Commission unveils draft of new Shoreline Master Plan
October 7, 2008
By J.B. Wogan
David Douglas, after marching to the City Hall podium, adjusted his glasses and flipped through one of several pages of notes.
“Having this blanket policy for nontoxic, non-treated wood is a bad policy,” he said.
Douglas, a permit coordinator with experience in building requirements for water structures along lake shorelines, came armed with research materials and itemized complaints about the Planning Commission’s new draft of the Shoreline Master Plan. A strict policy on non-treated wood was just one of his gripes.
The proposal would implement new regulations that would restrict development along the shorelines of Lake Sammamish, as well as Beaver and Pine lakes, and their wetlands areas.
The Oct. 2 meeting, which featured a presentation by city staff on changes to the plan since its last publicly reviewed draft, was part of a month-long process where the commission will solicit input from the community.
Back in 2006, the Planning Commission set out to revise the municipal code to meet responsibilities described in the federal and state Shoreline Management Acts. Those laws address policies and regulations relating to the development, use and restoration of shorelines. The fruits of the commission’s labor will be the Shoreline Master Plan.
Localities around the state are required to have a master plan for protecting the quality of lakes larger than 20 acres and fast-flowing streams and rivers.
The original mandate dates to 1971, but in 2003, the state changed its guidelines. Sammamish must update its plan to reflect these new guidelines by 2009.
The public review draft of the plan, roughly 70 pages in length, comes with maps and 102 definitions to demystify language within the document
“It’s easy to read. It’s well organized. I like it a lot,” said Commissioner Richard Amidei.
Even so, the document covers a complicated set of issues and a multitude of changes to current city code, from buffer and construction setback lines to limitations on impervious surfaces allowed on a property to rules about dock reconstruction.
“I think this draft is a huge improvement over the last one,” said George Tosky, who lives by Pine Lake.
Tosky was one of several individuals at the Planning Commission meeting who spoke during the public comment section, citing specific items in the current plan that still need tweaking.
He criticized the way the plan differentiates between Lake Sammamish and the city’s smaller two water bodies, Pine and Beaver lakes, in terms of impervious surface requirements.
Impervious surface typically refers to a paved road or roof, and more broadly, anything that prevents water from seeping into the soil naturally, potentially causing extra water to runoff — and possibly bring pollution with it — into nearby lakes.
The plan limits the amount of impervious surface on a given lot by different percentages ranging from 15-40 percent, depending on the specific site in question.
The plan prescribes different regulations depending on whether the land is part of a residential or urban conservancy environment. The residential environment designation refers to shoreline areas intended for single-family or multifamily residential development. The urban environment designation refers to relatively undeveloped shoreline areas that can be partially altered to accommodate water-related uses and recreation, while still retaining their ecological functions. A third designation, natural environment, was considered by the Planning Commission, but ultimately cut out of the plan.
In the plan’s newest form, it allows less impervious surfaces for properties on Pine and Beaver lakes than on Lake Sammamish. It restricts the percentage of impervious surfaces even further if the property is designated as an urban conservancy environment.
Tosky said the regulations on the smaller lakes’ shorelines were nonsensical, preventing runoff from properties that don’t create runoff. He said construction higher up the hill was a more likely culprit.
“I don’t understand the science,” Tosky said. “It can be solved in a more practical, pragmatic way.”
Another resident, Mary Jo Kahler, brought up a similar concern that nearby roads projects might conflict with the plan’s goals to minimize runoff and man made impacts on the lakes.
Kahler lives on Southeast 20th Street, a roadway soon to undergo renovations as part of a city project to make the mile-long strip more pedestrian and bike friendly. Kahler fears the impacts of a wider roadway and increased runoff could become the residents’ problem, even if they follow the plan’s mandate to minimize runoff on their properties.
“It seems that there is not an equal sense of responsibility,” she said.
Douglas added that the plan overemphasized regulations that protected the environment at the price of removing practical methods of building water structures such as docks, boat lifts and piers along lake shorelines.
Douglas’ prime example was a new set of limitations imposed on dock, pier, float, boat lift and mooring buoy reconstruction.
The plan encouraged those water structures to be built with non-treated building materials, such as wood beams not coated in chemical preserves to extend their lifespan.
Douglas said two types of wood, Douglas Fir and Chemonite, are prohibited by the new plan, even though they are permitted at the state and federal levels.
The Planning Commission will hold two public hearings about the draft at 5:30 p.m. Oct. 16 and 30. By late December, it plans to have a set of recommendations ready for the City Council, with official adoption taking place in June of next year.
Reporter J.B. Wogan can be reached at 392-6434, ext. 247, or jbwogan@isspress.com.
Comments
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
