Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 5th Meeting Citizens Task Force

==================
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
-----------------------
Here is a Summary of the July 11, 2000 meeting:

1. All present except B. Bliss, T. Bornemann, A. Kanne.

2. Handouts:
• Insert to Silver Beach Impervious Area Analysis – June, 2000, by Mark Saunders, entitled “Model Rule for the Protection of Water Supply Watersheds” from New Hampshire Dept of Environmental Services

• Lot Coverage Chart (see below)

3. Comments by participants:
• Silver Beach Impervious Area Analysis – June, 2000, by Mark Saunders interesting, but needs short summary. In a nutshell, it concludes that original estimate of SBO effectiveness was under-estimated. There appears to be a substantially greater potential for protecting the watershed if SBO is fully implemented.

• Education continues to be key, both to residents and legislators as well as everyone who works or plays in the watershed. There are many users outside the City, and the County must also be a full and willing participant in water quality protection.

• Handouts from last meeting contained really good information. The recent Lake Whatcom stewardship award program is a good idea. Good examples of lake-friendly behavior are useful.

• An idea offered by a SB land use attorney: Consider identifying possible location(s) for a community park, then use Impervious Area Credits (IAC’s) to purchase the property or its development rights. Multiple benefits could be derived in this manner, including new open space or parks, watershed protection, reduction in vehicle trips, etc. But, because Silver Beach is already considered to have its share of park facilities, Greenways funds may not be readily available for this purpose. Instead, special watershed protection funding may be required. A potential area where this approach might be effective is in the extreme northeast corner of SB where several contiguous lots lack city services and roads. Much of this area is forested and contains substandard lots, making it an ideal candidate for some form of watershed protection enabled by an acquisition program. and/or creative thinking in interpreting variance criteria. This is exactly the type of concept that policy makers can encourage and establish.

• An example of “zero-scaping” was discussed, where special, drought-resistant plants have been employed to create a natural, low maintenance landscape at the A-1 Builders site, 3310 Northwest Ave. This site could be used as demonstration of good BMPs. Public education demonstration sites like this might be one way to earn quantifiable credit toward bonus impervious surface in the watershed.

• Incorporating education into the SBO could take the form of completing an instructional course in lake-friendly practices at the time a building permit application is obtained from Building Services Dept. Another idea is to have contractors working in watershed to receive mandatory instruction as part of their business license requirement. Instruction in BMPs for permitting or licensing is a good idea, but we need a to insure persistence in actually living up to the standards recommended

• SBO can be modified to incorporate new requirements, but practicality and simplicity are needed to insure these will be effective and enforceable. The main idea is to promote absorption, filtration and slow release of runoff, and for these purposes natural vegetation is both cheaper and more effective.

• Catholic religion teaches about mortal sins and venial sins, with the former recognized as being very serious. The trick is to find out how many venial sins one could have without getting into big trouble. There is a direct analogy in dealing with Lake Whatcom; by allowing more incremental development, we are slowing but still surely following the path of degradation, which ultimately will affect our children and future generations. SBO seems to be just slowing down this rate of degradation, not stopping it. A moratorium would stop it. Absent a moratorium, community support to stop promoting development is helpful. Since water quality is of prime importance, interested in what builders and developers are likely to do without strong restrictions. Temptation to persist in past practices is strong. Even federal water quality laws have not been able to correct known problems for 30 years. We need to take a strong stand now, even if this is not politically acceptable. All ideas presented to date are good, but slow teaching won’t solve the problem. We need a bold, long-term oriented, “shall not” law, like a speed limit everyone understands.

• When considering something like a moratorium, ask yourself if you don’t want others moving in, are you ready to move out? SBO is a practical, doable, near-term approach that has been proven to work by experience. It doesn’t presume to a monumental environmental turnaround, like cleaning up the Great Lakes or the Clean Air, etc. While its good to think big, most successes occur from cumulative steps based on clear thinking and good science. A moratorium for SB alone might well cause more resistance to positive change than promote it. COB can’t save the watershed alone based on SBO, but we can monitor and report the results, identify lands to preserve and funding sources as our fair share and as an example to the County. Even protected watersheds like the Cedar & Tolt reserves are not totally problem free, having some air-borne pollution, fecal contamination from wildlife and runoff from logging.

• Considering science versus politics, the SBO is monumental in some ways. This Citizen’s Task Force is being asked to take an active hand in being responsible for the future of the watershed. If SBO works, fine, but we should not allow politics to dominate decision-making. Even without SBO or additional development, degradation was already happening. The Herald’s recent editorial recognized that. Look at SB as a mini test lab to determine if results are likely to show improvement. This will help in determining watershed bearing capacity and better ways of doing business in the watershed.

• City Council will be introducing a Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution on 7/17, in response to the 1992 Joint Resolution by City, County & Water District 10, its reaffirmation in 1998, Proposition 1 in 1999, and comments from this Task Force. In this regard, SBO is an important incremental step to build awareness of the problem and momentum toward tangible ways of solving it.

• The Surface & Storm Water Utility Ordinance upgrade and levy anticipated later this year, also recognizes the inadequacy of existing COB funding to meet State and Federal requirements. This has resulted in projects like the Mt Baker Highway and the City’s annual street replacement program being delayed or cut back. These new funds do not provide for land acquisition.

4. Summary of Ideas for Application to SBO:
• Agenda shows CTF focusing on impervious coverage tonight. There may be actions to consider in return for possible rate relief or other trade-offs. We have such a large a list of ideas developed already, it may be impossible to practically incorporate them all. Need to put together a proposal showing how some of these can be incorporated into SBO.

• During last meeting we considered USES and ADUs. Tonight we will be looking at IMPERVIOUS SURFACE requirements. SBO made a major reduction in impervious surface area allowed, to the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of lot area. Any incentives will be based on these limits, trading on equivalent hydrological BMPs. Need direction in defining and quantifying impervious surface. For example, are any of the following considered impervious; partially pervious; pervious?
-4’ overhang, with ground underneath
-2nd story breezeway, with ground underneath
-augured cast piling foundation, 4’ above ground

• One method of systematically determining an individual lot’s eligibility for an impervious bonus might be a tiered, filtering checklist process during permitting. First, lot size is considered, then its criticality to the watershed, then existing vegetative cover, and finally any voluntary actions agreed to in return for trade-offs.
----------------------------------------------------
• Lot coverage chart:

KEY:
A = Acre %
B = Lot Size
C = Imperv SF
D = Cover %
E = Bonus1 SF
F = Cover1 %
G = Bonus2 SF
H = Cover2 %
I = Bonus3 SF
J = Cover3 %
K = Bonus4 SF
L = Cover4 %

A B C D E F G H I J K L
_________________________________________________________________
5000 2000 40 178 43.6 500 50 750 55 1000 60
6000 2000 33.3 178 36.3 500 41.7 750 45.8 1000 50
7200 2000 27.8 178 30.3 500 34.7 750 38.2 1000 41.7
10000 2000 20 178 21.8 500 25 750 27.5 1000 33.3
12000 2000 16.7 178 18.2 500 20.8 750 22.9 1000 25
13333 2000 15 178 16.3 500 18.8 750 20.6 1000 22.5
33.3 14520 2178 15 0 15 322 17.2 572 18.9 812 20.7
16666 2500 15 0 15 0 15 250 16.5 500 18
18333 2750 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 250 16.4
20000 3000 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15
50 21780 3267 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15
23333 3500 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15
26666 4000 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15
100 43560 6534 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15

Total Imperv: 2000 2178 2500 2750 3000

[apologies for the complicated table]
----------------------------------------------------

• SB is zoned 2DU/acre, meaning a standard lot qualifies for 15% impervious area or about 3267 SF., plus the possibility of various bonus scenarios. The table shows at a lot size of 13,333 SF, 15% cover equals 2000 SF. All smaller lots also qualify for 2000 SF impervious area, but higher proportional percentages of impervious cover. Larger lot sizes qualify for 15% impervious area, at a proportionately higher square footage of impervious area. Is this an equity issue; should lot size matter? The 2000 SF minimum provided by SBO allows a workable range of uses. Lot size distribution of remaining undeveloped lots shows a majority are of substandard size. (less than1/2 acre)

• Example of current home design using SBO limits: A 10,000 SF lot with 2120 SF footprint on 1st floor and 1100 on 2nd floor, with 3-car garage (780 SF) included and no paved driveway. Instead, pavers are used which are 4 times as expensive as paving, mainly due to extra foundation work to ensure stability and drainage. Landscaping is totally native vegetation. Extra footprint was granted in return for donation of open space. Footprint allowed limits design, and some variety is needed for salability, so all homes don’t look the same. Large rambler home design, garage, driveway and patio uses can add significant impervious area if allowed.

• Is SBO a veiled downzone? Larger lot sizes are needed to meet criteria and still preserve usual amenities requiring impervious surface. Supply & demand experience says that if fewer lots are available, then price goes up. If a 5000 SF isn’t adequate, then a 2nd lot adjoining can be bought and consolidated. Problem is there aren’t many adjoining or contiguous pieces available in SB, just small parcels scattered about, some of which are landlocked. Practically, many of these can’t be used because of small size, lack of services, etc. This is why a concept like transferring impervious credits would be useful in adding flexibility and equitability to SBO.

• Exacerbating this problem are COB codes that can also drive undesirable economic outcomes. For example: 5000 SF lot with no road must extend road and utilities, further driving up costs. Very few homes are available in SB for less than $180k; most lower cost new homes are selling in the $210 to 240k range. Unserviced, no frontage lots might be listed for sale at $40k to $60k up to $106k, depending on costs of providing streets and services. Serviced lots may command twice what unserviced lots cost. If it were possible to match up some of these “orphan” lots with buildable ones, then multiple advantages might accrue, including elimination of need to extend roads and services –which perpetuates the desirability to develop- and the area might remain forested or naturally vegetated which would be beneficial to the watershed.

• A “Transfer of Impervious Credits” system, similar to TDRs, could be instituted within SB, where owners could buy “TICs” from one approved lot to apply to another more buildable one. Alternately, COB could purchase TICs from an area to use as stormwater storage, for example, then sell these TICs to owners wishing to increase their building footprints. The beauty of a scheme like this could be manifold; seller gets some tangible value, buyer gets a marketable benefit, property remains partially useful on tax rolls -possibly at reduced assessed value- and natural vegetation remains undisturbed to benefit watershed.

• TDRs require a covenant restricting building a structure on lot -in a designated sending area-since this right is legally transferred to another lot -in a designated receiving area- and recorded on the title. TICs could be structured similarly, except lots next door or within the SB neighborhood and watershed might be used.

• How would you fix the value of a covenant on, say, an unserviced lot listed at $40k? After sale of TICs at market value, the lot would retain spatial rights, privacy rights, value of screening, rights for “soft” uses, timber status, etc. Buy/Sell arena would be defined by eligibility criteria to meet public purpose, legalities to inform potential buyers/owners of restrictions, etc. Receiving areas for TDRs from watershed are now established in the UGA. These are based on density, not impervious area. For example, a designated receiving area –a UGA area zoned for 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/Acre)- could receive up to 2 additional DU/Acre for a total of 6DU/Acre, but only if these come from designated sending areas in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

• Who are beneficiaries? Adjacent property owners? Differing opinions, e.g. view property versus natural vegetation/trees. Localized benefits or detriments are both possible, but the broader benefit of less total impact on watershed may take precedence. Bad idea to just level property, without considering long-term impact of this. A ‘shotgun marriage’ of 2 lots where impervious incentives can be bought, enhancing watershed protection goals, and minimizing development pressure seems a good idea.

• Example, as an owner of an undeveloped 1/3 acre lot; what is it worth to purchase additional impervious area? Could you buy an additional 2000 SF of impervious area with a smaller, unserviced lot for $40k? Waterfront lots now sell in the $500k range and up. If a viable TIC market can be created, this could work more inexpensively than outright purchase of property. If a TIC market can’t be created then it may be better to not allow building or extra impervious area at all. Also, what is upper limit? Possible TIC criteria might include as a minimum:
a) sending lot doesn’t front on an existing road or services
b) sending lot is already forested and will remain so
These two basic criteria might apply to the area in the extreme NE corner of SB. Other criteria with lesser beneficial impacts might be scaled accordingly. Can’t address all possibilities, but can define most important criteria.

• CTF recommends a TIC system be drafted for its consideration. A COB trial program might also be effective, where COB buys TICs in an area using dedicated SW funds, then sells back TICs to repay purchase. Advantage: roads don’t have to be built –discouraging further development-, forest remains in private hands with restrictions, TICs can be used elsewhere, COB gets paid back with monies that can be used again – essentially a revolving fund, used in a most effective manner. A potential quandary exists with Stormwater funds: they can only be used to build capital improvement treatment facilities to mitigate existing problems, but not non-structural remedies that prevent problems from happening? Our Lake Whatcom Stormwater consultant has demonstrated and recommended that non-structural, preventative approaches are much more effective and much less costly than structural, remedial actions.

• What is the absolute maximum impervious area allowed for homes? Per land use code, up to 5500 SF is the maximum allowed floor area for any structure without a conditional use. Up to a 5250 SF structure on a 7500 SF lot is theoretically possible, since that is the absolute 70% impervious coverage limit per lot. Even with this underlying regulation in place, there appear to be several homes that exceed these limits, especially when driveways, garages and patios are included. If a TIC system is used, some owners could potentially still buy additional TICs, up to these limits, unless other limits are specified in SBO.

• What are some functional differences between properties in watershed? (criticality factors)
-lands next to water bodies are generally most valuable related to impacts
-headwaters of streams are more affected by land clearance because pollution drainage would travel entire stream course down to the lake
-if preserving wetlands, upland areas are preferred
-if buffering, front row seats are most valuable
-if storing stormwater, higher areas are more valuable
-for slope stability, steepest is best
-for nutrients, where soil is richer is most important
Complex! How to simplify? 2000 SF or 15% is simple. We need this to preserve a reasonable opportunity for all owners, regardless of lot size. Keeping it simple, why not address only fairness inequities by TICs, and don’t expand it as a gimmick to add impervious area for anyone that wants it and can afford to pay? Two notions: Relief and Incentives for ‘better than minimum scenarios’.
Relief means a variance, or exception to rule, or opportunity to purchase relief from hardship.
Incentives use a market to achieve more work than a legal minimum would achieve. Free enterprise can do some of this work, providing rules are clear. A TIC system in SB might be an opportunity to allow incentives to benefit those who wish to buy them, thereby helping to protect the watershed in very beneficial ways. (e.g. Land bank an up-slope, forested area in return for smaller impervious impacts to benefit homeowners, all paid for by homeowners)

• CTF would like to see a draft outline for a TIC system, which can be incorporated into SBO. Limit this to COB for now, with possibility of expanding it later.
Potential title: LOT CONSOLIDATION FOR IMPERVIOUS TRANSFER

• Some thoughts regarding the use of the Silver Beach Ordinance from a design standpoint. The Ordinance establishes a list of parameters that should be considered during the design process (to earn additional impervious surface credit). These include:
i) soil disturbance season
ii) percentage of impervious surface area
iii) zoning-density
iv) storm water and run-off management
v) soil type and topography
vi) infiltration improvement
vii) landscape contributions
viii) TDR's

If the intent of the inclusion of all these characteristics is made clear to the design community, any and all of them can be used to lessen the impact of new construction and property improvements. This can be accomplished with trade specific training and education provided by the city.

The administration of this ordinance could progress through Building Services as follows:
I. The application is made to Building Services for permit. At the application date the documents are checked for inclusion of all the necessary information before passing the packet on to the other departments for review.
II. The package of documents then moves to the Planning Department where issues of zoning, shoreline review, variance for use or density increase, % of impervious surface area are considered. In addition this department could review the proposed landscape plan with emphasis on preservation of native vegetation, use of recommended species, and total lawn area are approved.
III. The plans then move to the Public Works department to consider the alternate paving methods proposed, soil disturbance plan, run-off management plan and catch basin design is reviewed along with the current requirements for road design or improvements.
IV. Then the plans return to Building Services for structural and safety review.

This is the approximate sequence that is used now. The major item that has been added is any reference to the landscape review portion of the approval process. This will take more time than the current process but since the total number of permits affected by the Ordinance is likely to be small at any time, it seems possible to add this extra review time.

I hope to continue the ordinance refinement process again on Tuesday (7/11/00).
As the information begins to take on a manageable form, I hope we will be able to translate it into a workable ordinance.

• Many of the ideas mentioned for earning extra impervious area are good, but how can we quantify what they are worth and still keep SBO simple enough to understand and administer? Assessments will have to be done on a lot-by lot basis.

• What role could offsite mitigation have in considering additional impervious area?
Good concept and it works, reduces things to $ amounts. Order of preference is: onsite; adjacent; in same watershed; in another watershed. Typical engineered solution.

• Question whether SBO and modifications will work in long term? Realize some options are needed for relief, but concerned that incremental,’venial’ allowances in watershed will result in same thing that happened in Seattle, when everyone was granted a small variance. Must definitively limit growth impacts now to avoid a similar problem here in the future. Big difference between a variance, which allows a minimum regulatory relief, and an incentive, which can do a lot more to actually reduce impact potential. People’s desires are a great motivation, but need guidelines. Example: Would granting an additional 200 SF impervious area be a good trade in return for vegetating 2000 SF? Would need to ensure this was perpetuated. Concept is to not make it too easy, but allow some flexibility if this results in public good being done. Guidelines and criteria are required to define limits of this. Our most common activity is issuing permits for small improvements to existing property. An incentive system could tap into this bigger ‘market’ too.

• KISS principle restated; what would work with builders and developers? Some are already doing this type of careful design and planning, would appreciate receiving credit for it. COB already has a menu of alternatives in its regulations, which aren’t being used frequently, in favor of standard designs and simplicity. Some developers practice lake-friendly designs because that’s the easiest way to get a development to work on the site. (collecting stormwater & filtering it instead of installing swales, keeping native vegetation, dedicating land buffers, choosing to use fewer lots than maximum, etc.) Reality means reasonable accommodation is expected in applying rules. But, does it make sense to get credit for leaving native vegetation already in place? Changing conditions have themselves dictated the SBO changes, and that is the new reality. It’s not business as usual any more. It’s a new ballgame.

• COB’s anticipated SSWU upgrade and levy will serve to include existing owners in solving existing runoff pollution problem.

• COB’s existing road standard requirements may not be appropriate for SB and the watershed, because of excessive impervious area, and may need revision. Two examples:
• An undeveloped lot, restricted to 2000 SF impervious area, will need to use pavers for its driveway, but also have a minimum standard street constructed for access to property, which far exceeds his own allowed impervious area.
• A small development of 6 homes on previously cleared land near Silver Beach Creek is currently required to have a minimum standard street constructed for access.
These examples exemplify potential overkill in use of existing road standards, particularly in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. They also illustrate situations in which an incentives program could thrive. Absent this, building will happen according to existing standards and the opportunity will be lost to achieve much more lake-friendly development. No tools yet exist to effectively address this type of problem. Code is rigid and will be interpreted that way. SBO could address this type of problem, if we wish it to. (i.e. minimum standard road width of 20’ might be reduced to 18’, if abutting lots are retained and 50% of existing native vegetation)

• CTF requests a menu of opportunities to revise COB codes in SB, based on checklist handout and ideas previously expressed. Also, a list of the 6 most counter-productive code requirements that currently apply. This information is to be distributed electronically prior to next meeting.

• Important to consider how SBO modifications will work administratively through COB’s system. Perhaps, Residential permits in SB can be treated similarly to Commercial permits to accommodate checklists and special incentives. Not seen as particularly onerous, won’t create a problem. Most ideas can be visually verified. CTF also requests “top 10” ideas which staff worthy of consideration. CTF is not familiar with Ordinances, language, etc, which trained professionals can provide more readily. Need draft Ordinance now. Good progress has been made.

• 30-second summary of Saunders Report:
Planning underestimated the actual impervious area in SB now. As a result, potential benefits of SBO were underestimated. (We can do more good than we thought)

5. FLIP CHART SUMMARY – Ideas identified for staff follow-up:
• Transfer of Impervious Area Credits (TICs)

• Lot consolidation

• Preservation of Native Vegetation*

• Restoration of Native Vegetation*

• Stormwater Management*

• Stormwater Utility Rate Adjustment

(* bonuses at highly beneficial ratios)

6. Assignments for next meeting:
• Agenda & Watershed Science Checklist will be distributed, preferably in electronic format, to allow study before the next meeting

• Staff to provide a draft outline for a TIC system, which can be incorporated into SBO, using elements shown in Flip Chart Summary, above.

• Staff to provide a list of “top 10” ideas worthy of consideration

• Staff is also requested to summarize ideas likely to have major positive impacts on protecting the watershed, but which require broader or different mechanisms to implement, such as a menu of opportunities to revise COB codes in SB, the 6 most counter-productive code requirements that currently apply, and the like.


• NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, July 25, 7-9pm in Mayor’s Board Room
Future Meeting Dates:
Tuesday, August 8 (Mayor’s Board Room)
Tuesday, August 15 (Mayor’s Board Room) (final recommendations deadline)

Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 4th Meeting Citizens Task Force

==================
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
-----------------------
Here is a Summary of the June 27, 2000 meeting:

1. All present except K. Barron, B. Bliss, T. Bornemann, T. Farris & J. Kenoyer.

2. Handouts:
• Agenda
• Silver Beach Impervious Area Analysis – June, 2000, by Mark Saunders
• Booklet: Urbanization & Water Quality – A Guide to Protecting the Urban Environment

3. Comments by participants:
• SBO basically limits 3 items; impervious surfaces, uses and timing of construction. Science seems good on all three, so expects minimal changes are likely. What it lacks is an EDUCATION component applicable to all who live, work or play in Silver Beach.

• Agrees education is very important. Ready to work on SBO now, possibly expand scope later. Foresees relatively minor changes; some allowable increase in impervious surface, leeway thru trade-offs, reconsider ADU if existing home is small. OK with seasonal limits.

• Even simpler view. If lake is already polluted, we need regulations on existing homes, plus enforcement of the rules. Just as progress in education is marked by grades, compliance must have a yardstick.

• Reviewed extensive materials and came to independent conclusion that SBO is necessary. Looking at vacant lot summary and Salmon in City paper, feels current regulations & practices are clearly not working. Education, improvements in technology & know-how will help, but need tough regulations with incentives now. Temptation is great to let this assignment get too complex and far-reaching. Need to use SBO as pilot program to set example/standard for rest of watershed.

• Took weeks to understand scope of this Task Force, now understands we aren’t being asked to solve all problems in watershed, just our part. Understands that impact threshold occurs at 10 to 20% impervious surface, and selection of 15% as an average for the SB portion of watershed is reasonable. Perhaps up to a maximum of 20% could be earned in return for installation/use of additional BMPs. Doesn’t expect remaining SB lots will have a big impact. Concerned that 4 month building season might be too short for certain projects, particularly those extending into Fall. What BMPs would apply to this?

• One missing item from SBO is a LANDSCAPE ELEMENT. This might be a good method by which to earn additional impervious surface by embracing lake-friendly practices.

• Another missing element from SBO is a LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM. This could certainly help with reducing density, perhaps by consolidating sub-standard lots or similar mechanisms.

• Agrees that education element would be nice, but unenforceable. Perhaps, this could be approached by requiring those working in SB to be LICENSED & TRAINED in BMPs.

• There are multiple watershed projects the City currently has underway. It is tempting to look at big picture to see where these fit, and if similar components could be merged to provide major changes later. It is obvious that prevention is much more effective and less costly than remediation or mitigation. The self education process in progress is good and more is needed.

• What is the City Council’s role in the many programs going on in the Lake Whatcom watershed? Basically the CC sets policy, goals and priorities; ratifies programs and funding; tries to be aware of the multiplicity of regulatory requirements. The City staff actually administers & coordinates these activities and provides information to CC. Additionally, the City tries to make timely and accurate access to this information available to the public via multiple media, including meetings and forums, PEG-TV, newsletters, website, articles in Herald and other publications. Admittedly, there are more activities in progress than most people want to follow. A Citizens Task Force like this one is a good way of interacting with the public most impacted by issues like SBO. So far, CTF has come up with a good list of ideas, some of which are new and unique, to help add flexibility to SBO.

• Tonight’s agenda is as follows:

SILVERBEACH COMMITTEE JUNE 27TH AGENDA

OPPORTUNITY TO ADD IDEAS AND AFTERTHOUGHTS FROM LAST MEETING

REVIEW MINUTES FOR COMPLETENESS/HELPFULNESS FOR THE TASK
ANY CHANGES NEEDED?

SELECT ONE OF THE FOUR FUNCTIONAL AREAS AND BEGIN WORK ON RECOMMENDATIONS

BEGIN RECOMMENDATIONS WITH FOCUS ON INCENTIVE BASED OPTIONS
(BE PREPARED TO DESCRIBE HOW YOUR SUGGESTION WILL PROTECT THE WATERSHED, IN ADDITION TO BENEFITTING THE LAND OWNER)

CONSIDER:

CAN THE BENEFIT BE QUANTIFIED?
CAN THE OUTCOME BE MONITORED OR INSPECTED?
HOW DIFFICULT IS THE IDEA TO ADMINISTER?
IS THE PROPOSAL AVAILABLE TO ALL LAND OWNERS?
DO COSTS PRECLUDE FEASIBILITY? WHO PAYS?

REMEMBER COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES:

EMPHASIZE PREVENTION OVER TREATMENT
LIMIT DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
REDUCE DENSITY, REDUCE IMPERVIOUS AREAS
IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE PARCELS FOR PUBLIC ACQUISITION
IMPLEMENT AN EFFECTIVE TDR PROGRAM

CONSOLIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE POSSIBLE, PICK 5 OR 6 TOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STAFF PROCESSING

DISTRIBUTE SILVERBEACH IMPERVIOUS AREA REPORT TO MEMBERS FOR REVIEW

SCOPE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING

• Our goal is to determine what incentives are likely to protect the watershed AND benefit the landowner? There is wide interest in this type of WIN-WIN solution. Some typical questions are:
1) What constitutes “PERVIOUS SURFACE? Interlocking pavers? Gravel? Shadow under overhangs, 2nd story breezeways? slatted decks?
2) If an existing home has 3000 SF of impervious surface, can tearing up (or building on) part of the driveway be exchanged for adding a REC Room?
3) Can changes exceed stated limits, and if so, under what conditions?

• A stated goal is to reduce density in the watershed. Is there an opportunity in SBO to accomplish this? Could the concept of IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TRANSFER from one lot to another in return for a restrictive covenant be used? Such a mechanism could also reassign buildable footprint to a more appropriate, or accessible, site WITHIN SB.

• A reduction in COB’s impervious road surface requirements in SB would be a very cost effective approach for everyone.

• Existing homes constitute a big problem. A much broader appeal is needed to attract their active involvement in SBO goals. All ideas must first pass the “laugh or cry” test. Currently, mostly positive feedback is being heard on SBO and not major complaints. This is very encouraging.

• Regarding large home construction requiring 6-9 months, SBO describes NEW earthwork only. Possible to adapt building methods by early backfill or BMPs, then complete job later. Current stormwater ordinance states that bare earth shall be covered within 7 days in dry season & 3 days in wet season, although ‘enforcement’ varies.

• Who determines or writes BMPs? There are many existing BMPs and combinations thereof, using industry standards, but interpretation and application of these usually requires good expertise and judgement. Usually, the Departments with responsibility write the “how-to’s”. Three levels of direction: Policy, Regulatory Code, Implementation procedures. The Comprehensive Plan requires appropriate use of BMPs, but in practice this doesn’t always happen. Stream buffers are a good example of this.

• SBO is an interim ordinance expiring 7/24/00. Are we cramming for a last minute final exam? Much work is going on, but a broad spectrum of science indicates the underlying problem is simply development itself, and that observable deterioration has already happened and is continuing to happen. The strongest action we could take would be a “time-out” moratorium on new building until answers on TMDLs can be determined. The 303(d) listing demonstrates that past & current practices aren’t working nearly well enough.

• If existing development caused this problem, we need to impose additional restrictions on that, and not allow any more development until we figure out what’s needed to protect the water. Examples are bans on 2-cycle boats, pesticide use, car washing, etc. Our job is to safeguard the lake by preventing further deterioration, yet the word “moratorium” doesn’t appear on our list. What about hydrocarbons in the lake; even at low levels, we drink it at our potential risk.

• Regarding TMDLs, a $100k DOE grant has been received to look at improved street sweeping as a means of determining baseline data for a number of pollutants related to traffic. This CTF is now on the leading edge in determining fair and effective impervious surface restrictions, including severity of imperviousness. Olympia has a similar program to protect its groundwater. Snohomish County is now looking at low impact development strategies to help their ESA problem.

• The “zero net impact” idea is good in theory, but in reality a misnomer and failure in practice. Difficult to control or enforce what is not clear, proven and well defined. Hearing Examiner has simply ignored this requirement despite Planning Dept recommendations. There is much debate over the actual effectiveness of detention ponds for example. Some say great, some say worthless by themselves.

• Why not a moratorium? Likely to have more negative results than positive, especially if limited to just SB. COB history on moratoria includes one restricting the filling of wetlands, except by variance to CC. This allowed necessary work to be done to develop a suitable ordinance. Another example is the moratorium on 4-BR duplexes, now in its 5th or 6th extension. In the case of SBO, personal residences are involved along with emotional connections. Also, much of this homework has already been done. SB residents want equality, spread responsibility around fairly. Recognize we’ve got to start this effort somewhere, and SB is it!

4. Review of purpose of meeting and CTF’s objective:
• Having gone through an initial learning process, the Group now seems focused on its charter, which is to determine those ideas specifically applicable to the SBO, which can add flexibility and options without changing its intent, and can be accomplished before the 8/15/00 deadline for this Task Force’s recommendations.

• Ideas considered not directly applicable to SBO by the above criteria, will be saved for referral to other programs and efforts, such as The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, the City’s Surface & Stormwater Utility Ordinance upgrade now underway, the LWRM Program Land Acquisition Citizen’s Task Force, and the like. All meeting summaries are now posted on the City’s website at: http://www.cob.org/council.htm. (click on Silver Beach Ordinance)

• The Impervious Area Analysis report handout shows SBO is already working to reduce Total Suspended Solids in runoff. Recommended reading.

• The Urbanization & Water Quality booklet handout, likewise a ‘must’ reading, is a very good summary of the things we can do to protect the lake. Many of ideas discussed can be found here.

• Today’s paper headlines show the city’s Surface & Storm Water Utility Ordinance is now under active discussion. An Ordinance authorizing utility fees is likely to be enacted by yearend on all residents to pay for mandated regulations. Fees will be based on impervious surface area. Public Works will present its proposal to CC on 8/21/00.

• The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program Team will give its quarterly report to County & City Councils and WD#10 tomorrow night, 7-9 pm at Cooperative Extension Bldg. Those interested in hearing the various watershed-wide programs currently underway, are encouraged to attend.

5. Discussion of Ideas for Application to SBO:

• Idea for incentive: Stormwater fee adjustment in return for compliance, or exceeding compliance with SBO? Determine impervious surface area for individual properties using aerial photos, site inspection.

• Discussion of SBO itself, and 4 main topics: USES, DENSITY, SEASONAL LIMITS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS. Pick USES to focus on first, note permitted and conditional uses listed. List applicable ideas on flip chart, shown below.

• No LANDSCAPING requirements exist now in single family zones. Perhaps new standards can be considered. County example: limits on livestock (animal units/acre). Horses are not expressly prohibited on residential property in City. Oddly, there are landscape standards for Residential-Multi, including % Open Space, Trees, etc.

• Native plants have multiple advantages: less intensive care & watering needed, unnecessary to disturb soil, more disease resistant/no pesticides, little or no fertilizer needed, better habitat, better uptake of nutrients & contaminants, transpiration aids cooling, etc. A pallet or list of preferred species of plants can be provided for reference, substitutions allowed. Co-op Extension is excellent education resource for this! Also Bloedel-Donovan as Demonstration Park.

• Discussion of USES (see below table).

• Discussion of possible PROHIBITIONS, including Clearing & Grading Code changes (see below table).

• Discussion of possible INCENTIVES & TRADE-OFFS, including VOLUNTARY ACTIONS, etc (see below table).

• Discussion of ADU Trade-offs (see below table).

• Need to set quantifiable, not subjective, standards to preserve SBO intent into future. Land supply is constantly shrinking, increasing pressure on more intense development.

• Flip Chart Summary – SBO/Uses-Specific Items
USES
Idea No. Comment

I. Need Landscape Standards 2,35,37 Rating system?

• Soil character/site preparation BMPs

• Vegetative Cover Inventory & Map (Native preferred) 7 ‘as-builts’

• Topography & Slope 31 Buffers/slopes

• Proximity to Streams, Lake 131,134 buffers

• Proximity to other Natural Areas habitat

• BMP List – Lawns & Gardens checklist

- Fertilizer (type, amount, timing) 34,59,69 Ban/reduce

- Pesticides (type, amount, timing) Ban/reduce

- Irrigation Practices minimize

- Tilling (SF area & season) BMPs

- Composting & Mulching BMPs

• Impervious Placement on Lot Buffers/slopes

• Preservation of Neighborhood Character 27

POSSIBLE PROHIBITIONS

• Prohibit Disposal of Fill in Watershed, except in 4 month season? (eg Britton Road/Hillsdale) Restrict permits for all contamination generating activities? Grading Code Changes needed
• Agricultural Nurseries; Day Treatment Center (Conditional Uses)
• Livestock (per Animal Unit Equivalent)
May be better choice than alternative of subdivision, but too many animals compact soil, destroy vegetation, trash streams, produce fecals, all of which worsen pollution problems. Larger tracts
(1AU/.5 acre) USDA measuring units)
• Wireless Communications Towers

POSSIBLE INCENTIVES & TRADE-OFFS

I. Voluntary Actions

• Install/Use/Maintain Extra BMPs (infiltration, treatment systems, retrofits)
What rewards are possible? Is it workable to keep track of trade-offs?
SW Fee Credit?
IMPERVIOUS Credit?
Trades between categories?

• Discontinue Existing Non-conforming Use
example: former Haines Tree Spraying Service – moved away
• Homes without setbacks or buffers

• Discourage ‘Business as usual’ practices with SBO-exempt facilities (schools, churches, parks, roads, re-development of existing facilities, piers & docks)
Some of these facilities are necessary to preserve neighborhood.
SBO only applies to Residential uses. Special COB roads & BMP standards in watershed?

II. Establish 3 Grades of Pervious Surfaces:

• Impervious 15%
• Partially Pervious ?
• Vegetated
encourage unusual, effective demonstration projects maximum

III. Provide Demonstration Site to monitor, encourage others
Education value

IV. Stormwater Utility Rates Credit
Retrofit BMPs; swales, ditches vs impervious

V. Tax Relief (must be acceptable as permanent Open Space?)
Open Space for Public benefit
RARE!

VI. Consolidate property to lower impervious surface & density
Multiplies benefit

VII. Change Development Standards; Road Standards
Huge potential impact!

USES – ADUs

• Consider as conditional use, if in lieu of outright subdivision (requires restrictive covenant, enforceable by COB)
Less impervious surface possible; must be attached, certified. Provide option of being non-reversible? Opportunity, not a guarantee. Consider watershed protection benefits

SEASONAL LIMITS ON SOIL DISTURBANCE Discuss 7/11/00

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA LIMITS Discuss 7/11/00

6. Wrap-up & Assignments for next meeting:
• Think about what can be done to encourage existing development to participate meaningfully to assist SBO goals. Develop options & rules for users to determine what is possible. How to value & credit these options; using what (and whose) currency? SBO is a PROACTIVE, preventative measure, not a reactive, mitigation method. Non-structural BMPs -like SBO- beat structural BMPs -like detention ponds- every time; in both effectiveness and costs to implement & maintain them! SBO was only necessary because of past deferred action on the causes of water quality impacts. Read the Handouts listed in 2, above.
• Prepare to focus on SEASONAL LIMITS ON SOIL DISTURBANCE and IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA LIMITS to produce a Table like that above.
• Agendas, Watershed Science Checklists will be distributed before the next meeting.
• NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, July 11, 7-9pm in Planning Conference Room
Future Meeting Dates:
Tuesday, July 25 (Mayor’s Board Room)
Tuesday, August 8 (Mayor’s Board Room)
Tuesday, August 15 (Mayor’s Board Room) (final recommendations deadline)

o. Ideas for Incentives & Trade-Offs Choices: A B C D

KEY: A= Impervious Area Limits
B= Buffers
C= Land Acquisition/Trading
D= Education & Monitoring
*= Policy Decision

2 Install & use appropriate natural vegetation based BMPs A, B
11 Consolidate multiple lots to cluster home(s) A, B

35 Minimize land disturbance & retain native vegetation A, B
37 Consider soil composition in determining suitability for clearing, lawns, BMPs A, B
131 Allow a maximum of 20% impervious cover within 200' of lake A, B
29 "Banking" system for Equivalent Pervious Area Units, similar to TDR's A, C
3 Install pervious paving system(s) A

17 Removal of existing impervious surfaces earns a home footprint bonus A
26 Use more pervious structures/surfaces whenever possible A
32 Set absolute maximum impervious footprint attainable for each lot A
63 Increase impervious surface allocation (2500, 3000, 3500, 4000) A
65 Differentiate categories of impervious surfaces; roof, grade, etc A
66 Impervious surface credit for drainfield, infiltration devices A
119 Ban subdivisions in watershed; require larger lots; reward with SBO relief x
1 Maximize undisturbed distance from shoreline or stream bank for buffer B
31 Use proximity to water, lot topography to determine BMPs B
34 Utilize, or exceed, BMPs use during construction to extend season B
69 Allow flexibility in wet season construction in return for additional BMPs B
134 Provide 30' minimum buffer to streams & lake [high water level] B
44 Retrofit individual catch basins* B

7 Provide appropriate conservation easement(s) in perpetuity C
19 Donate/dedicate to City, Land Trust, land over 15% as Open Space C
20 Finance quantifiable offsite mitigation elsewhere in the watershed* C
24 Sell to City or Land Trust, TDRs for appropriate watershed property C
47 Create land acquisition program for City to purchase priority properties C
104 Use Greenways/Conservation Futures $ for purchase of watershed land C
27 Checklist of lake-friendly practices to complete for building permit D
28 Use innovative BMPs, allow documentation and inspections D
45 Grant stormwater fee credit for those impacted by SBO*
49 Determine more equitable method of spreading cost of SBO to all beneficiaries*
56 Update City's capability to monitor impervious surface coverage D
59 Find ways to encourage lake-friendly gardening & landscaping D
68 Allow emergency reconstruction during rainy season*
72 Mandatory classes, permit for builders, excavators, landscapers, services D
73 Enforce existing regulations consistently D

88 How can SBO's effectiveness be measured & demonstrated? D
123 Need ongoing Stakeholders Group to continue study & oversight of programs D
-----------

KEY: A= Impervious Area Limits
B= Buffers
C= Land Acquisition/Trading
D= Education & Monitoring
*= Policy Decision
-----------

Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 3rd Meeting Citizens Task Force

==================
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
-----------------------
Here is a Summary of the June 13. 2000 meeting:

1. All present except K. Barron & D. Cantrell.
2. A special guest, WWU graduate student, Mark Saunders, briefly discussed the study he performed on Park Place Drain effectiveness in controlling runoff, as contractor to City.
A strong apparent correlation was noted between building rates and observed Total Suspended Solids (TSS) measurements.

3. Handouts:
• List of 134 Ideas for Incentives & Trade-Offs
[4-page Excel Spreadsheet]
• Lawn Reference Information
• Summary of Vacant Lots in Silver Beach Neighborhood

4. Review of purpose of meeting and CTF’s objective:
• Main focus of this meeting is to review the List of Ideas and determine those specifically applicable to the SBO, which can add flexibility and options without changing its intent, and can be accomplished before the 8/15/00 deadline for the Task Force recommendations.

• Ideas considered not directly applicable to SBO by the above criteria, will be saved for referral to other programs and efforts, such as The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan 2000, the upcoming Stormwater Ordinance upgrade, the Land Acquisition Citizen’s Task Force and the like.

5. Comments by participants:
• List of 134 ideas needs sorting by category; outline format might be suitable: e.g. Topic “Landscape”; Sub-topic “lawn area”; Rating “educational or regulatory”; Priority “10 most critical elements”. This would help people using SBO to understand what tools are available, flexibility in design parameters, etc. A flow chart of permitting process, showing additional watershed requirements, which Depts are responsible, and listed regulatory steps.

• 11 SBO-specific items suggested in following categories: Purchasing & Preserving Land (20, 24, 27, 29); Education (72, 73, 74); Funding & Financing (94, 95, 97, 104). These were listed on a flip chart.

• Photo album (Barkley Blvd.) presented, showing poor landscaping practices which leave practically no pervious surface.

• A City street-sweeper crew was observed last week, in SB, discharging buckets of sweepings into stormwater drain. Is this OK?

• Additional SBO-specific items offered as follows: 2, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 59, 29, 36, 37, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 111, 56, 57, 58, 63, 65, 66, 69, 72, 73, 76, 83, 88, 90, 93, 97, 100, 104, 113, 115, 123, 124, 126.

• This exercise seems overwhelming. All ideas are good, but how will over-complicating SBO actually help? How much time is city willing to devote to administering SBO? Main problem is simply limiting development. Limiting impervious area, increasing open space, eliminating use of pesticides & fertilizers are good practices, but might promote overuse of variance process.

• Reason for this procedure is that the CTF requested a consolidated list to allow focusing on items directly applicable to SBO’s 4 areas.

• One way of categorizing List is to determine which program area(s) seem to fit specific ideas. Suggested categories could be SBO, Stormwater Ordinance, Land Acquisition Programs, City-wide Practices & Lake Whatcom Mgmt Program (watershed-wide).

• Additional SBO-specific items were offered in following categories:
Buffers (1, 119, 131, 134); Maximize Pervious/Natural Cover (2, 3, 11, 17, 26, 28, 32, 63); Land Conservation/Acquisition (7, 19, 24, 47, 95, 96, 99, 104, 107, 117); Construction BMPs 31, 34, 35, 68, 69)

• Suggestion for group to prioritize SBO-specific items listed on flip chart.

• Discussion on use of pesticides & fertilizers, how to educate, enforce? Even if strictly “unenforceable”, a strong education & reminder system of behavioral BMPs is essential. Analogy to speed limit signs = constant reminder. Similar to Burn Ban, which was advertised widely 5 years before it went into effect, an expectation of compliance is systematically instilled to public, reinforced by neighbors. Could publish guidelines for proper fertilization & timing.

• Discussion of City’s priorities (drinking water 1st other uses important but subordinate). Looking for simplest ideas that significantly impact water quality at least cost. SBO is enforceable now, as it stands. CTF job is to recommend how to condition it to add flexibility.

• SBO impacts only 500 lots, plus future remodels. But, water quality problems have been caused by existing homes & development. Landscaping practices need to be established by permit, up-front. A watershed-wide land acquisition program could be very effective. Education of the public is extremely important to this process. Despite current efforts, like voluntary Pledge Program, word is simply not getting out widely enough.

• Refocus on flip chart; agree on SBO-specific ideas, then apply to SBO. Not much disagreement on these ideas, why limit to just SBO? SBO is time and scope limited, although many SBO-specific ideas have broader applicability. These will also be referred to LW Mgmt Program, others. BIG priorities are those with multiple “hits”, but SBO-specific is our goal now. Recognize this is a more modest goal than many would like. Note that many ideas on list came from comments made at public meetings, not just SBO-CTF.

• Fairness and uniformity of watershed practices are large concerns. SBO are expected to influence Urban Growth Area (UGA) practices in Geneva & Brownsville- Hillsdale areas.

• After discussion, the group agreed that the 37 ideas, as shown in the Table below, were SBO-specific in nature.

• In addition to the Table, several items remain of interest to group members for discussion or study, including No’s 36, 48, 57, 58, 95, 99.

Wrap-up & Assignments for next meeting:
• Develop, consolidate & categorize SBO-specific Table of ideas for further discussion. Ideas related to public information & education programs will be identified as a category.
-----------
No. Ideas for Incentives & Trade-Offs Choices: A B C D

KEY: A= Impervious Area Limits
B= Buffers
C= Land Acquisition/Trading
D= Education & Monitoring
*= Policy Decision

2 Install & use appropriate natural vegetation based BMPs A, B
11 Consolidate multiple lots to cluster home(s) A, B

35 Minimize land disturbance & retain native vegetation A, B
37 Consider soil composition in determining suitability for clearing, lawns, BMPs A, B
131 Allow a maximum of 20% impervious cover within 200' of lake A, B
29 "Banking" system for Equivalent Pervious Area Units, similar to TDR's A, C
3 Install pervious paving system(s) A

17 Removal of existing impervious surfaces earns a home footprint bonus A
26 Use more pervious structures/surfaces whenever possible A
32 Set absolute maximum impervious footprint attainable for each lot A
63 Increase impervious surface allocation (2500, 3000, 3500, 4000) A
65 Differentiate categories of impervious surfaces; roof, grade, etc A
66 Impervious surface credit for drainfield, infiltration devices A
119 Ban subdivisions in watershed; require larger lots; reward with SBO relief x
1 Maximize undisturbed distance from shoreline or stream bank for buffer B
31 Use proximity to water, lot topography to determine BMPs B
34 Utilize, or exceed, BMPs use during construction to extend season B
69 Allow flexibility in wet season construction in return for additional BMPs B
134 Provide 30' minimum buffer to streams & lake [high water level] B
44 Retrofit individual catch basins* B

7 Provide appropriate conservation easement(s) in perpetuity C
19 Donate/dedicate to City, Land Trust, land over 15% as Open Space C
20 Finance quantifiable offsite mitigation elsewhere in the watershed* C
24 Sell to City or Land Trust, TDRs for appropriate watershed property C
47 Create land acquisition program for City to purchase priority properties C
104 Use Greenways/Conservation Futures $ for purchase of watershed land C
27 Checklist of lake-friendly practices to complete for building permit D
28 Use innovative BMPs, allow documentation and inspections D
45 Grant stormwater fee credit for those impacted by SBO*
49 Determine more equitable method of spreading cost of SBO to all beneficiaries*
56 Update City's capability to monitor impervious surface coverage D
59 Find ways to encourage lake-friendly gardening & landscaping D
68 Allow emergency reconstruction during rainy season*
72 Mandatory classes, permit for builders, excavators, landscapers, services D
73 Enforce existing regulations consistently D

88 How can SBO's effectiveness be measured & demonstrated? D
123 Need ongoing Stakeholders Group to continue study & oversight of programs D
-----------

KEY: A= Impervious Area Limits
B= Buffers
C= Land Acquisition/Trading
D= Education & Monitoring
*= Policy Decision
-----------
NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, June 27, 7-9pm in Mayor’s Board Conference Room

Meeting Dates:
Tuesday, June 27
Tuesday, July 11 (Board Room not available)
Tuesday, July 25
Tuesday, August 8
Tuesday, August 15 (final recommendations deadline)

Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 2nd Meeting Citizens Task Force

==================
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
------------------------
Meeting Summary from 5/30/2000:

1. All present except B. Ryan & B. Bliss

2. Handouts:
• Agenda
• DNR Notes
• Urbanization & Water Quality Notes
• Porous Paving Systems (several)
• Salmon in City excerpt
• Olympia Ordinance
• e-mail from CTF members:
JW – minutes of 5/16 meeting
- incentives & tradeoffs list
TF - ideas
JK - ideas
AR - ideas
JH - ideas
BB - ideas
MW - ideas

3. Brief review of agenda.

4. Review of purpose of meeting and CTF’s objective:
• Main focus of this Task Force is the SB Ordinance itself, adding flexibility and options without changing its intent or goal, which is to arrest or reverse further degradation to water quality in measurable terms.
• Much education about Lake issues is obviously happening here.
Other programs and efforts, such as The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan 2000, are either already underway or will be coming soon. These will address many of the ideas expressed by CTF. We will collect all CTF ideas, then sort out those, which could be incorporated into the SBO. Other ideas will be saved and passed on to other programs.

5. Comments by participants:
• Major concern is SBO is too narrow a focus; needs to encompass entire watershed; overall jurisdictional body is needed with powers to effect necessary changes and institutionalize them against future whims. Macro, not micro approach.

• Lake has competing uses; difficult to set rules to cover all activities. If drinking water is #1 use, then that takes precedence over others. Must take a long-term view and consider whether maintenance will allow BMPs to remain functional over time. Suggestions regarding topography and proximity to lake as important parameters are good. Add soil composition to this mix; lawns may be getting an undeserved “bad rap”.

• SBO affects only a small % of watershed; maybe good example for rest. Agrees that if drinking water is #1 use, then that takes precedence over other uses.

• Agrees 1st objective is (protecting) drinking water, but wonders if SBO gets cart before horse. Education is urgently needed about use of fertilizers & pesticides, big sources of problems. Needs relief in trade- offs, perhaps in donating land in excess of 15% open space requirement. Seasonal limits on land disturbance are serious problem; maybe extend if BMPs are used. Agrees with most SBO provisions.

• Admittedly a poor politician; wants to know what science says- e.g. fuels in water at non-detectable level. Spent 2 months talking to people re Prop #1; many want something more done to protect drinking water & environment. Where is the County on this? Repeats suggestions to ban fertilizers, pesticides, old pilings, jet skis, uncontrolled fueling activities. Might volunteer to install a catch basin if shown to be helpful.

• Agrees with prior comments. It’s City’s job to adopt tough policy & strict regs, set example for County. CTF could prioritize main impacts, develop example. “Roofmeadows.com”

• Agrees with prior comments. Everyone should be involved; not just SB. Consider stormwater fee credit for those affected by SBO.

• While banning chemicals, fertilizers and boats would help, the biggest impact on maintaining water quality is development itself. A moratorium should not be ruled out if time is needed to develop fair and effective regulations.

• Likes SBO; supports banning fertilizers, increasing public education and developing incentives & tradeoffs. Agrees SBO covers only small percent of users, but these are closest to the dirtiest water. Footprint limit is also in effect elsewhere. City needs to be first to protect lake, set example for County.

• Much info is available on plantings and impervious surfaces, but this still doesn’t address SBO flexibility refinements in a defensible way. SBO is a broad-brush approach now.

6. Questions & Discussion:
Q: How was 2000 sqft footprint determined?

• Lot size footprint @ 15%, which is watershed, targeted maximum impervious cover. 10 to 15% is recognized by science as threshold of impairing natural environment. (years of R&D in urban environments)
• 2000 sqft is common to typical floorplans, provides for up to maximum allowable size using multiple floor configurations. If pervious drives, etc are used, this provides for greater building footprint. Guarantees the right to build homes that are readily saleable, encourages use of BMPs. Combines opportunities for reasonable use and protection of public resource. Homes meeting these criteria are common already. Over 50% of remaining unbuilt lots in SB are of substandard size for the area zoning.

Q: Where does the CC want CTF to go? Recognizing we are an advisory group with narrow focus, how does this one ordinance fit into City’s overall plan?

• City is interested in all those policies & science that can be found to protect the water supply. The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000 is a joint City/County/Water District attempt at doing that in a comprehensive way. Three goals were made priorities for 2000:

Land Use/Urbanization: The SB Ordinance directly addresses this goal with its four topics: Allowed Uses; Density; Lot Coverage; Land Disturbance. This is a key piece of the puzzle, and citizen’s involvement can provide vital conditioning to make it more effective.

Stormwater Management: This will be the subject of an upcoming ordinance upgrade and public process later this year.

Land Ownership: This goal is being addressed by another Citizens Task Force sponsored by the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan 2000.

The City recognizes that the overall problem of protecting the lake is complex and interrelated. However, all helpful actions, no matter how insignificant their effect may seem, are important to the overall solution. Eventually, the cumulative effect of all these practical, incremental changes will result in observable improvement in water quality trends and will more equitably spread costs and benefits among all watershed users.

Q: Why weren’t fertilizers & pesticides banned in SBO? It has been mentioned that SBO is “bare bones” and we are to condition it; what does the CC want to hear?

• Development IS the biggest impact to the watershed, but this isn’t a “silver bullet”, but other ideas also have big potential. The idea of “cumulative impacts” is a difficult concept to convey, because people prefer a simple solution (e.g. a structural control like a wastewater treatment plant). Often, with prevention as policy, land use related regulations or non-regulatory volunteer actions are more effective.
Removal of old pilings would help. Banning fertilizers & pesticides also has a big potential impact, if this could be encouraged or enforced on a widespread basis.
• What we’re after is a “A to Z” list of all ideas, whether regulatory, persuasive, educational, voluntary, opportunistic, incentive-based or otherwise. Then, these ideas can be put into the right forum for consideration. This is the first time a CTF has focused on land use matters. Anything is fair game. We don’t know all the possibilities or their feasibility yet.

Q: Notwithstanding the pros and cons of divergent interests, why hasn’t the City done this already?

• The CC believes the best approach to insuring water quality is protected is to first fine-tune SBO, then proceed with other actions like stormwater ordinance upgrade, watershed land ownership and the like as part of Joint Watershed Management Plan. It is always very helpful to hear public comments on a wide range of issues. Main focus here is best use of SBO.
• We are now hearing that the SBO is picking on a small % of citizens for a watershed-wide problem. The next impacted group will likely feel the same way. Eventually, everyone will share benefits and costs of a preserved water supply.
• Fertilizers & pesticides could have been banned, but difficult to define trade-offs without first modeling lake impacts to determine and quantify TMDLs. This is underway now and will eventually provide a predictive tool to control future development. The SBO doesn’t wait for this to happen, it is preventative.
• Two trade-off principles:
a) if reduce one item, then another limit can be altered
b) trade types of impacts (e.g. contamination Vs season/BMPs, or density or uses)
• Philosophy is to attack worst situation first (SB) since it is likely to respond more readily to these efforts. Demonstrated effectiveness helps in showing leadership by example.

Q: Why trade-off? Why not have both?

• Example of chemicals ban: education first is more effective, especially when depending on voluntary compliance. Bans may not be practically enforceable, education can shape behavioral changes, persuade neighbors.

Q: Many SB residents feel SBO was crammed down their throats; this created anger, adversarial situation, detrimental to cooperation. Feedback is they don’t want to feel guilty about living there and practicing normal habits.

• A part of CTF’s role is to represent residents concerns and to learn and communicate reasons for SBO to other residents.

Q: What is role of trade-offs in comprehensive plan? Citizens like to know rules, like speed limits. Must educate public on fertilizer use, and the like.
Combination of rules and education shows leadership.

• Currently there are no regulations banning lawns, therefore this represents a legitimate trade-off opportunity regarding natural vegetation, porous pavement, etc.
• Look at next lot to develop: If more than 2000 sqft are desired, how can this be achieved? Perhaps by agreeing to no artificial lawn, a pervious pavement driveway, and considering other BMPs or development right options, an accommodation can be reached that satisfies both SBO’s intent and homeowner’s needs.
• Refer to handout, “Urbanization & Water Quality -Chapter 4 Notes”:
“Tools of trade are BMPs”
- nonstructural controls – rely on natural features, uses of land
- structural controls – built after the fact, to mitigate effects
HINT: Look at big picture, but see from “Land Baron” perspective.
• Actions that ALL residents can do, not just NEW residents. Banning lawns (or volunteering to) could be considered as retrofits. They are occupancy activities, very difficult to apply equally. Last to build or move in always pays more. Mission is to use non-regulatory, voluntary actions, the more the better. Lake Whatcom is one of many watersheds with similar problems to be addressed. Everyone lives in a watershed.

Q: Can a series of small mitigation projects be used? Are effects measurable? (e.g., determine stormwater GPM, then increase capacity of system)

• These can be verified, but past record is not good. Example: old DOE SW rules specified 100% swale filter system, now increased to 140% to allow for function inefficiency. If prevention is goal, it’s good to over design, since theory is better than actual response. Study of various lots Vs hydraulic influences; conversion to natural vegetation, mimics or restores natural systems; effective, low maintenance costs, no cost to public, attractive, good habitat.

Q: Is this a good trade?

• It can be. See Olympia Ordinance example in handouts.

Q: Can you configure existing SW systems to handle new loads?

• 2-part problem: Construction & Built Living Units
Silt fences during construction don’t work well with fine silt, containing phosphate. Best result is 50 to 60% effective. Therefore, cheaper & easier to shorten construction season to avoid rainy season.

Q: If a new home using 15% impervious cover is built, does this negatively affect the lake?

• All new development has an impact, but this scenario would “carry its own weight” with neutral (minimal) effect on lake.
• The CC is OK with SBO provisions as they stand; they achieve our goals. If CTF finds other ways to achieve goals, great. Creativity can mitigate impacts, plus add flexibility to SBO.
• Because of area density and undersized lots, if a resident wants a larger retirement home, it might be more cost effective to just buy 2 lots rather than rely on BMPs. Consolidation of 2 lots would stand better chance of variance approval. (could restore land or consume development rights)

Q: Haven’t some effects of SBO been seen already?

• Looks like it from TSS tests at PP Drain. A statistical correlation of reduced TSS levels since SBO was enacted seems to indicate improvement.
Results were not correlated to rainfall or flow monitoring, but were also observed elsewhere. We were surprised at how quickly this was seen.

Q: What is average lot size in SB?

• Lots range from 5000 sqft to a 10-acre, unplatted tract, with majority in 7200 to 10,000 range. Lot sizes are 6000, 7200, 10,000, 12,000 & 20,000 sqft. Area intended as 1/2 acre zoning?, though many lots are substandard in size, per area density.
• There are just under 500 unbuilt lots remaining, both platted and unplatted. Majority are existing lots of record. Possible to downzone, but this may not accomplish intended goal. Lowest density in City is 1/20,000 sqft. Not very helpful, would penalize largest parcels; better to consolidate impervious surfaces to common area ~ cluster.

Q: Why is downzone an option?

• Errors made in past, significant subsequent changes since 1904, and potential public health concerns make this an option for consideration. A search of U.S. reveals many similar examples from OR to CT. There are 5-acre properties in watershed with worse impacts than these potentials.

Q: When was data taken, what are projections for housing in watershed?

• Data in the 1/24/00 CC packet shows statistics; about 790 homes are in SB now, 470 single family & 300 multi. Potential buildout for entire watershed per current zoning is 11,300 homes, of which 15% would be in City, mostly in SB.

Q: Was this info obtained from Assessor’s Office?

• Yes, for unbuilt, subdividable tracts; also counted lots with fee simple title. Market pressure indicates close to 100% buildout is likely over time, counting redevelopment of existing structures and public area.

Q: Is 15% imperious surfaces the goal for entire watershed?

• City & County maps show existing impervious surface (+/_ 15%) with highest areas about 23% and lowest 5%. Aerial photos are used, along with paper weighting techniques to arrive at these estimates.

• Without SBO controls, SB could ultimately achieve 24% impervious;
with SBO controls, about 17% impervious is possible. This is a potential 25% reduction in impervious surface; a big management opportunity for the City. (saves 36 acres out of 673 from becoming impervious)

Q: Everyone should have info from 1/24 packet to be on same page. (some info in workbooks, rest available from CC office)

Q: Have subsurface wetland flow models been used to determine if infiltration is possible?

• No, generally soil is too shallow, saturated and close to bedrock for this to be effective. Applicable in isolated cases only.

Q: Less inclined to increase impervious surface limits; could buy another lot to mitigate, or give credit for stormwater hookups, etc.

Q: Many already have homes. Others want what they have

• Possible enticing offer for new homes is to treat their impacts times 2. This may fit with policy of prevention.

Q: Possible to allow phosphate-free fertilizer?

• That would not be enforceable, like banning pesticides.

Q: Understands disallowing B&B’s, but ADUs seem to cause hardship among those needing to care for aging parents. Any exceptions?

• Impossible to satisfy everyone, but variance process might allow conversion of existing impervious surface, or trade of development rights for this use. ADUs create lasting population impact.
• A low impact ADU today can become an apartment tomorrow
• There are only 4 ADUs in SB now; additional ADUs could set undesirable precedent. May be OK if total impervious surface with an ADU is less than otherwise. Good example of how to view tradeoffs; a mix of fair & equitable parts and pieces that are feasible. CTF can do a brain dump of examples like this.

Q: Objective seems to be to pick items with biggest impact from a list compiled by CTF.

• A list of ideas will be compiled and distributed before next meeting, on June 13 in Planning Dept Conference Room. From this list, CTF can decide which can be implemented as part of SBO; saving others for referral to other programs.

Q: One document with specific items, rated 1-20 would be ideal.

• Ratings are up to CTF; comments on relative importance or feasibility should not be a source of embarrassment to anyone.
• A comprehensive list can assist diverse levels of understanding in seeing various options. Can add to list at any time.
• Prioritizing the list is a group activity; sort out the ones that cleanly fit our mission.

Q: Blackboard example; industrial sites typically segregate relatively clean roof water from other sources, like parking lots which need treatment before releasing. Analogy with lakeside home; why can’t runoff from a 4000 sqft home be collected separately and directed to lake through a dedicated drain? Uphill drainage already goes to a ditch for routing away from property.

• Good idea as far as it goes, but loss of vegetative buffer near waterfront is a negative. Also zinc or copper strips added for moss control might add toxics to runoff.
• Good example of “Ying & yang” of stormwater management;
-big source of lake pollution is air-borne wood smoke particles
-loss of benefit of vegetative buffer
-loss of best buffer area closest to shoreline
-roof drain is “clean”
-big ditch across road caries uphill drainage somewhere else
• Ball park analogy: expensive seats near ball field, cheaper seats in stands, luxury boxes well away from action, enclosed with TV view.

Wrap-up:
• Info from 1/24 packet available to those who want it.
• 20/20 Engineering available for presentation if needed
• Much info to read and chew on
• List of ideas to circulate before next meeting; our focus

NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, June 13, 7-9pm in Planning Dept Conference Room

Meeting Dates:
Tuesday, June 13 (Planning Dept Conference Room)
Tuesday, June 27
Tuesday, July 11 (Board Room not available)
Tuesday, July 25
Tuesday, August 8
Tuesday. August 15 (final recommendations deadline)







.

Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 1st Meeting Citizens Task Force

==================
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.

==================

Summary of Meeting on May 16, 2000 (7-9pm) in Mayor's Board Room

1. All present except A. Kanne & T. Bornemann (both excused)

2. Handouts:
• Committee Members List
• Agenda/Topics Outline
• Committee Objective/Chronology of Events
• 3-ring Binders
-Silver Beach Ordinance
-Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan 2000
-Impervious Surface Article
-Reference Materials
* Surrey, B.C. Watercourse Setback Limits
* The Washington Lake Book (DOE Handbook)
* Cooperative Extension Bulletin #1744 "Your Yard & Water Quality"
* Cooperative Extension Bulletin #1786 "Effective Options for Farmers"
* Cooperative Extension/Master Gardeners Workshop Materials (4/22/2000)
+How your lawn & garden affect water quality
+Soils & fertilizers
+Lawns
+Alternatives to grass
+Managing pests

3. Self-introductions of participants & particular interests. Most live, own property or do business in Silver Beach Neighborhood. All are interested in preserving water quality and in contributing citizen input/flexibility into the SB Ordinance.

4. Brief review of handouts & binder materials:
• Main focus of this Task Force is the SB Ordinance itself, adding flexibility and options without changing its intent or goal, which is to arrest or reverse further degradation to water quality in measureable terms.

• The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan 2000 (County/City/WD#10) is much more comprehensive, with 21 lake-wide goals. Three of these goals are top priorities for year 2000: Land Use/Urbanization, Stormwater Management (Non-point source) and Land Ownership. Many of the suggestions and ideas submitted during the SBO process are already being addressed by this plan. (see Binder Tab #2) The overall problem of protecting the lake is complex and interrelated, however all helpful actions, no matter how insignificant their effect may seem, are important to the overall solution. Eventually, the cumulative effect of all these practical changes will result in observable improvement in water quality trends and equitably spreading their costs and benefits among all watershed residents and users.

• The SB Ordinance directly addresses the Land Use/Urbanization goal for the City.

• The Stormwater Management goal is also being addressed this year as a separate matter, but will be positively affected by the SB Ordinance. Improved Stormwater Management, as mandated by Federal & State law, very important to water quality, is also amenable to specific performance standards which can be measured. A number of proven Best Managements Practices (BMP's) are available to help achieve Stormwater Management goals. These BMP's could also be used or referenced to add flexibility to the SB Ordinance.

• The Land Ownership goal is being addressed by another Citizens Task Force sponsored by the (The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan 2000) Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team (ICT). The ICT is comprised of County Executive, Mayor of Bellingham & Water District #10 General Manager. This Citizens Task Force is now meeting twice each month to develop criteria for prioritizing areas for protection, options for preserving and enhancing high priority lands in natural/protected condition, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas. This watershed-wide effort should be completed this year.

All Task Force Members are invited to contribute or recommend additional reference materials to the group. City will copy & distribute.

5. Agenda review:
Why do this? See Lake Plan policy statements. Commitment to agreed-to goals. SB Ordinance Citizens Task Force needs to make recommendations for Planning Commission & City Council consideration by August 15. 6-8 meetings to be scheduled @ 2-week intervals.
Rules of meetings- orderly & respectful (taped). Diverse group; variety of ideas from public; range of knowledge/backgrounds; reach consensus whenever possible; report all views.

Additional resources are available as required (MRSC, Internet, etc); use experience from other areas; avoid re-inventing the wheel; use most current info available.
Ideas:
• Tour of Lake Whatcom Watershed -see examples of good/bad practices (afternoon)
• NEMO slide presentation (20-40 slides) Non-point source Education for Municipal Officials
Subjects:
Map of Geographic areas: City Limits, Urban Growth Areas, Other Zoning Designations
SB Ordinance Topics: Allowed Uses; Density; Lot Coverage; Land Disturbance
Native vegetation - use to improve flexibility
Definitions & interpretations (Intent -vs- Literal meaning?)
Incentives (what's in it for me? - showcase examples)
Appeals (process)
Corrections/Enforcement (+/- Friendly/Firm/Fair)

All Task Force Members are invited to contribute or recommend ideas for presentations/tours to the group. City will arrange.

FOCUS: SB Ordinance itself -look at flexibility ideas without sacrificing basic goals.
"Emergency" didn't just happen; was the culmination of events built over time.
Recently, two reports contributed further toward triggering the SBO;
1. DOE's 303 (d) listing & other findings (mercury in fish, other high toxics levels)
2. Entranco's summary of accumulated lake monitoring data (now undergoing Peer Review).
The DOE 303 (d) listing for fecal coliform clearly signaled an opportunity for action by the impacted jurisdictions for immediate and effective action. The SBO is a step in this direction, applicable within the city limits. Possible beneficial effects elsewhere in watershed. Other actions may also be required in a step-wise progression to protect public health & safety. Especially with this warning, all jurisdictions have the responsibility to prevent a larger public problem from developing.

"Emergency" process is still a public process, just different sequence for prevention.
All recommendations from this Task Force will be seriously considered.

City commissioned new aerial photographs taken on 5/15/2000. These will update impervious area data and quantify it very accurately, enabling us to show the changes in growth and related impervious areas since 1950. Both a predictive & enforcement tool. Primary impervious surfaces are roads, roofs & driveways.

Since January when SBO was enacted, the city has already seen a benefit in reduced TSS (total Suspended Solids), using continuing WWU water studies.

Question: What does the City Council want from this Task Force? What would be most helpful?
Answer: No easy answers from us, we are mainly facilitating input from residents who expressed interest in adding flexibility to SBO. General idea is to trade-off some strict limits in return for BMP's. These meetings are to introduce & quantify public's ideas related to 4 parts of SBO. We recognize that education on this subject is essential, that's why resources are at your disposal and homework is recommended. Learning will greatly assist this effort.

Suggestion: Start at beginning and go thru SBO item by item.
Comment: Look at limits; ID flexibility; What are incentives +'s & -'s; Interpretations -what does it mean? (eg, if an existing home exceeds 2000 sqft, you might reallocate space by allowing 1 additional sqft of home footprint for each 2 sqft of impervious surface eliminated, etc); illustration of WWU Viking Solar Vehicle Models, each an improvement over prior models.

Comments:
Members get phone calls from neighbors asking for interpretations. Can driveway be finished, etc?

This group must understand the SBO, to define these answers/alternatives/tradeoffs for others.

Similar situation to Energy Code changes; big impacts to costs and styles. Over time people found ways to meet intent.

Question: Is there a model of a city, which has an ordinance like SBO?
Answer: Yes, the NEMO Impervious Surface article in the binder shows Olympia, WA as a very similar example, in their case, trying to protect a groundwater drinking water source. There are other examples in US as well; some work and some don't. Lacey, WA has a "zero-impact" ordinance which details "compensatory practices". While the intent is clear, this one seems to fail because it is infeasible to understand or follow in practice.

Comment: There are many factors, which impact the SBO goals
Response: Yes, all are non-point source contributions. These can be broadly categorized into Building Practices & Living Behaviors.

Comments: Another good info source is a 67-page booklet "Urbanization and Water Quality"; copies have been ordered for all members.

One recognized problem is making the public aware of our specific watershed problem, as distinguished from "generic" watersheds. Lake Whatcom is unique, has several beneficial uses, of which drinking water source is most important. Our problems are not the same as for Lake Washington, which is not used as a municipal water supply!

Big cities almost always have protected water supply reservoirs, which are off-limits to other uses. Many locations get their water from wells or streams. Not many use a lake that supports development. While really dirty water can be treated to make drinking water, this is costly. (eg Astronauts, Navy ships, Saudi Arabia) Also, other beneficial uses complicate this strategy. Lake Whatcom also supports aquatic life and recreation activities like swimming. These beneficial uses have their own requirements to remain healthy and sustainable. Fish need oxygen to live and clean spawning areas to reproduce naturally. Humans, particularly children, need clean water to avoid exposure to disease. The water treatment plant requires a certain quality of its raw water to avoid excessive treatment costs or more expensive treatment facilities.

In each of these cases, prevention is distinctly preferable to cleaning up after a problem happens and is certainly cheaper and safer to the public at large. That is why Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan prioritizes protection over treatment in managing Lake Whatcom and its watersheds. (see Lake Whatcom Plan, Appendix B: Goals & Policies, page 27)
Bottom line: We must be careful & practical.

Question: Why doesn't the SBO ban fertilizing lawns?
Answer: Good example of an individual Behavior problem, simple and easy to change, that would be very effective in meeting the intent of the SBO. It is a personal choice with measurable effects that would improve the nutrient loading problem in the lake. Phosphate has a noticeable influence down to levels of 5 ppb (parts per billion). It can be measured directly in run-off, estimated by windshield survey or mathematically and modeled.
Comments: This is a voluntary decision. Some hire lawn-care professionals. Who supervises them? This is a common problem. Gross over-fertilization has been reported and observed.

Question: SBO covers only city limits (2% of watershed), while Proposition #1 covered entire watershed. Will SBO coverage significantly help the problem?
Answer: SBO does cover only a small part of watershed, but it is in the most critical location, which showed greatest water quality degradation and close to city's water intake. There is mixing between the 3 Basins by at least 3 known mechanisms: SE to NW water flow; wind mixing between #1 & #2; internal siches & seasonal turnover.
SBO may influence the Urban Growth Area later. At minimum, it sets a good example.

Question: Do we know the lake's water balance & seasonal variations?
Answer: Yes, good information is available on flows from COB, hatchery & WD10 intakes, plus ~200 direct home intakes. Diversion is known, day by day.

Question: Wouldn't it help water quality in Basin #1 if the G-P intake were moved to Basin #1?
Answer: Yes, probably, but don't consider it as the solution to the whole problem. G-P would need to agree to this, consider capital costs of relocation and potential increased treatment costs.
Comments: City intake withdraws ~50 MMGPD from Basin #2. Screen, disinfect water before splitting out G-P flow of ~35 MMGPD, treat rest for drinking water use. Intake is 27 feet below full lake level, slightly above oxygen-depleted level. Max depth is 66 feet. Original intake in Basin #1 was built in 1895, lasted until 1922, was rebuilt. This is still used as trout hatchery intake. New city/G-P intake in Basin #2 went into service in 1941. This may have contributed to Basin #1 stagnation problem because of the changed flow characteristics. If G-P intake were relocated to deepest part of Basin #1, it would tend to purge it better. #2 & #3 mix more.
example ~Moses Lake flushing =remedial measure. Good idea to evaluate.

Question: Doesn't the Middle Nooksack Diversion impact flow & dilution?
Answer: Yes, there have already been seasonal reductions during last 2 years and this will probably continue. Diversion & withdrawal questions are being addressed now by the Lake Management Plan. Next phase is modeling these variables. Lake has long turnover time now; if diversion goes away this increases and makes stagnation/eutrophication problems worse. Moreover, it could necessitate greater water level fluctuations, likely to be unpopular with watershed/lakeside residents. It could also mean relocating the intake to Basin #3 at major expense. Notwithstanding the value of this info, we need to redirect our focus back to SBO.

Comment: Land use is the single most influential factor in lake water quality.
There is no possibility of increased water supply, although water demand will increase.

Comments:
1) Is "let G-P fix it" realistic?
2) Interested in knowing the whole menu of ideas, recognizing differences in member’s points of view & education.
3) Since time is limited, this exercise (2) is better done at home by individuals, to be shared with members via e-mail before the next meeting. (Agreed)
4) Others are also interested. friends call for input.
5) Outside SBO items, can pass ideas on to ICT/Lake Whatcom Program
6) Need to summarize all ideas for all to hear.
7) Agree to consolidate a list of ideas & pet peeves. (send to chair)

Ideas:
1) Consider the concept of "Impervious Equivalents" or similar term, as a measure for trade-offs & incentives.
examples:
-what incentives might be popular with existing homeowners to encourage their participation in retrofitting either appropriate individual BMPs or a regional stormwater system?
or,
what additional building footprint would be allowed in return for:
-agreeing to not disturbing existing native vegetation?
-replacing a paved patio with a slatted deck?
-using porous pavers instead of conventional asphalt?

2) Literature on various porous paving systems is available for reference. Perhaps a presentation by vendors would be of interest.

3) The idea of developing Bloedel-Donovan Park into an environmental demonstration area, showcasing BMPs and serving to educate/encourage lake-friendly behavior was recently advanced by the Whatcom County Cooperative Extension. This idea seems to have much merit and preliminary support, patterned after the very popular Hovander Homestead Park in Ferndale.
Since Public Information & Education is such a critically important component in coming to grips with an effective watershed-wide program, this appears to be a good example of how the city could lead by example. Hands-on demonstrations of BMPs, which native plants are effective and low maintenance, which fertilizing practices are most appropriate, how to properly use pesticides, picking up after your pet, several types of porous paving systems (drive-on & park-on), signs & displays, presentations & exhibits and plenty of volunteer opportunities.

Comments: The Horticultural Society & Master Gardeners could also be involved. Also important to have private parties participate with garden tours and the like, especially near the shoreline.
People relate to live examples; need to see & feel things to understand better.
Merit in considering 2 types of impervious surfaces? Yes, all sorts of physical strategies -even sod roofs as in Germany.
Many different education opportunities, however, Objective remains: SBO improvements.
OK to broaden scope to learn, but need to focus on SBO recommendations!

City Council has small reference library: BMP Design & Maintenance, Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Strategies, Global Cities Series (Examples), Monitoring Report, etc.

NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, May 30. 7-9pm in Mayor's Board Room
Homework: Read information in handouts & e-mail ideas & suggested discussion topics to all members to read before next meeting.

Meeting Dates:
Tuesday, May 30
Tuesday, June 13 (Board Room not available)
Tuesday, June 27
Tuesday, July 11 (Board Room not available)
Tuesday, July 25
Tuesday, August 8
Tuesday. August 15 (final recommendations deadline)

Silver Beach Ordinance Citizen's Task Force

Kimberly Barron
Terry Bornemann
Bill Bliss
Dan Cantrell
Tim Farris
Jan Hayes
Allena Kanne
Jeff Kenoyer
Mike Minge
Bay Renaud
Barbara Ryan
Chris Spens
John Watts
Myron Wlaznak