New information fails to materialize for Sammamish council considering critical areas update

This is familiar territory for the City of Sammamish. A small number of homeowners, builders and property rights advocates are claiming certain environmental regulations hinder more than they help. Providing an opposing viewpoint are those whose interests lie primarily in preserving the ecological function of our sensitive areas, who claim the regulations are vital and should remain in place. The Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update which consumed much of the Sammamish council's energy in 2009 is not yet put to bed, and the city finds itself again charged with balancing the demands of growth and development with minimizing the impact of this development on the natural environment. Even those residents now used to the contentious and hotly debated council meetings which stretch long into the night will remember the marathon sessions at the old city hall in 2005, when the council of that time struggled with implementing its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). It was a time in which much had changed on the Plateau, including its population and its governance. The old King County regulations had been found to be inappropriate in some crucial areas, and with more and more houses springing up in Sammamish every week, the council felt it was important to get their environmental protections in place. Besides, the state government had set them a deadline. These regulations covered such things as how close you can build to a body of water, what homeowners must do to mitigate the impacts of development, such as planting trees in buffer areas, and reducing stormwater runoff. In 2005, the buffer issue was a particularly sensitive one. Only a few years before, King County imposed 100 foot buffers on Pine and Beaver Lake, greatly limiting shoreline uses. While the city was eager to reduce these, it wanted to make sure it complimented any buffer reduction with other things - revegetation plans or replacing impervious surfaces. While the 2005 process did install a number of important regulations, including recognizing that Pine and Beaver lakes were ecologically very different from Lake Sammamish, all along councilors noted the city's CAO would need to be updated in the next few years. What they were waiting for were a number of related studies and programs to be completed, including a water management plan for Pine Lake, the King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the city's own code on low impact development (LID), the findings of which would greatly alter any CAO put in place. Councilor Nancy Whitten was one councilmember who felt strongly these studies would shed light on appropriate CAO requirements. "I am hoping for, the wonderful promise, the innovation of low impact development, the plans we put forward with Pine Lake management, the Ebright Creek basin study, all the updates of the surface water manual - I'm hoping we can revisit (the CAO) and say 'do we need these extensive buffers? Can we be more gentle with our property owners because we've reduced the runoff in other ways," she said. "Let's keep the status quo at a minimum to protect the environment until we can take a comprehensive look at all these things." At the time, Mayor Don Gerend also said he would like to see more research on the relationship with buffer sizes and function. The 2005 council put a sunset clause in place to allow the future council of 2010 to update the CAO with this new information. But that future has arrived, and unfortunately the details of that wonderful promise have not materialized. The council is now being asked by some to stick to its promise and review the CAO provisions. Those calling for a review are typically landowners and developers who believe the CAO is putting an onerous restriction on development. They have claimed that the current CAO is stifling economic activity, and often does not achieve the stated ecological goals. As was heard during SMP deliberations, there are still some scientists and experts who continue to doubt the core tenets of environmental protection in developed areas, such as whether vegetated buffers close to the shoreline have any beneficial impact. While their opinions still linger, property rights advocates use them to argue for fewer restrictions. A number of citizens who own property in erosion hazard zones claim there are ways to build on steep slopes in an environmentally sensitive manner. "Environmental science is a very subjective science, and probably always will be," said Bob Sorensen, who gave a thorough presentation on behalf of citizens groups the Sammamish Homeowners Association and Citizens For Sammamish. "Yet we need to be able to understand at the outset of a project what the likely code interpretation is going to be." While the homeowners did present several significant examples of the CAO gone wrong, calls for greater predictability and consistency in the application of critical areas regulations appeared at odds with their request for more flexibility in code interpretation and the ability to rule on properties on a case by case basis. The case of Megan Gee is an example of the former. The Beaver Lake homeowner has been subject to tight restrictions on redevelopment after the city deemed her property contained a wetland. Gee claims the only inflow to the wetland is stormwater runoff from a faulty ditch on Beaver Lake Drive. "It is the storwater that makes the wetland," she told the council during its meeting on July 13. "There is no natural flow." Gee said stormwater was originally diverted through her property to flow into Beaver Lake, but development of a neighboring parcel blocked the flow, and the stormwater now rests on her land. She said such a body had little ecological significance, and that it was unfair to place limitations on the use of her property. "Not only does this violate my right to use my property, but it's not sound environmental policy," she said. Sorensen said there were other cases like Gee's. "I am sure all of you have heard stories of how the current ordinance has caused a lot of problems, prevented improvements and delayed projects," Sorensen said. "I can speak from personal experience, about projects that have been delayed or abandoned completely out of uncertainty over environmental issues in the City of Sammamish." Director of Community Development Kamuron Gurol said that while he was conscious the CAO had "been a tough thing on some individual cases," to say that the ordinance had hindered appropriate development was not an accurate summation. "What you're not hearing tonight, of course, is the fact that since Jan 3, 2006, we've processed several hundred permits, from big subdivisions to small permits, with the CAO being dealt with," he said. "The number of serious problems where people think the regulations are unfair or poorly administered is a very small percentage. Naturally, you're not going to hear about those (issued permits) - they've gone off and built their project." Friends of Pine Lake President Ilene Stahl urged the council to remain true to the intent of the sunset clause added in 2005. "When the council first voted on having a sunset clause put into the CAO, there was an assumption that a lot of environmental protections would be in place, that would allow for some relief for property owners from what they felt were unfair regulations," she said. "But none of those protections have come into being yet. We do have an LID ordinance but it's totally voluntary, and hasn't been used yet. We don't have the Pine Lake study, the basin plans aren't finished yet, the SMP is still being reviewed by the Department of Ecology." The Pine Lake study, completed by consultants, is in draft form, and currently awaiting review by city staff. Stahl asked the council to extend the current CAO for "a year or two," until these pieces were available. A number of other homeowners spoke before the council and referred to the CAO protections with phrases like "wetland delineation extremism," and "enormous unfairness and burden." Erica Tiliacos, who during her stint on the Sammamish Planning Commission took a keen interest in stormwater issues and mitigation for sensitive areas, also hopes the city will review the CAO only when the necessary information is to hand. "The city should not make revisions to the CAO at this time," she told the council at a meeting last month. "The current amount of $65,000 budgeted for this work can be saved and allocated to other work. The council should eliminate the sunset clause and give staff the time and resources to complete all this unfinished work." The council is scheduled to make a decision on the CAO sunset clause at a special meeting on July 27.

Contact Sammamish Reporter Editor Jake Lynch at editor@sammamish-reporter.com.

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.