CC Public Comment Summary Table 11-15-05final
9 pages
English
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

CC Public Comment Summary Table 11-15-05final

-

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres
9 pages
English

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 ...

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Nombre de lectures 12
Langue English

Exrait

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.