Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations

==================
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================

The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.

It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.

This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
[REPRINTED FROM AUGUST 8, 2007 BLOG]

Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:

In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.

A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.

As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!

The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.

[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]

√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded

CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county

CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season

CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)

CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)

CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns

CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!

CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %

UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64

NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4

Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72

Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57

Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0

Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53