Comment Topic
8
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
8
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
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 ...
Voir
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
