HamsterTalk

Monday, December 3, 2007

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

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

Sunday, December 2, 2007

'Making Plays': Exercises in Frustration

===================
Speed is not your fastest, but your slowest man. No back can run faster than his interference. ~Jock Sutherland

He was the only man I ever saw who ran his own interference.
~Steve Owen, about Bronko Nagurski

The Rose Bowl is the only bowl I've ever seen that I didn't have to clean. ~Erma Bombeck

The reason women don't play football is because eleven of them would never wear the same outfit in public. ~Phyllis Diller

Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. ~George F. Will
===================

The Romans used to be entertained by gladiators and wild animals fighting and being killed in a public arena.
To them, that was sport. At least to the decadent rulers and hangers-on who valued strength and brutality.
Was that a contributing cause to the decline of that Empire?

What about today's gladiators?
I'm entertained by them, too, but only up to a point.
That point was reached sometime earlier today, when I experienced such butt-weariness that I gave in to the jaded practice of turning thumbs down to that icon of consumerism and excess, my over-worked TV.

But there were some highlights that were exciting, like two underdogs defeating teams that might have otherwise played each other in the BCS Championship Game.
Then, again today the Seahawks snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, after demonstrating such ineptitude that it was only surpassed by the Eagles with great effort.

That reminded me of the following quote that seems so appropo:
"You don't have to win it, just don't lose it." - Ray Lewis, Baltimore linebacker to quarterback, Elvis Grbac
---------------------

After that intro, I bet you thought this was about football, didn’t you?

In a sense it is, but only as an analogy to politics and real life.

Fitness, strategy, talent, motivation are all for naught unless you score.

Only a few actually play the game, with most participating as spectators.

The possibility of ‘instant replay’ does exist, however usually the officials enforce the law accurately.

In a football game, everyone knows the rules and the object, which is to win – meaning scoring more points than your opponent.

How many games have you watched that were settled in the last few seconds, or on the basis of one team just making fewer mistakes?

After the game, players are sore, but usually imbued with some sense of accomplishment or ‘thrill of victory’, or disappointment – the 'agony of defeat'.

So it is in politics, either after a campaign or when an issue is finally resolved, at least in part.

Yes, politics is a competitive sport that can be rewarding, but bruising.
One win means nothing until the next game is played.
The team that wins does not have long to brag or rest on its laurels!
The season is brutal, long and relentlessly demanding.
The rewards are often fleeting, but the sacrifices are lasting in nature.

Why would anyone want to play such a sport?
Because -both metaphorically and in actuality- we have no choice.
The best we can do is to accept the reality of knowing that constant attention and effort is required, and commit to prepare ourselves as best we can for it.

Win, lose or draw, politics –like football- depends on preparation, people and chance.
And -unlike football- the game never ends!
Now, that’s a sobering thought, isn’t it?

==================
Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work. - VINCE LOMBARDI

If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score? - VINCE LOMBARDI

"Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. "- Tom Landry
---------------------
ACC Mascots

---------------------
Rabid Fans

---------------------
More Normal Fans

---------------------
Cheerleaders

---------------------

Saturday, December 1, 2007

B&O Tax News: The Missing Headline

===============
"The purse of the people is the real seat of sensibility. Let it be drawn upon largely, and they will then listen to truths which could not excite them through any other organ." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination." - Ronald Reagan

Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon. - Winston Churchill
===============

The Herald has apparently missed reporting the equivalent of 'Man Bites Dog'.
Normally, such news would justify headline treatment.
And, the missed story was already printed in plain sight, on page 1 of the City Council Packet for its December 3 meeting.
It isn't a very long or complicated story either, so those who prefer sound bytes wouldn't likely feel too put off by it.
Why wasn't this story reported?
It really didn't have to be a headline, but I saw no mention of it at all.
Maybe that's because I stopped having the Herald delivered months ago.
Even so, its possible to review most things the Herald prints on-line, if you're willing to wait for its exceptionally slow loading time.
Today, I wasn't, so maybe I missed it.
If it was reported, sorry about this piece.
---------------

Here, without further ado, is the missed headline:

[drumroll]

"CITY REDUCES BUSINESS & OCCUPATION TAXES BY $890,000 FOR 2008!"

OK, after seeing it in print, suddenly I know why that headline wasn't printed.
It was good news!
Everyone knows that good news doesn't sell newspapers.
And the Herald is a business, with profit as its first motive
---------------

But, if that story had been reported, here's the SHORT story that might have appeared:

Local businesses can expect further reductions in the amount of B&O taxes they pay to the City for operating here. Based on a survey by the State Dept of Revenue in 2004, the City of Bellingham estimates a reduction of $890 thousand in B&O tax revenue in 2008 resulting from changes to the allocation and apportionment provisions included in the revision to the B&O tax code.

B&O taxes have been a controversial topic for years as businesses have seen them as excessive, difficult to understand and unfair because businesses located outside City Limits aren't subject to them. This latter point also acts as a financial disincentive to businesses locating within the City, thereby contributing to sprawl and under-recovery of the costs of infrastructure and essential services.

The $890 thousand estimated reduction in B&O taxes not only applies to 2008 General Fund revenues, but is a permanent reduction that increases in value over time. That amount is equivalent to nearly 5 & 1/4 percent in current Property taxes. The City Council can only raise Property tax by 1% a year without a public vote.
---------------

A somewhat LONGER version might add the following:

In the City's 2008 budget B&O tax provides these roles:

• It is a more stable source of revenue than Sales Tax

• It enables the City to provide services & infrastructure to support industry

• It provides $12.3 million or 16% of the General Fund revenue

Business categories that are exempt from B&O tax include Medical Services and Manufacturing.
---------------

Want more?
An even LONGER version would include this additional information:

From the Agenda Bill Summary Statement [partial]:

In December 2002, Council adopted a new B&O Tax Code effective April 1, 2003 based on a model ordinance prepared by AWC [Association of Washington Cities] with participation of several B&O cities, including Bellingham.

In December 2004, Council amended the B&O tax code as required by Engrossed House Bill 2030 (EHB 2030) which required adoption of the model ordinance and additional requirements effective January 1, 2005. EHB 2030 also included in Section 13 a provision regarding the allocation and apportionment of gross income for B&O tax purposes that does not take effect until January 1, 2008.

The purpose of this ordinance is to enact Section 13 of EHB 2030 and to incorporate other revisions to the Model Ordinance to comply with the allocation and apportionment provisions required in the law and in response to the business community.
---------------

Uh oh!

That last bit shows that this is not really 'new' news at all!

It's old news, all the way back to 2002 and then 2004. That's way before some reporters even lived here, and much longer than anyone can reasonably be expected to remember.

Even the Budget Advisory Committee might be surprised, which also sought reductions for the B&O tax.
---------------

To make the story even LONGER, let's also add the fact that the October 2007 Financial Report shows that B&O taxes collected year-to-date were 8.3% more than last year at the same juncture in time. That amounts to about $820 thousand more than the 2006 YTD total collected.
If that trend continues through year-end, another $164 thousand will be collected for a total of an additional $984 thousand for 2007.
Maybe that's also good news, because it shows a healthy and growing local economy?
OK, yet another reason not to get news coverage.

But, it seems even with the $890 thousand reduction, the City will still be ahead of 2007 B&O tax revenues by about $94 thousand, providing the same collection rate continues.
I guess that's even more good news, certainly better than having to face a major revenue reduction.

So, it looks like this 'win-win-win' scenario provides not one, not two, but three reasons not to report it!
Maybe the Herald got it right after all.
No story here worth printing.
===============

"Those who would give up quality of their environment to purchase a little temporary 'good business climate' deserve, and will get, neither."
- Benjamin Franklin

When it is a question of money, everybody is of the same religion. --Voltaire

Virtue has never been as respectable as money. --Mark Twain
===============

Friday, November 30, 2007

Growth: Following A Predetermined Path to A Foregone Conclusion

-----------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy."
- US House of Representatives Majority Leader

==================
Warning: If you are adverse to reading something longer than a few sound bytes, you will not be able to complete this blog at one sitting.
==================

I thought that disclaimer might help those who don't have the time or attention span to take on this writing all at one time.
And, I know there are folks out there who fit that description!
Why, just today, a reporter linked to yesterday's blog with the warning that it was 'long', as is 'usual' with my submittals.

A week or so ago, I got a similar response from a member of the County Planning Commission, who had e-mailed to ask me what I meant by 'reducing uncertainty' in growth planning.
In response I sent him a link to blog on that subject, to which he complained it was 'too long' and he didn't have time to read it!

Obviously, there is a perceived difference is how 'long' an article must be to cover any given subject.

Running the risk of being called 'sexist' or worse, I once heard that a speech -or a writing- should be like a woman's skirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to arouse interest.

Let me state again for the record, the object of this blog is more about the former than the latter.
It is about providing some background, facts and reasoning on issues that have already attracted attention.
It is written for those who wish to know more, not less.
It is written to demonstrate the basis upon which my conclusions and opinions are based.
That's it.
I'm not trying to become famous, controversial, witty, entertaining or difficult; I am merely trying to communicate what I know and have come to believe as a result of serious study, reflection and resulting decision-making, that might be of interest to others.
Of course, this blog also serves as a place I can record and store information for future reference, kinda like an electronic filing system.
If folks don't want to rummage through my files, that's OK with me.
Hope this is clearer now, because I don't plan to mention it again.

If you still want to read more, maybe just reading between the dashed divisions at one sitting will help.
I'll try to make them a little closer together.
-----------------------

Meantime, the drumbeats continue, leading up to the Whatcom County Council's decision expected following its Dec 4 meeting.

'Sprawl or Infill' are the false choices being offered, despite the City's EIS that concluded some of each was necessary if the City is to accommodate the 51.4% of the growth projected by 2022.

Let's see, the City's 51.4% equates to 31,601 new people

So, if the City agreed to accept new population proportional to its existing share of 37%, it would only need to accommodate about 22,748 new people, which would be doable by infill alone.
That is certainly an option, and it would be much easier to accomplish.
So why not just do that, you might ask?

Well, I think the City may be forced to do that, depending upon what the County decides, just to remain honest about what is likely possible to achieve.
But, initially, the thought was to take a larger proportion -if possible- to further the goal of densifying existing urban areas, of which Bellingham is clearly the largest.
That goal was always ambitious, but it was undertaken in a good faith effort.
-----------------------

But, that goal was undertaken before the City decided to require annexation before extending water & sewer utilities.
The County didn't like that, because it reduced County revenue from sprawl in the UGA.

That goal was also set before some of the people who now represent the County on the Planning Commission and Council were on board and paying attention.

That goal was also set at a time when a bunch of former County Planners were still working for the County.
Of course, most of them are now gone and unavailable for consultation with the current decision-makers.

But now is the time the growth decision will be made, so recent history has little role to play.
Instead, opinions based on data-free analysis are seen as more appropriate.
I think that approach is a one-way ticket to disaster.
Under the circumstances, its hard to determine whether ignorance or arrogance is predominant in the rhetoric being heard.

At a minimum, a lack of consistency, good faith, common sense, and decent leadership is clearly lacking.
And, I don't really care whether the recommendations given to the County by the City are followed or not!
Except, I do resent the monumental waste of time in trying to arrive at a growth management plan that makes sense.
-----------------------

I have absolutely no financial interest either way, except if unnecessary sprawl is allowed by County action, I will have to pay for it along with every other citizen of Whatcom County!
Those impacts will likely take time to be felt, so they won't be clearly linked to current actions -meaning current decision-makers won't be held accountable.
And, those costs will undoubtedly include significant legal costs -the absolute epitomy of avoidable waste.
That bothers me a lot!
It bothers me that the County decision-makers don't seem to realize the true importance of the decisions they are about to make.
They don't realize it because they seem to lack the curiosity, time, expert advice and long term vision necessary to make a wise decision.

But, then all those things do take time, don't they?
Maybe even a long time.
That means some folks won't want to read about it, because it can't be covered in short sound bytes!
-----------------------

"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

"You can't teach what you don't know, and you can't lead where you won't go"
- Jesse Jackson

"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." – Samuel Johnson

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." -Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Robert Louis Stevenson once said that politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is considered necessary. It was true then -- it's true now.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

==================
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place."--Albert Einstein

'Always tell the truth. That way you can remember what you said.'
- Mark Twain

Dijon vu - the same mustard as before.

'To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.'
-- Abraham Lincoln
==================

I am reprinting today's BELLINGHAM HERALD 'OUR VIEW', which pontificates the following:

"City should bow to county on growth-area boundaries

It is ridiculous that Bellingham City Council and Whatcom County Council couldn’t negotiate an agreement to solve their impasse over the size of the city’s future growth areas.

Bellingham’s comprehensive plan calls for adding 2,128 acres to the city’s urban growth area, an area outside the current city limits that would eventually be annexed into town and receive city services. The County Council is responsible for the countywide growth plans and believes Bellingham’s planned expansion is much too big. The county suggested that only 250 acres near King and Queen mountains are needed in Bellingham’s growth area.

After the county made its suggestion, the two groups talked of working together for a compromise both sides could support. The thought was that it would be better if the councils spoke with a single voice, especially with the possibility that someone might appeal the plans saying they were not completed correctly.

The County Council invited the City Council to a joint meeting to discuss the possibilities, but City Council members refused. Some of them were reportedly upset that the County Council told its staff not to negotiate during meetings with city staff and to leave the negotiating only to council members.

We’re not sure why the two councils ended up not being able to get along. But we’re certain they should be able to do so. It requires maturity and a desire to put the needs of the community ahead of your own emotions. Those are both traits we would like to think all of our elected officials possess.

It should come as no surprise to regular readers of our editorials that we support the county’s plans to limit Bellingham expansion. The city has proposed more sprawl than is necessary to deal with potential population growth.

Sprawl outside the current city limits should be resisted wherever possible. City Council members should recognize this and support the county’s plan."
===================

As you might expect there were several comments posted in response to this editorial.
These are not reprinted here, but the one I submitted is shown below

===================
" It is not at all surprising that the Herald has issued an opinion on this subject.

What is surprising is the apparent lack of understanding of what has happened and what will happen.

There is no question about the County's right to make the final determination, because that is set by law.

What is in question is whether the County has any hard information that indicates the City has the ability to accept all the growth it offered to accept, without sufficient new UGA land supply.

Here, the key thing to remember is the growth projections are mandated by the State, with the County responsible for adopting a final number and apportioning it among the various municipalities, including its own unincorporated areas.

All that has been done by the City is to spend almost 4 years trying to determine where its alloted growth can and will occur. This exercise involved an Environmental Impact Study from which it was found that a combination of infill AND new UGA land supply would be required to achieve this goal.

Further, based upon history and best ideas, the City determined it needed about 1400 additional acres from the 2200 acres currently included in the County-approved '5-year Review Areas'.

I believe this determination was done as fairly and accurately as possible, because I sat through the entire proceeding. No one did from the Herald or the County! And neither of those organizations has undertaken the effort required to really understand how the City's estimate of land supply shortfall was determined.

It's OK to wish for something, and we all do it sometimes. But, to challenge careful work with nothing more than wishful thinking is the epitomy of hypocrisy!

No Joint Council meeting is able to simply negotiate away these results! Instead, the County needs to make its own determination, using the City's input - which has already been given in writing. There are distinct choices the County alone must make. If those choices are undertaken in good faith of the City's efforts, there should be no substantial problem.
If there are wide differences, the City must examine its commitment to a goal that cannot be reasonably reached. That's it!

No municipality should be required to accept something it just cannot do, whether it is growth related or otherwise. Failing a reasonable decision by the County to either (a) upzone its UGA to higher a MINIMUM density, (b) allow the City to use it's planning rules & regulations in the UGA, or (c) grant more UGA lands to the City -from the 5-year Review Areas, the City's only remaining choice will be to adjust the amount of growth it agrees to take to more closely fit the reality of land supply.

That is how I see it and I believe how the situation may be mitigated. Tampering with safety factors is better done by removing the layers of uncertainty that are curently inherent in the GMA land supply planning process.

Please notice I am using my own name here, not initials or pseudonyms. And, I have been consistent in these views ever since I understood the dynamics at work. Political dynamics are everyone's individual choice; I prefer to determine the facts first so that my political opinion has something solid under it as a foundation.

I hope this is adequate to explain a complicated issue in a few short paragraphs. Sound bytes don't do the job!

BTW, if the City is unable to accommodate the 51.4% of County growth its projections are based upon, where do you imagine it will go?
If you guessed rural sprawl, you'd be correct!"

John Watts | 11.29.07 - 11:29 am | #

====================
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.- Winston Churchill

They are decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. - Winston Churchill
====================