Comment Topic

Kcurry

Description

City of Sammamish Proposed Critical Areas Regulations Public 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 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: Omkou
• Nombre de lectures: 27
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public 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.

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.

November 7, 2005

Page 1 of 5

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

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.

November 7, 2005

Page 2 of 5

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

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.

November 7, 2005

Page 3 of 5

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

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

November 7, 2005

Page 4 of 5

City of Sammamish

Proposed Critical Areas Regulations

Public Comment Summary & Staff Response

November 7, 2005

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.

*

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

November 7, 2005

Page 5 of 5