Proposed Critical Areas regulations, public comment summary & staff report, 11 22 2005

Kcurry

Informations

• Publié par: Unje
• Nombre de lectures: 16
• Langue: English

Extrait

City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response
November 22, 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.

New comments from 11/15/05 begin with item 16. In addition, previous responses to items 9 and12 have been updated.

Staff Recommendation for
Public
City Council
Comment
Public Comment Staff Response Code Amendment (if
Recommendation
Number
applicable)
1 Lake buffers and Staff notes this citizen’s support for the No further changes identified.
restoration incentives & recently proposed prescriptive lake buffer
disincentives: Please retain and associated buffer reduction incentives in
the recently proposed 21A.50.351 Lakes and ponds – Development
prescriptive lake buffer with standards.
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.

Burkholder

November 22, 2005 – Public Comment Summary Page 1 of 14 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response
November 22, 2005

2 Lakes & wetlands located Staff notes this citizen’s support for recently 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 high water mark of a lake or pond
of wetlands located shall be regulated by the buffer and
waterward of a lake’s development standards provided for lakes
Ordinary High Water Mark and ponds in SMC 21A.50.350 and 352,
(OHWM). The City should and by the adopted shoreline master
encourage restoration of lake program.
shore wetland areas. Citizens
would not voluntarily restore
these areas if an added
wetland buffer could be
required.

Burkholder
3 Wetland buffers & science: The Trossachs report is a report of an No further changes identified.
The Trossachs development individual instance, not a compilation of
had to conduct monitoring of science representative of the protection
the effectiveness of a 100- needed for bogs. Published science,
foot buffer required adjacent including that provided by Ecology, suggests
to a bog wetland. Monitoring that larger buffers are generally required to
findings suggest that a 100- protect bogs. In addition to the water quality
foot buffer is sufficient for functions described in the Trossachs report,
protecting a bog. The City bogs may include other functions, such as
proposes a 215-foot buffer habitat, that need larger buffers for
for bogs. Yet, the Trossachs protection.
monitoring findings should
constitute local BAS that
shows only a 100-foot buffer
is needed to protect bogs.

Dunlap

November 22, 2005 – Public Comment Summary Page 2 of 14 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response
November 22, 2005

4 Wetland buffers & science: It is unclear whether Issaquah’s proposed No further changes identified.
The City of Issaquah is buffers are fully consistent with their review
proposing that Class 1 of BAS that suggests that wetland buffer
wetlands buffers stay at 100 functions require distances that range from
feet, that Class 2 wetland 50 to 300 feet.
buffers go from 50 feet to 75 3 wetland
buffers go from 25 feet to 50 Recent Hearings Board decisions indicate
feet and that Class 4 wetland that the GMA requirement to plan for
buffers stay at 25 feet. The housing (as well as transportation, capital
City of Sammamish is facilities, and other land uses) does not
proposing that Class 1 alleviate the city’s requirement to designate
buffers range from 125 to and protect critical areas.
215 feet, 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
November 22, 2005 – Public Comment Summary Page 3 of 14 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response
November 22, 2005

before they pass their CAO.

The City of Auburn decided
to produce a pro-housing
CAO and no state agency
challenged their ordinance.

Master Builders Association

5 *Overlay districts: Staff has been corresponding by email with Staff arranged for Mr. Booth to
Expressed concern regarding Derek Booth and other King County staff attend a special meeting of the
overlay interpretation and (Lorin Reinelt and Tina Miller) originally Council on November 9th.
applicable mapping. involved in developing overlay mapping and
Encourage arranging for standards for King County. Staff has also
Derek Booth, an expert on supplied proposed code provisions for their
this topic, to speak to review and comment. They have provided
Council. emailed comments in response to comments
supplied directly to them from the public.
Stahl, Tiliacos
6 Lakes: Lake Sammamish The various lakes in Sammamish do have No further changes identified.
and Pine and Beaver Lakes unique individual characteristics. However,
should be treated differently. applying a variety of different buffers to
Lake Sammamish is utilized different lake shorelines could create an
by salmonid species and so overly complex regulatory approach. The
should have a different buffer original approach to require habitat studies
requirement than Pine Lake for all proposals along lake shorelines was
and Beaver Lake, which are discussed during the Planning Commission
reportedly not utilized by process, and due to concerns over uncertainty
natural populations of and cost, the alternative approach of a
salmonid species (implies prescriptive buffer with reduction
that the buffer on Lake opportunities was favored. Additional
Sammamish should be bigger opportunities to discuss lakes and their
than required on Pine and protection will occur with the update of the
Beaver Lakes). shoreline master program in 2006-2007.

November 22, 2005 – Public Comment Summary Page 4 of 14 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response
November 22, 2005

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).

Stahl
7 BAS: Is BAS really science? Best available science is a term from the No further changes identified
Does BAS always supply Growth Management Act and criteria for
consistent & clear answers? 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. 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.

November 22, 2005 – Public Comment Summary Page 5 of 14 City of Sammamish
Proposed Critical Areas Regulations
Public Comment Summary & Staff Response
November 22, 2005

8 *SAO Folio reference. Why The proposed amendments reflect the City’s Staff recommends amending the
was the reference to the SAO intent to maintain the maps of all critical current proposed code in
folio deleted from the areas (including the approximate location of 21A.50.225(2)(a) to read:
definition of the “no- the no-disturbance area). The SAO folio
disturbance area” in the maps are one source of information but are A no-disturbance area shall be
Erosion Hazard Near n