CC Public Comment Summary Table 11-15-05final

Ddonovan

Description

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Public Comment Summary & Staff Response November 15, 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 Public City Council Comment Public Comment Staff Response Code Amendment (if Recommendation Number applicable) 1 Lake buffers and restoration Staff notes this citizen’s support for the No further changes identified. recently proposed prescriptive lake buffer and incentives & disincentives: Please retain the recently associated buffer reduction incentives in proposed prescriptive lake 21A.50.351 Lakes and ponds – Development buffer with reduction standards. incentives. This option provides greater certainty for lakeshore property owners and provides incentives for restoration of the nearshore edge along lakes. The City should avoid disincentivizing restoration, especially along lakes. This recent proposal allows reduced requirements for areas that have been voluntarily restored. Staff notes this citizen’s support for recently 2 Lakes & wetlands located No further changes identified. waterward of the OHWM: proposed revisions to 21A.50.290(2) which Please retain recently state: proposed provisions that do Wetlands located entirely waterward of the not include added regulation ordinary ...

Informations

• Publié par: Fyan
• Nombre de lectures: 12
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 1 of 9

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.

Public

Comment

Number

Public Comment

Staff Response

Staff Recommendation for

Code Amendment (if

applicable)

City Council

Recommendation

1

Lake buffers and restoration

incentives & disincentives:

Please retain the recently

proposed prescriptive lake

buffer with reduction

incentives.

This option

provides greater certainty for

lakeshore property owners and

provides incentives for

restoration of the nearshore

edge along lakes. The City

should avoid disincentivizing

restoration, especially along

lakes.

This recent proposal

allows reduced requirements

for areas that have been

voluntarily restored.

Staff notes this citizen’s support for the

recently proposed prescriptive lake buffer and

associated buffer reduction incentives in

21A.50.351 Lakes and ponds – Development

standards.

No further changes identified.

2

Lakes & wetlands located

waterward of the OHWM:

Please retain recently

proposed provisions that do

not include added regulation

of wetlands located waterward

of a lake’s Ordinary High

Water Mark (OHWM).

The

City should encourage

restoration of lake shore

wetland areas.

Citizens would

Staff notes this citizen’s support for recently

proposed revisions to 21A.50.290(2) which

state:

Wetlands located entirely waterward of the

ordinary high water mark of a lake or pond

shall be regulated by the buffer and

development standards provided for lakes

and ponds in SMC 21A.50.350 and 352, and

by the adopted shoreline master program.

No further changes identified.

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 2 of 9

not voluntarily restore these

areas if an added wetland

buffer could be required.

3

Wetland buffers & science:

The Trossachs development

had to conduct monitoring of

the effectiveness of a 100-foot

buffer required adjacent to a

bog wetland.

Monitoring

findings suggest that a 100-

foot buffer is sufficient for

protecting a bog.

The City

proposes a 215-foot buffer for

bogs.

Yet, the Trossachs

monitoring findings should

constitute local BAS that

shows only a 100-foot buffer

is needed to protect bogs.

The Trossachs report is a report of an

individual instance, not a compilation of

science representative of the protection

needed for bogs.

Published science, including

that provided by Ecology, suggests that larger

buffers are generally required to protect bogs.

In addition to the water quality functions

described in the Trossachs report, bogs may

include other functions, such as habitat, that

need larger buffers for protection.

No further changes identified.

4

Wetland buffers & science:

The City of Issaquah is

proposing that Class 1

wetlands buffers stay at 100

feet, that Class 2 wetland

buffers go from 50 feet to 75

feet, that Class 3 wetland

buffers go from 25 feet to 50

feet and that Class 4 wetland

buffers stay at 25 feet.

The

City of Sammamish is

proposing that Class 1 buffers

range from 125 to 215 feet,

It is unclear whether Issaquah’s proposed

buffers are fully consistent with their review

of BAS that suggests that wetland buffer

functions require distances that range from 50

to 300 feet.

Recent Hearings Board decisions indicate that

the GMA requirement to plan for housing (as

well as transportation, capital facilities, and

other land uses) does not alleviate the city’s

requirement to designate and protect critical

areas.

No further changes identified.

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 3 of 9

that Class 2 buffers range from

75 to 150 feet, that Class 3

wetland buffers range from 50

to 75 feet, and that Class 4

wetlands have a 50 foot

buffer.

With a jurisdiction so

close to Sammamish

proposing smaller buffers, the

building industry has a right to

question your proposed

ordinance.

The

WEAN

decision tells local

jurisdictions that they can

ignore BAS if the need for

housing and economic

development is properly

documented by a given city or

county in their CAO.

WEAN

is the case that the City

Council must view before they

pass their CAO.

The City of Auburn decided to

produce a pro-housing CAO

and no state agency

challenged their ordinance.

5

*Overlay districts:

Expressed

concern regarding overlay

interpretation and applicable

mapping.

Encourage

arranging for Derek Booth, an

expert on this topic, to speak

to Council.

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

Staff has arranged

for Mr.

Booth to attend a special

meeting of the Council on

November 9th.

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 4 of 9

supplied directly to them from the public.

6

Lakes:

Lake Sammamish and

Pine and Beaver Lakes should

be treated differently.

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.

7

BAS:

Is BAS really science?

Does BAS always supply

consistent & clear answers?

Best available science is a term from the

Growth Management Act and criteria for

determining BAS is provided in WAC 365-

195-905.

Characteristics of a valid scientific

process include peer review, methodology,

No further changes identified

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 5 of 9

logical conclusions and reasonable inferences,

quantitative analysis, context, references, and

having been prepared by a qualified scientific

expert.

While individual scientific reports can

report different results, the collection of

science provides a range.

The risk to the

critical area correlates to the degree of

protection provided within that range.

For example, buffers that are at the low end of

the range supported by science may be

effective is some instances, but have greater

risk of failure.

Larger buffers are less likely to

fail.

8

SAO Folio reference.

Why

was the reference to the SAO

folio deleted from the

definition of the “no-

disturbance area” in the

Erosion Hazard Near Sensitive

Water Bodies (EHNSWB)

overlay?

The proposed amendments reflect the City’s

intent to maintain the maps of all critical areas

(including the approximate location of the no-

disturbance area).

The SAO folio maps are

one source of information but are not accurate

on a lot-by-lot basis; hence the requirement

for field verification as new projects are

submitted.

As the City processes future

permits, field information will provide more

accurate information than the “approximate”

maps in the SAO folio, which the City may

use to update the maps accordingly.

Staff recommends amending

the current proposed code in

21A.50.225 (2) (a) to read: “A

no-disturbance area shall be

established on the sloped

portion of the special district

overlay to prevent damage from

erosion. The upslope boundary

of the no-disturbance area lies

at the first obvious break in

slope from the upland plateau

over onto the steep valley

walls. The downslope boundary

of the no-disturbance area is the

extent of those areas designated

as erosion or landslide hazard

areas. The department shall

maintain maps of the

approximate location of the no-

disturbance areas. The maps are

based upon the King County

Sensitive Areas Map Folio

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 6 of 9

(1990), East Lake Sammamish

Basin and Nonpoint Action

plan maps, and other technical

sources, which indicate the

general location of the erosion

and landslide hazard areas. The

precise location of the no-

disturbance area shall be

subject to field verification for

new development proposals.”

9

Wetland Management Area

(WMA) special district

overlay & impervious

surfaces.

Should impervious

surface limits apply to all

property that is zoned R-1as

reflected in the East

Sammamish Community

Plan?

Staff review of the documents indicates that

King County initially limited impervious

surface coverage in all R-1 zones within the

WMAs, and then amended the code to limit

impervious surface coverage within more

limited site specific areas that are zoned R-1.

The Best Available Science supports limiting

impervious surfaces within portions of the

wetland management areas as identified in the

East Lake Sammamish Basin and Non-point

Action Plan.

During Dr. Booth’s presentation on 11/9/05,

the importance of preservation of vegetative

cover in the WMAs was also emphasized.

Staff recommends retaining

existing impervious surface

limitations for applicable areas

in the WMAs.

Following the presentation by

Derek Booth to the City

Council on 11/9/05, staff is

investigating alternative

mechanisms for preservation of

additional vegetative cover in

WMAs.

10

Open space location.

Should

open space required by SMC

21A.50.225(2)(d) be located

adjacent to critical area tracts

(if present on the site)?

This appears to be consistent with the original

intent of the requirement.

Staff suggests that 21A.50.225

(2)(d) be amended to read: “For

the portions of proposed

subdivisions, short subdivisions

and binding site plans that

cannot infiltrate runoff up to the

100-year peak flow, at least 25

percent shall remain

undisturbed and set aside in an

open space tract consistent with

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 7 of 9

SMC 21A.50.140 through

21A.50.170.

The open space

tract shall be located adjacent to

any required critical area tracts

and shall be designed to

maximize the amount of

separation between the critical

area tract and the proposed

development.

If no critical

areas tracts are required, the

open space tract shall be

located to provide additional

protection to the no-disturbance

area.”

11

Drainage outlets in the

Erosion hazards near

sensitive water bodies

(EHNSWB) special district

overlay.

Are the drainage

outlet standards in the

EHNSWB regulated

appropriately?

Drainage outlets are also regulated by the

King County Surface Water Design Manual

adopted by the City, and under the landslide

hazard section of the code.

Staff will consider

whether further clarification of the language is

necessary.

Further staff review underway.

12

Landslide hazard areas and

drainage.

Are surface water

point discharges allowed in

landslide hazard areas?

Point discharges are prohibited unless they

meet the specific provisions of 21A.50.260(6).

The intent of the proposed revisions was to

combine provisions from the existing steep

slope hazard area section and the landslide

hazard area section.

Staff suggests that SMC

21A.50.260 (5)(a) and (6) be revised for

clarity and consistency.

Staff recommends amending

SMC 21A.50.260(5)(a) to

delete the first subsection “i”

since it was duplicative of 6(a)

and to delete 6(c) related to

dispersion.

Staff also recommends

amending SMC 21A.50.260(6)

to add a reference to landslide

hazard areas in addition to the

erosion hazard area reference

and to require minimization of

disturbance. The revised

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 8 of 9

section would read:

“(6)

Point discharges from

surface water facilities in

erosion hazard areas and onto

or upstream from landslide

hazard areas shall be prohibited

except as follows:

(a)

Conveyed via

continuous storm pipe

downslope to a point

where there are no

landslide or erosion

hazard areas downstream

from the discharge.

The

pipe shall be installed in a

manner to minimize

disturbance to the slope

and vegetation; and

(b)

Discharged at flow

durations matching

predeveloped conditions,

with adequate energy

dissipation, into existing

channels that previously

conveyed stormwater

runoff in the

predevelopment state; “

13

Low impact development.

Can we encourage the use of

low impact development

techniques further?

The existing proposed code language supports

the use of low impact development

techniques.

When the City updates the King

County Surface Water Design Manual

(KCSWDM), staff will consult with the Puget

Sound Action Team (PSAT) for further

guidance in promoting low impact

development techniques.

No further changes identified.

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 15, 2005

November 15, 2005

Page 9 of 9

14

Dispersion near EHNSWB.

Is dispersion appropriate near

or above the no-disturbance

areas within the EHNSWB

overlay?

Following the presentation by Derek Booth to

the City Council on 11/9/05, it appears that

dispersion is not an appropriate technology to

allow near or above no-disturbance areas.

Dispersion trenches can lead to re-collection

of water within the no-disturbance area and

cause further erosion / landslide problems.

The allowance for dispersion above

EHNSWB was deleted from the code based

on previous best available science review.

No further changes identified.

15

Water budget for streams.

Can the City promote the

protection of base flows in

streams (i.e. preventing over

regulation of drainage – which

reduces stream base flows); in

particular as the regulations

relate to the EHNSWB

overlay?

The existing code prioritizes the use of

infiltration systems, which generally

contribute to protection of water budgets.

Drainage system standards will be reviewed

and may be revised as part of the Surface

Water Design Manual update

scheduled

for

next year.

No further changes identified.

*

Overlay public comments have also been discussed in meetings between staff and concerned citizens on: June 27, July 28, and September 30.