==================
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 August 8, 2000 meeting:
I. Attendance: All present, except K. Barron, T. Bornemann, D. Cantrell, T. Farris
II. Handouts:
• Agenda:
1. Complete Codes & Ordinances Worksheet
2. Discuss ideas for adding flexibility to Seasonal Construction Limits
3. Discuss interpretations & definitions currently in the SB Ordinance, like what “perviousness”; how to calculate or credit semi-perviousness, and the like mean.
4. Discuss possible enforcement/corrective action for SBO non-compliance.
5. Wrap up & summarize list of potential recommendations for prioritizing at the next (last) meeting, on August 15.
• A (yes/no) Home Builder Check List from Snohomish County PUD, for a Built Green Volunteer Program
III. Summary of Ideas for Possible Application to SB Ordinance:
• List of “Top 10” Ideas worthy of consideration - in order of observed demonstrated prioritized impact:
------------------------
1. Clearing Land Destroys native vegetation
2. Loss of Buffers Streams, lake, steep slopes, wetlands
3. Grading Activities Disturbs soil
4. Compaction of Soil Heavy or repeated use
5. Imperviousness (from any cause)
6. Density/Intensity of Use (urbanized uses)
7. Transportation Facilities Urban > Rural
8. Sanitary Facilities & Failures Collective overflows of Sewers & Septic Systems
9. Use of Yard Chemicals Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides
10. Maintenance Activities Paved surfaces, structures, yards
------------------------
• (Continued- from Codes and Ordinances Worksheet – in order of priority for SBO)
Note: Information between dotted lines below is repeated from last meeting’s discussion for continuity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Open Space Design
a. Are open space or cluster development designs allowed in the community?
b. Is land conservation or impervious cover reduction a major goal or objective of the open space design ordinance?
c. Are the submittal or review requirements for open space design greater than those for conventional
development?
d. Is open space or cluster design a by-right form of development?
e. Are flexible site design criteria available for developers that utilize open space or cluster design options (e.g., setbacks, road widths, lot sizes)
• Jumping next to open space elements; if we allowed cluster in some, but not all areas, would that result in less structural surface area? Is this where we talk about minimum lot size? Yes, when you talk about cluster, you have to talk about minimum lot size.
• I would suggest that for the purposes of this proposal, that we would establish a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft.
• I would amend that to 13,333 SF.
Even a 20,000 cluster, or a 13,333 cluster, would be better than what we have now. There is some number, smaller than 20,000 that would be better than 20,000 as a minimum lot size. It depends on what the density of the cluster is as to what the impact of structural surfaces will be. So the question to the group is, do you support cluster development anywhere it can be created. [all AYES].
• What would be the impact if you set an overall density at 20,000 SF per unit with a cluster minimum lot size of 13,333 SF? And, would a cluster always be allowed? I am assuming by cluster, that it means that you are leaving larger areas open. [It does]
Basically, by doing that, you’re saying that there is the potential for “x” number of building permits in SB, overall.
Right, so you are only going to get “x” number of units. But, you can cluster your open space so you can get down to a lot as small as 13,333 SF. [That doesn’t quite go where I want it to] Another reason for requiring an average of 20,000 SF lots?
• Let’s go ahead and address the economic issues. But, before we address the numbers, let’s clarify we are addressing cluster vs. non-cluster. So, is there anyone who does not support clustering for any reason? (no objections) So, it seems like clustering is a doable pursuit, regardless of the density question.
• One parcel is not subject to the sewer regulations except for the seasonal limitations because it is zoned multi-residential and this applied at the time it was permitted. However, we can potentially achieve desired results, through using the SEPA environmental impact review. Cluster is not permitted in that zone. To create individual lots, on which you can have individual buildings, condominium ownership of land, and the like, that parcel still has the ability to create a low impact design. We don’t need fixes for Residential-Multi, because we have seen the last one of these in SB.
• On the size of the lots, if they are set at one half acre (20,000 SF) for a single family, this currently allows a 3000 SF footprint, per the SB Ordinance. The way it exists, to get a 2000 SF footprint, means you have to get to a 13,333 SF lot size. It seems like that number has been arbitrarily picked, and it’s the number we are considering to use. Why, because the overall objective is to reduce impacts on the watershed to acceptable levels. If you want to say to Whatcom County, “what is the minimum lot size that the city would set by example?”, it’s hard to justify less than 20,000 SF. OK, I am against this, but I’ll ask another question.
• Back to what is the percentage of the total watershed we are talking about here. What is the total? Are we talking about the last 2% of the whole area? We are talking about two different things. You are talking about the impact in the city, and he is talking about how this will be read by the county for application outside the city. We are dealing with the county? We are dealing with the most urbanized portion of the watershed, but we are concerned about the entire watershed. Two points apply, one is reducing the density for the sake of it, and the other is if your lot coverage of 15% is sound, then why not allow a 13,333 SF. lot, if it meets that objective. So, both are objectives. Reduced density also reduces impervious area. Even if you can’t reduce density, you can reduce impervious area. You attack on both fronts, weighing the priorities.
• You could take the 13,333 SF lot size, and model it after the county, but that would not necessarily be a good thing. That would require many more new roads, and a lot of the stuff we are talking about shows that is already a problem. There is a difference between zoning and setting the minimum lot size, of say 13,333 SF, which disallows anything under that size. You can make a different argument for property that is not yet platted, and roads that are not yet in existence, and say that in those instances, there ought to be different density limitations that ought to be “ x”, whatever that is. When you get to the question that the county has been struggling with on the TDR’s, we are in the different situation of being already designated as an urban area. If we are going to transfer development rights, we ought to base it on what could be if sewers were there. You might say fine, we will value the rights at the 13,333 sq. ft. level, so if you have an acre, you can build three lots, and if you want to transfer development rights, that means that you get to transfer a maximum of three. But, if you actually developed it, you could only build 2 homes, or none, or whatever. There is a whole range of possibilities between what you do on existing lots, as differentiated from unplatted, or sensitive areas. One of the limitations on the county right now is that sewer and water are not readily available. Thus, they have two tiered zoning. The main example is zoning which allows 3 per acre if services are provided, but only one per 5 acres if services are not available. All I’m saying is that there are no prospects of this group (or either council) that will move in the direction of intensifying or allowing more houses than the current zoning allows. All that we are discussing are minimums. You must have at least this much before you can build. That is consistent. So the question gets back to what do you want to see. Do you want to see 20,000 SF or do you want to see some other number? Or do you want to have a tiered system like the County? Maybe you’ll want to think about that for the next meeting. So arguments can be made for 13,333 SF, or 20,000 SF lot sizes, depending on what is meant, and both could be valid.
• Question, are you talking about the last 2% of the build-able lots? No, here is the way the numbers play out again. There are 500 left in the city, out of 1300 possible. There are 11,300 in the watershed as a whole, of which there are close to 6000 existing that are built. Thus, there is almost a two-fold increase possible in the whole watershed, including a 60% increase in the city. The 2% notion has to do with the area of the land within the city’s portion of the watershed, as compared to the watershed area as a whole. COB has 538 acres of uplands, out of a total of over 30,000 acres in the watershed. So 2% is the percentage of what we are going to end up with when the city has built out its portion of the watershed. And who gets punished? Another way to put it is that the most intense land uses are allowed around the two smallest basins. These controls are preferentially targeted to the urbanized areas. Maybe you do have a different problem statement in the other, less urbanized areas. The problem with the 2%, is that even though it is 2% of the area of the watershed, it represents much more than 2% of the problem. That’s because of the intensity of use. To me the 2% question is one of those fuzzy ways of confusing things. This is reality. You can’t get away from reality.
• Summarizing this discussion is it accurate to say that we agree on clustering? [all AYES].
When it comes to the actual minimum lot size, should it be somewhere between 13,333 SF and 20,000-sq. ft.? Are we somewhere in this range? This really needs more discussion. OK, next time we should finish this checklist, and then talk about minimum lot size.
[This list to be expanded at next meeting, 8/8/00]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Continuation of discussions begun during 7/25/00 meeting]
• Cluster development is allowed in some areas of Silver Beach Neighborhood, but not in the 20,000 SF zone on the east side of Basin #1. It is only allowed on the hill behind the Elementary School, where 10 acres are currently under development. In considering whether we should allow cluster development, let’s review the potential benefits. Larger, undisturbed open space tracts are attainable. Smaller build-able lots are produced, with a more efficient home to street ratio. Clustered homes tend to be more affordable.
• How many lots would might be affected by allowing cluster development? Probably about 20 to 25% of the vacant land, mostly on a short plat cluster basis. These are generally allowed administrative approval now. To accomplish this we would need to revise the Neighborhood Plan, zoning, subdivision ordinance, or possibly create an overlay in the Silver Beach Ordinance.
• What if more land became available, as through annexation? Zoning would need to set at that time. In Geneva UGA, larger parcels (1-5 acres) are available. This is less so in the Tweed Twenty and Brownsville areas.
• What effect would clustering have on imperviousness? Homes would be on smaller spaces, but larger, undisturbed open space areas offset this, as long as no density bonus is granted.
• What financial impact would clustering have? It might create less expensive homes, which also furthers the city’s goal of creating more diversity in housing.
• Would clusters add significantly more traffic? No, the intention is not to increase density, but to consolidate homes into more compact areas, which could shorten roads & driveways and cover less buildable lot area, using same coverage limits. This zoning provides for only single family homes, sold as fee simple property.
12. Setbacks and Frontages
a. Are irregular lot shapes (e.g., pie-shaped, flag lots) allowed in the community
b. What is the minimum requirement for front setbacks for a one half (*) acre residential lot?
c. What is the minimum requirement for rear setbacks for a one half (*) acre residential lot?
d. What is the minimum requirement for side setbacks for a one half (*) acre residential lot?
e. What is the minimum frontage distance for a one half (*) acre residential lot?
• COB’s convention is to have 50-foot setbacks from centerline of street ROW, (or 60’ if arterial) and 20 to 25-foot from property line. This insures longer driveways & more impervious surface. For cluster development, parking must be provided back from edge of sidewalk, instead of property line. This reduces setback from 20 to 25-feet to 15-feet and places the home closer to the street, leaving just enough room for parking, usually on smaller lots. This allows a bigger, more usable back yard or open space, potentially cutting down on impervious area. The group agreed to recommend following the work sheet guidelines regarding setbacks., although ratioing setbacks to lot size is not standard COB practice. Side setbacks are usually OK, because lots are sized as narrow as practical. In subdivisions these are 5 feet, which creates a rather useless space, except for storage, etc. A good practice is to use setbacks all on one side to create more usable open area per home. Side-yards generally have an insignificant impact on impervious area.
13. Sidewalks
a. What is the minimum sidewalk width allowed in the community?
b. Are sidewalks always required on both sides of residential streets?
c. Are sidewalks generally sloped so they drain to the front yard rather than the street?
d. Can alternate pedestrian networks be substituted for sidewalks (e.g., trails through common areas)?
• Often a tough topic for City Council, because sidewalk width provides safety, separation of people from cars. Best sidewalk is one that is set back from the street edge, using planting strips, etc. Older communities, and parts of COB have this feature. Design challenges, like ADA. (requires minimum width, depending on what is being accessed) COB standard is 5 feet. (maybe too large?) Must be concrete and load bearing, if next to street, so that a concrete truck can drive over it without damaging it. 4” thick slabs, over approved substrate – probably overbuilt in every way. May not have much latitude to go narrower; have seen as narrow as 32” in Longview, set back with planter strips. Many are 3 to 4-feet in older parts of COB. When set back, these can be narrower, because separation from street is provided. Open ditches are predominant in Silver Beach, except for newer streets and arterials. Public safety, construction costs, impervious area and aesthetic appeal all have to be weighed in determining what type of sidewalks are required. Safety is largest issue.
• Why can’t sidewalks be made of alternate materials besides concrete? Possible to do this, and if set back with infiltration strip, could put pavers over permeable substrate. Widths, adjacency to roads, whether 2 sides or I, are the main questions in SB. Not many sidewalks currently exist in SB, although Northshore Drive, (at, and east of Britton Road) is traveled heavily and is potentially dangerous to pedestrians. This street is 20-feet wide, has a 6-inch curb and a narrow sidewalk on one side. (which is discontinuous in places) If you ask residents, they are scared to walk to the neighborhood market or beach. Kids are at risk from cars on one side and a ditch on the other. Traffic has increased over time and frequent speeding is seen daily, particularly when vehicles approach from the south. Sharp corners slow cars down. Speed limit seems like 52 MPH, not 25 MPH! (dyslexia?) Sometimes, one must be ‘creative’ to stop traffic, before you can cross street. Speed bumps? PW input? If development takes place, would it be near busy roads, or up-hill? Need minimum safety standards, whatever that means, but it doesn’t make sense to have sidewalks on both sides in every case. Longer-term retrofits could consider safe school routes, arterials, etc for sidewalks. The group agrees safety is paramount, but COB must minimize imperviousness to achieve the best balance. Construction material should also be optional, but practices need changing to make this happen. Must balance safety, durability, adjacency and imperviousness. Alternate, more pervious materials are OK, but have higher initial cost; over time this extra cost might be justified due to increased lake-friendliness. Need to consider some flexibility in both standards and materials used.
14. Driveways
a. What is the minimum driveway width specified in the community?
b. Can pervious materials be used for single family home driveways (e.g., grass, gravel, porous pavers, etc)?
c. Can a "two track" design be used at single family driveways?
d. Are shared driveways permitted in residential developments?
• COB has no minimum width, or paving requirement for driveways, (except for where an apron where it abuts anything but a minimum standard street) but they should not exceed a 15% grade in steepness.
15. Open Space Management (skipped)
a. Does the community have enforceable requirements to establish associations that can effectively manage open space?
b. Are open space areas required to be consolidated into larger units?
c. Does a minimum percentage of open space have to be managed in a natural condition?
d. Are allowable and unallowable uses for open space in residential developments defined?
e. Can open space be managed by a third party using land trusts or conservation easements?
16. Rooftop Runoff
a. Can rooftop runoff be discharged to yard areas?
b. Do current grading or drainage requirements allow for temporary ponding of stormwater on front yards or rooftops?
• This runoff can be discharged, untreated, except for sub-divisions, where it must be a part of the stormwater detention system requirements. So, the answer to question a) depends on situation; yes, for new single family homes on individual lots; no, for new sub-division developments. The answer is yes for the majority of SB homes. Infiltration/septic systems are OK, if soil is satisfactory, or a system can be engineered to mimic the right conditions. Under these circumstances, this treatment achieves best the ultimate objective of getting water back into the ground, and performing the functions of slowing down runoff, treating it and recharging it. COB’s Stormwater Ordinance is now undergoing a belated upgrade to meet State standards, with which it must comply by 2002. These are extensive requirements, and will help what the SB Ordinance seeks to achieve, although it might not allow a full range of innovative designs because of its prescriptive nature. The updated SW Ordinance will be an improvement, but not perfect.
17. Buffer Systems
a. Is there a stream buffer ordinance in the community?
b. If so, what is the minimum buffer width?
c. Is expansion of the buffer to include freshwater wetlands, steep slopes or the 100-year floodplain required?
• COB has wetland and stream ordinances, requiring setbacks. Additionally, the Shorelines Master Program will be upgraded this Fall, with public process. Currently, waterfront setbacks are 25 feet for structures, but this could be increased to 35 feet. The Streams Ordinance sets maximum buffer width at 50 feet, which is inadequate. In Silver Beach there are only 2 streams, Silver Beach Creek and “Cutthroat” Creek, near Northshore and Donald Ave; both are mostly built-out adjacent. The Wetlands Ordinance specifies buffers of up to 100 feet, which is OK. Exception is Shorelines, in which the State allows local entities to set buffer widths. Whatcom County specifies 40 to 75 feet, which goes further in preserving the critical functions of this last catchment area in minimizing impacts to the water body, maintaining public access to the water and retaining the opportunity for shore-side land management. COB’s limits were set in 1974 and amended in 1989. Knowing what we know now, these limits should be 50 to 100 feet, for non-salmon bearing systems and 100+ feet for salmon bearing streams, measured from each stream bank. Buffers are a big issue, and minimums of 50 feet for small streams and 100 feet for salmon bearing systems are recommended. Hard to change much because of existing development and roads, but new homes should be encouraged to maintain at least a 50-foot buffer or provide off-setting mitigation. This affects remodels and reconstruction projects more than new homes, because of yards, boat ramps, patios, etc. Since shorelines are critical areas, buffers need to have undisturbed, vegetated soil immediately adjacent to the water. We can’t change existing structures, but we can influence new ones.
18. Buffer Maintenance (skipped)
a. Does the stream buffer ordinance specify that at least part of the stream buffer be maintained with native vegetation?
b. Does the stream buffer ordinance outline allowable uses?
c. Does the ordinance specify enforcement and education mechanisms?
19. Clearing and Grading
a. Is there any ordinance that requires or encourages the preservation of natural vegetation at residential
development sites?
b. Do reserve septic field areas need to be cleared of trees at the time of development?
• COB has these ordinances and they do work OK to encourage good practices and maintain vegetative cover.
20. Tree Conservation
a. If forests or specimen trees are present at residential development sites, does some of the stand have to be preserved?
b. Are the limits of disturbance shown on construction plans adequate for preventing clearing of natural vegetative cover during construction?
• COB does not have a specific Tree Conservation ordinance that applies to single family homes. This group has previously stated that landscaping standards are needed, without specifying whether this should be mandatory or a flexible incentive. Tree conservation does happen as part of easement negotiations, but usually not down to the level of individual trees. Hazard trees are exempted. Sudden Valley has a requirement for native vegetation management per a site plan, architectural review, etc. Objective is to keep native vegetation where possible, or restore it where we can.
21. Land Conservation Incentives
a. Are there any incentives to developers or landowners to conserve non-regulated land (open space design, density bonuses, stormwater credits or lower property tax rates)?
b. Is flexibility to meet regulatory or conservation restrictions (density compensation, buffer averaging, transferable development rights, off-site mitigation) offered to developers?
• This is an area where COB has no meaningful programs, except for open space negotiations in cluster developments. There are no incentives for land conservation, other than the good will of citizens. No tax breaks, no stormwater rates breaks, no utility breaks, no nothing. How can we get people to do the right thing without them receiving some tangible benefit in return? One idea suggested is to require a one-time education on good practices, as part of the permit process. Despite the fact that no incentive program exists, all the ingredients are present to enable this happening, and it could be done. We should encourage this to happen. What about an up-front cash payment, in consideration of an agreed-to practice? Care needs to given in how this type of incentive is awarded, and from what funding source. This may also be part of the focus of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program’s Citizen’s Land Acquisition Board, which is now studying this subject. All recommendations are welcome, and none will go away if they aren’t used as part of this group’s recommendations. There are some good existing examples, like the State Fish & Wildlife Dept.’s grants for conservation easements, and the Soil Conservation Service’s land-banking program, where farmers are paid to keep unneeded land out of production. Also, it might be possible to use a TDR program to legally transfer the partial ‘rights’ pertaining to retention of hydrologic or vegetative character of property in return for payment. So far, we’ve never gotten to the point where an actual dollar value has been attached to these functions. Tax people traditionally take a dim view, but COB may have an opportunity to use utility rates creatively to encourage lake-friendly behavior in this manner.
22. Stormwater Out-falls
a. Is stormwater required to be treated for quality before it is discharged?
b. Are there effective design criteria for stormwater best management practices (BMPs)?
c. Can stormwater be directly discharged into a jurisdictional wetland without pretreatment?
d. Does a floodplain management ordinance that restricts or prohibits development within the 100 year
floodplain exist?
• COB has these ordinances, which require retention and treatment. These are currently being upgraded to meet State standards.
IV. Discussion of Ideas for Adding Flexibility to Seasonal Construction Limits
• Builders would prefer to keep the 5-month construction season allowed for 2000, and not decrease this to the 4 months prescribed for next year. This would require that adequate BMPs would be used. This extra time for the building season is needed; if it rains construction will be delayed anyway; if not, it’s a shame to waste good weather. Should the month of May be added, or the month of October? May is preferred by builders, but science says October is better, if another month is to be added at all. Local area rainfall profile shows distinct, variable effects throughout the year. For example, high rainfall is generally expected in October & November; but surplus moisture is already present in the soil in the springtime, too. It’s a mixed trade-off. Phosphorus (nutrients) loads are heaviest during the spring and growing seasons. The lake is dammed at a full level in late March, and generally maintains this level through April and May before the level drops. Therefore, nutrient loads dumped into the lake in May, tend to stay there. Nutrient loads dumped in September may remain until Thanksgiving when these get purged during the rainy season. Builders may prefer adding time early in season, but hydrologists would prefer later; when the growing season is over, temperatures are cooling, the wet season begins and a big water flow will be coming soon.
• Would a variable construction season work? Flexibility seems good, it’s impractical, because events must be scheduled and customer’s needs can stack up. The 4 months selected, June, July, August and September are unquestionably the best time for building. How about adding two weeks at both beginning and end of the season, from May 15 to October 15? Normally, permitting is done during the winter, but continues through February, March & April. By May, projects are starting. If pre-planning is not done by then, a short construction season can really hurt. How many lots are likely involved? Experience this year has been very busy; people have to plan ahead, but COB must better facilitate permits in the watershed, too. Some COB functions aren’t currently concerned with SB’s particular needs yet. Should we recommend fairness in accommodating the special SB problems? Is issuing a permit on September 15, too late? Should additional precautions be taken? COB’s Stormwater Ordinance now requires covering or re-vegetating exposed soil within 7 days in dry weather, or 3 days in wet weather, but is this being enforced? Water will continue to move through the soil, whether precautions are taken or not; thus the seasonal limits work well. If additional time is required, add it at the end of season, not at the beginning, so runoff can be purged. Will work be completed by October 1? Oct 15? If we write in BMPs, like hydro seeding, then we may not have to extend season beyond 4 months. Group can consider 2 or 3 options. COB must be required to do a better job of facilitating and coordinating permits for Silver Beach, recognizing the more severe restrictions in the SBO.
• Construction BMPs, like opening trenches, forming & pouring the foundations, then closing the hole and immediately covering it by sod-ding, seeding or chipping should be encouraged. This is not always possible, since this soil is often saved for in landscaping after the project is built. There is an exemption thresh-hold in SBO, of 500 SF of earthwork per year. Perhaps, can consider some latitude in this exemption for remodels, particularly if an incentive like reducing overall impervious area is agreed to. Perhaps a credit of 750 SF, extension of construction window, etc. could be granted. Helps to have an incentive actually do the right thing, if feasible. For example, this conference room is about 20’ by 30’, or 600 SF. This compares to the 500 SF exemption, which was selected to discourage additional outbuildings. Remodels may not involve very much new exposed soil to accomplish them. Although there are quite a few room additions, most earth-moving impacts come from new home construction and its associated mass grading for foundations and landscaping. Most remodels already have established vegetative cover, which may not be extensively affected. All known data shows that land clearing is the single, most critical activity. We should listen to science and not compromise important things. If 5 months is needed, then add October, not May. Protection trumps convenience.
• Inconvenience doesn’t prevent completing the job, just doing the earthwork. Usual practice is to dig first and cover last, because construction work needs to be done before landscaping. Can use sawdust or wood chips as alternate cover; they are effective, but this requires changes in thinking and adapting to new rules. The seasonal rules were set because they were simple to understand and enforce, and more effective too. As an example, the County schedules site visits from its erosion control staff year-round, as a daily activity. There is no demand for this in COB during winter; one person can watch all remodels & site closures cost effectively.
• Summarizing our options, we can consider adding to the construction season, front and/or back; keeping it at 4 months; requiring BMPs, cover and inspection (extra burden); consider flexibility in the 500 SF exemption for remodels. All of these are possible, but some may require more COB labor, in the form of site visits, etc.
V. Discussion of Interpretations & Definitions Currently in the SB Ordinance
• What is meant by "perviousness"? How do you calculate or give credit for semi-perviousness? What do other interpretative elements mean? Part of the advantage of doing things the way we have is that we can run with it for a few months, see what questions come up, and then refine the language to fit. (Refer to the illustrations of typical structural configurations, below)
Illustrative Sketches, depicting:
A. House with Overhang & Elevated Breezeway
B. Slatted Deck
C. Tree
D. Raised House on Augured Foundations
E. Porous Paving Blocks
F. Gravel Driveway
G. Driveway Tracks
• So the first question is, if your home footprint is like (A), how much structural overhang should be allowed, and should this be considered impervious? We know our primary functional objective is to maintain the hydrology of runoff water and its infiltration into the ground. Related to this is the vegetated coverage under some width of the overhang. Rain can go sideways, so some overhung ground can still get wet. If we lack this definition and specificity in the ordinance, then we must find alternative designs that meet the intent. One way of defining this is by using a ratio, like a slope, as up two units and out one unit. That’s easy to decipher and scale.
• Or, maybe you have an elevated building on pilings or augured footings, like (D). You could specify that the footprint-shadowed area can’t exceed a certain number of feet from the edge, say 4, 6 or 8 feet, and still be called pervious. Huts on sticks in the tropics still allow rain to go through to the ground, which supports vegetation, except for trees. Ground under overhangs, breezeways (A), or a slatted deck (B) may do this too, so allowing this could add some flexibility, like considering the ground under a tree (C).
• An absolute footprint limit might be set, with some fudge factor to allow some overhang or an elevated component, but with side widths that can’t exceed, say, 15% of the direct footprint, 4 feet of overhang, a 2 to 1 ratio, or something similar. Creative design and innovation should be encouraged to meet the intent of SBO.
• There are varying degrees of infiltration or perviousness, depending upon the material covering the ground. Class A soils are the most pervious, but this starts declining as the Class of soil letters go down the alphabet, until eventually you get tight, impervious clay soil, itself as hard as a paved driveway. At this point, little can be done to improve perviousness by substituting other materials, like alternative pavers, key lock, grids, matrixes of earth materials, etc. (E) In this instance, how much of those materials could a lot developer use? 100% of lot coverage? The argument can become self-defeating in these situations.
• In the County’s UR-3 zone, you can cover up to 50% of the lot with outright impervious material, but then the remaining use of pervious pavers may not exceed a total of 70% of the lot coverage. Does this add any positive functionality? How much ground covering can you have with these alternative systems that, in essence, displace vegetation but still allow infiltration? This is an example of what can be a meaningless exercise.
• If vegetation is displaced by a rooftop, and all this runoff drains into the storm water system, would it be better to have a good rainfall catchment system, that infiltrates this water back into the ground? Maybe, unless soils were clay, which would mean you would probably need to engineer a system.
• If I do my whole yard in pavers, is that okay? Does that meet the objective? Is there much difference between a percentage of ground covering that needs to be kept in vegetation, or just mixed with vegetation? If there is some gain in having a minimum mix of pavers and vegetation, then we can set that as a limit, and that becomes the goal.
• Pervious paver systems aren’t as functionally effective as natural vegetation. At Western, for example they play with their pavers all the time and what happens is the whole Fairhaven dorm complex drains into this wetland, and it gets totally filled with sediment because sand is used as the medium under the pavers. We are talking about 100’s of pounds of sand — a caution about using pavers like this because they are sand based and limited in their capacity. What about the ratio of pavers to vegetation discussed when the ordinance was first passed? Also recall the issue of strip driveways (G). If you have 2 feet of concrete separated by 3 feet of grass, is that zero percent impervious coverage? When concrete is how wide, will water still saturate underneath it? At some width of impervious cover, there is an inverted, dry pyramid underneath, especially if there’s not enough vegetation interspersed. So, a black and white impervious definition doesn’t always work, because there can be design alternatives that do a reasonably better job. When first developing the SBO, we considered lot size; an impervious/pervious ratio objective; a minimum guarantee for building on small lots; and some limitation on impervious area. Also, there is a vegetation requirement. The in-between scenarios are too hard to define, so instead we could have X% of the lot retained in vegetation, and everyone knows what that is. You don’t need to figure out infiltration rates or efficiency or anything like that. We’ve gone that way with our landscape ideas, but we don’t want situations where someone says, I don’t like vegetation, I want pavers in my whole yard. The ordinance will allow that right now. Do we want some native vegetation as a preference or, any vegetation at all as a second choice? We can’t really say an 18-inch wide tire track of cement (G) is a significantly measurable impact. So, with these parameters you can’t get exact clarity, or interpretations that fit in every case; that’s just the way it is -imperfect.
• For guidance on pervious/impervious definitions, if we’re going to have 15 or 20% maximum cover on lots, and pavers or some other alternative, don’t count as much as vegetation, then we should put some limits on it - a serious percentage limit. We talked before about the degrees of perviousness; the three categories, pervious, impervious and partially pervious. The question is, how do you define “partially pervious”. Are you going to set that at 15%, 25% or 50%? There should be a limit on it, otherwise you’ve lost the opportunity to maintain some better infiltration system and water absorption into the ground.
• Try to think of this in terms of a code system with a variety of personal preference outcomes. The extreme case is not likely to repeat itself frequently, so should we worry about it? There are as many people who like trees and vegetation as not, for whatever the reasons, so maybe the frequency of occurrence isn’t a significant management concern. At least, that’s what we used to think until we had some extreme, massive homes built in certain places in Bellingham. All it takes is one really bad example to irritate people, so we need something we can put in there as an initial limit, with extra bonus potential to be earned. You can say your impervious limit is this and then for every square foot, or ratio of native vegetation, or vegetated area you provide the scale slides up a bit.
Or we can think of these as longer-term measures, as an option.
• We were talking about a list of things that you might use as a one-time, mandatory education for a person applying for a permit. If the landowner would agree to using these principals or practices to management their property, that earns them credit to get further impervious area, etc. And they start off with a lower percentage, then jump some hoops to get up to the regular limits. We also talked about having an education component in the permit to get that little initial bump up in impervious area; so you would have to take a class about good watershed practices to get this.
• We can actually monitor impervious area, visually with aerial photos. This technique allows a plan view looking down, and by this method you can easily ascertain lot coverage compliance. The City commissions a fly-over about every 10 years. We did a current watershed fly-over when the ordinance went into effect to set the baseline. You can dial up a spot image satellite photo on your computer and manipulate its scale and convert it’s pixels to obtain the coverage type. If there is any doubt, you can always go visit the site. The Department of Natural Resources takes aerial photos every few years to survey trees. The Army Corps of Engineers takes them every year, and these are not hard to access. They are used for scientific purposes, and this is the way they monitor wetlands, dams and levees, etc
• In the Silver Beach neighborhood, the soils are mostly clay. So, no matter what you use as landscaping, it might be equal to or better than clay. You do get rapid re-vegetation of cover, except for mature trees, as some of our construction photos showed. When people landscape their yards, they generally amend the soil and this material accumulates over time to make it more pervious. We could either require some vegetative elements or make them optional. This could be monitored reasonably well with aerial photos, at a minimum and site inspection if necessary. Most of the time, when something runs amuck, meaning a violation, people are on the phone before you even have a chance to get to the photo. There are many people out there who are ready to report on their neighbors activities, whether their motivation is environmentally oriented or not!
• Driveway tracks with grass in-between (G), aren’t very impervious. Retainer walls made of stacked blocks are, in theory, impervious cover. Practicality says otherwise, though. There will always be judgment calls and we can’t describe every detail.
The discussions on perviousness come down to the fact that it doesn’t necessarily make any difference if part of the ground is in shadow. If you look under a tree, that’s under shadow, but it hasn’t lost its potentiality for slowing down runoff or infiltrating it. (C)
Similarly, if you have a slatted wooden deck (B), it depends on what’s on it, or under it, in determining it’s imperviousness. If you leave it vegetated underneath with weeds or moss or something then it is probably mostly pervious. On elevated decks, we have another aspect of our code that says, if its open to the ground and water will infiltrate, its not considered a structure. But it can’t be over 30 inches high or something like that. And the same thing would be true of a foundation under a house built on stilts. (D) Just the fact that it’s in shade most of the day is not the key. You could grow ivy or something under there, which adds some functionality, and that would probably count. Looking at the drawing, if you have, say 2 vertical units for every 1 horizontal unit, and your maximum shade is out 4 feet, that’s probably OK. I’ve never seen a roof overhang more than that, or a sidewall overhang. On a breezeway (A), if you want to connect those buildings, and it’s 8 feet wide, it would have to be 16 feet in the air wouldn’t it? Is that possible or practical? (In the wintertime, it would be. You’ve been up north too long!) That goes back to the storm water runoff issue and I am not sure what those requirements are going to be with this new upgrade. But, if we have some kind of a closed system that has some kind of infiltration device, septic system or whatever, then can that act as a alternate BMP?. Is there going to be something like that for storm water? We don’t know yet, but they’ll have the same idea in mind.
• Is there a known hierarchy of pavers as far as their effectiveness? In reading the literature, it says that 75% of them have a failure within 5 years. No. What appears to be the most important performance element is how you bed them. And sand is not good, angular rock is the preference. When you use pavers, vendors will tell you must lay them in sand and that’s the only way that they’re going to guarantee them. What we know is how we’ve done our sidewalks, our concrete works, our panels; and what holds up and avoids these from shifting. So, I know there’s some big restrictions on that too, like slope and service water. How about rocks with landscaping on them? SPIE has grass growing on the hill and they did the whole parking lot like that. That was nice. There are a variety of strategies, whether they are masonry grids or mixed media, where you can layer earth materials; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Driving around in the Queen Anne Neighborhood this weekend, among very, very, very expensive houses, I saw two driveways in one block that had converted their driveways from concrete to pervious paver systems.
VI. Discussion of Possible Enforcement or Corrective Actions for SBO Non-compliance.
• Let’s move on to possible enforcement or corrective actions. We have the first correction case for SBO, but it hasn’t gone to enforcement yet. There is about 500 square feet of solid concrete driveway laid down on a gentle slope for a new home. This property is all ready well over the coverage limits; and as we introduced ourselves from the City, the person who did the pouring, gave a predictable response, I didn’t know, I had no idea, I had no clue. Then came three chapters of qualifying why they have got to have it that way. Nevertheless, we have to carry out the ordinance and correct it. We’ve already described the ordinance, it’s purpose, the process by which it was adopted, and we’ve let these folks know that what they need to do is either make up for the 500 square feet or remove the 500 square feet of driveway, front and back. We’ve even gone so far as to provide some technical remedies that might work subject to, you know, the practicality test. Such as: concrete blocks, separated by 2-inch wide slits in the driveway, and putting structural spacers at the end and in the middle, so they don’t move or shift or compress. Back-filling with angular rock to an inch below the concrete surface so it doesn’t tractor out and flip and skip. And then, see if this sub-grade layer is sufficient to infiltrate water. Most people who will spend for concrete, will at least have some degree of Class B rock underneath; it won’t usually be on native earth, although if they know they cheap route, they might do that.
• After 10 days now of working this situation, the owner is now willing to accept fixing the problem, because they know they must seek a solution and are not resisting further. They have now educated themselves about materials that are available, potential strategies and they’ve also posed the question: Well can I mitigate for this since it’s—you know I wouldn’t have done it if I knew but I did and so here we are?
• So, my question to the group has to do with the range of corrective actions, not wanting to encourage someone to purposely break the law and then get the softer correction action, which you know, I suppose is possible. Maybe a watershed ordinance response is different than an illegal dwelling response or some other more severe police-like actions, like running an auto body shop out of your garage, that kind of thing. I always try to think of what is the impact going to be to the individual, or the household, or the business, as the case may be. What’s fair and still achieves the community’s purpose?
• So, here are three or four questions: Do you enforce SBO to the letter of the law in every case? Or, enforce to the intent of the law if you can find another mitigation that meets the intent? How does the group feel about that? Do you pursue it in hardball fashion, which is to say here’s what you’ve got to do, here’s when you got to do it by, and if you don’t here’s what we’re going to do? Or, do you allow some kind of (we could consider building something into the ordinance for this purpose) some off-site mitigation? “Oh gee, I paved my driveway, now I’ve got to go buy impervious credits from someone who has a 1-acre lot”. Things like that. So, concrete being what it is, is not a friendly material. When it’s poured, its very hard, very set, very difficult to move or handle. There are lots of ways to do mitigation, but it still leaves you with the question of “If you know, and you still break the law, - knowingly or otherwise - will there be an alternative remedy that can ultimately let you have what you want?” Is that where we go? Does the ordinance have any teeth in it on at that point? Or does it undermine the whole intent and defeat the purpose of SBO? These are the questions I’m posing, and this is not the same problem as an illegal dwelling or something else that’s just plain illegal. This is for watershed protection, arguably a public safety issue. Not all situations can be remediated; like cut trees can’t be put back up 80 feet tall.
• Another, similar situation happened, requiring a quarter of a million dollars to fix. It involved several individuals on both sides, which changed from time to time. The government employees were making judgments based on intent and the people were posing question based on the letter of the law, and then roles got reversed, making it a comedy of errors. The he-said, you-said game just builds on itself, so there’s got to be a pretty good definition of what consequences are prescribed for not meeting requirements. This might be a case where you could take it to a citizen’s advisory group to determine appropriate remedial action, then go through an appeal process, as necessary. This could take the City’s staff out of the picture, at least partially
.
• There needs to be a sufficient disincentive on such matters. Maybe make a quasi-judicial ruling on what the findings should be.
All the city has is an enforcement and penalty section. But it’s not all black and white. In the food chain of regulatory hierarchy, the purpose and intent is at the top, but you can’t escape some literal descriptors. The way to go about it is always try to make it clear what we’re trying to accomplish, the range of alternatives available to do that, and respond favorably to people who make a good faith effort and deal very strongly and effectively with those who don’t. What if you were something like a few square feet over the limit, you know, by 2 or 3 square feet? You make it a good incentive and chance that sort of thing. Wouldn’t that set a precedent? If what you are trying to do is protect the lake by this mechanism, do you let somebody buy their way around it? Maybe, but just make sure that the mitigation exceeds the sin. If the development right that they are buying is taking that out of the potential future development, then you may have accomplished the goal, and they have been penalized. As long as they are buying out future development of the watershed area, it’s probably OK.
.
• I disagree with that because we’re talking about an impervious limit that they were supposed to meet. If they are going over the limit, we’re not really being fair to the rest of the watershed community, because the right that they are buying is already not impervious. See what I mean? And chances are that someone else will buy it. It may have also been preserved by another means. It may have been - I’m just concerned that somebody will go, “oh I’m going to put in my driveway”, and do it, and then others will follow this example and defeat the purpose of the SBO. That’s the fair and equitable way; the same rule for everyone. The reason why we’re discussing this situation to find examples, where there are some circumstances that can’t fully be mitigated or fixed.
• You have so do something different as a disincentive, but still allow achieving the purpose; and from the City’s side of the fence there is also the amount of time you must pour into this problem/resolution activity. What seems to work is to go for the worst offenders first and make poster examples out of them. Then, that effort, which is usually hard rock money, prevents many more similar situations. You can afford to pour an inordinate amount of time on a situation, if it makes a good example to use later. I think that’s where we are with this one.
• I did something to my mom’s driveway. She didn’t want a driveway; all she wanted was just a jumbled garden. So, I jack hammered it and I left it in place and I covered it with plantings. Now, that’s not a bad idea. I covered it with a 6 inches of pine needle mulch and put wild flowers on top. You would never know there had been a driveway underneath it. This probably works.
• Let me ask you a question on the particular case we’re discussing. Was the owner aware of the ordinance when the building permit was issued? He says no. Well how does this happen? How it happens is, you don’t need a building permit for a driveway. The information came to our attention from neighbors. Did he pour it or did a contractor pour it? Two contractors came and looked at and said they wouldn’t do it. Undisclosed reason. One from Seattle did it. They will all be talking about it, if you make him cut it all up like that. The neighbors are going to talk also. At any open lot they are going to say you better not do what this guy did. This may be example time! My inclination is to say, okay on a driveway, that’s not as bad as cutting a tree, which is hard to stand back up. I’m thinking we need to mean what we say here! They must know that we will do what we can to prevent this happening again. But there will be situations where you can’t put back what was there, and there need to be some alternatives for this contingency also. So, this ordinance should have some means - like that idea of coming to the advisory group, or Board of Adjustment, or Council within a certain amount of time – to figure out what alternatives should be required. That’s kind of an interesting way of doing things because its like a peer review, your own social peers are telling you what you’ve got to do to comply. That’s not a bad idea, but I don’t know how it would work administratively. You’ve got to consider who the peers are, too; they might be people who want to do the same thing, so it has to be set up right. I don’t know how advisory boards are established, but such a group would stay there a while, they would have their duration of service. Actually, I could see this group as the advisory board; we’re acting as that right now to give recommendations for fairness and flexibility. If we can build something into the ordinance, this group could address matters requiring scientific evaluation, and maybe propose this to the Council, should the group decide to recommend this.
.
• If the owner disagrees with a suggested enforcement action, they can always appeal. There’s also the variance process, but none of our variance processes would deal with this situation, because there is no hardship in this circumstance, and its not even close. An appeal usually applies to administrative decisions, or enforcement actions, which, ultimately, usually play out in court. It would be much better to have a judge rule, than have staff dealing with it. Any way you go, it’s going to cost money after the mistake has been made.
The first three responses in these situations are always denial, anger, and then negotiation, in that order. “How about if I hook my roof drains up to the storm water system?: The builder should have done this, because that’s a requirement. Then, they become more inclined to restore it to the preexisting condition, wherever feasible. He could put in pavers, or do all that other stuff that builders are doing. Maybe we should build in some specific language into the ordinance that applies to driveways — they all shall go through a permit process, or something like an inspection. It’s going to be necessary. I mean that’s absolutely going to be necessary. Let’s get it in there!
• Well, it’s just as a matter of fact that there still is no limit on what you build for your driveway segment, within the right-of-way. That is not charged against the parcel. So, if you have a 20-foot wide road within a 60-foot wide right-of-way, then you’ve got more to pave. Well, that’s an interesting loophole, because that means there’s a lot of square footage of shoulder that could be paved that doesn’t count against the property being improved. That’s true. One step at a time here, is that in our domain? Yes, absolutely. That loophole needs to be closed. We’ve talked about the transportation element and facilities; we have some information in the minutes and a potential recommendation. This is a loophole in terms of intent, and there should be a practical solution or at least, a range of options developed. I think we ought to close this loophole, and we probably should take a firm position on this enforcement and corrective action procedure now.
VII. Wrap-up & Summary of Potential Recommendations and Assignments:
• It seems like we still have a lot of work left to do, and I am going to ask that we have another meeting after the 15th because I would really like to be there for the final prioritization of recommendations. Let’s discuss that for a minute. What we had in mind tonight was to finish the discussions to clean up the four agenda topics, so we can complete our list of recommendations. Then we’ll dump all of this on staff to come up with a list later this week, in time to distribute it via e-mail before next Tuesday’s meeting. This list will be compiled for use next week, so the group can focus on it and have a straw vote. Or, we can use whatever means we want to see which items we’re unanimous on, or near unanimous on, and which ones we’re on which we are split. What we are trying to do this time is, skim the cream off the top of the list, just as we’ve discussed. The rest of the recommendations or options are not going away. We just want to get those ideas identified that we can agree strongly on.
• The list to be considered next week, will be a menu of recommendations at the conceptual level, including some descriptors, and they will be grouped into similar, functional categories, such as seasonal construction limits, impervious area, uses, etc. The thought is that we will have the group vote, namelessly, to establish a priority weighted list of things we definitely want, and also things deemed potentially useful, but which require more work. Where two or more elements are similar, then we’ll choose the best of them, particularly where there is unanimous or virtually unanimous agreement in principle. We will try to come up with this list before the next meeting and get it out via e-mail.
• I still think we should have another meeting after next week. Let’s address that again. When we started this CTF, we said that eight meetings would be the duration of this assignment, and next week is the last one to which we all committed. That’s the time when we need to come to some preliminary decisions, but that’s not to say we couldn’t agree to have other meetings. In fact, there are many good reasons why we might like to have this group continue, in some form, to present information to the Council, help flesh out our recommendations, and let them hear the thinking behind them. We are shooting to meet the 8/15 deadline to finish the limited task we set out to do, and we need to meet that deadline if we can.
• All of you know that a proposal for land acquisition was recently introduced, which is now being considered. That was one of the big missing elements in the SBO, which this group identified early on. This proposed Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance is to be the subject of a public hearing at the next Council meeting at 7 PM, on August 21st. When this gets passed for a third and final vote, we will have the funding for such a program, starting next year; or at the least steps will be in place leading up to that. We need to have the preliminary recommendations from this group, before that meeting if possible. We’d also encourage members of this group to show up at that meeting and say what you think is important. If you feel that buying property in Silver Beach and the nearby watershed is a priority, say so. Likewise, if you don’t think that’s a good idea, this a great time for you to talk about that too.
• Depending on what decisions are made, any number of things can happen that might affect this group. Assuming for the moment that the Council decides to go forward and pursue the ideas this group recommends, then it’s certain that the Council will be very interested in continuing to hear from this group. When the Council begins to seriously consider these ideas and getting the actual language written, that could be another opportunity to continue the dialogue with this group, whether we call that an official committee function or not. All these things have not been decided. There might also be an opportunity for those of you, having absorbed a valuable, condensed education (which is a big part of informed decision making - as we’ve all found out), and wishing to continue to be involved, to serve in some, advisory capacity to the Council. The next big job will be to actually flesh-out some of these recommendations; apply them to the SBO, or other programs; get the new language written; have public meetings for additional input; so that we can change the interim ordinance to a better, permanent version. Now that we have extended the Interim SBO, it won’t come due for mandatory renewal or change until January 24th, 2001. We’ll need to run any changes through the Planning Commission and City Council again, as part of the required public process, before they can be adopted.
• It has been very helpful for this group to participate so willingly and so well in these proceedings, and this has produced some very good results! Its even better that, with your education and interest, some of you would volunteer to become be a more permanent resource. The watershed management program should have an on-going, active, citizen participation, especially in developing technology, know-how about effective BMPs and living habits that help us to act in a different, more lake-friendly way. That needs to stay on the table for stakeholders to be involved with, so it would be nice to see the SB Ordinance have, written in it, some mechanism to allow for a citizen’s advisory committee.
• By next week, you’ll have your menu of choices, and with any luck at all, you’ll get through it and vote on it. Staff will then take those recommendations and start forming them into ordinance language, or strategy as the case may be. Then, we can put this back out to the group so you can see what your actual work product turns into, and allow you provide feedback on it; whether that will be through more meetings or electronically, is open for consideration at this point.
• This group has had a lot of dialogue during the past four months, but we haven’t taken any formal votes, tallies or head-counts yet. Since the group has changed a little from meeting to meeting because of attendance, we’ll discuss the survey next week to get a clear indication of the group’s preferences. This method has been tried several times before in public process forums, and it usually works pretty well. You will have a list of recommended choices, grouped by topic you can vote on. What will emerge from tallying these results is a ranking of priorities, some of which may likely be consensus choices.
VIII. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, August 15, 7-9 PM in Mayor’s Board Room
• This is our last scheduled meeting and the deadline for our preliminary recommendations.
A Recommendations Survey will be sent to all CTF members by e-mail, for review and voting prior to this meeting. This will also be posted on COBWEB, along with this meeting summary. Even if you can’t attend the meeting, please try to e-mail your choices, by the groupings indicated, to John Watts in time for the meeting. Results will be tallied anonymously. Please also return an unsigned (unless you prefer otherwise) hard-copy to John Watts, either before or at the 8/15/00 meeting (or c/o the City Council Office) for record-keeping and final data processing.
• Many thanks to this group, which has worked very hard through the summer to meet its commitment to accomplishing its stated task. Your efforts to date are appreciated!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 6th 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 25, 2000 meeting:
1. Attendance: All present, except B. Bliss, A. Renaud, B. Ryan.
Guest: P. Decker
2. Handouts:
• Codes & Ordinances Worksheet
• Feeling Smart? (a test)
• Redesigning the American Lawn: A Search for Environmental Harmony (excerpts)
• Nine (9) Articles from Center for Watershed Protection Website: http://www.cwp.org
Crafting Better Urban Watershed Protection Plans
MUDDY WATER IN - MUDDY WATER OUT?
On Watershed Education
The Architecture of Stream Buffers
The Economics of Watershed Protection
The Importance of Imperviousness
The Peculiarities of Perviousness
Understanding Watershed Behavior
Urban Pesticides: From the Lawn to the Stream
3. Comments by participants:
• Time is closing for these meetings and I am very much interested in stating my position to finalize a draft that would be effective and practical in the field to work with. I have changed my position somewhat, learned a lot of valuable information, and would like to see a few changes from the emergency ordinance.
1. Size of pervious area,
- change from 2000 sqft. to 2500 sqft.
- from 15% to 20% for larger lots
Current square footage and percentage is impractical on certain lots. If an individual wants larger square footage, a property exchange as discussed, makes good sense. Also, certain types of paving blocks for improved impervious surfaces work well with patios and driveways.
2. Remodeling
-Trade-offs from removing large pervious areas such as big driveways, patios, sport courts in exchange for new additions.
- Professionally landscaped designs approved by planning staff
- Designs and inspections of outdated storm drainage systems (i.e. new and improved acceptable storm systems)
4. Construction Time
-Six and a half month construction period rather than five months (too restrictive)
-April 1 to October 15
- For this trade off, tighten up construction runoff designs and inspections
I must say that as a builder, aware of the new zoning laws, it does make me mad to see on the way to my job sites, homeowners pouring driveways and patios, unaware or aware, of what is going on while the builders are held to the law. As a builder, homeowner, and local resident all my life, this is my lake also and like you, I would like a law that protects the lake and is practical.
• Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program: Peer Review Committee’ s comments regarding modeling the lake to determine TMDL’s. concluded that major data gaps exist, which currently make even preliminary modeling not feasible. More data on precipitation and flow monitoring to determine an accurate water budget is needed before this can be done with reasonable certainty. This finding suggests we may need to be even more careful about protecting the watershed. One of the city’s objectives is to identify the loading rates (TMDLs) that come from the urbanized basins to determine whether they are at, below, or above capacity and what land use modifications are necessary to limit this loading. It is disappointing to learn that more data must be collected before meaningful modeling of the lake can even begin. This is particularly true with the lake now being 303 (d) listed and subject to a non-degradation condition, at the same time development is continuing and a more comprehensive stormwater program is now underway. If a legally, politically and economically viable case can be made, the best course of action might be to cease any further impacts until that information is available, modeling results are known and TMDLs are quantified. The good news is that all of the proven land use management options before us to be considered are in the top 10 list of ideas we will address tonight. Land use is the ultimate BMP, and this lends even more importance to the things we are doing here in this Citizen’s Task Force.
• Identification of objectives and what we want to accomplish tonight:
-focus and build on last meeting’s (6) flip chart topics: 1)impervious area credits, 2)plat consolidation, 3)preservation of natural vegetation, 4)restoration of natural vegetation, 5) stormwater management, 6) stormwater utility rate adjustment
- ten ideas most worthy of consideration
- menu of ideas likely to have major positive impacts on protecting the watershed, but which require broader, different mechanisms than SBO to implement
- list of most counterproductive requirements that currently apply
- codes and ordinances worksheet
Summary of Ideas for Possible Application to SB Ordinance:
-------------------------
• List of “Top 10” Ideas worthy of consideration - in order of observed demonstrated prioritized impact:
1. Clearing Land Destroys native vegetation
2. Loss of Buffers Streams, lake, steep slopes, wetlands
3. Grading Activities Disturbs soil
4. Compaction of Soil Heavy or repeated use
5. Imperviousness (from any cause)
6. Density/Intensity of Use (urbanized uses)
7. Transportation Facilities Urban > Rural
8. Sanitary Facilities & Failures Collective overflows of Sewers & Septic Systems
9. Use of Yard Chemicals Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides
10. Maintenance Activities Paved surfaces, structures, yards
-------------------------
• COB has a code requirement (subdivision code) that requires a 60’ ROW for through streets, a 50’ ROW for cul-de-sacs, and allows down to a 40’ ROW, with special approval, but this never seems to happen. To allow a 40’ ROW, a demonstration must be made that there is adequate room for public facilities, utilities, and the associated maintenance thereof. Difficult to do this under existing practice. The right-of-way width also drives the setbacks. The entire ROW width, almost always in new construction, ends up being completely obliterated by clearing and grading. That also includes easements for utilities, outside the ROW. That is so that utilities vendors can have their own turf, without overlapping the city’s turf. A question in the Codes & Ordinances Worksheet asks, “do you allow utilities placed underneath paved areas”? The city of Bellingham currently does not, and this practice helps maintain a separation of contract areas, and minimizes structural potential interference, which is OK in most instances. But, in a watershed, the effect of the larger area being cleared during construction is not desirable in protecting the lake.
• COB had, until recently, a vegetation spray program on the shoulders of minimum standard streets, but this has been discontinued.
• Regarding the codes and ordinances worksheet, questions that come up most frequently are those pertaining to road standards, ROW widths, and setbacks. Currently, COB can only address this by variance, on those projects seeking relief from these things; in essence, finding ways to provide access for a greater number of lots with a lesser number of streets, and to get some setbacks and ROW relief.
• An example of where the transfer of impervious credits (TIC) concept we discussed might be applied is in the NE corner of the city, an area where a number of substandard lots await road development. The result of that road development happening would be to maximize development. Current COB code mandates extension of roads and utilities across the full frontage of the property to the next property, as opposed to extending them just enough to allow the proposed development until the time comes for additional extensions. So this type of situation might be considered, in developing recommendations from this group.
• The neighborhood plan for Silver Beach hasn’t been updated since 1980. It is on a to-do list with other neighborhood plans, while we fix broader citywide codes, which have become remarkably deficient over time. One of these important, broader issues involves dealing with the Lake Whatcom Watershed much more effectively, which of course is what the SB Ordinance attempts to do. The City Council has agreed with the approach that, rather than wait, use a cookie cutter, or face one day at a time, lets solve those things that are creating greater risks and impacting more than one neighborhood, and get these done first. We can always go back and clean up the more individual parts later.
• In order to change the codes, we must go through a citizen involvement process, a planning commission hearing and a council hearing. That is part of the reason we are using staff time to participate in this process, so we can focus on those important situations like the watershed. Neighborhood plans; street construction standards, Bellingham municipal code (chapter 13); cluster development in the subdivision code (chapter 18); setbacks, feasible area, landscape, other land use code elements (chapter 20); all of these elements are threaded throughout Bellingham municipal code, some of which is easier to change than others. Timing and required process (some of which has some administrative flexibility) both have to be considered if we are to come up with something positive to recommend. Perhaps we could add variance criteria to the subdivision code that allows for design revisions that are more functional, lesser impacting to the environment, or otherwise created in the public interest. Variance criteria, historically, have been there to provide relief from odious requirements as opposed to encouraging better designs.
• If we required cluster development, wouldn’t that negate using TDRs from other properties that don’t have the road access? Cluster as defined now doesn’t speak to density but rather the form that allowable density takes. So, existing lots of record could not likely be further subdivided for the most part. You can look in your inventory list and see the number of parcels that could be subdivided. There are two developments in the works right now, one of which could benefit from a cluster. The other looks like it could be a cluster, but came from a different origin in its zoning (single family, with some open space provided). But, the quandary is that you can’t reduce road length and still get more lot access efficiency in a number of areas. It might negate impervious area transfer if you adopted a style, which makes it more feasible financially to develop all those existing lots of record on unimproved ROWs. I could see a potential where that might work in reverse.
• Back to our objective for tonight. We have been meeting for a number of weeks now, and we need to come to closure on what’s expected of us and in what form. This has been a very educational process, but how can we help facilitate the council on this, and what feedback do they want from us towards some form of draft ordinance revisions to the existing SBO? Basically, we need to gravitate towards those areas the group feels are most likely to make improvements in the ordinance itself, or to be recommended for other code modification processes. This discussion is giving us a basis of comparison for options we can consider to fit into the SBO. It is both a required education, and a prioritization of the identified options. We are proceeding well down this path right now, and soon the question will come as to which of these ideas we can pick by consensus and express as recommendations. Recognize that we are not going to be able to change much overnight. This is another of those places where we have to expand our minds a bit in order to see the bigger picture of possibilities, before being able to refocus on the specific job at hand, which is to see what we can do to improve this ordinance. We are on the path of trying to integrate the information we have learned, categorize it, then re-categorize it again, using these priority lists as a guide to see where we can get more bounce to the ounce, and finally apply these resulting concepts to the ordinance itself. There are some very specific notions we can speak to here. The Silver Beach Ordinance in its current form doesn’t do anything about the transportation facilities, right-of-way widths, street standards or sidewalks. It also does not require vegetation preservation.
• Do you want us to talk about a particular subject as to whether or not there should be some particular change regarding that?
You can talk about it or you can move right to it. You can say ‘how about this’, you can roll call it, any means of getting to a group decision is OK. For next week we’ll take all the information generated to date, including flip charts of ideas, concentrated recommendations, stuff within and outside the ordinance, and craft what fits into the ordinance, taking out what doesn’t. We will make sure that this comes back to you as a priority list of things that you can recommend or defer. Then you can pursue those agreed elements subject to council endorsement in the proper arenas, whether they are proper plans of subdivision code, BMC street standards, or a draft no yard chemical ordinance, etc. There is a huge opportunity to help the watershed, both within and outside of the SB Ordinance. Do whatever you think is in the public interest. We have already come to the point very early on, where we recognized that the roads are the biggest problem. That is probably where we need to start. We don’t need to write the language. We just need to convey to the council that we are behind the concept of rewriting the transportation portion, with some kind of prohibition against yard chemicals, a landscape requirement in the planning process, a TIC program, etc. Whatever it happens to be.
• Would these recommendations include any kind of a credit situation? Lets put it this way: if you chose to put your building footprint farther away from the shoreline, as opposed to closer to it, that would be better. So, also to the extent that you can retain your native vegetation. For open space buffers, if 25’ is the minimum requirement, and you can enhance that by 10, 15, 25 feet, and that increases the net benefit and is more effective in protecting the watershed. But, to have the city giving retroactive credit for prior open space would not be likely. The city can’t do anything else with it as it exists, even though but the owner can’t build on it, can’t use it, can’t touch it, can’t dig it, and gets no credit for a voluntary act. This can really burn the mind!
• Most Counter-productive Watershed Practices, allowed or specified per Current COB Codes:
-------------------------
1. Urban Density (Inherently most difficult situation)
2. Transportation Facilities Automobile & related Sub Topics:
a) Right-of-Way Width (drives setbacks)
b) Street Width
c) Easements for Utilities (20’ - not allowed under paving)
d) Sidewalks
e) Required Paving
3. Parking Spaces (2 required per residential home)
4. Front Yard Set-Backs 60’/50’ ROW; 30’/25’ from centerline + 20’ utility easement = longer driveways, pipestems
5. Lack of Cluster Designation (watershed-wide)
6. Lack of Landscaping Requirements 30% (min) Open Space – even this can be graveled
7. No Chemicals Prohibition Restrict use of Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides, Oil, etc?
8. Car Washing Phosphate nutrients/ use Public Works Kit for fund raisers**
9. Weak Boating Regulations Only addresses safety, not fueling, dumping
-------------------------
** [Note: The Public Works Department has a kit that they lend out for fund-raiser car washes. If you want to have a car wash in a parking lot, they can provide wash area containment and control the run-off to the nearest storm drain grate, which is fitted with an inserted basin and sump pump. The dirty wash water is then hosed from this confined containment system to the nearest sanitary sewer, where it belongs. Without this kit, the wash water and the suds (PO4 nutrients) all goes to the nearest storm drain on the existing topography, or flows directly into a stream or the lake. This is a very bad practice, not stream, bay or lake-friendly!]
-------------------------
• We have all these substandard lots here in SB, sized at 5000 SF, in an area supposed to be zoned for 20,000 SF. This draws us to this market question: having already developed the lake and now trying to slow it down, one way to slow it down would be to not build upon these small lots. The next thing we should consider is how we protect the economic interests of these landowners. We don’t have to be clearing these lots, because we shouldn’t be building on 5000 SF lots in the watershed. A home with 2000 SF impervious surface, covers 40% of these lots, when we know that 15% should be the maximum allowed, overall. Looking at the Lot Inventory List, there are many substandard lots left in the 470 or so undeveloped lots. If this number could be reduced, a significant reduction in potential building could happen. If all these can’t be built on because of the necessity to protect the lake, we’ll need to find a way to compensate the owners.
• Lot coverage chart (per current SBO):
-------------------------
Acre % Lot Size Imperv SF Cover % Bonus1 SF Cover1 % Bonus2 SF Cover2 % Bonus3 SF Cover3 % Bonus4 SF Cover4 %
• 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]
-------------------------
• An example of how lot assembly could be employed is illustrated by lots zoned as mixed-use on Lakeway Drive. Here, the minimum commercial lot size is 10,000 SF, but the minimum plat size is 5,000 SF. This means that lots must be assembled to meet the commercial lot size criteria. But, single family residential homes can be built on these 5,000 SF lots. In this case, adjacent lots are assembled, but in SB the vacant lots are scattered, with little adjacency.
• Non-waterfront, undeveloped lots in SB can be valued at up to $75k to $95k. Would TDRs likely work in this situation? How would a fair market worth be determined? What about those who could only afford these smaller lots for their dream home? Maybe because these are in this particular watershed is enough justification for some prohibition, with compensation to owners.
• Looking at the lot coverage chart, all substandard lots qualify for a higher than 15% impervious area, meaning they carry a greater proportional impact. It would seem even more critical to reduce these impacts in the watershed.
• In another lot assembly example on South Hill; if more than one adjacent lot has a common owner, these can’t be subdivided, but its OK to build on assembly of 2 or 3 lots. Still, this doesn’t solve the problem for single lot owners.
• Three ways of allowing building: existing lots of record, multiple lots and subdivide. Staff could the feasibility of special building conditions in SB, using the following 3-step justification: Many lots are substandard in size; City Council decided small lots were OK previously; circumstances have substantially changed since earlier the decision. In light of new facts, the CC may wish to reconsider earlier decisions and revisit SB zoning. This may be a viable concept to consider.
• Value of a non-waterfront, undeveloped, 5000 SF lot in SB is probably closer to $50,000. If 75 to 80% of this price were made available as a credit, how could we pay for taking this lot out of service? A market must be created, and perhaps other owners could pay for additional impervious area.
• A Land Acquisition program, like the one introduced on 7/17/00, could assist in getting this work done, using both public & private money. Lots would need to be prioritized in the watershed. A suite of tools could be developed to accomplish watershed protection goals, including outright land purchase, TICs, TDRs, conservation easements, and the like. Since the SB Interim Ordinance has now been extended until 1/24/01, this could provide time to incorporate such a program as part of the final ordinance. The most effective method would be a prohibition coupled with compensation. Next, would be TICs & TDRs.
• What about clustering or assembling small lots? Would the allowed impervious areas be additive? If you combine 2 small lots and build 1 house that’s preferable to building 2 houses. Maybe not allow full 100% of impervious area on 2nd lot. This reduces density and is doable. Could consider pairing up small NE corner lots with large waterfront lots needing more impervious area. This could be a feasible and fair solution, if a willing buyer and seller can be found. Should this be an option or requirement is for CC to decide. Under what conditions would this be OK?
• At what size is a lot considered unbuildable in the watershed? Some homes are too small, even at 70% lot coverage, as along Barkley Blvd. On a larger waterfront lot, how does an owner get more impervious area? How would this be valued? How could this type of opportunity be created? Who would create the market? Could COB do this and buy & bank the land or rights? A necessity for public acquisition is currently lacking. If maximum lot coverage is “X”, the only way to add more impervious area is to buy up. A similar banking system exists now by COB ordinance, which relates to wetland mitigation. SBO currently states the greater of 15% or 2000 SF is allowed, but if relief is wanted, what is trade-off? No mechanism yet exists.
• Would a moratorium be acceptable? Next preference would be to set a minimum buildable lot size. This size could be obtained by lot consolidation or a TDR/TIC mechanism. COB could act as initial buyer/banker, create a revolving fund when lots/rights are sold.
• Discussion of minimum lot sizes: (SB) Area 4 (zoned 20,000 SF) has about 1/3 of all prospective lots, many substandard; Area 3 (7200 SF); Area 6 (6000 SF); Area 1 (10,000 to 15,000 SF). In SB overall, lots range from 5,000 SF to 20,000 SF.
If 20,000 SF were picked as the minimum lot size, then all smaller sized lots would need to buy up to that size in order to build.
• Looking at the lot coverage chart, 2000 SF is often considered too small. If you have a 20,000 SF lot, maybe you could have 3000 SF, but would need to buy up TICs from other property (unattached) to get this. Or, you could buy four 5,000 SF lots to total 20,000 SF and get the 3000 SF. Staff can determine the impact of this type of scenario. Most people want larger lots and larger footprints. An unintended consequence of this might be more building is made possible by those who can afford it.
• Could set a maximum footprint at 2000 SF, and require buying up from this base. But SBO already allows 3000 SF at 20,000 SF lot size (15%). A 2000 SF footprint on a 5000 SF lot equates to 40% lot coverage, which is not a pro-rata share of impervious surface. Lot assembly should be made possible, independent of adjacency. This reduces density, which ranks high on impacts list.
On a 13,333 SF lot, 15% impervious surface equals 2000 SF. We could set this as a limit.
• Impervious surface is only being counted on a lot by lot basis; what about road impacts? [None of this is going my way, so I’m having another chocolate!] The lot consolidation idea creates a market, but currently this is limited to adjacent property. If the only way to get more Impervious area is to buy it, then that supports a market which could use private dollars, not just public dollars.
• If we pick a minimum lot size, then we can factor in roads to determine the greater impacts. If ultimately we pick 13,333 SF as minimum lot size, then owners must buy up to this size. This would help protect interests of smaller lot owners. [I think the original SBO was just fine!] We must be fair and address recent subdivisions that have fully complied with zoning. ‘Recent’ can be defined as either a) since new subdivision code became effective, or b) since zoning was implemented. Important point: when lots are developed per subdivision code or allowed use, these take precedence over existing lots of record. This will need addressing legally. Before 1964 all lots were platted. Only 4 plats have been approved, but remain undeveloped. Need to determine how many lots this represents to perform impact analysis. We could vote on supporting density reduction by lot consolidation.
• What about watershed protection measures? What are the most important items? What about the TMDL problem? If a moratorium were imposed, how long would it take to get these results? The minimum lot size question and banking systems require hard numbers on potential impacts, like number of units reduced for each scenario. If all lots of record were required to be 20,000 SF and lot consolidation were allowed, then a big impact could be achieved, perhaps a reduction of 1/3 to 1/2 of the current potential. Need to crunch the numbers. Also, impacts of clearing & buffer rules need factoring in, plus transportation impacts are very important.
• Transportation is also a part of “Imperviousness” in the table. We must think of people and safety when considering narrower streets and sidewalks on one side, etc. Variable answers are possible when weighing public safety against transportation facilities. Some towns and resorts prefer narrow lanes, gravel over paving, etc. These decisions are often value and lifestyle judgements. Road standards are proportional to density, with lower density requiring narrower roads, less concern for parking, etc. At a 1/2 acre (20,000 SF) lot zoning, less roads are needed. If people build on 5000 SF lots, then you need a better road system to separate people from cars. If a 1/2 acre minimum lot size is set, then perhaps a different road standard would be appropriate. CC can decide this. Can consider new roads and reconstruction of existing roads.
• New developments & roads: Per COB GIS map, there are potentially 130 acres of roads in SB, of which 30 acres are undeveloped. There are a large number of lots in the NE corner, which don’t have a road yet. If a minimum standard 20’ road were allowed, this is too small for parking, so gravel shoulders are available for walking. If a 24’ to 28’ wide street is built, then on-street parking is allowed and we also need sidewalks, because children have been displaced by cars. In the code checklist, one recommendation is for 18’ to 20’ roads and no on-street parking. Big contrast between newer streets like Barkley Blvd and Britton Road, which are wide, with sidewalks on both sides, and older streets like Northshore Drive, which are 20’ wide, with 1 gravel shoulder and sidewalk on one side. Northshore carries more traffic and works, although with more congestion it can get scary in spots.
• Remember that the single biggest impact on the watershed is development. Of the 500 lots left in SB, majority is undersized, plus new development brings in new roads. This is what generates demand for more roads. This could be a good opportunity to redevelop the transportation system to become much more lake-friendly. In setting an example for the watershed, we should not consider any lots smaller than 20,000 SF. Quiz question stated observable impacts begin at 1-acre lots.
• How specific should we be in making recommendations on road width, minimum lot size, etc? Key words are necessary, with no penalty for detail; do what you are comfortable with; a mission statement is probably not enough. Need some level of detail, plus an understanding of obvious linkages, like if you want limit development, then a lot size minimum can be used, which may bring with it a lesser road standard. Where do we go now? CC is OK with SBO as it is, but recognizes it can be improved with a few good ideas as recommendations. We could start writing down our choices, or take straw votes now.
• Is the present SBO 15% cover or 2000 SF too complicated? Why not just set 15%, which applies to all sizes of lots? It would be an obvious need to buy more lots to add impervious area for enough footprint to build on. Might force too many multi-story homes, impact views. Actually SBO is pretty simple the way it stands now. Also, if smaller lots do not help watershed protection, then its better to negate the substandard lots, since they also require a more intense road system. If only a lot coverage ratio is used, we need to consider how small you can go without making building impractical or impossible. The extra roads required of small lots dwarf the actual lot coverage impacts. Road area is proportional to lot size or density.
• The Codes & Ordinances Worksheet starts with roads; lets work on this now. All criteria listed on the board are also incorporated into this worksheet, which is designed to test municipalities for their improvement potential.
5. Recommendations SUMMARY – Ideas identified for follow-up action:
• (From Codes and Ordinances Worksheet – in order of priority for SBO)
a. Right-of-Way Width: Current COB codes say 60/50/40 foot ROW’s. Should we recommend ROWs less than 45 feet? [all AYES]
a. What is the minimum right-of-way (ROW) width for a residential street?
b. Does the code allow utilities to be placed under the paved section of the ROW?
b. Street Width: Majority of SB streets are 20 feet wide or less. Daily trips on Northshore Drive, with a gravel shoulder, exceed those on Barkley Blvd, with sidewalks both sides. The minimum subdivision code standard is 24 feet. The development standard is 20 feet. So does the group support seeking road width minimization in the watershed? [all AYES] And delaying for now, discussing public safety and all of those other elements? [all AYES, but one] When I go through this checklist, I just don’t see a lot of the topics shown on our top 10 list. Imperviousness, clearing loss, compaction, grading…all of this happens when you build a road. Part of that grading is the roads and right of ways that we were just talking about. Maybe the best way to use these 2 lists is to make a chart by plotting one list down the side and the other across the top, to make a matrix.
a. What is the minimum pavement width allowed for streets in low-density residential developments that have less than 500 average daily trips (ADT)?
b. At higher densities are parking lanes allowed to also serve as traffic lanes (i.e., queuing streets)?
c. Vegetated Open Channels: Jumping to vegetated open channels, because this related to streets. Right now we have a requirement for curb, gutter, and enclosed storm drain. We exclude pipe. And the down side of open channels is that most private property owners will gravel them or pipe them if they can, if we are not monitoring them. An example of this is in Tweed Twenty.
• If you save that or change that, aren’t we getting back to storm water management? Yes, and in a positive way. The way that you would combine the minimum street section and the minimum right of way and the open vegetated channel would be 20 feet of pavement and 4-foot gravel shoulders with an adjacent 2-foot swale, all within a 40-45 foot right of way. With no on-street parking. These are people who have the best intentions for creating the least amount of runoff and the least amount of pervious surfaces. So if they say no to curbs and gutters, that is probably the best thing that we can do. So, a 20 foot minimum street, 4-foot shoulder, 2-foot swale adjacent. You could actually walk on the swale if you had to, it’s just that you could fall into a sharp edge ditch.
This scenario ends up with a 32-foot cross-section and it gives you a little lateral room for the adjacent uplift on the outside. So what happens when the utilities come in? They lie outside of that, we’ll come back to that point. Does everyone agree on the preferred use of vegetated open channels? [all AYES]
• There are instances where you don’t want to do this. You’ll have to deal with cross slope and the steepness of the adjacent area, and the pedestrians. And, how many times are people going to actually park on that side anyway? If their car falls into the ditch, they are going to sue the city because the ditch was in the way. Or driving at night? There is a down side to this approach being followed in every case. Density underlies that decision; use it only on a lesser used road, a smaller residential access road. I don’t have anybody living on my road, but I still have traffic galore.
a. Are curb and gutters required for most residential street sections?
b. Are there established design criteria for swales that can provide stormwater quality treatment (i.e., dry swales, biofilters, or grass swales)?
d. (1) Parking Ratios: Jumping next to the parking element, which now for residential development, you are required to have two on-site parking spaces. That is really a required occupancy for vehicles. If this were reduced to one, you would probably still have some takers. I think this takes away too much, especially if you are narrowing down on street parking. We do allow tandem parking, which is one car behind another; this way you could have a single lane driveway. That is allowed in subdivision codes where it is specifically requested. We do not allow that in the land use code. So, one modification would be to allow tandem parking.
Anybody building on a 2000 sq. ft. footprint, will probably have a gravel driveway anyway.
• One question about parking is where it affects shopping centers and professional office buildings. One of the articles in the literature handed out talked about reducing public parking rather than the residential parking ratios, assuming that one is not able to accommodate 100% usage in the stores. That is true. Site designs are always for the day after thanksgiving retail sale.
What is the group’s feeling, is this OK? Allow tandem parking and still require two? Tandem would create less impervious surface than 2 side by side spaces. Even a semi-pervious driveway, does not have as much water penetration as infiltration into vegetated soil. [all AYES]
a. What is the minimum parking ratio for a professional office building (per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area)?
b. What is the minimum required parking ratio for shopping centers (per 1,000-ft2 gross floor area)
c. What is the minimum required parking ratio for single family homes (per home)?
d. Are the parking requirements set as maximum or median (rather than minimum) requirements?
d. (2) Parking Codes: (included in above discussion)
a. Is the use of shared parking arrangements promoted?
b. Are model shared parking agreements provided?
c. Are parking ratios reduced if shared parking arrangements are in place?
d. If mass transit is provided nearby, is the parking ratio reduced?
e. Open Space Design: Jumping next to open space elements. If we allowed cluster in some, but not all areas, would that result in less structural surface area? Is this where we talk about minimum lot size? Yes, when you talk about cluster, you have to talk about minimum lot size.
• I would suggest that for the purposes of this proposal, that we would establish a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft.
• I would amend that to 13,333 SF.
Even a 20,000 cluster, or a 13,333 cluster, would be better than what we have now. There is some number, smaller than 20,000 that would be better than 20,000 as a minimum lot size. It depends on what the density of the cluster is as to what the impact of structural surfaces will be. So the question to the group is, do you support cluster development anywhere it can be created. [all AYES].
• What would be the impact if you set an overall density at 20,000 SF per unit with a cluster minimum lot size of 13,333 SF? And, would a cluster always be allowed? I am assuming by cluster, that it means that you are leaving larger areas open. [It does]
Basically, by doing that, you’re saying that there is the potential for “x” number of building permits in SB, overall.
Right, so you are only going to get “x” number of units. But, you can cluster your open space so you can get down to a lot as small as 13,333 SF. [That doesn’t quite go where I want it to] Another reason for requiring an average of 20,000 SF lots?
• Let’s go ahead and address the economic issues. But, before we address the numbers, let’s clarify we are addressing cluster vs. non-cluster. So, is there anyone who does not support clustering for any reason? (no objections) So, it seems like clustering is a doable pursuit, regardless of the density question.
• One parcel is not subject to the sewer regulations except for the seasonal limitations because it is zoned multi-residential and this applied at the time it was permitted. However, we can potentially achieve desired results, through using the SEPA environmental impact review. Cluster is not permitted in that zone. To create individual lots, on which you can have individual buildings, condominium ownership of land, and the like, that parcel still has the ability to create a low impact design. We don’t need fixes for Residential-Multi, because we have seen the last one of these in SB.
• On the size of the lots, if they are set at one half acre (20,000 SF) for a single family, this currently allows a 3000 SF footprint, per the SB Ordinance. The way it exists, to get a 2000 SF footprint, means you have to get to a13,333 SF lot size. It seems like that number has been arbitrarily picked, and it’s the number we are considering to use. Why? Because the overall objective is to reduce the impact on the watershed to acceptable levels. If you want to say to Whatcom County, “what is the minimum lot size that the city would set by example?”, it’s hard to justify less than 20,000 SF. OK, I am against this, but I’ll ask another question.
• Back to what is the percentage of the total watershed we are talking about here. What is the total? Are we talking about the last 2% of the whole area? We are talking about two different things. You are talking about the impact in the city, and he is talking about how this will be read by the county for application outside the city. We are dealing with the county? We are dealing with the most urbanized portion of the watershed, but we are concerned about the entire watershed. Two points apply, one is reducing the density for the sake of it, and the other is if your lot coverage of 15% is sound, then why not allow a 13333 sq.ft. lot, if it meets that objective. So, both are objectives. Reduced density also reduces impervious area. Even if you can’t reduce density, you can reduce impervious area. You attack on both fronts, weighing the priorities.
• You could take the 13,333 SF lot size, and model it after the county, but that would not necessarily be a good thing. That would require many more new roads, and a lot of the stuff we are talking about that is already a problem. There is a difference between zoning and setting the minimum lot size, of say 13,333 SF, which disallows anything under that size. You can make a different argument for property that is not yet platted, and roads that are not yet in existence, and say that in those instances, there ought to be different density limitations that ought to be “ x”, whatever that is. When you get to the question that the county has been struggling with on the TDR’s, we are in the different situation of being already designated as an urban area. If we are going to transfer development rights, we ought to base it on what could be if sewers were there. You might say fine, we will value the rights at the 13,333 sq. ft. level, so if you have an acre, you can build three lots, and if you want to transfer development rights, that means that you get to transfer a maximum of three. But, if you actually developed it, you could only build 2 homes, or none, or whatever. There is a whole range of possibilities between what you do on existing lots, as differentiated from un-platted, or sensitive areas. One of the limitations on the county right now is that sewer and water are not readily available. Thus, they have two tiered zoning. The main example is zoning which allows 3 per acre if services are provided, but only one per 5 acres if services are not available. All I’m saying is that there are no prospects of this group (or either council) that will move in the direction of intensifying or allowing more houses than the current zoning allows. All that we are discussing are minimums. You must have at least this much before you can build. That is consistent. So the question gets back to what do you want to see. Do you want to see 20,000 SF or do you want to see some other number? Or do you want to have a tiered system like the County? Maybe you’ll want to think about that for the next meeting. So arguments can be made for 13,333 SF, or 20,000 SF lot sizes, depending on what is meant, and both could be valid.
• Question, are you talking about the last 2% of the buildable lots? No, here is the way the numbers play out again. There are 500 left in the city, out of 1300 possible. There are 11,300 in the watershed as a whole, of which there are close to 6000 existing that are built. Thus, there is almost a two-fold increase possible in the whole watershed, including a 60% increase in the city. The 2% notion has to do with the area of the land within the city’s portion of the watershed, as compared to the watershed area as a whole. COB has 538 acres of uplands, out of a total of over 30,000 acres in the watershed. So 2% is the percentage of what we are going to end up when the city has built out its portion of the watershed. And who gets punished? Another way to put it is that the most intense land uses are allowed around the two smallest basins. These controls are preferentially targeted to the urbanized areas. Maybe you do have a different problem statement in the other, less urbanized areas. The problem with the 2%, is that even though it is 2% of the area of the watershed, it represents much more than 2% of the problem. That’s because of the intensity of use. To me the 2% question is one of those fuzzy ways of confusing things. This is reality. You can’t get away from reality.
• Summarizing this discussion is it accurate to say that we agree on clustering? [all AYES].
When it comes to the actual minimum lot size, should it be somewhere between 13,333 SF and 20,000 sq. ft.? Are we somewhere in this range? This really needs more discussion. OK, next time we should finish this checklist, and then talk about minimum lot size.
a. Are open space or cluster development designs allowed in the community?
b. Is land conservation or impervious cover reduction a major goal or objective of the open space design ordinance?
c. Are the submittal or review requirements for open space design greater than those for conventional
development?
d. Is open space or cluster design a by-right form of development?
e. Are flexible site design criteria available for developers that utilize open space or cluster design options (e.g., setbacks, road widths, lot sizes)
[This list to be expanded at next meeting]
6. Assignments for next meeting:
• We have discussed a draft outline for a TIC/TDR system to be ready for discussion at our next meeting. Request staff to crunch the numbers showing impact of changing to a minimum lot size of 13,333 SF and 20,000 SF. Also need staff to draft a TIC strategy outline, using the concepts discussed to date, including the code list and recommendations that have emerged from it.
• Staff to provide a draft outline for a TIC system, which can be incorporated into SBO, using 6 elements in Flip Chart Summary.
• Staff to research item 2), plat consolidation, which may have a regulatory mechanism in use elsewhere.
• Another item to summarize is, what are the major impacts (see List of “Top 10” Ideas worthy of consideration, above) which require broader or different mechanisms than SBO to implement them, such as a menu of opportunities to be used in recommending revisions to various BMC codes. The most counter-productive code requirements (Most Counter-productive Watershed Practices, allowed or specified per Current COB Codes, above) are to be used for guidance.
• Staff is requested to continue 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 and the like.
• Other recommendations and comments:
- I would like to get on to the actual writing and move forward with our recommendations.
- TV news announced the recent closure of Juanita Public Beach on Lake Washington in Seattle, due to fecal coliform contamination by geese.
• As noted from our prior meetings, three important elements were identified as lacking in the existing Silver Beach Ordinance.
-One of these was landscape standards. A handout describes a good book with examples of “why and hows” about alternate lawns.
-Second, a land acquisition program was identified as an essential element missing from the SBO. Last week, we introduced a proposed resolution to the City Council to establish such a program and fund it, which we will be discussing again next Monday. We are trying to get some progress on this because we have heard this group say this is necessary to help make the SBO more fair and flexible.
-Third, is education. This group has particularly stressed education as a most essential topic, and so this week we have suggested to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, that this item be made a top priority in next year’s program. We recognize, in light of recent discussions with other CC members, that much education is needed to even begin to understand the complexities and the possibilities inherent in protecting the watershed. Also, this group may be outstripping others in the amount of training we are receiving by focusing on the SBO so intensely. Education will be required across the board, if we are to raise public awareness of the problems we face, as well as the potential solutions that are being studied. We are requesting that education be emphasized not only among the people directly involved these programs, but also to the community as a whole. Stay tuned on this. We are trying to make happen some of the things that this group has identified as important. Now we would welcome your support in getting this done in the best interests of the public.
7. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, August 8, 7-9pm in Mayor’s Board Room
Future Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 15 (Mayor’s Board Room) (final recommendations deadline)
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 25, 2000 meeting:
1. Attendance: All present, except B. Bliss, A. Renaud, B. Ryan.
Guest: P. Decker
2. Handouts:
• Codes & Ordinances Worksheet
• Feeling Smart? (a test)
• Redesigning the American Lawn: A Search for Environmental Harmony (excerpts)
• Nine (9) Articles from Center for Watershed Protection Website: http://www.cwp.org
Crafting Better Urban Watershed Protection Plans
MUDDY WATER IN - MUDDY WATER OUT?
On Watershed Education
The Architecture of Stream Buffers
The Economics of Watershed Protection
The Importance of Imperviousness
The Peculiarities of Perviousness
Understanding Watershed Behavior
Urban Pesticides: From the Lawn to the Stream
3. Comments by participants:
• Time is closing for these meetings and I am very much interested in stating my position to finalize a draft that would be effective and practical in the field to work with. I have changed my position somewhat, learned a lot of valuable information, and would like to see a few changes from the emergency ordinance.
1. Size of pervious area,
- change from 2000 sqft. to 2500 sqft.
- from 15% to 20% for larger lots
Current square footage and percentage is impractical on certain lots. If an individual wants larger square footage, a property exchange as discussed, makes good sense. Also, certain types of paving blocks for improved impervious surfaces work well with patios and driveways.
2. Remodeling
-Trade-offs from removing large pervious areas such as big driveways, patios, sport courts in exchange for new additions.
- Professionally landscaped designs approved by planning staff
- Designs and inspections of outdated storm drainage systems (i.e. new and improved acceptable storm systems)
4. Construction Time
-Six and a half month construction period rather than five months (too restrictive)
-April 1 to October 15
- For this trade off, tighten up construction runoff designs and inspections
I must say that as a builder, aware of the new zoning laws, it does make me mad to see on the way to my job sites, homeowners pouring driveways and patios, unaware or aware, of what is going on while the builders are held to the law. As a builder, homeowner, and local resident all my life, this is my lake also and like you, I would like a law that protects the lake and is practical.
• Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program: Peer Review Committee’ s comments regarding modeling the lake to determine TMDL’s. concluded that major data gaps exist, which currently make even preliminary modeling not feasible. More data on precipitation and flow monitoring to determine an accurate water budget is needed before this can be done with reasonable certainty. This finding suggests we may need to be even more careful about protecting the watershed. One of the city’s objectives is to identify the loading rates (TMDLs) that come from the urbanized basins to determine whether they are at, below, or above capacity and what land use modifications are necessary to limit this loading. It is disappointing to learn that more data must be collected before meaningful modeling of the lake can even begin. This is particularly true with the lake now being 303 (d) listed and subject to a non-degradation condition, at the same time development is continuing and a more comprehensive stormwater program is now underway. If a legally, politically and economically viable case can be made, the best course of action might be to cease any further impacts until that information is available, modeling results are known and TMDLs are quantified. The good news is that all of the proven land use management options before us to be considered are in the top 10 list of ideas we will address tonight. Land use is the ultimate BMP, and this lends even more importance to the things we are doing here in this Citizen’s Task Force.
• Identification of objectives and what we want to accomplish tonight:
-focus and build on last meeting’s (6) flip chart topics: 1)impervious area credits, 2)plat consolidation, 3)preservation of natural vegetation, 4)restoration of natural vegetation, 5) stormwater management, 6) stormwater utility rate adjustment
- ten ideas most worthy of consideration
- menu of ideas likely to have major positive impacts on protecting the watershed, but which require broader, different mechanisms than SBO to implement
- list of most counterproductive requirements that currently apply
- codes and ordinances worksheet
Summary of Ideas for Possible Application to SB Ordinance:
-------------------------
• List of “Top 10” Ideas worthy of consideration - in order of observed demonstrated prioritized impact:
1. Clearing Land Destroys native vegetation
2. Loss of Buffers Streams, lake, steep slopes, wetlands
3. Grading Activities Disturbs soil
4. Compaction of Soil Heavy or repeated use
5. Imperviousness (from any cause)
6. Density/Intensity of Use (urbanized uses)
7. Transportation Facilities Urban > Rural
8. Sanitary Facilities & Failures Collective overflows of Sewers & Septic Systems
9. Use of Yard Chemicals Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides
10. Maintenance Activities Paved surfaces, structures, yards
-------------------------
• COB has a code requirement (subdivision code) that requires a 60’ ROW for through streets, a 50’ ROW for cul-de-sacs, and allows down to a 40’ ROW, with special approval, but this never seems to happen. To allow a 40’ ROW, a demonstration must be made that there is adequate room for public facilities, utilities, and the associated maintenance thereof. Difficult to do this under existing practice. The right-of-way width also drives the setbacks. The entire ROW width, almost always in new construction, ends up being completely obliterated by clearing and grading. That also includes easements for utilities, outside the ROW. That is so that utilities vendors can have their own turf, without overlapping the city’s turf. A question in the Codes & Ordinances Worksheet asks, “do you allow utilities placed underneath paved areas”? The city of Bellingham currently does not, and this practice helps maintain a separation of contract areas, and minimizes structural potential interference, which is OK in most instances. But, in a watershed, the effect of the larger area being cleared during construction is not desirable in protecting the lake.
• COB had, until recently, a vegetation spray program on the shoulders of minimum standard streets, but this has been discontinued.
• Regarding the codes and ordinances worksheet, questions that come up most frequently are those pertaining to road standards, ROW widths, and setbacks. Currently, COB can only address this by variance, on those projects seeking relief from these things; in essence, finding ways to provide access for a greater number of lots with a lesser number of streets, and to get some setbacks and ROW relief.
• An example of where the transfer of impervious credits (TIC) concept we discussed might be applied is in the NE corner of the city, an area where a number of substandard lots await road development. The result of that road development happening would be to maximize development. Current COB code mandates extension of roads and utilities across the full frontage of the property to the next property, as opposed to extending them just enough to allow the proposed development until the time comes for additional extensions. So this type of situation might be considered, in developing recommendations from this group.
• The neighborhood plan for Silver Beach hasn’t been updated since 1980. It is on a to-do list with other neighborhood plans, while we fix broader citywide codes, which have become remarkably deficient over time. One of these important, broader issues involves dealing with the Lake Whatcom Watershed much more effectively, which of course is what the SB Ordinance attempts to do. The City Council has agreed with the approach that, rather than wait, use a cookie cutter, or face one day at a time, lets solve those things that are creating greater risks and impacting more than one neighborhood, and get these done first. We can always go back and clean up the more individual parts later.
• In order to change the codes, we must go through a citizen involvement process, a planning commission hearing and a council hearing. That is part of the reason we are using staff time to participate in this process, so we can focus on those important situations like the watershed. Neighborhood plans; street construction standards, Bellingham municipal code (chapter 13); cluster development in the subdivision code (chapter 18); setbacks, feasible area, landscape, other land use code elements (chapter 20); all of these elements are threaded throughout Bellingham municipal code, some of which is easier to change than others. Timing and required process (some of which has some administrative flexibility) both have to be considered if we are to come up with something positive to recommend. Perhaps we could add variance criteria to the subdivision code that allows for design revisions that are more functional, lesser impacting to the environment, or otherwise created in the public interest. Variance criteria, historically, have been there to provide relief from odious requirements as opposed to encouraging better designs.
• If we required cluster development, wouldn’t that negate using TDRs from other properties that don’t have the road access? Cluster as defined now doesn’t speak to density but rather the form that allowable density takes. So, existing lots of record could not likely be further subdivided for the most part. You can look in your inventory list and see the number of parcels that could be subdivided. There are two developments in the works right now, one of which could benefit from a cluster. The other looks like it could be a cluster, but came from a different origin in its zoning (single family, with some open space provided). But, the quandary is that you can’t reduce road length and still get more lot access efficiency in a number of areas. It might negate impervious area transfer if you adopted a style, which makes it more feasible financially to develop all those existing lots of record on unimproved ROWs. I could see a potential where that might work in reverse.
• Back to our objective for tonight. We have been meeting for a number of weeks now, and we need to come to closure on what’s expected of us and in what form. This has been a very educational process, but how can we help facilitate the council on this, and what feedback do they want from us towards some form of draft ordinance revisions to the existing SBO? Basically, we need to gravitate towards those areas the group feels are most likely to make improvements in the ordinance itself, or to be recommended for other code modification processes. This discussion is giving us a basis of comparison for options we can consider to fit into the SBO. It is both a required education, and a prioritization of the identified options. We are proceeding well down this path right now, and soon the question will come as to which of these ideas we can pick by consensus and express as recommendations. Recognize that we are not going to be able to change much overnight. This is another of those places where we have to expand our minds a bit in order to see the bigger picture of possibilities, before being able to refocus on the specific job at hand, which is to see what we can do to improve this ordinance. We are on the path of trying to integrate the information we have learned, categorize it, then re-categorize it again, using these priority lists as a guide to see where we can get more bounce to the ounce, and finally apply these resulting concepts to the ordinance itself. There are some very specific notions we can speak to here. The Silver Beach Ordinance in its current form doesn’t do anything about the transportation facilities, right-of-way widths, street standards or sidewalks. It also does not require vegetation preservation.
• Do you want us to talk about a particular subject as to whether or not there should be some particular change regarding that?
You can talk about it or you can move right to it. You can say ‘how about this’, you can roll call it, any means of getting to a group decision is OK. For next week we’ll take all the information generated to date, including flip charts of ideas, concentrated recommendations, stuff within and outside the ordinance, and craft what fits into the ordinance, taking out what doesn’t. We will make sure that this comes back to you as a priority list of things that you can recommend or defer. Then you can pursue those agreed elements subject to council endorsement in the proper arenas, whether they are proper plans of subdivision code, BMC street standards, or a draft no yard chemical ordinance, etc. There is a huge opportunity to help the watershed, both within and outside of the SB Ordinance. Do whatever you think is in the public interest. We have already come to the point very early on, where we recognized that the roads are the biggest problem. That is probably where we need to start. We don’t need to write the language. We just need to convey to the council that we are behind the concept of rewriting the transportation portion, with some kind of prohibition against yard chemicals, a landscape requirement in the planning process, a TIC program, etc. Whatever it happens to be.
• Would these recommendations include any kind of a credit situation? Lets put it this way: if you chose to put your building footprint farther away from the shoreline, as opposed to closer to it, that would be better. So, also to the extent that you can retain your native vegetation. For open space buffers, if 25’ is the minimum requirement, and you can enhance that by 10, 15, 25 feet, and that increases the net benefit and is more effective in protecting the watershed. But, to have the city giving retroactive credit for prior open space would not be likely. The city can’t do anything else with it as it exists, even though but the owner can’t build on it, can’t use it, can’t touch it, can’t dig it, and gets no credit for a voluntary act. This can really burn the mind!
• Most Counter-productive Watershed Practices, allowed or specified per Current COB Codes:
-------------------------
1. Urban Density (Inherently most difficult situation)
2. Transportation Facilities Automobile & related Sub Topics:
a) Right-of-Way Width (drives setbacks)
b) Street Width
c) Easements for Utilities (20’ - not allowed under paving)
d) Sidewalks
e) Required Paving
3. Parking Spaces (2 required per residential home)
4. Front Yard Set-Backs 60’/50’ ROW; 30’/25’ from centerline + 20’ utility easement = longer driveways, pipestems
5. Lack of Cluster Designation (watershed-wide)
6. Lack of Landscaping Requirements 30% (min) Open Space – even this can be graveled
7. No Chemicals Prohibition Restrict use of Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides, Oil, etc?
8. Car Washing Phosphate nutrients/ use Public Works Kit for fund raisers**
9. Weak Boating Regulations Only addresses safety, not fueling, dumping
-------------------------
** [Note: The Public Works Department has a kit that they lend out for fund-raiser car washes. If you want to have a car wash in a parking lot, they can provide wash area containment and control the run-off to the nearest storm drain grate, which is fitted with an inserted basin and sump pump. The dirty wash water is then hosed from this confined containment system to the nearest sanitary sewer, where it belongs. Without this kit, the wash water and the suds (PO4 nutrients) all goes to the nearest storm drain on the existing topography, or flows directly into a stream or the lake. This is a very bad practice, not stream, bay or lake-friendly!]
-------------------------
• We have all these substandard lots here in SB, sized at 5000 SF, in an area supposed to be zoned for 20,000 SF. This draws us to this market question: having already developed the lake and now trying to slow it down, one way to slow it down would be to not build upon these small lots. The next thing we should consider is how we protect the economic interests of these landowners. We don’t have to be clearing these lots, because we shouldn’t be building on 5000 SF lots in the watershed. A home with 2000 SF impervious surface, covers 40% of these lots, when we know that 15% should be the maximum allowed, overall. Looking at the Lot Inventory List, there are many substandard lots left in the 470 or so undeveloped lots. If this number could be reduced, a significant reduction in potential building could happen. If all these can’t be built on because of the necessity to protect the lake, we’ll need to find a way to compensate the owners.
• Lot coverage chart (per current SBO):
-------------------------
Acre % Lot Size Imperv SF Cover % Bonus1 SF Cover1 % Bonus2 SF Cover2 % Bonus3 SF Cover3 % Bonus4 SF Cover4 %
• 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]
-------------------------
• An example of how lot assembly could be employed is illustrated by lots zoned as mixed-use on Lakeway Drive. Here, the minimum commercial lot size is 10,000 SF, but the minimum plat size is 5,000 SF. This means that lots must be assembled to meet the commercial lot size criteria. But, single family residential homes can be built on these 5,000 SF lots. In this case, adjacent lots are assembled, but in SB the vacant lots are scattered, with little adjacency.
• Non-waterfront, undeveloped lots in SB can be valued at up to $75k to $95k. Would TDRs likely work in this situation? How would a fair market worth be determined? What about those who could only afford these smaller lots for their dream home? Maybe because these are in this particular watershed is enough justification for some prohibition, with compensation to owners.
• Looking at the lot coverage chart, all substandard lots qualify for a higher than 15% impervious area, meaning they carry a greater proportional impact. It would seem even more critical to reduce these impacts in the watershed.
• In another lot assembly example on South Hill; if more than one adjacent lot has a common owner, these can’t be subdivided, but its OK to build on assembly of 2 or 3 lots. Still, this doesn’t solve the problem for single lot owners.
• Three ways of allowing building: existing lots of record, multiple lots and subdivide. Staff could the feasibility of special building conditions in SB, using the following 3-step justification: Many lots are substandard in size; City Council decided small lots were OK previously; circumstances have substantially changed since earlier the decision. In light of new facts, the CC may wish to reconsider earlier decisions and revisit SB zoning. This may be a viable concept to consider.
• Value of a non-waterfront, undeveloped, 5000 SF lot in SB is probably closer to $50,000. If 75 to 80% of this price were made available as a credit, how could we pay for taking this lot out of service? A market must be created, and perhaps other owners could pay for additional impervious area.
• A Land Acquisition program, like the one introduced on 7/17/00, could assist in getting this work done, using both public & private money. Lots would need to be prioritized in the watershed. A suite of tools could be developed to accomplish watershed protection goals, including outright land purchase, TICs, TDRs, conservation easements, and the like. Since the SB Interim Ordinance has now been extended until 1/24/01, this could provide time to incorporate such a program as part of the final ordinance. The most effective method would be a prohibition coupled with compensation. Next, would be TICs & TDRs.
• What about clustering or assembling small lots? Would the allowed impervious areas be additive? If you combine 2 small lots and build 1 house that’s preferable to building 2 houses. Maybe not allow full 100% of impervious area on 2nd lot. This reduces density and is doable. Could consider pairing up small NE corner lots with large waterfront lots needing more impervious area. This could be a feasible and fair solution, if a willing buyer and seller can be found. Should this be an option or requirement is for CC to decide. Under what conditions would this be OK?
• At what size is a lot considered unbuildable in the watershed? Some homes are too small, even at 70% lot coverage, as along Barkley Blvd. On a larger waterfront lot, how does an owner get more impervious area? How would this be valued? How could this type of opportunity be created? Who would create the market? Could COB do this and buy & bank the land or rights? A necessity for public acquisition is currently lacking. If maximum lot coverage is “X”, the only way to add more impervious area is to buy up. A similar banking system exists now by COB ordinance, which relates to wetland mitigation. SBO currently states the greater of 15% or 2000 SF is allowed, but if relief is wanted, what is trade-off? No mechanism yet exists.
• Would a moratorium be acceptable? Next preference would be to set a minimum buildable lot size. This size could be obtained by lot consolidation or a TDR/TIC mechanism. COB could act as initial buyer/banker, create a revolving fund when lots/rights are sold.
• Discussion of minimum lot sizes: (SB) Area 4 (zoned 20,000 SF) has about 1/3 of all prospective lots, many substandard; Area 3 (7200 SF); Area 6 (6000 SF); Area 1 (10,000 to 15,000 SF). In SB overall, lots range from 5,000 SF to 20,000 SF.
If 20,000 SF were picked as the minimum lot size, then all smaller sized lots would need to buy up to that size in order to build.
• Looking at the lot coverage chart, 2000 SF is often considered too small. If you have a 20,000 SF lot, maybe you could have 3000 SF, but would need to buy up TICs from other property (unattached) to get this. Or, you could buy four 5,000 SF lots to total 20,000 SF and get the 3000 SF. Staff can determine the impact of this type of scenario. Most people want larger lots and larger footprints. An unintended consequence of this might be more building is made possible by those who can afford it.
• Could set a maximum footprint at 2000 SF, and require buying up from this base. But SBO already allows 3000 SF at 20,000 SF lot size (15%). A 2000 SF footprint on a 5000 SF lot equates to 40% lot coverage, which is not a pro-rata share of impervious surface. Lot assembly should be made possible, independent of adjacency. This reduces density, which ranks high on impacts list.
On a 13,333 SF lot, 15% impervious surface equals 2000 SF. We could set this as a limit.
• Impervious surface is only being counted on a lot by lot basis; what about road impacts? [None of this is going my way, so I’m having another chocolate!] The lot consolidation idea creates a market, but currently this is limited to adjacent property. If the only way to get more Impervious area is to buy it, then that supports a market which could use private dollars, not just public dollars.
• If we pick a minimum lot size, then we can factor in roads to determine the greater impacts. If ultimately we pick 13,333 SF as minimum lot size, then owners must buy up to this size. This would help protect interests of smaller lot owners. [I think the original SBO was just fine!] We must be fair and address recent subdivisions that have fully complied with zoning. ‘Recent’ can be defined as either a) since new subdivision code became effective, or b) since zoning was implemented. Important point: when lots are developed per subdivision code or allowed use, these take precedence over existing lots of record. This will need addressing legally. Before 1964 all lots were platted. Only 4 plats have been approved, but remain undeveloped. Need to determine how many lots this represents to perform impact analysis. We could vote on supporting density reduction by lot consolidation.
• What about watershed protection measures? What are the most important items? What about the TMDL problem? If a moratorium were imposed, how long would it take to get these results? The minimum lot size question and banking systems require hard numbers on potential impacts, like number of units reduced for each scenario. If all lots of record were required to be 20,000 SF and lot consolidation were allowed, then a big impact could be achieved, perhaps a reduction of 1/3 to 1/2 of the current potential. Need to crunch the numbers. Also, impacts of clearing & buffer rules need factoring in, plus transportation impacts are very important.
• Transportation is also a part of “Imperviousness” in the table. We must think of people and safety when considering narrower streets and sidewalks on one side, etc. Variable answers are possible when weighing public safety against transportation facilities. Some towns and resorts prefer narrow lanes, gravel over paving, etc. These decisions are often value and lifestyle judgements. Road standards are proportional to density, with lower density requiring narrower roads, less concern for parking, etc. At a 1/2 acre (20,000 SF) lot zoning, less roads are needed. If people build on 5000 SF lots, then you need a better road system to separate people from cars. If a 1/2 acre minimum lot size is set, then perhaps a different road standard would be appropriate. CC can decide this. Can consider new roads and reconstruction of existing roads.
• New developments & roads: Per COB GIS map, there are potentially 130 acres of roads in SB, of which 30 acres are undeveloped. There are a large number of lots in the NE corner, which don’t have a road yet. If a minimum standard 20’ road were allowed, this is too small for parking, so gravel shoulders are available for walking. If a 24’ to 28’ wide street is built, then on-street parking is allowed and we also need sidewalks, because children have been displaced by cars. In the code checklist, one recommendation is for 18’ to 20’ roads and no on-street parking. Big contrast between newer streets like Barkley Blvd and Britton Road, which are wide, with sidewalks on both sides, and older streets like Northshore Drive, which are 20’ wide, with 1 gravel shoulder and sidewalk on one side. Northshore carries more traffic and works, although with more congestion it can get scary in spots.
• Remember that the single biggest impact on the watershed is development. Of the 500 lots left in SB, majority is undersized, plus new development brings in new roads. This is what generates demand for more roads. This could be a good opportunity to redevelop the transportation system to become much more lake-friendly. In setting an example for the watershed, we should not consider any lots smaller than 20,000 SF. Quiz question stated observable impacts begin at 1-acre lots.
• How specific should we be in making recommendations on road width, minimum lot size, etc? Key words are necessary, with no penalty for detail; do what you are comfortable with; a mission statement is probably not enough. Need some level of detail, plus an understanding of obvious linkages, like if you want limit development, then a lot size minimum can be used, which may bring with it a lesser road standard. Where do we go now? CC is OK with SBO as it is, but recognizes it can be improved with a few good ideas as recommendations. We could start writing down our choices, or take straw votes now.
• Is the present SBO 15% cover or 2000 SF too complicated? Why not just set 15%, which applies to all sizes of lots? It would be an obvious need to buy more lots to add impervious area for enough footprint to build on. Might force too many multi-story homes, impact views. Actually SBO is pretty simple the way it stands now. Also, if smaller lots do not help watershed protection, then its better to negate the substandard lots, since they also require a more intense road system. If only a lot coverage ratio is used, we need to consider how small you can go without making building impractical or impossible. The extra roads required of small lots dwarf the actual lot coverage impacts. Road area is proportional to lot size or density.
• The Codes & Ordinances Worksheet starts with roads; lets work on this now. All criteria listed on the board are also incorporated into this worksheet, which is designed to test municipalities for their improvement potential.
5. Recommendations SUMMARY – Ideas identified for follow-up action:
• (From Codes and Ordinances Worksheet – in order of priority for SBO)
a. Right-of-Way Width: Current COB codes say 60/50/40 foot ROW’s. Should we recommend ROWs less than 45 feet? [all AYES]
a. What is the minimum right-of-way (ROW) width for a residential street?
b. Does the code allow utilities to be placed under the paved section of the ROW?
b. Street Width: Majority of SB streets are 20 feet wide or less. Daily trips on Northshore Drive, with a gravel shoulder, exceed those on Barkley Blvd, with sidewalks both sides. The minimum subdivision code standard is 24 feet. The development standard is 20 feet. So does the group support seeking road width minimization in the watershed? [all AYES] And delaying for now, discussing public safety and all of those other elements? [all AYES, but one] When I go through this checklist, I just don’t see a lot of the topics shown on our top 10 list. Imperviousness, clearing loss, compaction, grading…all of this happens when you build a road. Part of that grading is the roads and right of ways that we were just talking about. Maybe the best way to use these 2 lists is to make a chart by plotting one list down the side and the other across the top, to make a matrix.
a. What is the minimum pavement width allowed for streets in low-density residential developments that have less than 500 average daily trips (ADT)?
b. At higher densities are parking lanes allowed to also serve as traffic lanes (i.e., queuing streets)?
c. Vegetated Open Channels: Jumping to vegetated open channels, because this related to streets. Right now we have a requirement for curb, gutter, and enclosed storm drain. We exclude pipe. And the down side of open channels is that most private property owners will gravel them or pipe them if they can, if we are not monitoring them. An example of this is in Tweed Twenty.
• If you save that or change that, aren’t we getting back to storm water management? Yes, and in a positive way. The way that you would combine the minimum street section and the minimum right of way and the open vegetated channel would be 20 feet of pavement and 4-foot gravel shoulders with an adjacent 2-foot swale, all within a 40-45 foot right of way. With no on-street parking. These are people who have the best intentions for creating the least amount of runoff and the least amount of pervious surfaces. So if they say no to curbs and gutters, that is probably the best thing that we can do. So, a 20 foot minimum street, 4-foot shoulder, 2-foot swale adjacent. You could actually walk on the swale if you had to, it’s just that you could fall into a sharp edge ditch.
This scenario ends up with a 32-foot cross-section and it gives you a little lateral room for the adjacent uplift on the outside. So what happens when the utilities come in? They lie outside of that, we’ll come back to that point. Does everyone agree on the preferred use of vegetated open channels? [all AYES]
• There are instances where you don’t want to do this. You’ll have to deal with cross slope and the steepness of the adjacent area, and the pedestrians. And, how many times are people going to actually park on that side anyway? If their car falls into the ditch, they are going to sue the city because the ditch was in the way. Or driving at night? There is a down side to this approach being followed in every case. Density underlies that decision; use it only on a lesser used road, a smaller residential access road. I don’t have anybody living on my road, but I still have traffic galore.
a. Are curb and gutters required for most residential street sections?
b. Are there established design criteria for swales that can provide stormwater quality treatment (i.e., dry swales, biofilters, or grass swales)?
d. (1) Parking Ratios: Jumping next to the parking element, which now for residential development, you are required to have two on-site parking spaces. That is really a required occupancy for vehicles. If this were reduced to one, you would probably still have some takers. I think this takes away too much, especially if you are narrowing down on street parking. We do allow tandem parking, which is one car behind another; this way you could have a single lane driveway. That is allowed in subdivision codes where it is specifically requested. We do not allow that in the land use code. So, one modification would be to allow tandem parking.
Anybody building on a 2000 sq. ft. footprint, will probably have a gravel driveway anyway.
• One question about parking is where it affects shopping centers and professional office buildings. One of the articles in the literature handed out talked about reducing public parking rather than the residential parking ratios, assuming that one is not able to accommodate 100% usage in the stores. That is true. Site designs are always for the day after thanksgiving retail sale.
What is the group’s feeling, is this OK? Allow tandem parking and still require two? Tandem would create less impervious surface than 2 side by side spaces. Even a semi-pervious driveway, does not have as much water penetration as infiltration into vegetated soil. [all AYES]
a. What is the minimum parking ratio for a professional office building (per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area)?
b. What is the minimum required parking ratio for shopping centers (per 1,000-ft2 gross floor area)
c. What is the minimum required parking ratio for single family homes (per home)?
d. Are the parking requirements set as maximum or median (rather than minimum) requirements?
d. (2) Parking Codes: (included in above discussion)
a. Is the use of shared parking arrangements promoted?
b. Are model shared parking agreements provided?
c. Are parking ratios reduced if shared parking arrangements are in place?
d. If mass transit is provided nearby, is the parking ratio reduced?
e. Open Space Design: Jumping next to open space elements. If we allowed cluster in some, but not all areas, would that result in less structural surface area? Is this where we talk about minimum lot size? Yes, when you talk about cluster, you have to talk about minimum lot size.
• I would suggest that for the purposes of this proposal, that we would establish a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft.
• I would amend that to 13,333 SF.
Even a 20,000 cluster, or a 13,333 cluster, would be better than what we have now. There is some number, smaller than 20,000 that would be better than 20,000 as a minimum lot size. It depends on what the density of the cluster is as to what the impact of structural surfaces will be. So the question to the group is, do you support cluster development anywhere it can be created. [all AYES].
• What would be the impact if you set an overall density at 20,000 SF per unit with a cluster minimum lot size of 13,333 SF? And, would a cluster always be allowed? I am assuming by cluster, that it means that you are leaving larger areas open. [It does]
Basically, by doing that, you’re saying that there is the potential for “x” number of building permits in SB, overall.
Right, so you are only going to get “x” number of units. But, you can cluster your open space so you can get down to a lot as small as 13,333 SF. [That doesn’t quite go where I want it to] Another reason for requiring an average of 20,000 SF lots?
• Let’s go ahead and address the economic issues. But, before we address the numbers, let’s clarify we are addressing cluster vs. non-cluster. So, is there anyone who does not support clustering for any reason? (no objections) So, it seems like clustering is a doable pursuit, regardless of the density question.
• One parcel is not subject to the sewer regulations except for the seasonal limitations because it is zoned multi-residential and this applied at the time it was permitted. However, we can potentially achieve desired results, through using the SEPA environmental impact review. Cluster is not permitted in that zone. To create individual lots, on which you can have individual buildings, condominium ownership of land, and the like, that parcel still has the ability to create a low impact design. We don’t need fixes for Residential-Multi, because we have seen the last one of these in SB.
• On the size of the lots, if they are set at one half acre (20,000 SF) for a single family, this currently allows a 3000 SF footprint, per the SB Ordinance. The way it exists, to get a 2000 SF footprint, means you have to get to a13,333 SF lot size. It seems like that number has been arbitrarily picked, and it’s the number we are considering to use. Why? Because the overall objective is to reduce the impact on the watershed to acceptable levels. If you want to say to Whatcom County, “what is the minimum lot size that the city would set by example?”, it’s hard to justify less than 20,000 SF. OK, I am against this, but I’ll ask another question.
• Back to what is the percentage of the total watershed we are talking about here. What is the total? Are we talking about the last 2% of the whole area? We are talking about two different things. You are talking about the impact in the city, and he is talking about how this will be read by the county for application outside the city. We are dealing with the county? We are dealing with the most urbanized portion of the watershed, but we are concerned about the entire watershed. Two points apply, one is reducing the density for the sake of it, and the other is if your lot coverage of 15% is sound, then why not allow a 13333 sq.ft. lot, if it meets that objective. So, both are objectives. Reduced density also reduces impervious area. Even if you can’t reduce density, you can reduce impervious area. You attack on both fronts, weighing the priorities.
• You could take the 13,333 SF lot size, and model it after the county, but that would not necessarily be a good thing. That would require many more new roads, and a lot of the stuff we are talking about that is already a problem. There is a difference between zoning and setting the minimum lot size, of say 13,333 SF, which disallows anything under that size. You can make a different argument for property that is not yet platted, and roads that are not yet in existence, and say that in those instances, there ought to be different density limitations that ought to be “ x”, whatever that is. When you get to the question that the county has been struggling with on the TDR’s, we are in the different situation of being already designated as an urban area. If we are going to transfer development rights, we ought to base it on what could be if sewers were there. You might say fine, we will value the rights at the 13,333 sq. ft. level, so if you have an acre, you can build three lots, and if you want to transfer development rights, that means that you get to transfer a maximum of three. But, if you actually developed it, you could only build 2 homes, or none, or whatever. There is a whole range of possibilities between what you do on existing lots, as differentiated from un-platted, or sensitive areas. One of the limitations on the county right now is that sewer and water are not readily available. Thus, they have two tiered zoning. The main example is zoning which allows 3 per acre if services are provided, but only one per 5 acres if services are not available. All I’m saying is that there are no prospects of this group (or either council) that will move in the direction of intensifying or allowing more houses than the current zoning allows. All that we are discussing are minimums. You must have at least this much before you can build. That is consistent. So the question gets back to what do you want to see. Do you want to see 20,000 SF or do you want to see some other number? Or do you want to have a tiered system like the County? Maybe you’ll want to think about that for the next meeting. So arguments can be made for 13,333 SF, or 20,000 SF lot sizes, depending on what is meant, and both could be valid.
• Question, are you talking about the last 2% of the buildable lots? No, here is the way the numbers play out again. There are 500 left in the city, out of 1300 possible. There are 11,300 in the watershed as a whole, of which there are close to 6000 existing that are built. Thus, there is almost a two-fold increase possible in the whole watershed, including a 60% increase in the city. The 2% notion has to do with the area of the land within the city’s portion of the watershed, as compared to the watershed area as a whole. COB has 538 acres of uplands, out of a total of over 30,000 acres in the watershed. So 2% is the percentage of what we are going to end up when the city has built out its portion of the watershed. And who gets punished? Another way to put it is that the most intense land uses are allowed around the two smallest basins. These controls are preferentially targeted to the urbanized areas. Maybe you do have a different problem statement in the other, less urbanized areas. The problem with the 2%, is that even though it is 2% of the area of the watershed, it represents much more than 2% of the problem. That’s because of the intensity of use. To me the 2% question is one of those fuzzy ways of confusing things. This is reality. You can’t get away from reality.
• Summarizing this discussion is it accurate to say that we agree on clustering? [all AYES].
When it comes to the actual minimum lot size, should it be somewhere between 13,333 SF and 20,000 sq. ft.? Are we somewhere in this range? This really needs more discussion. OK, next time we should finish this checklist, and then talk about minimum lot size.
a. Are open space or cluster development designs allowed in the community?
b. Is land conservation or impervious cover reduction a major goal or objective of the open space design ordinance?
c. Are the submittal or review requirements for open space design greater than those for conventional
development?
d. Is open space or cluster design a by-right form of development?
e. Are flexible site design criteria available for developers that utilize open space or cluster design options (e.g., setbacks, road widths, lot sizes)
[This list to be expanded at next meeting]
6. Assignments for next meeting:
• We have discussed a draft outline for a TIC/TDR system to be ready for discussion at our next meeting. Request staff to crunch the numbers showing impact of changing to a minimum lot size of 13,333 SF and 20,000 SF. Also need staff to draft a TIC strategy outline, using the concepts discussed to date, including the code list and recommendations that have emerged from it.
• Staff to provide a draft outline for a TIC system, which can be incorporated into SBO, using 6 elements in Flip Chart Summary.
• Staff to research item 2), plat consolidation, which may have a regulatory mechanism in use elsewhere.
• Another item to summarize is, what are the major impacts (see List of “Top 10” Ideas worthy of consideration, above) which require broader or different mechanisms than SBO to implement them, such as a menu of opportunities to be used in recommending revisions to various BMC codes. The most counter-productive code requirements (Most Counter-productive Watershed Practices, allowed or specified per Current COB Codes, above) are to be used for guidance.
• Staff is requested to continue 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 and the like.
• Other recommendations and comments:
- I would like to get on to the actual writing and move forward with our recommendations.
- TV news announced the recent closure of Juanita Public Beach on Lake Washington in Seattle, due to fecal coliform contamination by geese.
• As noted from our prior meetings, three important elements were identified as lacking in the existing Silver Beach Ordinance.
-One of these was landscape standards. A handout describes a good book with examples of “why and hows” about alternate lawns.
-Second, a land acquisition program was identified as an essential element missing from the SBO. Last week, we introduced a proposed resolution to the City Council to establish such a program and fund it, which we will be discussing again next Monday. We are trying to get some progress on this because we have heard this group say this is necessary to help make the SBO more fair and flexible.
-Third, is education. This group has particularly stressed education as a most essential topic, and so this week we have suggested to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, that this item be made a top priority in next year’s program. We recognize, in light of recent discussions with other CC members, that much education is needed to even begin to understand the complexities and the possibilities inherent in protecting the watershed. Also, this group may be outstripping others in the amount of training we are receiving by focusing on the SBO so intensely. Education will be required across the board, if we are to raise public awareness of the problems we face, as well as the potential solutions that are being studied. We are requesting that education be emphasized not only among the people directly involved these programs, but also to the community as a whole. Stay tuned on this. We are trying to make happen some of the things that this group has identified as important. Now we would welcome your support in getting this done in the best interests of the public.
7. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, August 8, 7-9pm in Mayor’s Board Room
Future Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 15 (Mayor’s Board Room) (final recommendations deadline)
Monday, December 3, 2007
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
