peer review,
methodology, logical conclusions and reasonable
inferences, quantitative analysis, context, references,
and having been prepared by a qualified scientific
expert.

2 Beta tests: The Ebright The Ebright Creek Park beta test identified that No further changes identified No further changes.
Creek Park beta test is irregardless of the corridor waiver, the Parks
not fair because the City Department would not be relieved of all of fish and
was exempted from wildlife habitat requirements. In accordance with the
wildlife corridor general habuirements, Parks would still need to
requirements. complete a wildlife study and mitigate wildlife
impacts.

3 Critical area study Mapping and existing data sources allow applicants to Additional wording could be Modify SMC 21A.50.120 (2)
requirements: How show some critical areas that may be located on off- added to SMC 21A.50.120 (2) to include:
does an applicant site private properties, while it is understood that site to state, “or when access to ; or (d) critical areas are
identify off-site critical investigations on neighboring properties may not be adjacent properties is located off-site and access to
areas within 215’ of a possible. SMC 21A.50.120 would allow the director restricted.” applicable off-site property
project site without the ability to waive or modify the critical areas study is restricted.
trespassing? requirements when appropriate.
4 Study costs: What can Current regulations already require studies to be Suggest the following be Modify 21A.50.120 to include:
be done to reduce the completed when a proposed development may affect a developed into code (5) A development proposal
study cost burden to critical area. Proposed critical areas regulations may amendments: may be allowed to
citizens? trigger added study requirements for proposed 1) Include language to allow utilize past studies from
developments associated with critical areas. Proposed development to use past studies neighboring properties,
regulations [21A.50.120 (2) and (3) as well as from neighboring properties, if if confirmed that the
21A50.130 (2) and (3)] include provisions for study adequate. study findings remain
October 31, 2005 Page 1 of 16 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations - Public Comment Summary
Including Staff Response & Planning Commission Final Recommendation
October 31, 2005

relief in some circumstances. Additional provisions 2) Modify language which accurate and applicable
could further reduce study costs. currently identifies a 215 foot to proposed
study threshold to instead state development.
"within the distance equal to
the largest potential required Modify 21A50.130 (1) (a) to
buffer" to avoid studies when read:
clearly outside of buffers. Identification and
characterization of all
critical areas and buffers
within the distance equal to
the largest potential required
buffer that can be reasonably
ascertained from the subject
property.

Modify 21A.50.110 (2) (a) to
read:
Confirm whether critical
areas or buffers have been
mapped or identified within
the distance equal to the
largest potential required
buffer applicable to the
development proposal area;

5 Variance & waiver There are two key reasons for removing the variance No further changes identified No further changes.
processes: Why is it process for critical areas. First, the variance criteria do
recommended that the not ensure critical areas protection. Second, providing
City remove the variance mitigation, waivers, exemptions, reasonable uses and
and waiver processes variances creates a complex set of review processes.
from the critical areas It is not clear whether or when an applicant should
regulations? apply for a variance or a reasonable use, or both? The
proposed code simplifies the review framework and
improves clarity. If not exempt, an applicant can seek
to apply the options in the code for averaging,
reduction and mitigation. If none of those options
October 31, 2005 Page 2 of 16 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations - Public Comment Summary
Including Staff Response & Planning Commission Final Recommendation
October 31, 2005

allow use of the property, then the applicant can seek a
reasonable use exception.
6 Mitigation Monitoring: Staff acknowledges that the wording could be more The last sentence of SMC Modify SMC 21A.50.145(7)
The City should modify clear. 21A.50.145(7) could be revised to read:
proposed language to to read: The compensation project
require just a 5 year “The compensation project shall be monitored for a
monitoring period, shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish
instead of a monitoring period necessary to that performance standards
period of no less than 5 establish that performance have been met. The
years. standards have been met. monitoring period shall be
The monitoring period five (5) years, provided that
shall be five (5) years, the director may approve a
provided that the director greater period when needed
may approve a greater or to ensure mitigation success
lesser period when needed or lesser period for minor
to ensure success or for mitigation;
minor mitigation;”
EXEMPTIONS
7 Partial exemptions: While exemptions seek to allow land use activities that No further changes identified In 21A.50.060 (1) (a) and (b)
Why is it recommended are considered a necessary part of urban areas, when retain previous 1,000 square
that the City reduce the they allow impacts to critical areas they are foot partial exemption and
partial exemption for inconsistent with the mandate to protect critical areas. previous references to “in
expansion of existing, Therefore, exemptions should be limited to the existence before November 27,
non-conforming minimum necessary. 700 square feet is sufficient to 1990” and “over that existing
residential structures allow construction of a two-car garage attached to an before November 27, 1990.”
from 1,000 square feet to existing house. There is no justification to support
700 square feet? 1,000 square feet of expansion.
8 Minor development: Please see Hypothetical Scenario #2 provided to the No further changes identified No further changes.
The City should consider Planning Commission on October 13, 2005. The
whether full review and proposed code treats minor development, when
study requirements proposed in a critical area or buffer, similar to the
should apply to minor current code. A limited expansion of a single family
development. residence is allowed, if it is no closer to the critical
area.

Any changes to allow minor development in critical
October 31, 2005 Page 3 of 16 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations - Public Comment Summary
Including Staff Response & Planning Commission Final Recommendation
October 31, 2005

areas or buffers would need to be justified by
demonstrating that the project does not result in a
significant impact to the critical area or by including
mitigation.

REASONABLE USE
9 Reasonable use: The “Reasonable use” is a legal term that evolves with case No further changes identified No further changes.
term “reasonable use” law based on what the courts find to be “reasonable.”
should be more clearly What is reasonable can vary depending on surrounding
defined. uses, property characteristic, etc. It would be
problematic to establish a precise standard applicable
in all instances.
10 Reasonable use: The The reasonable use process is not intended to be a No further changes identified No further changes.
reasonable use process is general development permit. It is intended to provide
not a viable process for a “steam valve” to allow reasonable use of property
development projects. only after all other options, such as buffer averaging
and reduction, have been considered. General
development should be processed through the various
development regulations. The reasonable use process
is necessary for those exceptional instances where
meeting the state requirement to protect critical areas
cannot be achieved within the constitutional limits on
property regulation.

GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS
11 Erosion & landslide SMC 21A.50.260(6) prohibits point discharges in No further changes identified. Modify SMC 21A.50.260(6)
hazard areas: The City erosion hazard areas or onto or upstream from SMC 21A.50.260(6) (and the to include the word “and” after
should not adopt landslide hazard areas except in spec