Comment Topic

Kcurry

Description

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response November 7, 2005 Please note that comments will be regularly added to this comment tracking table as review of the proposed critical areas regulations continues – check the date for the most current edition of the table. Staff Recommendation for Council City Council Comment Council Comment Staff Response Code Amendment (if Recommendation Number applicable) 1. Incentives: How has staff Wetland and stream buffer No further changes identified. considered comments about enhancement incentives are provided avoiding penalizing property in proposed buffer reduction code owners who have restored or sections 21A.50.290(7) and protected their buffers and 21A.50.330(6). Also, proposed SMC rewarding those who have already 21A.50.290(1) includes a recently developed their land in a way that added code provision that would has degraded buffer functions? apply buffers based on the previous classification when voluntary restoration occurs. This section reads as follows: (c) Where wetland functions have been improved due to voluntary implementation of an approved stewardship, restoration and/or enhancement plan that is not associated with required mitigation or enforcement, the standard wetland buffer width shall be determined based on the previously established wetland category and habitat score as documented in the approved stewardship and ...

Informations

• Publié par: Lomif
• Nombre de lectures: 31
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

Please note that comments will be regularly added to this comment tracking table as review of the proposed critical areas regulations

continues – check the date for the most current edition of the table.

Council

Comment

Number

Council Comment

Staff Response

Staff Recommendation for

Code Amendment (if

applicable)

City Council

Recommendation

1.

Incentives:

How has staff

considered comments about

avoiding penalizing property

owners who have restored or

protected their buffers and

rewarding those who have already

developed their land in a way that

has degraded buffer functions?

Wetland and stream buffer

enhancement incentives are provided

in proposed buffer reduction code

sections 21A.50.290(7) and

21A.50.330(6).

Also, proposed SMC

21A.50.290(1) includes a recently

added code provision that would

apply buffers based on the previous

classification when voluntary

restoration occurs.

This section reads

as follows:

(c) Where wetland functions have

been improved due to voluntary

implementation of an approved

stewardship, restoration and/or

enhancement plan that is not

associated with required mitigation

or enforcement, the standard

wetland buffer width shall be

determined based on the previously

established wetland category and

habitat score as documented in the

approved stewardship and

enhancement plan.

In addition, the recently proposed

prescriptive lake buffer and

associated buffer reduction incentives

in 21A.50.351 Lakes and ponds –

No further changes identified.

November 7, 2005

Page 1 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

Development standards, includes

provisions that recognize and reward

good lakeshore property stewards.

2.

Buffers:

Will proposed wetland and

stream buffers make some

properties undevelopable?

No.

It’s true that larger buffers could

affect the overall yield of new lots or

units, but this is more related to the

city’s net density ordinance than

buffer size.

Proposed wetland and

stream buffers are based on the best

available science.

Buffers are needed

to remove sediment and pollution

from surface water, provide nutrients,

control temperature, and provide

riparian habitat.

Science clearly

shows that larger buffers are more

effective than smaller buffers (see

BAS report).

The buffer sizes

proposed are consistent with those

being adopted by other jurisdictions,

and somewhat less than those

recommended by the Washington

Department of Ecology, which

recommends buffers of 50 to 300

feet.

Current regulations allow for buffer

averaging and for some types of

development

when fully mitigated.

Proposed regulations also include

new incentive provisions to allow

buffer reduction in some

circumstances.

When reduction and

averaging opportunities are not

sufficient to allow development,

applicants may then seek a

reasonable use exception.

No further changes identified.

November 7, 2005

Page 2 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

Reasonable use exceptions are

currently utilized to allow reasonable

use of property that is entirely

constrained by critical areas and

buffers.

Since more flexibility has

been built into the proposed code,

there should be somewhat less need

for reasonable use exceptions.

3.

Buffers:

Has the City compared

proposed wetland and stream

buffers to neighboring jurisdictions?

Yes, see comparison tables provided

for the Citizen Advisory Committee

(CAC) meetings (found in CAC

binder and on the City’s website at

the following link:

http://www.ci.sammamish.wa.us/Criti

calAreas.aspx

)

No further changes identified

4.

Buffers:

Suggest that staff look at

the City of Edgewood’s buffer

averaging examples.

The Edgewood buffer averaging

example is similar to that used by

Sammamish.

No further changes identified.

5.

King County/City regulatory

status of Pine Lake and Beaver

Lake:

The City is providing less

regulatory protections for Pine Lake

and Beaver Lake than King County

did prior to the City’s incorporation.

King County regulated these lakes

as Class 1 wetlands with a 100-foot

wetland buffer requirement.

The King County Sensitive Areas

Map Folio (December, 1990)

illustrates Pine Lake and Beaver Lake

as Class 1 wetlands and King County

regulated these lakes as Class 1

wetlands with a 100-foot buffer

requirement until about 1997.

However, according to staff with

King County at the time,

in order to

be consistent with state Department

of Ecology definitions of wetlands,

lakes, and shorelines, it was

determined administratively that

King County

would regulate wetlands

No further changes identified.

November 7, 2005

Page 3 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

that occur along the shorelines of

these lakes on a case by case basis.

The state definition of wetlands does

not include open water.

This administrative change took place

around 1997 before the City

incorporated and resulted in some

lake shore properties having no

wetland restrictions at all, and some

properties having Class 1, 2 or 3

wetland buffer restrictions.

The

City’s current regulation of these

lakes under the Shoreline Master

Program is consistent with the

previous County administrative

direction

prior to the City’s

incorporation.

In addition, the

proposed regulations provide buffer

protection for lakes and ponds.

6.

Lakes as Fish & Wildlife Habitat

Conservation Areas:

Please

describe BAS that supports

classification of lakes as Fish and

Wildlife Habitat Conservation

Areas?

In particular, describe BAS

that supports classifying Pine Lake

as a Fish & Wildlife Habitat

Conservation Area even though it

does not support a natural fish

population.

Lakes are included in the state

guidelines for classifying critical

areas. WAC 365-190-080(5)

Additionally, the department of Fish

& Wildlife identifies Pine Lake as a

priority habitat area.

No further changes identified

.

7.

Lakes:

Do not support previous

approach in first draft of proposed

code that would result in a lot by lot

analysis of lake shore properties.

The recently proposed prescriptive

lake buffer and associated buffer

reduction incentives in 21A.50.351

Lakes and ponds – Development

No further changes identified

.

November 7, 2005

Page 4 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

Lakes should be looked at

holistically.

standards, treat all lake shore

properties consistently and should

reduce the chance for wide

differences in how similar properties

are regulated.

8.

Study Requirements for Fish &

Wildlife Habitat Conservation

Areas:

Even though a prescriptive

buffer is now proposed for lakes and

was previously required for

wetlands and streams, will the Fish

& Wildlife Habitat Conservation

Areas study requirements still add

further study requirements and

costs?

And will there still be

uncertainties for lakeshore property

owners regarding potential added

buffer requirements beyond the

prescriptive buffer?

Staff has tried to develop code

language that would reduce the

potential for uncertainties.

For

example, 21A.50.325 (1) states:

When appropriate due to the type of

habitat or species present or the

project area conditions, the director

may require a critical areas study. If

the habitat conservation area is also

classified as a

stream, lake, pond or

a wetland

, the stream, lake, pond or

wetland protection standards shall

apply and habitat management shall

be addressed as part of the stream,

lake, pond or wetland review,

provided that the City may impose

additional requirements when

necessary to provide for protection

of the habitat conservation areas

consistent with this chapter.

No further changes identified

.

9.

Lake Buffers:

Why does the

proposed prescriptive lake buffer

include only a 50-foot wide buffer

requirement with potential to reduce

to 20-feet wide?

Why not have a

75-foot prescriptive buffer

requirement with potential to reduce

to a 50-foot wide buffer?

While science tells us that larger

buffers provide greater protection, it

also tells us that the nearshore edge

of the lake is the most important to

protect.

Staff and the Planning

Commission considered much larger

lake buffers, but concluded that they

would be problematic to implement

and likely create a larger number of

No further changes identified

.

November 7, 2005

Page 5 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

non-conforming uses.

Distances of

50 ft and 20 ft would be consistent

with the existing shoreline setback

requirements and therefore would

integrate well with the regulations of

the shoreline master program.

10.

Lakes:

Lake Sammamish is

utilized by salmonid species and so

should have a different buffer

requirement than Pine Lake and

Beaver Lake, which are reportedly

not utilized by natural populations

of salmonid species (

implies that the

buffer on Lake Sammamish should

be bigger than required on Pine and

Beaver Lakes

).

Lake Sammamish properties are

more fully developed with houses

already located closer to the lake

than on properties along Pine and

Beaver Lakes and so the buffer on

Lake Sammamish should be

different than on Pine and Beaver

Lakes (

implies that the buffer on

Pine and Beaver lakes should be

bigger than on Lake Sammamish

).

The various lakes in Sammamish do

have unique individual

characteristics.

However, applying a

variety of different buffers to

different lake shorelines could create

an overly complex regulatory

approach.

The original approach to

require habitat studies for all

proposals along lake shorelines was

discussed during the Planning

Commission process, and due to

concerns over uncertainty and cost,

the alternative approach of a

prescriptive buffer with reduction

opportunities was favored.

Additional opportunities to discuss

lakes and their protection will occur

with the update of the shoreline

master program in 2006-2007.

No further changes identified

.

11.

Lakes & trees:

What protections

does the proposed code have for

trees along our lake shorelines?

Is it

not even more important to protect

trees in the greater lake basin to

reduce wind that can encourage

algae growth in our lakes?

Should

we have an overlay for tree

Staff and consultants have not to date

identified science documentation that

specifically addresses trees and their

role in algae growth.

Lake edge trees

are important for habitat, shading,

temperature, and debris, and would

be protected by the proposed lake

buffer.

No further changes identified

.

November 7, 2005

Page 6 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

protection in lake basins?

12.

Lakes:

Suggest including study

findings from ongoing Pine Lake

water quality studies in our BAS

record.

The City is in the process of

collecting data, but the data from this

current study has not yet been

compiled or analyzed.

A draft report

is expected in months to follow.

No further changes identified

.

13.

Lakes & SMP Conservancy

Designation:

Lake Sammamish

properties that have a Conservancy

designation and an associated 50-

foot lake setback under our

Shoreline Master Program have

important shoreline habitat that

should be protected.

We should

consider minimum lot sizes to

protect these areas.

Lot sizes could be addressed through

zoning and the shoreline master

program.

The current size

requirement for new lots in the Rural

environment is 5 acres, with a

reduction available to a minimum of

12,500 feet with paved street access,

public water and sewer, and a lot

width of 80 feet.

For the conservancy

environment the minimum new lot

size is 5 acres, with a reduction

available to 40,000 square feet with a

150 foot lot width.

These standards

apply to any lot to be created with

buildable area within shoreline

jurisdiction.

For existing lots that are

under zoning (rural), or shoreline

(conservancy) minimum standards,

adjacent lots under the same

ownership are considered one

building site.

Altering the zoning or

shoreline requirements along lakes

would require a more thorough study

and include outreach to property

owners.

This is expected to occur in

the update of the Shoreline Master

Program.

No further changes identified

.

14.

Vegetation Restoration

Incentives:

We need to ensure we

Proposed wetland, stream and lake

standards include incentives for

No further changes identified

.

November 7, 2005

Page 7 of 8

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

City Council Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

provide incentives for restoration of

native vegetation.

restoration and/or native planting.

15.

Special district overlay – Erosion

hazards near sensitive water

bodies (previously known in King

County as SO-190 Overlay):

We

understand that there is public

concern regarding the maps that the

City will use to identify the overlay

and regarding standards regulating

drainage discharge into the “no

disturbance areas” within the

overlay.

We also understand that

staff has been in contact with Derek

Booth, a previous King County

employee that was involved in

producing the original maps and

standards related to this overlay, and

that staff is working to arrange a

meeting with Mr. Booth.

Council

would like staff to investigate

whether Mr. Booth would be willing

to present to Council on this topic.

Staff has been corresponding by

email with Derek Booth and other

King County staff (Lorin Reinelt and

Tina Miller) originally involved in

developing overlay mapping and

standards for King County.

Staff has

also supplied proposed code

provisions for their review and

comment.

They have provided

emailed comments in response to

comments supplied directly to them

from the public.

Staff has arranged

for Mr. Booth

to attend a special meeting of

the Council on November 9th.

November 7, 2005

Page 8 of 8