Lake Whatcom: BLOG Feedback & Lake Tahoe Ideas

I do get feedback on my blog from time to time, and want to acknowledge some of the opinions and ideas expressed.

My early postings were targeted at contemporary actions regarding growth discussions, plus some political intrigue that got me into hot water for a while - which is OK because it comes with the territory I've ventured into.

Since then, I've mostly focused on background information related to long-term issues. These have tended to be longer pieces that require some fortitude to wade through - or at least that's the comment I've mostly heard. Longer, more technical articles just aren't as readable, understandable or as stimulating and current as many blog readers would prefer. I can dig that, because I feel the same way.

So, I will now try to jazz things up a little, to be fairer to those who don't prefer to be policy or issue wonks, but would like a little more bite-sized contemporary commentary instead. But, before I do that let me explain that all of these long historical pieces are eventually intended to provide background for future blogs of a much more contemporary nature.

OK, that said, here goes:

Item 1: Now that the Primary Election has chosen the two finalists in the race for Mayor of Bellingham, I have decided to support Dan Pike in the General Election. I have several reasons for making this choice which will be saved for later discussion in a future posting.

Item 2: Myron Wlaznak's opinion piece in today's WIndy skewered all incumbents for claiming credit for all sorts of things which have either not been done, or attempted, or for which they deserve little credit. As one of those 'incumbents' myself, I agree with Myron! He has to be happy that I have become the 'lamest of ducks' by imposing a voluntary term limit on myself and not running for re-election.

But let me also say that being a Council Member -either City or County- only gives one a ticket to the dance. Once there, one has to pick their partners, learn the steps and keep time to the music. All that's got to be done before anything gets initiated by any member, with half a chance of passing. It's a team sport, not a solo ballet!

Legislative authority consists of two parts - setting policy & law, and approving the budget. But, in Weak Council/Strong Mayor or Executive forms of government, Councils must speak with one voice to get the attention of the Mayor/Executive! The Mayor/Executive manages the entire professional staff and names each of the Department Heads -who serve at the Executive's sole discretion. So, be careful with who gets to be the Executive!

One really frustrating recent example -from my perspective - is the 'non-direction' that the City Council gave the Mayor & Staff regarding raising additional funding for preservation of the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Despite the unanimous recommendations of the Watershed Advisory Board to secure additional funding as soon as possible, we were only able to get THREE votes to direct staff to even bring us a proposal! Mind you, that is not the same thing as approving a water rate change - it was to get staff to bring us a proposal!

FOUR members didn't want to do that, so it didn't happen. Members who favored having such a proposal brought forward were Barbara Ryan, Terry Bornemann and yours truly. That, despite Lake Whatcom being touted as one of our top priorities! Do your own math to see who didn't want to do anything. Then, get back to me - or better yet the voters - about what to do about it.
-----------------
Hey, Myron, you know all this stuff is written right there in the Council minutes, plus you can even get in your LAZ-E-BOY and watch it happen on BTV10 in the comfort of your own home, with beer, popcorn, your trusty dog by your side and the bathroom nearby!

PS- I do hope Sasha is doing better after her operation
-----------------
Item 3: For those up to a little more 'background', here's some stuff on how Lake Tahoe is trying to manage its growth to minimize long-term damage to its chief asset -its water!
===========================================================================
Over 25 years ago, the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority [TRPA] was created by Presidential Decree [That would be the President of the US!].
It's purpose was to protect Lake Tahoe from continued rapid deterioration of its water quality from excessive development in its watershed. This level of authority was appropriate because about 27 different jurisdictions were involved, including 2 states, 5 counties and numerous cities and other entities. Does this REMIND you of anything local?

Needless to say, the creation of TRPA was controversial, as it remains to this day. But, it seems to have achieved a large part of its purpose - that of advising all concerned that Lake Tahoe is a special place that requires special behavior, stictly enforced by special regulations!

Readers interested in more detail may appreciate the information contained at the following URL:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/trpa/suitumbr.html
----------------------------------------------
Of particular interest are excerpts from ~ pages 6-8 - ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED

With regard to future residential development, in particular, the plan seeks to accomplish three major objectives:

(1) to place a ceiling on the total amount of residential development that may occur in the Basin;

(2) to control the pace of development by limiting the number of building permits that may be issued each year; and

(3) to limit the amount of impervious coverage resulting from permitted development. A major tool for achieving the water quality goal is prohibiting further development in SEZs ["stream environment zone"]

Eligibility of a particular parcel for future residential development turns on an assessment of the physical suitability of the parcel for such development. To build a single family home or other residential unit, a property owner must have three rights: a "residential development right," a "residential allocation," and "land coverage."

A "residential development right" represents the right to have a residential unit on an eligible parcel of land.

A "residential allocation" is necessary to construct a residence in a specific calendar year.

"Land coverage" is the maximum percentage of impervious coverage of the surface allowed.

These three property interests correspond to the 1987 Plan's objectives of limiting long term residential development, the annual pace of that development, and the amount of impervious coverage.

Although each private owner of a vacant residential parcel automatically receives one "residential development right" (TRPA Code ß 21.6.A), entitlement to a "residential allocation" and to "land coverage" turns primarily on an individual assessment of the parcel's suitability for development.
Each parcel receives a numeric score -- Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) -- that reflects the predictable effect of the parcel's development on the water quality of the Lake. TRPA Code Chap. 37.
The IPES score determines the "land coverage" assigned to that parcel. TRPA Code ßß 20.3.A(4), 37.11.
The IPES score is also relevant to the parcel's eligibility for receiving a "residential allocation" in a specific calendar year. Id. ß 37.8.

There are a total of 300 residential allocations available each year in order to control the pace of development. TRPA Code ß 33.2.A(3).
Only parcels with a certain minimum score are eligible for development in a given year. Id. ß 37.8.E
The minimum score may decrease over time if certain conditions are met. Id. ß 37.8.C.
A "stream environment zone" (SEZ), however, receives a score of zero and is ineligible for residential development at any time. Id. ß 20.4.B.

The 1987 TRPA Plan combines development restrictions with significant property rights enhancements designed both to achieve a more equitable sharing of the burdens and benefits resulting from the restrictions and to steer residential development to the most physically suitable locations.
Every property owner is allowed to sell certain transferable development rights (TDRs) to owners of other eligible properties.

There are three potentially transferable development rights:

residential development rights;

residential allocations; and

land coverage.

A property owner may sell his "residential development right." A likely purchaser of such a right would be an individual who wants to have more than one residential unit on his property. Id. ßß 21.6.C, 34.2.
A property owner may also be eligible to sell or otherwise transfer his "residential allocation." Id. ß 34.3.[6]
Finally, the owner may sell whatever "land coverage" to which the owner is entitled to another eligible landowner. The purchaser of that land coverage would, based on that purchase, have the right to undertake a development project requiring more land coverage than he was initially assigned under the plan. TRPA Code ß 20.3.C. The seller of such development rights must record deed restrictions on his land notifying all that such rights no longer pertain to his parcel. Id. ßß 20.3.C(7), 34.2.B, 34.3.G, 34.5.

A property owner whose parcel of land is determined to be entirely SEZ property receives an IPES score of zero. TRPA Code ß 37.4.A(3). That land is not eligible for residential development.
With a few exceptions, SEZ property cannot be used for the construction of permanent structures because of the adverse impact of such development on the water quality of Lake Tahoe. Id. ß 20.4.B.

Just like other private owners of vacant residential lots in the Basin, however, the owner of SEZ property may sell the TDRs that arise out of his ownership of his parcel, including land coverage, residential development right, and residential allocation, to another. TRPA Code ßß 20.3.C, 34.2, 34.3.
In addition to the one residential development right to which each private owner of vacant residential property is entitled, the owner of an SEZ property may earn up to three additional residential bonus units. The owner earns and is assigned those units upon TRPA approval of the sale or transfer of his initial residential development right. Id. ßß 35.2.C, 35.2.D(4).[7] The bonus units provide mitigation for the stringent development restrictions applicable to the land itself. Many owners of SEZ property have successfully obtained and sold bonus units. See J.A. 148.

The owner of SEZ property also receives land coverage rights equal to one percent of his land. TRPA Code ß 37.11.B(1).
The relatively low land coverage percentage reflects the environmentally sensitive character of the land upon which the percentage is based. Id. ß 37.11.A.
Finally, the SEZ owner may apply for a residential allocation in any particular year and, if awarded an allocation, sell it for application to an eligible property in the Basin. Id. ß 33.2.B.[8]...."

SEE ALSO:
~page 20: CHAPTER 20 - LAND COVERAGE STANDARDS

~page 24: CHAPTER 21- DENSITY

~page 26: CHAPTER 25- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS & CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT

~page 29: CHAPTER 34- TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT

~page 32: CHAPTER 35- BONUS UNIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM

~page 33: CHAPTER 37- Individual Parcel Evaluation System (of particular interest)

37.11 Allowable Base Land Coverage: The allowable base land coverage for residential parcels evaluated under IPES shall be a function of the parcel's combined score under the IPES criteria for relative erosion hazard and runoff potential as correlated with the coverage coefficients and land capability districts of the Bailey Report.
The allowable base land coverage under IPES shall be established in accordance with the following procedures and shall be considered for adoption by TRPA no later than January 1, 1989.

37.11.A Procedure For Establishing Allowable Base Land Coverage: Once eligible parcels have received a score under IPES, and TRPA has taken action on requests for reevaluation pursuant to Subsection 37.10.C, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be established by TRPA in accordance with the following procedures:

(a) Based on the soil series and average slope determined by the IPES evaluation teams, all parcels receiving a score under IPES shall be identified as to which of the seven capability classes established in the Bailey Report each parcel would have been classified. Parcels determined by the IPES evaluation teams to be located in a soil series not identified in the report entitled "Soil Survey, Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada," prepared by the Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service and dated March 1974, shall be excluded from this procedure.

(b) The combined scores for Relative Erosion Hazard and Runoff Potential representing the central tendency within each capability class shall be determined. The central tendency shall be described by determining the mode value, or by alternative statistical methods, including mean or median values, whichever is appropriate.

(c) The central tendency scores established in (b), above, shall be plotted, in graph form, against percentages of allowable base land coverage ranging from one percent to thirty percent. The central tendency score for Land Capability Districts 1a, 1c, and 2, shall be plotted at one percent; for Land Capability District 3 at five percent; for Land Capability District 4 at 20 percent; for Land Capability District 5 at 25 percent; and for Land Capability Districts 6 and 7 at 30 percent. If the central tendency scores of any of the capability classes set forth in (c), above, are determined to be statistically indistinguishable, such classes shall be combined for purposes of establishing a central tendency score. If capability classes are combined, the central tendency score shall be plotted at the percentage that is the average of the percentages established for those classes in Subsection 20.3.A of the TRPA Code.

(d) TRPA shall develop a formula for a line passing through the points of central tendency plotted in accordance with (c), above. No parcel shall be allowed more than 30 percent, or less than one percent base land coverage.

(e) Allowable base land coverage for parcels receiving a score under IPES shall be established in accordance with the formula developed in (d), above.

37.11.B Application Of Allowable Base Land Coverage Percentages: The percentages of allowable base land coverage established in accordance with Section 37.11 shall be applied as follows to determine the total allowable base land coverage:

(1) Parcels Of 1/3 Acre Or Less In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the entire parcel area, except in cases where the parcel contains areas classified as SEZ or backshore. In such cases, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to only that area outside the SEZ and backshore. The allowable base land coverage of one percent in the SEZ and backshore may be combined with the allowable base land coverage for the remainder of the parcel to establish a total allowable base land coverage for the parcel. A portion of the total allowable base land coverage for the parcel may be used to allow construction of access only through the SEZ, provided TRPA makes the findings required in Subparagraph 20.4.B(1), and through the backshore, provided TRPA makes the findings required in Section 55.4.

(2) Parcels Greater Than 1/3 Acre But Less Than 5 Acres In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the 1/3 acre evaluated by the evaluation team. If the owner of the parcel is able to identify a larger and contiguous area that has the same characteristics as the 1/3 acre originally evaluated and TRPA concurs, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the larger area. Allowable base land coverage on parcels that contain a SEZ shall be calculated in accordance with Subparagraph (1) above.

(3) Parcels Of Five Acres Or Greater In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to all that portion of the parcel that the evaluation team identifies as having the same characteristics as and being contiguous to the area evaluated.
-------------------------------

Growth Management: Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient and Livable Communities

About two years ago, I found a website while surfing the Internet that summarized some good principles that certainly fit benefit Bellingham and Whatcom County. Here is that unadorned information in summary form:

• Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities
• Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development
• Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use [Adopted in 2005] 

Ahwahnee Awards

The Ahwahnee Awards is a program that recognizes policies, projects and programs from the Western U.S. that help create a better quality of life for residents and for the region as a whole. The Ahwahnee Awards are named after the "Ahwahnee Principles for More Livable Communities." For more information on the awards program please visit our Center for Livable Communities section. (Note: The Ahwahnee Awards have been put on hold due to funding constraints.)

Preamble:

Existing patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life. The symptoms are: more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present, we can plan communities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to certain fundamental principles.
------------------
Community Principles

1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.

2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.

3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops.

4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.

5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents.

6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.

7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.

8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.

9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.

10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.

11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.

12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.

13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.

14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.

15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community.
-----------------
Regional Principles

1. The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.

2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions.

3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core.

4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity.
----------------------
Implementation Principles

1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles.

2. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur.

3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles.

4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.

(Adopted in 1991) If you would like more background information on the Ahwahnee Principles (including where the name came from), please read the article reprinted from Western Cities Magazine.

Intro | Ahwahnee Principles | Economic Principles | Water Principles
==========================================

Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development

Smart Growth: Economic Development for the 21st Century
A Set of Principles for Building Prosperous and Livable Communities

Preamble

Prosperity in the 21st Century will be based on creating and maintaining a sustainable standard of living and a high quality of life for all. To meet this challenge, a comprehensive new model is emerging which recognizes the economic value of natural and human capital. Embracing economic, social, and environmental responsibility, this approach focuses on the most critical building blocks for success, the community and the region. It emphasizes community-wide and regional collaboration for building prosperous and livable places. While each community and region has unique challenges and opportunities, the following common principles should guide an integrated approach by all sectors to promoting economic vitality within their communities, and in partnership with their neighbors in the larger region.

1. Integrated Approach

Government, business, education, and the community should work together to create a vibrant local economy, through a long-term investment strategy that:
• encourages local enterprise
• serves the needs of local residents, workers, and businesses
• promotes stable employment and revenues by building on local competitive advantages
• protects the natural environment
• increases social equity
• is capable of succeeding in the global marketplace.

2. Vision and Inclusion

Communities and regions need a vision and strategy for economic development according to these principles. Visioning, planning and implementation efforts should continually involve all sectors, including the voluntary civic sector and those traditionally left out of the public planning process.

3. Poverty Reduction

Both local and regional economic development efforts should be targeted to reducing poverty, by promoting jobs that match the skills of existing residents, improving the skills of low-income individuals, addressing the needs of families moving off welfare, and insuring the availability in all communities of quality affordable child care, transportation, and housing.

4. Local Focus

Because each community's most valuable assets are the ones they already have, and existing businesses are already contributing to their home communities, economic development efforts should give first priority to supporting existing enterprises as the best source of business expansion and local job growth. Luring businesses away from neighboring communities is a zero-sum game that doesn't create new wealth in the regional economy. Community economic development should focus instead on promoting local entrepreneurship to build locally based industries and businesses that can succeed among national and international competitors.

5. Industry Clusters

Communities and regions should identify specific gaps and niches their economies can fill, and promote a diversified range of specialized industry clusters drawing on local advantages to serve local and international markets.

6. Wired Communities

Communities should use and invest in technology that supports the ability of local enterprises to succeed, improves civic life, and provides open access to information and resources.

7. Long-Term Investment

Publicly supported economic development programs, investments, and subsidies should be evaluated on their long-term benefits and impacts on the whole community, not on short-term job or revenue increases. Public investments and subsidies should be equitable and targeted, support environmental and social goals, and prioritize infrastructure and supportive services that promote the vitality of all local enterprises, instead of individual firms.

8. Human Investment

Because human resources are so valuable in the information age, communities should provide life-long skills and learning opportunities by investing in excellent schools, post-secondary institutions, and opportunities for continuous education and training available to all.

9. Environmental Responsibility

Communities should support and pursue economic development that maintains or improves, not harms, the environmental and public health.

10. Corporate Responsibility

Enterprises should work as civic partners, contributing to the communities and regions where they operate, protecting the natural environment, and providing workers with good pay, benefits, opportunities for upward mobility, and a healthful work environment.

11. Compact Development

To minimize economic, social, and environmental costs and efficiently use resources and infrastructure, new development should take place in existing urban, suburban, and rural areas before using more agricultural land or open space. Local and regional plans and policies should contain these physical and economic development planning principles to focus development activities in desired existing areas.

12. Livable Communities

To protect the natural environment and increase quality of life, neighborhoods, communities and regions should have compact, multi-dimensional land use patterns that ensure a mix of uses, minimize the impact of cars, and promote walking, bicycling, and transit access to employment, education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services. Economic development and transportation investments should reinforce these land use patterns, and the ability to move people and goods by non-automobile alternatives wherever possible.

13. Center Focus

Communities should have an appropriately scaled and economically healthy center focus. At the community level, a wide range of commercial, residential, cultural, civic, and recreational uses should be located in the town center or downtown. At the neighborhood level, neighborhood centers should contain local businesses that serve the daily needs of nearby residents. At the regional level, regional facilities should be located in urban centers that are accessible by transit throughout the metropolitan area.

14. Distinctive Communities

Having a distinctive identity will help communities create a quality of life that is attractive for business retention and future residents and private investment. Community economic development efforts should help to create and preserve each community's sense of uniqueness, attractiveness, history, and cultural and social diversity, and include public gathering places and a strong local sense of place.

15. Regional Collaboration

Since industries, transportation, land uses, natural resources, and other key elements of a healthy economy are regional in scope, communities and the private sector should cooperate to create regional structures that promote a coherent metropolitan whole that respects local character and identity.

(Adopted in 1997) More information and case studies of each principle are available in our guidebook "The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development: An Implementation Guidebook".
===============================================
The Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use

Cities, counties and organizations that have adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles:
Recently Adopted: Port Hueneme, CA; Richmond, CA; Santa Paula, CA; Santa Rosa, CA Marin County, CA; Marin Municipal Water District, CA; Menlo Park, CA; Morgan Hill, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Petaluma, CA; Rohnert Park, CA; San Luis Obispo, CA.

Organizations that have endorsed the Ahwahnee Principles:
Bay Area Water Forum and Association of Bay Area Governments (CalFed Task Force); League of California Cities; Southern California Association of Governments Water Policy Task Force.

=============================
Ahwahnee Water Principles: [A model water resolution is available]

Preamble

Cities and counties are facing major challenges with water contamination, storm water runoff, flood damage liability, and concerns about whether there will be enough reliable water for current residents as well as for new development. These issues impact city and county budgets and taxpayers. Fortunately there are a number of stewardship actions that cities and counties can take that reduce costs and improve the reliability and quality of our water resources. 

The Water Principles below complement the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities that were developed in 1991. Many cities and counties are already using them to improve the vitality and prosperity of their communities.

Community Principles

1. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented so that automobile-generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible. (See the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities)

2. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long-term water resource sustainability.

3. Water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape.

4. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater.

5. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce flooding.

6. Dual plumbing that allows graywater from showers, sinks and washers to be reused for landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development.

7. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water.

8. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and more efficient water-using industrial equipment should be incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted in remodeled buildings.

9. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies.

Implementation Principles

1. Water supply agencies should be consulted early in the land use decision-making process regarding technology, demographics and growth projections.

2. City and county officials, the watershed council, LAFCO, special districts and other stakeholders sharing watersheds should collaborate to take advantage of the benefits and synergies of water resource planning at a watershed level.

3. The best, multi-benefit and integrated strategies and projects should be identified and implemented before less integrated proposals, unless urgency demands otherwise. 

4. From start to finish, projects and programs should involve the public, build relationships, and increase the sharing of and access to information.

5. Plans, programs, projects and policies should be monitored and evaluated to determine if the expected results are achieved and to improve future practices.

Waterfront Redevelopment: Incorporating Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations

Almost 2 years ago, on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 to be exact, I was moved to revisit the excellent recommendations submitted by the Waterfront Futures Group [WFG], who had labored for 18 months in a public learning process and then distilling it into what they thought might provide the best benefit to Bellingham from redeveloping its waterfront. They came up with some really good, ambitious ideas! Ideas that can resonate over time as the right way to go about making a 'silk purse out of a sow's ear' for the G-P property. And they did that before we had any certainty that this entire property would be owned by the Port of Bellingham and become the subject of its major collaboration with the City of Bellingham. I think we owe this group, and its leadership, our lasting gratitude.

But, the WFG also have given us a big challenge to incorporate as many of its recommendations as possible into any redevelopment plans that are adopted. Much like our 14 Growth Mangement Act [GMA] Goals, some of the recommendations appear to conflict with, or at least overlap, others. This means that none of the recommendations can simply ignore the others, but a balance needs to be struck that reasonably reflects what is feasible and can be accomplished.

That said, the primary purpose of the Waterfront Redevelopment undertaking is economic development, and all that entails. This project is about stimulating our local economy, creating jobs and growing businesses that are sustainable. That also is how this venture will ultimately be paid for, not from subsidies, get rich quick schemes or excessive taxes on current residents.

Of course, like all such ambitious undertakings, all parts don't just happen at once, or by wishful thinking. They have to be carefully planned, built in prudent steps and gradually achieved over time. That kind of effort takes ingenuity, fortitude and patience that spans multiple terms of office of elected officials, several iterations of plans and cost estimates, and future generations to fully enjoy the ensuing benefits. It is not a simple thing to do, or to describe in sound bytes. It requires an understanding of what is envisioned, what is possible, what is true, and what is not true. In the end, this is more like a team marathon relay race than a sprint for individuals who want to be heroes - or otherwise.

Amazingly, this undertaking has attracted some serious detractors! But, maybe that's not really amazing, because every other project I've seen has also had its detractors, and detractors can serve a useful purpose in asking questions, expressing concerns, or making alternate suggestions. Actually, we need detractors - but not demolition experts who are intent on laying such mine-fields of fear, cynicism, petty jealousy and misinformation that the public is deceived into not believing the WR should, could or would happen.
[Already, Whatcom County seems to be headed in that direction, which is distressing given it's excellent Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 on Economics, and the supporting information in Appendix C, regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan]

Some detractors do have legitimate concerns about the environmental and social aspects of WR that do need addressing. From my perspective, those concerns will be fully addressed, but I recognize it will require a leap of faith for some to believe that as I do. At this point, my main concern is with the economics side of the issue; specifically how much the required infrastructure will cost and how this will be phased and financed to support redevelopment. That information is being developed, but it does take time because this planning effort is inherently iterative in nature and based upon discovery of actual conditions. practicalities and possibilities.

That leads to the purpose of this piece, which is to make sure the intent of the Waterfront Futures Group is as fully incorporated into WR as possible.
[Note: I apologize in advance for the length of what follows, much of which is available from the City's Web Site at www.cob.org. It is reproduced here for convenience, and as background for these comments]
Appendices A & B are at the end
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some ideas regarding the current discussion of Strategic Principles for the Waterfront Redevelopment as promised last night.
[Tuesday, November 22, 2005]

The 11 "Strategic Guidelines" [SG's] conceived and recently presented by CollinsWoerman seem awkward and do not have the ring of authenticity for those familiar with the excellent WFG effort and final recommendations. They remind of being written 'by folks who are not from around here'! This effort does not seem reflective of the consultant's best work, but does have the appearance that the Port's thumb may have been applied to the scales in an effort to achieve -via after-the-fact executive fiat- what was not accomplished during the 2-year public process.

Whatever happened, these 11 "SG's" don't adequately describe what this community has come to expect from redeveloping its waterfront, and this has been evidenced by the adverse public reaction to the artificially fast-track process that is now being attempted. There are legitimate concerns being expressed that need to be heard and incorporated into the SGs and this will require more time and reflection.

I have given some thought to how the SG's might be rewritten to better capture both the essence and spirit of the WFG recommendations. One thought was to simply accept the 11 SG's presented and rewrite them as abstracts that better reflect local values.
These attempted rewrites are listed in Attachment A [below].

A second approach was to simply review the WFG recommendations, combine this with personal reflection and write another complete set of SG's.
These are summarized in Attachment B [below].

While neither of these 2 rewrite attempts may completely paraphrase the WFG recommendations, they do come closer than CollinsWoerman's version. It is also fair to say that CollinsWoerman did largely capture much of the essence intended by WFG, but missed some emphases entirely and badly described other key points. It is tricky at best to try to paraphrase a larger body of thought, that itself contains very strong inter-linkages, with a few succinct SGs, particularly if only the 4 overarching principles are used as starting points. The goal should be to more elegantly capture the totality of WFG thinking.

The information listed below was taken directly from the WFG recommendations on the COB web-site:

Note the 12 ideas 'that emerged repeatedly' might themselves make good SG's

The four 'overarching principles' are listed below. Each could be expanded with bullet points to flesh out the broader meanings intended. This could be another approach toward developing appropriate SG's. Perhaps this is what the consultant tried to do.

I. Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
II. Restore the Health of Land & Water
III. Improve Waterfront Access
IV. Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy

The Consultant's two 'Core Ideas' given on page 2 of their report do not seem to serve any useful purpose other than to reiterate what everyone seems to already understand. Why restate these, unless they are targeted at those who are in denial as to the underlying reasons for the Port's initiative and the City's agreement to be a partner in the waterfront redevelopment? Is this intended to inform potential investors? Remind those in opposition? Inform the community? What is the intended audience?

• CBD & Waterfront District are parts of a whole downtown

• Waterfront's potential as a job-source, economic engine and place of enjoyment needs to to be steadily realized

Finally, the GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS for the CITY Center are the most appropriate starting point for developing SGs, since this area defines the former G-P site as the single one area -out of the six identified by WFG- with the most potential for redevelopment, and the one for which the Port and City have agreed to a long-term cooperation.

Also note the following 2 points, which many believe to be key in insuring adherence to the WFG vision":

• the Georgia Pacific property should be acquired and held in public ownership as it is planned and developed over time

• development should be phased and coordinated by a public renewal authority or other tools that ensure public accountability while avoiding excess bureaucracy

============================================================================
Waterfront Futures Group Final Recommendations [Page 3]

A dozen ideas emerged repeatedly during the WFG work sessions and served as a foundation for subsequent decisions. They provide a set of underlying assumptions for a successful waterfront in our community:

1. Successful waterfronts are welcoming to all.

2. Bellingham Bay and its physical landscape are part of larger natural systems.

3. Jobs of the future will help shape waterfront redevelopment.

4. Sustainability is a cornerstone for all waterfront work.

5. Education, training and apprenticeships increase our human capital and workforce capacity.

6. Fishing and food from the sea, deep-water access, and shallow draft marine access will continue to be a significant part of our area’s heritage, economy, and culture.

7. Waterfront redevelopment consistent with community goals will require significant public investment and in some cases public ownership as a catalyst for private reinvestment.

8. The “best” of our waterfront must be reserved for the benefit of our entire community.

9. Our waterfront assets are many and diverse, allowing us balanced development over time with a wide variety of purposes.

10. Successful waterfronts create continuous public access along the entire shoreline.

11. As part of Bellingham’s evolving economy, we will need to make provisions for industries moving off the waterfront.

12. Innovative approaches to cleanup of upland and in-water contamination will be needed to restore the health of our waterfront.
============================================================================
FOUNDATION FOR DECISIONS - INTRODUCTION

Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan

I. Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront

1. Make the waterfront a regular part of the lives of more people.
2. Respect history, cultures and the arts.
3. Make the waterfront inviting to people on foot.
4. Reinforce a unique “sense of place” at different waterfront locations.
5. Complement adjacent uses.

II. Restore the Health of Land & Water

1. Enhance or reintroduce natural systems.
2. Create and restore habitat wherever possible.
3. Remediate upland and in-water contamination.
4. Protect existing natural shorelines.
5. Seek opportunities to soften existing hardened shorelines.
6. Tailor environmental cleanup strategies and remediation to planned use.
7. Manage stormwater to enhance estuarine habitats.
8. Require sustainable practices in all development.
9. Restore, enhance and expand beaches wherever possible.
10. Connect proposed open space and natural areas to regional open space network and wildlife corridors.
11. Explore mitigation banking and incentives (such as environmental credits) for environmental resource protection and enhancement prior to redevelopment.

III. Improve Waterfront Access

1. Develop strong connections between uplands and water.
2. Provide links to regional trail systems.
3. Provide multiple modes of access to each area of the waterfront.
4. Provide convenient connections between different modes of transportation.
5. Create and connect large and small parks and open spaces with a “braided” system of pedestrian trails.
6. Enhance opportunities for visual access to waterfront areas.
7. Provide the opportunity to walk the waterfront while respecting natural habitat.
8. Help people find their way.
9. Provide way finding for the Coast Millennium Trail as a route that follows existing and proposed trails.
10. Explore the concept of public access “banking” and other financing incentives for improving public access.
11. Protect and enhance environmental resources when designing for shoreline access and upland development.

IV. Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy

1. Create new mixed-use areas on the waterfront for commercial, industrial, educational, recreational and residential uses.
2. Support water-dependent activities and uses.
3. Create conditions attractive to jobs of the future.
4. Strengthen the tie between local jobs and resources.
5. Provide public amenities and infrastructure to support redevelopment.
6. Improve permitting processes to achieve the goals and principles of the Waterfront Vision.
7. Explore economic spin-off related to Bellingham Bay Pilot cleanup strategies.
8. Provide incentives and credits for “green” buildings.

The Waterfront Vision and Framework Plan provides FOUR overarching principles and THIRTY FIVE detailed principles to guide progress toward achieving a successful waterfront. The Waterfront Futures Group recommends all THIRTY NINE Guiding Principles for adoption as public policy. In some cases, bulleted statements follow the Guiding Principle. These statements provide further detail and should be treated as part of the Guiding Principle for that area.
=======================================================
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS - INTRODUCTION

Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan

CITY CENTER

The vision for the city center waterfront calls for the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood that combines commercial, institutional, educational, retail services and residential uses, and that over time will provide many new job opportunities and a substantial amount of urban housing. It will be a neighborhood that complements the existing central business district.

The neighborhood will provide a place where people can live, work, study and spend their leisure time without relying on vehicular transportation and while offering a healthy and sustainable relationship between the city and the bay.

The existing aeration stabilization basin (asb) will be cleaned and opened up to accommodate either a new marina or new marine habitat combined with stormwater treatment or some combination of those uses.

When the adjacent tissue warehouse closes, the building will be adapted to accommodate a combination of public uses with links to Old Town.

Deep water moorage will be maintained in the Whatcom Waterway and marine-related commerce will continue on both the I & J and Whatcom Waterways. The waterways will retain sufficient depth to support existing and planned shore-side uses.

Public access will be provided throughout the area, with a network of walkways connecting new public spaces and regional trails.

Transient moorage will be provided on both sides of the Whatcom Creek Waterway while avoiding critical habitat areas. Habitat enhancement will be a condition of this new transient moorage provision.

New transit routes will serve the area and public docks will accommodate multiple modes of water transportation.

New facilities for Western Washington University and other educational institutions will be located in the Center City area with new transportation linkages to the main WWU campus.

The Cornwall Avenue landfill site will be improved including open space and pedestrian spaces along the waters edge connected by an over-water trail to Boulevard Park. Mixed-use development on the adjacent uplands could include a terraquarium and a Native American facility.

To realize this vision, the Georgia Pacific property should be acquired and held in public ownership as it is planned and developed over time. Infrastructure and public amenities to support development should be constructed, and development should be phased and coordinated by a public renewal authority or other tools that ensure public accountability while avoiding excess bureaucracy.

Waterfront Futures Group Final Recommendations [Page 19]

=======================================================
[Page 20] Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan

CITY CENTER - GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront

1. Make the waterfront a regular part of the lives of more people.
· Foster a greater sense of ownership and stewardship for the health of the Bay and its shore lands by providing places for people to live, work, learn and play as a regular part of their daily activities
· Create physical and cultural conditions that are welcoming to visitors and encourage their participation in waterfront places and activities

2. Respect history, cultures and the arts.
· Embrace, include and expand knowledge of our peoples and their cultural heritage

3. Make the waterfront inviting to people on foot.

4. Reinforce a unique “sense of place” at different waterfront locations.
· Support development of a vibrant area that integrates water-dependent uses with new commercial, institutional, educational, and residential uses and public spaces

5. Complement adjacent uses.
· Create an urban mixed-use neighborhood that will complement downtown

Restore the Health of Land & Water

1. Enhance or reintroduce natural systems.

2. Create and restore habitat wherever possible.

3. Remediate upland and in-water contamination.

4. Protect existing natural shorelines.

5. Seek opportunities to soften existing hardened shorelines.

6. Tailor environmental cleanup strategies and remediation to planned use.

7. Manage stormwater to enhance estuarine habitats. · Treated or otherwise, assure the quality of stormwater used to enhance estuarine habitats.

8. Require sustainable practices in all development.
· Avoid “heat island” effect by utilizing high reflective roofing materials and vegetated roof systems
· Make use of on-site renewable energy such as solar and day-lighting, to satisfy the building’s energy needs
· Incorporate Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (leed) intentions and requirements in design and construction of new structures

9. Restore, enhance and expand beaches wherever possible.

10. Connect proposed open space and natural areas to regional open space network and natural wildlife corridors.

11. Explore mitigation banking and incentives (such as environmental credits) for environmental resource protection and enhancement prior to redevelopment.

Improve Waterfront Access

1. Develop strong connections between uplands and water.
· Utilize existing streets to make pedestrian and vehicle connections to and from adjacent districts and neighborhoods
· Identify areas where pedestrian access is provided when not in use for commercial/industrial purposes
· Provide transient moorage with easy access from water to upland services

2. Provide links to regional trail systems.

3. Provide multiple modes of access to each area of the waterfront.
· Create and establish circulation routes
· Preserve transportation corridor on railroad right-of-way
· Cluster shared parking away from the water

4. Provide convenient connections between different modes of transportation (jitney/bus).

5. Create and connect large and small parks and open spaces with a “braided” system of pedestrian trails.
· Create water-oriented parks and open spaces
· Connect parks and open spaces with walkways and bikeways through the City Center neighborhood

6. Enhance opportunities for visual access to waterfront areas.
· Preserve, improve and create public views to and from the waterfront

7. Provide the opportunity to walk the waterfront while respecting natural habitat.
· Provide viewing that respects industrial activity areas

8. Help people find their way.

9. Provide way finding for the Coast Millennium Trail as a route that follows existing and proposed trails.

10. Explore the concept of public access “banking” and other financing incentives for improving public access.

11. Protect and enhance shoreline environmental resources when designing for shoreline access and upland development.

Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy

1. Create new mixed-use areas on the waterfront for commercial, industrial, educational, recreational and residential uses.
· Encourage reuse and renovation of existing buildings
· Identify, preserve and locate sites for water-dependent uses
· Complement existing downtown area with waterfront redevelopment
· Support water-dependent activities and uses
· Retain deep water moorage and entitlement

2. Support water-dependent activities and uses.

3. Create conditions attractive to jobs of the future.
· Create a vision for desired businesses and educational facilities

4. Strengthen the tie between local jobs and resources.
· Encourage and promote fisheries and ocean-related research industries and facilities
· Encourage a range of development and businesses that foster apprenticeships and other educational and training opportunities

5. Provide public amenities and infrastructure to support redevelopment.

6. Improve permitting processes to achieve the goals and principles of the Waterfront Vision.
· Promote a “business incubator” model with access to development resources
· Create flexible zoning in the City Center

7. Explore economic spin-off related to Bellingham Bay Pilot cleanup strategies.

8. Provide incentives and credits for “green” buildings.

Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS

Future Uses

· When the Georgic Pacific tissue plant closes, use the site of the tissue warehouse for a combination of public uses which could include neighborhood gathering places, community facilities, sites for dry stack boat storage and support facilities for a new marina at the asb site.

· Provide sites for water-dependent uses along both the I & J Waterway and the Whatcom Creek Waterway on either side of the asb peninsula.

· Create beach areas with small parking lots on either side of the asb site and at the end of Wharf Street adjacent to the Cornwall Landfill.

· Relocate rail road tracks from the Georgic Pacific siteto the base of the bluff.

· To cluster shared parking away from the water, consider locating public parking to buffer development areas from the railroad and the Co-Gen plant.

Future Development

· Provide a site for Western Washington University expansion at the foot of Pine Street and the water’s edge.

· Provide for a range of education and research facilities.

· Retain sufficient water depth in I & J and Whatcom waterways to support existing and future water-related uses.

· Create a public renewal authority or use other methods to develop a plan for the City Center area and to coordinate its implementation.

· Purchase the Georgia Pacific site and put it in public ownership to assure that the long term community interest is served.

· Create expedited review and permitting procedures for redevelopment that is consistent with an adopted renewal plan.

· Provide a location for a potential terraquarium as well as other potential cultural facilities.

· Provide an enhanced beach at the north end of the site, and locations for a potential terraquarium as well as a potential Native American cultural facility.

· Coordinate with the Economic Development Council to publicize local resources and maximize use of locally based contractors.

· Accommodate mixed-use development on uplands adjacent to Cornwall Avenue landfill site.

· Along Whatcom Waterway water-related commercial/ industrial development may incorporate some residential components.

Natural Systems & Environmental Cleanup

· Clean up contamination outside of the asb on the bay side.

· Remove all contaminated sediment from the ASB and reconnect with Bellingham Bay.

· Examine implications of leaving the Whatcom Waterway sediment in place.

· Remove creosote piles from intertidal and subtidal areas near RG Haley site.

· Protect habitat enhancements at the log pond site and extend habitat and beach enhancement into upland areas.

· Cap the Cornwall Avenue landfill and provide marine habitat enhancement and a new public open space along the water for the length of the site.

· Examine contamination levels to help shape renewal master plan and then tailor remediation to planned use.

· Restore beaches where possible.

· Investigate opportunities for stormwater treatment and creation of marsh habitat using treated stormwater at outfalls and adjacent to open space areas.

Culture & History

· Collaborate with Native American neighbors.

· Preserve the train depot building off Holly Street.

Water Connections

· Provide transient moorage adjacent to Central Avenue on the south side of the Whatcom Waterway and on the west side of Whatcom Waterway while avoiding critical habitat areas. Habitat enhancement will be a condition of this new transient moorage provision.

· Locate transient moorage east of shipping terminal pier.

· Provide water jitney stops at Whatcom Creek Waterway adjacent to Central and Roeder Avenues and on the east side of the shipping terminal pier.

· Provide hand-carry boat landings on either side of the asb peninsula and at the Cornwall Avenue landfill.

· Remove the sewer pipe under Roeder Avenue Bridge which blocks wate-side access to Whatcom Creek estuary.

Vehicular Connections

· Maintain truck access to the shipping terminal.

· Change Chestnut Street to two-way.

· Maintain Cornwall Avenue and Wharf Street and extend Commercial Avenue and Laurel Street as auto access routes to the City Center waterfront.

· Extend Commercial Street over the railroad to an intersection with an extended Laurel Street.

· Extend Laurel Street over the bluff and relocated railroad to intersect with an extended Commercial Street.

· Design the Commercial Street extension to retain a view of Mount Baker Theatre from the Laurel/Commercial Street intersection.

Pedestrian Connections

· Provide a site for Western Washington University expansion at the foot of Pine Street and the water’s edge.

· Add a vertical connection at the south end of the Cornwall Landfill over the railroad and up the hill.

· Establish an over-water pathway from the Cornwall Landfill to Boulevard Park.

· Connect new pedestrian routes through the City Center waterfront to regional trail systems and provide streetscape improvements conducive to year-round pedestrian use.

· Provide pedestrian routes along the extended rights-ofway of F, C, Central, Commercial and Pine streets.

· Develop safe connections over railroad tracks.

· Provide for direct access to Western Washington University including an on the ground or surface hill climb assist/corridor connection up Pine Street.

Parks & Public Space

· Create a system of connected public open spaces between the Whatcom Waterway and the south end of the Cornwall Avenue landfill.

· Develop public open spaces along the waterfront.

· Create a public gathering space adjacent to the shipping terminal while retaining its availability for vessel staging.

· Provide an enhanced beach south of the shipping terminal at the base of Pine Street and Cornwall.

======================================================
Attachment A [A suggested rephrase of CW 11 Strategic Guideline's]
Note: "Waterfront Redevelopment" [WR] substituted for "New Whatcom"

1. Waterfront Redevelopment [WR] requires multiple strategic partnerships to realize its true potential.

2. WR goal should be to become a recognized model for environmental stewardship.

3. WR must carefully integrate with its surroundings and utilize natural access corridors to best advantage.

4. WR must provide extensive water access and connect with Bellingham's maritime history.

5. Bellingham should use WR to expend its viability and attractiveness for residents, employers and visitors.

*6. WR needs to use Transportation Oriented Development {TOD] principles to insure access, walkability and neighborhood friendliness to adjacent areas.

*7. WR needs very careful attention to integrating multi-modal circulation, safety and efficiency.

8. WR must take timely advantage of opportunities as they arise, while retaining fidelity to the long-term goals recommended by WFG.

9. Public interests must be carefully considered during WR.

10. WR deserves extended focus as our area's primary economic development project.

11. WR must preserve and enhance existing systems of public amenities, focused on the Bay and its tributaries.

=====================================================
Attachment B [Another suggested rewrite of Strategic Guideline's from WFG info]
Note: "Waterfront Redevelopment" substituted for "New Whatcom"

1. WR's main goal is to create jobs & concurrently develop stronger, more sustainable revenue streams for Bellingham & the Port.

2. WR should emphasize traditional waterfront-dependent uses as its priority focus.

3. WR needs to preserve & enhance the area's local character and history.

4. WR must provide extensive, diversified public access & open space to the waterfront throughout its area.

5. WR should occur with concurrent accessibility for freight & services, using TOD requirements and provision for safe pedestrian/bicycle travel.

6. WR must exemplify the highest practicable standards in cleaning up pollution from the past.

7. WR should use care in preserving the environment for the future, including the use of sustainable materials and renewable energy sources, as well as regulatory protections for shorelines and stormwater runoff.

8. WR needs to provide for housing commensurate with the diverse income levels anticipated from workers in the area.

9. WR should connect with adjacent neighborhoods in a manner complimentary to each districts distinctive character, taking care to preserve traditional values.

10. WR should encourage environmentally friendly institutions, paying living wages, such as WWU and other non-seasonal tenants, to locate facilities there.

11. WR needs to maintain active public oversight throughout its duration to achieve the WFG vision intended, and recognize that this is helped by retaining public ownership.

The Bellingham & Whatcom County Public Facilities District: Redux

With the recent ground-breaking for the new Art & Children's Museum, a major milestone was reached that was only a dream 5 years ago. The Public Facilities District, then envisioned -and willingly supported by Whatcom County- as an economic magnet, was being hotly debated and even opposed by some in our community. Somehow the idea of getting some of our tax money back to help finance the PFD got all fuzzed up by a few opponents as an unnecessary exercise and expense. Others insisted these funds be used to finance much needed improvements to the Civic Field Complex, which have subsequently been accomplished using other funding mechanisms. Suffice to say, the PFD was created, its financing secured, a prudent, yet visionary Board established, and the monies available used to best effect. A success story by any standard!

Back in those days, the Cascadia Weekly was the Every Other Weekly, and it's popular editorial column was called 'The Skinny'. That name inspired me to write the following blurb: [Does this theme REMIND readers of other undertakings?]
---------------------------------------
PFD Project: Skinny or Scuttlebutt?

From my Navy days, I learned first hand about the terms "skinny" and "scuttlebutt". Skinny had the connotation of correct information, or poop, as in 'straight skinny'. Scuttlebutt was a phrase used to describe gossip around the water cooler, and every ship had at least one 'biomass' artist whose mission in life it was to create rumors and misinformation. Many things change over time, but the meanings of 'skinny' & 'scuttlebutt' seem to remain the same. With this in mind, it's interesting to focus on some of the criticisms that are now circulating about our newly established Public Facilities District, and what its mission and initial project undertaking should be.

Perhaps adding another minnow of perspective to the swirling fishbowl of created -and very creative- public perceptions is in order. While this particular minnow is not expected to survive for long amongst the various piranha, sharks, jellyfish, blowfish and slippery eels that flourish in such environs, perhaps its DNA message can then bio-accumulate in the genes of these respective species.

Perhaps, an evolutionary process is needed to eventually allow a more balanced assessment of the merits of the PFD actions to date, the sole purpose of which is to stimulate and stabilize economic redevelopment in our downtown - an area already recognized as a priority for revitalization. Using this restricted, returned tax money to turn the Mt Baker Theater into something more useful and revenue generating, by expanding its usable space, upgrading its antiquated electrical and mechanical systems, and preserving its unusually attractive historic character, seems a very prudent investment indeed! It should also help provide the foundation to stimulate additional private investment downtown, while also meeting the stringent, enabling state law requirements regarding purpose, scope and timing.

As with many situations, the roots of the current controversy spring from seeds sown in the past, and these sometimes grow more like weeds, than the gardens that people actually enjoy. Given the challenging circumstances our local governments face, one would think such a gift of returned taxes to our area for its own beneficial use is an event to celebrate!

Instead, a cacophony of interests, discovering yet another issue with cheap entertainment value, are engaging in the right of 'public process'!
o Habitual nay-sayers are again taking full advantage of an election year to frenetically spread their anti-government, anti-spending misinformation.
o At least two special interest groups have surfaced with competing ideas.
o Others are simply joining the fun with instant, armchair quarterback solutions.
o Most are probably just watching and waiting for the PFD's selected project to begin, finish and deliver its expected results.

Fair enough, that all these voices should heard, and that from the resulting discourse will come some truly excellent and enduring concepts that can be used to improve whatever project proceeds. 
But, it's a pity that so much of what the public hears about is based upon data-free analysis, speculation, disguised ideology and conspiracy theories - in other words, scuttlebutt!
In today's world, that seems to be expected. To be hoped for are commentators who are willing to keep an open mind until the real facts can be triangulated and the overall situation put into truer perspective. In the meantime, the work of the PFD must proceed.

The PFD considers getting on with its project important, enough to require undertaking a satisfactory resolution of it without further undue delay. It is clearly the PFD's duty and responsibility to get a qualifying project approved and underway before yearend. The City Council has determined that the approach the PFD is following now is a sensible one, arrived at only after obtaining expert advice and significant public input on various options. Both PFD and Council have listened to many ideas and different views on how to proceed from diverse interests before selecting the course of action now being pursued. While it is clearly impossible to please everyone, we do care about the public's ultimate satisfaction in what these revitalization efforts will produce. Over time, the wisdom of the decisions made regarding the PFD's Mt Baker Theater project will manifest, and citizens will enjoy the tangible benefits of a mutually beneficial public/private partnership, which will in turn stimulate additional investment and enjoyment of our downtown area.

Sometimes, it's hard to see the forest for the trees in such situations. In the end, actions that result from broader views are usually the ones that build communities that thrive. It is to be hoped the PFD's Project and the experience gained in making it happen will become a model for future successes in downtown Bellingham, and will fully justify our substantial investment in time, energy and resources. Time will tell, but will citizens remember the Skinny or the Scuttlebutt?

------------------------------------------------------------------
For yet another perspective back in time, here is an article I had published circa March 2003:
The Bellingham & Whatcom County Public Facilities District: A Good Idea, Enabled by Our State Legislature

The Bellingham & Whatcom County Public Facilities District [PFD] is the product of over three years of creative thinking, planning and working with the State Legislature to gain the necessary approvals. Initially, PFDs were limited to just a few very large projects in major metropolitan areas, like Safeco Field in Seattle. When several other cities recognized the potential for PFDs within their jurisdictions, a successful lobbying effort was launched. This resulted in Bellingham and Whatcom County also being qualified -late last year- to participate in this program and together began receiving about $750,000 per year for this specific purpose. This annual amount, by itself, is sufficient to pay for a bond issue worth between $13 and $15 million dollars.

Conceived as a method of financing ‘centers of regional significance’ for communities - using tax dollars already paid to the State – PFD funds are given back to a community specifically for its discretionary use to help finance projects costing a minimum of $10 million dollars. But there are also strings attached which require that certain ‘who, what, where, how and why’ questions be answered before the funds can be used. Three categories of allowed uses are cultural facilities, convention centers and sports complexes, all of which are to be considered as point destinations for citizens, patrons, tourists and other participants.

In enabling PFDs the Legislature recognized that such ‘centers of regional significance’ are magnets for attracting economic development to benefit those communities which use PFD funds wisely and provide the required resource match. Typically, projects like these centers are difficult to achieve and require significant vision, planning and investment to complete them.

Bellingham is truly fortunate to already have had the experience of so much visioning and planning focused on the revitalization of its downtown. This has helped guide the choices in spending PFD money to those that are most cost effective and synergistically efficient. Recently, the PFD Board has also seen the wisdom of focusing its first attention on creating space where facilities of lasting value can be developed in the downtown area.

What will actually be built in the space the PFD will ultimately provide has yet to be determined with any finality or timetable, because much depends upon other sources of funding and matching resources becoming available – both public and private. But, the area of current PFD focus is in the vicinity of both City Hall and the County Courthouse, both of which badly need parking space for those conducting business with our local governments, as well as government employees.

What else is in this vicinity that might benefit, directly or indirectly, from space provided by the PFD? Three public facilities, including the Bellingham Public Library, The Whatcom Museum and the Mt. Baker Theater, could all benefit from PFD-owned space downtown. All three facilities are supported by local tax dollars and are very popular with families and children, including tourists. Recognizing this, the PFD has already moved to acquire additional space to allow the Mt. Baker Theater more much-needed room to accommodate its various shows and programs.

Both the Library and the Museum are also in need of more useable space to keep up with growth demands. The Library is currently ‘maxed’ out and will likely require a new facility soon that will depend upon a separate, publicly voted bond levy. Depending upon the site selected and other factors, a bond of approximately $14 million will be needed to finance a new Library. The Museum is in critical need of seismic upgrading and climate control improvements, in addition to more exhibit space, to both protect and display its valuable collections.

How can these existing facilities and needs be combined to use the PFD funds most wisely? That is the question that the PFD is currently seeking to answer, and the possible combinations are many and varied. However, all potential combinations do share the same set of facilities and needs, which helps form a firmer matrix in which the final concepts and scenarios can begin to take shape.

Whatever concept ultimately evolves from these efforts will earn the title of “Centennial Project”, and bring Bellingham and Whatcom County the desired benefits of additional economic development, education and entertainment opportunities.

Benzene in Lake Whatcom: Some Questions & Answers

Today's BELLINGHAM HERALD reported 'Boat docked at lake burns'. It mentioned that: the boat didn't sink, damage was estimated at $50,000, no one was hurt, minor damage was done to the dock and neighboring boats, that the Department of Ecology had determined there was no fuel or oil leakage, and booms were set up around the boat to prevent pollution. Also, that George Henderson, Chief of Whatcom County Fire District No. 18 - the same person and organization that was just fined $21,000 by DOE for illegally disturbing the shoreline in the South Bay - was the responding fire safety officer. He also said the owners had docked the boat after using it 'without any problems during the day'.

Two questions:
1. How do we know the boat was used during the day 'without any problems'?
2. What wasn't 'the lake' described as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, our Municipal Water Supply?

To the extent this can become a 'teachable moment', the following is in response to a list of questions submitted to staff by me, regarding motorized watercraft management recommendations. Each underlined question is followed by its answer, with some questions having multiple parts that are related to a common subject. Cost estimates are based on a variety of sources but all should be viewed as preliminary estimates. These answers were issued on 3/11/2004.
===================================
1. For how long have the benzene tests been conducted?
--------------------------------------------------------
The City has collected benzene data since 1988 as part of our volatile organic chemical monitoring program per Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements. Sampling procedures have been refined and improved in the past 5 years.

Treated water is currently sampled annually to establish compliance with the SDWA. Often the treated water sample is paired with an untreated water sample to derive treatment plant removal data for the water utility. The analysis required for Safe Drinking Water Act compliance is a broad scan, and as such, has a detection level for benzene that is up to 9 times higher than more selective methods currently used by the utility (see paragraph below). The detection level for SDWA compliance determination is conventionally reported at the State Reporting Level for compliance determination (typically reported as 0.5 parts per billion or ug/L). When reporting the results for compliance monitoring, it is the convention to report only to the State Reporting Level. Therefore, data derived for SDWA compliance sampling is reported above the benzene levels typically observed in Lake Whatcom.

Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, and Xylene (BTEX) Sampling
Because the 1999 Olympic pipeline rupture and explosion occurred directly between the water filtration plant and the filtered water chlorine contact reservoir, there was concern about gasoline contamination in the water supply. The utility immediately began collecting and analyzing water from the treatment plant and in the distribution system for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX), which are constituents of gasoline. These BTEX compounds were detected in all but seven of the 120 samples collected from the time of the explosion until the end of that year. Levels of detection were well below the State Reporting Level, and the average benzene levels in all samples collected from that period was 0.07 ug/L. Six of the seven samples that had no BTEX detections were from those samples taken from 11/15/99 until 12/13/99. Those 6 samples comprised all the samples taken during that later period.

With the realization that BTEX compounds were being detected in the treated water supply came the desire to definitively attribute the source of these compounds. Sampling began at the Gatehouse (untreated Lake Whatcom water from the City Intake pipe in basin #2) on June 22, 1999. It came as a surprise to the utility that benzene levels were also detectable at the source of the City’s drinking water, over a mile away from the site of the pipeline rupture. As this monitoring program continued, an analytical method with better detection levels was employed starting in 2001. The Selected Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) allowed detection levels at up to 9 times lower than by the conventional SDWA-required method as it is able to focus in on the specific spectra of interest.

Where are these records kept?
--------------------------------------------------------
All records from the Safe Drinking Water Act compliance monitoring are reported and filed with the State of Washington Department of Health and are also filed in the Water Filtration Plant Laboratory.

Records from the post-Olympic pipeline rupture monitoring are filed at the Water Filtration Plant Laboratory. Results from this monitoring are entered into an Excel spreadsheet to allow for data analysis.

What is done with this information? Is it included in any official reports or literature?
--------------------------------------------------------
The City included information/data on the BTEX monitoring program in two of its Consumer Confidence Reports sent to all customers of the water utility (June 2000 and June 2001). The benzene levels detected in lake water were also reported in the Water Source Protection Plan (Section 2.1.12), compiled by the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County Water District #10 in 2000.

The City’s BTEX data was also provided to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee formed to provide recommendations on boating on Lake Whatcom. This data is available electronically and is also provided to customers upon request.

Is it true that the levels reported to date are well below actionable levels [MCLs] mandated by Federal and State Law?
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes this is true.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State of Washington regulatory levels of note are shown in the table below:
The table* depicts the maximum contaminant level (MCL), the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the Washington State Reporting Level. Though the MCLs are enforceable standards and MCLGs are not, the EPA feels there is no safe level of consumption for carcinogens such as benzene and has therefore set the MCLG at zero.

[Compressed Table*]
Compound//EPA Maximum Contaminant Level//EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal//State Reporting Level
[all values expressed in (ug/L)]
Benzene//5//0//0.5
Toluene//1000//1000//0.5
Ethyl benzene//700//700 //0.5
Total xylene//10000//10000//0.5

The EPA realizes that real financial and technological constraints often make zero unattainable, so they set MCLs as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. The maximum level of benzene found in all treated water samples taken from 2000 to present is 0.123 ug/L, and the maximum level of benzene in untreated water (for which these level do not apply) is 0.137 ug/L.

The other contaminants toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene have MCL and MCLG levels that are the same because unlike benzene, the EPA believes those levels provides sufficient protection from the potential health problems associated with these contaminants.

The EPA has grouped contaminants into five groups based on the seriousness of their health effects upon humans. The health impact is based upon whether or not the substance being classified has been determined by USEPA to cause cancer in animals or humans.

Group A is described by USEPA as a known human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance in humans.
Group B has been determined by USEPA to be a probable human carcinogen.
Group C includes possible human carcinogens.
Group D includes substances for which there is insufficient evidence to document carcinogenic effects upon humans.
Group E is not considered a carcinogen.

Benzene is a volatile organic compound (VOC) listed as a Group A contaminant, The EPA feels that adequate human data exists to support this classification. Another Group A VOC, vinyl chloride, is also of concern.

2. Is there any discernable trend in recorded benzene levels over time, aside from the periodic spikes? Is the fact that measurable concentrations have been found a cause for concern?
-------------------------------------------------------
The seasonal variations seem to be the only apparent trend.
--------------------------------------------------------
Please refer to prior response for discussion on MCLGs and benzene.

3. Where are the sampling points and with what frequency are samples taken and tested? Does sample location or frequency matter?
--------------------------------------------------------
Since 1999 samples are collected at least monthly and consist of paired gatehouse and treated water samples. The gatehouse sample represents the water coming into the City’s intake pipe. The water does not stratify thermally at the intake location, therefore there is a much greater likelihood that substances on the lake surface could make their way to the intake at the bottom of the lake.

In (only) one instance were samples collected from both the intake and from the surface of the water above the intake (where one would assume more hydrocarbon to exist). This sampling occurred in August 2000. The data were:

Benzene (ug/L or parts per billion) Single ion monitoring
8/28/00 Gatehouse 0.123
8/28/00 Surface of lake near intake 0.230

4. Is the City's present water treatment process capable of removing benzene from the raw water to produce our drinking water? From the data, it appears not likely because there is little difference in concentration.
--------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, the City’s treatment plant is not capable of removing benzene.

5. What is the estimated expense for upgrading the water treatment plant to remove benzene and/or other organics harmful to humans?
--------------------------------------------------------
A full comparative analysis of equipment costs, plant remodeling costs, potential for other contamination, expected benefits of the treatment options and other factors is needed to answer this question.
The EPA has selected two preferred treatment methods for removal of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) contaminants such as Benzene. Packed tower aeration or air stripping is one method. This process transfers the VOC's from water to air. The air is discharged into the atmosphere. Consideration must be given on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the airborne VOC contaminants do not cause health risks. While it is possible to place additional treatment on the air discharge, the additional costs involved make this method very expensive especially when higher concentrations of VOC contaminant are present. One would also need to be concerned about introducing air borne contaminants into the water.

The other method of removal is granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption. When water passes through a bed of activated carbon, VOC's attach or stick to the carbon. The attaching or sticking process of VOC's to the carbon granules is called adsorption. The carbon must be monitored carefully so that it can be replaced before it is exhausted. Carbon which is exhausted, or has adsorbed all the VOC's it can, may allow the adsorbed VOC's to be released back into the water in higher concentrations, due to the amount of VOC accumulation upon the carbon granules. Contaminated carbon must be regenerated on site or properly disposed of so that recontamination of the water does not occur. This treatment technology also has been shown to encourage the proliferation of microorganisms at the treatment plant, some of which have shown resistance to disinfectants currently in use.

Would such an upgrade be justified?
--------------------------------------------------------
In the final determination of which treatment process to use for VOC removal, all elements relevant to our water system should be considered. These elements include the cost, the types/concentration of VOC's present, the amount of removal deemed acceptable and the surrounding neighborhood.

How would it be paid for and by whom?
--------------------------------------------------------
Water utility customers would pay the costs for changes to the water system. The utility users also pay for maintenance and operation costs.

How much more capacity is available using the current water treatment plant, and when would an expansion normally be expected, using the same technology?
--------------------------------------------------------
At what point would such an upgrade be anticipated?
--------------------------------------------------------
It is quite difficult to determine when we will reach capacity on our water treatment plant. It is an element of our comprehensive plan (1993) and was slated for expansion in 1995. Since 1993 the City’s overall water consumption has been flat and our peak use days have been significantly reduced. So at this stage we do not have a plan for expansion. At some point growth will overcome conservation and we will have to expand the facility. The current peak capacity available is approximately 20 % or 5 million gallons per day.

What are the estimated costs of a more sophisticated water treatment system based on advanced technology to remove benzene and related compounds?
--------------------------------------------------------
We do not have cost estimates of alternative treatment systems to address issues such as benzene. It would require us to retain a consultant to develop the feasibility of removing targeted compounds and what that would cost from a capital and O & M basis. It also would require that we evaluate the benefits of certain treatment schemes and the risks associated with using that technology. We would want to be assured that in the process of removing one contaminant that we did not introduce new risk factors which might be as great or greater than the targeted agent.

What about the idea of obtaining drinking water from another source besides Lake Whatcom? What estimated costs might this entail, assuming another source is available?
--------------------------------------------------------
Other drinking water sources have been reviewed. They include changing our point of withdrawal from the Nooksack River, piping Middle Fork water around the Lake directly to the water treatment plant and reverse osmosis treatment of salt water from Bellingham Bay.

Withdrawing water from the lower Nooksack is estimated to cost between $100 and $150 million for construction and $10 million or more in yearly maintenance and operations costs. The option would require land acquisition, big pumps, settling basins, new treatment facilities, etc. Electricity would be a big part of the yearly M&O costs. Due to the large sediment load and the need to pump continually equipment maintenance costs would be high. Water in the lower river receives contaminants from Everson, Lynden and Ferndale treatment plants as well as runoff from agriculture and other land uses, therefore requiring a high level of treatment.

Pumping around the Lake from the Middle Fork diversion is estimated to cost around $45 million. Yearly M&O might be
$2 million. This option relies heavily on the availability of land for the pipeline and a water reservoir. Probably big pumps would be required with high electric use. Depending solely on water withdrawal from the Middle Fork is not feasible given the instream flow constraints on our withdrawal management.

A reverse osmosis plant would be constructed on the City waterfront that would provide the supply source for drinking and industrial process water for the City’s residents and industrial users. The system would include a treatment plant, reservoir, pumps and pipes.

Reverse osmosis is, in general, very expensive ($180 million) and typically done when there is no fresh water alternative.
The advantage that reserve osmosis has is that there is no water right requirement for salt water. The supply is inexhaustible, available and located within Bellingham Bay where the City is located. In addition, a reverse osmosis plant to supply only potable water, although cheaper, does not completely relieve the City’s reliance on Lake Whatcom as a source of supply for industrial process water purposes.

How would this be paid for and by whom?
--------------------------------------------------------
The costs for changes to the water system would be paid by water utility customers. Maintenance and operation costs are also paid for by the utility users.

6. What is the estimated cost of moving the City's water intake to a more sheltered area in Basin 3?
--------------------------------------------------------
In the past the cost has been estimated to be $1000 per linear foot with an estimated distance of 5000’ for a cost of $5 million. This should be considered a minimum given anticipated cost increases by the time a project is construction ready.

Would such a move be expected to be helpful?
--------------------------------------------------------
We are currently reviewing this issue. The review is assessing the water quality and other issues in the portion of Basin 3 nearest Basin 2.

Would these costs be justified?
--------------------------------------------------------
This question will be answered after the completion of the review.

How would this be paid for and by whom?
--------------------------------------------------------
Water utility customers would pay the costs for changes to the water system. The utility users also pay for maintenance and operation costs.

7. Does the City have any way of systematically identifying: boaters using the Reservoir; the number by type of watercraft used; how particularly sensitive areas might be better protected; how to fairly & equitably enforce boating BMPs; how many of these boaters use the Bloedel-Donovan launch?
--------------------------------------------------------
At the present time, there is no comprehensive count of the numbers and types of watercraft used. Counting the number of boat launches at Bloedel Donovan Park (see below) is an inaccurate estimate of boat use, since boaters also access the reservoir at the public WDFW boat launch, as well as the boat launches at Sudden Valley and Wildwood Resort. Boat use counts are further complicated by the significant boat use that originates from the hundreds of private docks that encircle the reservoir.

How could particularly sensitive areas might be better protected?
--------------------------------------------------------
Identifying particular areas, such as the intake pipe, for enhanced protection is not included as a management recommendation.

How would we fairly and equitably enforce boating BMPs?
--------------------------------------------------------
It is recommended that the Whatcom County Sheriff’s boat patrol enforce any new boating regulations. The Sheriff currently patrols the reservoir on a limited basis. The committee has recommendation is that the boat patrol’s hours be increased, at least to cover the hours that the boat launch is open on weekends and holidays.

The recommendations include actions the City could take to improve facilities available to boaters and thus make it easier to comply with the fueling, bilge dumping and other waste related issues.

It also is recommended that a boating education program be developed to promote voluntary compliance with laws and BMPs.

How many of these boaters use the Bloedel-Donovan launching site?
--------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Water Source Protection Plan (2000), in past years, the Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department charged during the boating season for weekend and holiday use of the Bloedel Donovan Park boat launch. During that time, Parks employees counted the number of vessels using the launch. Parks was able to provide data for weekend and holiday launches from Memorial Day to Labor Day 1986 (800 launches), 1998 (2156), 2000 (1375), and part of 2001 (Memorial Day through July 20, 525 launches).

In 2001, the Parks Board decided to discontinue the practice of charging for parking and use of the boat launch.

8. Does the fact that manufacturers of personal watercraft using 2-stroke carburated engines will eventually phase them out, have anything to do with these craft not being used in the Reservoir now?
--------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new standard for marine engine emissions in 1996. This standard requires marine manufacturers to achieve a 75% reduction in outboard and personal watercraft (PWC) engine hydrocarbon emissions by the year 2006. Although this standard is designed to improve air quality, they also result in engines that produce significantly less water pollution.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) decided that the EPA’s standard was not sufficiently strict and was being implemented too slowly. As a result, CARB accelerated the EPA timeline and set stricter standards for new marine engines sold in California. The CARB standard requires manufacturers to meet EPA 2006 standards by 2001 and to produce 65% lower emissions than the EPA standard by 2008, for a total of 91% lower emissions than carbureted two-stroke engines. Because California has such a large share of the marine engine market, manufacturers are designing their engines to meet the stricter CARB limits.

Because PWC engines are subject to the same restrictions as other marine engines, manufacturers are developing PWC with four-stroke and two-stroke DFI technology to reduce emissions. The new two-stroke engines are lighter and simpler in design than four-stroke engines, and some are almost as clean.

This does not mean that two-stroke carbureted PWC will not be manufactured after 2006. The EPA allows product averaging, which means that the “Family Emission Limit” (FEL) must meet or exceed applicable emission standards. This means that some two-stroke carbureted PWC will continue to be manufactured as long as their higher emissions are offset by other low-emission members of its engine “family.”

Neither the EPA nor CARB require boaters to dispose of carbureted two-stroke engines. The EPA estimates that old engines will no longer be used by the year 2050.

The CARB has estimated that the exhaust emissions from operating a PWC for seven hours is equivalent to the emissions from a 1998 passenger car operated for 100,000 miles. This means that one hour of PWC use generates as much air pollution as one year of automobile use. Because carbureted two-stroke engines exhaust through water, the pollution is received directly by the water body.

9. Recognizing the City's rationale for 'limiting its liability' by avoiding any sort of fee or permit system per RCW, what can be done to actually prevent or measurably mitigate any of the careless boating practices, short of closing the launch to watercraft using internal combustion engines? [Note this is already City policy at Lake Padden]
--------------------------------------------------------
The recommendations from the Motorized Watercraft Citizens Advisory Committee and the Lake Whatcom Management Committee include actions to change poor boating practices. Provision of a fueling area and a bilge dump facility are examples of very positive actions that the City can take to mitigate polluting activities.

10. Aside from the benzene spikes [public health issue] being discussed most prominently, what other concerns drive this discussion? [e.g. public/personal safety, nuisance & noise, the message conveyed by increasing unbridled use of a valuable and essential public resource for private recreation purposes]
--------------------------------------------------------
Although other issues associated with boating practices were recognized by both the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the Lake Whatcom Management Committee, neither Committee made recommendations based on those additional issues.

11. What regulations are relevant to the recommendations? (Added)
--------------------------------------------------------
Both the State and City already prohibit the deposit of petroleum-based products into water, although neither regulation specifically refers to exhaust of such products into water.

RCW 90.48.080 states:
Discharge of polluting matter in waters prohibited.—It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit, or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter.

In addition, section 10.60.100 of the Bellingham Municipal Code states:
Deposit In Water Prohibited.—A. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream, bay, or other body of water in a park or elsewhere in the City of Bellingham. B. No person shall pour, allow to drain, discard, or otherwise introduce motor oil and other petroleum-based products, antifreeze, paint, or any other unauthorized substance including solid materials into any surface water drainage course or body of water, including but not limited to lakes, ponds, streams, creeks, storm water catch basins, storm water detention ponds, ditches, and storm water inlets, culverts, and manholes.
-------------------------------------------------------------