---------------------
"If the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
--------------------
Wouldn't you know that simple ideas like constituencies and voting systems really aren't simple?
There is an amazing amount of stuff written on these subjects available by surfing the Internet.
Here's a few phrases that may illustrate this point, plus some of my thoughts at the end:
===============
'The most common meaning of 'constituency' occurs in politics and means either the group of people from whom an individual or organization hopes to attract support, or the group of people or geographical area that a particular elected representative or group of elected representatives represents.'
=================
"In the United States, electoral constituencies for the federal House of Representatives are known as congressional districts (of which there are presently 435; the number can be increased so long as it does not exceed the constitutional limit of one per 30,000 citizens), while the constituencies for the variously named state legislatures go by a variety of names (and have differing numbers).
Long standing practice, reinforced and modified by several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, require the equalization of populations of constituencies after each decennial census, a process known as redistricting.
When driven by partisan bodies, this process opens up the possibility of gerrymandering for political or factional advantage.
Gerrymandering cannot be used to the disadvantage of any specific racial group (e.g., placing a predominantly African-American community in several districts to dilute the vote would be unconstitutional), but is perfectly legal to dilute the voting strength of the opposing party.
A Pennsylvania legislator long active in redistricting issues, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "In election years, constituents choose their legislative officials. In redistricting years, legislative officials usually try to choose their future constituents."
===============
'The state of Louisiana uses Runoff voting for all House and Senate seats. All candidates (regardless of party affiliation) run on a single ballot in the general election in what is referred to as an "open primary" (thus, all Democrat candidates compete against all Republican candidates and whoever else may be running). If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, he or she is automatically elected. Otherwise, the top two finishers (again, regardless of party affiliation) go to a Runoff election, held approximately a month later, with the winner in the Runoff earning the seat. It is possible for both candidates to be from the same party, but in practice a Runoff usually features one Democrat and one Republican.
==============
'One possible reason straight-ticket voting has declined among the general electorate in past years is the power of incumbency has risen. Also, there are very few places where there still is a one-party rule.
.... local parties tend to run very weak party identifiers for something such as mayor or town council. So at local levels like this, candidates must actually fight for their votes for local office.'
====================
Bellingham used to have Ward-only voting, but that practice was changed to the system in place today.
Now, representatives from each of the 6 Wards must live in that Ward, but are elected in the General Election, by Citywide vote because they are supposed to represent the entire City - which is a municipal corporation.
If more than 2 candidates seek any seat, they must reduce that number to 2 by a Primary Election that is voted on only by people living in that Ward.
This practice makes sure that Ward representatives know their Wards, but also pass the test of being the representative of the entire populace.
That seems to be the best of both worlds to me.
--------------
I think its good for candidates to have to run hard for their seats, because that's how voters get to know them and where they stand on the issues- and vice versa!
Most of those issues are either city-wide or have some city-wide applicability, so as many voters as possible need to meet and question candidates so intelligent decisions are more likely to be made.
If candidates start out knowing they must be accountable, they will likely remember that once they are in office.
I didn't use to think that way, because I didn't know much based on actual experience.
Also, because I was first appointed to office, that gave me instant incumbency when I did run for election.
Partly because of my incumbency, I attracted no opposition in my first election and gained 4 more years in office just by running.
From that I was tempted to think that elections were a waste of time, that it was better to spend the time and energy actually doing the job than campaigning for it.
I was wrong!
Campaigning for office is important!
I found that out the second time I ran for re-election, and had an opponent.
Campaigning focuses you like nothing else.
It is demanding but critical to meet people face to face, listen to their concerns and try to respond thoughtfully.
You tend to remember that experience, believe me!
Some still feel campaigns are artificial, rigged, unfair and debilitating.
And you know what they are right!
But, that doesn't mean campaigns aren't necessary.
It just reinforces the point, because the candidate's mettle gets tested in the spotlight of public attention!
What better training for public office?
So rather than making it easier to get elected, we ought to insure it is difficult.
That may weed out some folks, but the ones that pass the test will have earned their positions.
But one little matter that is difficult to address remains.
The power of incumbency!
Is it good or bad?
It could be either, depending upon the elected official.
But some level of term limits might help. Say 2 or 3 terms, max?
If its the official's 'time to go', it can help.
If not, others are encouraged to step up and run for office.
I think some periodic turnover in elected officials is a good thing.
That's because voter representation ought to be applied to the future as well as the past.
New people mean new ideas, energy and dialogue.
That should be considered healthy in any political setting
===============
Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them. -Lily Tomlin
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. -Clarence Darrow
---------------------
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
District Only Voting: No Rotten Boroughs!
==================
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -Winston Churchill
-------------------------
Many years ago, in England there grew a practice that got way out of hand.
It was called 'Borough Representation' which identified some areas that got special treatment when it came to voting.
Eventually, that practice got mostly corrected through reform, but while it lasted there was some truly egregious corruption, leading William Pitt the Elder to make this statement:
"[Borough representation is] the rotten part of the constitution."
From that sprung the term 'Rotten Borough', sometimes referred to by similar names, like 'pocket borough' - because they were always in some rich or powerful man's 'pocket', or control.
Many may have heard this catchy tune & song from 'H.M.S. Pinafore' by Gilbert and Sullivan:
Sir Joseph Porter: "I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all."
Chorus: 'And he never thought of thinking for himself at all.'
Sir Joseph: "I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"
Things have mostly changed for the better since then, but human nature hasn't, leading some folks to want 'Rotten Boroughs' for their pockets again.
Google this and see for yourself what went on back then; then draw your own conclusions.
--------------------
Rather than frame this issue as some sort of contest, I prefer to look at the pros & cons of ideas like District-only voting.
There are always pros & cons to every issue, some real and some imagined.
Often, people will choose to espouse an idea because it appeals to their sense of fairness, or it may seem to have the potential to correct some perceived wrong.
And, sometimes they realize they may be mistaken after they hear 'the rest of the story', as Paul Harvey likes to say.
So, rather than engage in a fruitless debate about who is 'right' or 'wrong', why not focus on trying to understand what may just work better?
We certainly do have situations where District-only voting works pretty well, like the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives which has some pretty broad and serious responsibilty for helping set national policy - a very big area with a big population having a large number of common needs.
But there are also situations where one would expect District-only voting not working very well, like with water & sewer systems, EMS and protection of our water resources.
For example, having Glacier, Maple Falls, Acme, Deming, Everson, Nooksack, Lynden and Ferndale responsible for their respective reaches of the Nooksack River doesn't work very well for several reasons.
It would unnecessarily duplicate efforts, it would be beyond the fiscal means of each entity to provide the services needed, and it would unfairly penalize the downstream municialities by having to take care of much greater flows of much dirtier water.
That's why we have larger jurisdictions, like the County perform most of those functions - for the good of everyone who depends upon Nooksack water being clean and under reasonable control.
Now maybe there are better examples to illustrate the point, but having 3 different Districts share these responsibilities doesn't work very well either, because there are people who live nearer the river and depend on it for fishing, irrigation or as their source of water to be made potable, or as a conveyance for treated -or untreated- waste.
And, there are those who don't live near the river and don't think they should be responsible for its care.
So, tell me how would District-only elected representatives be expected to represent those living in other Districts?
With a 7-member Council, and with a relatively small County, why is District-only voting considered such a good idea?
Also, exactly what essential services might benefit from District-only voting?
I suspect they would compete to split all of the revenues and none of the expenditures, but that's just a guess.
Then, the 'pork' secured from that exercise will help keep the incumbents in office;
That's the way it works in DC.
I also suspect that some particularly want more localized control over zoning and development regulations, further fracturing an already fractured system - but again, that's just an educated guess based on all the energy the Building Industry Association has put into getting District-only voting passed.
There are big bucks in getting land rezoned, especially rural land!
Follow the money!
Just like those Rotten Boroughs of long ago, there are still those wanting a District under more of their control.
That is accomplished by getting someone elected who will do their bidding - and be rewarded for it!
I think the main issue in considering whether District-only voting makes sense in a relatively small County like Whatcom, is whether the perceived 'pros' outweigh the real 'cons'.
Here's a few 'cons' that I can see, and there may be others:
• more costly and duplicative
• more complex to administer, especially with other Districts
• more prone to attract special interest control
• likely to add power of incumbency to elected officials
• likely to interfere with cooperative efforts, particularly involving public health, safety & welfare
• likely to reduce essential services available at the time they are needed
There does exist some political constituency with the combination of size, population -and the suite of functions- that can benefit from District-only voting.
It's mainly a question of scale and complexity.
But there's also the concept of synergy to be considered.
You know, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?
But, I don't think Whatcom County is too big or diverse to warrant District-only voting for any of it's 3 existing Districts.
The overall job can be done better with a County-wide view than can be done from a feudal fiefdom perspective.
District-only voting is likely to produce less of the good things people expect from local government, and more of the things that need improvement.
District-only voting is no panacea for anything on the scale it is being touted, except for those motivated by an ideology of crippling government to satisfy their own greed and selfish purposes.
You know, this discussion is almost beginning to sound like the echoes of a secession movement, doesn't it?
Nah, that's already been tried. Bad idea!
But, that's just my opinion.
There's much more to discuss and consider on this subject, but that's enough for now, at least from this end.
One last thought to tie this together: We don't need any representative who leaves his thinking for others to do for him!
There are too many critically important, County-wide issues that require all the best thinking we can muster.
As Sir Edmund Burke put it: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Let's don't reward anyone for not doing their own thinking - or for trying to feather their own nest.
No 'Rotten Buroughs' represented by the incumbent puppets of special interests.
There are enough 'Rulers of the Queen's Navee' in that other Washington!
Out.
======================
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy." -US House of Representatives Majority Leader
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. -George Will
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
--Theodore Roosevelt
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -Winston Churchill
-------------------------
Many years ago, in England there grew a practice that got way out of hand.
It was called 'Borough Representation' which identified some areas that got special treatment when it came to voting.
Eventually, that practice got mostly corrected through reform, but while it lasted there was some truly egregious corruption, leading William Pitt the Elder to make this statement:
"[Borough representation is] the rotten part of the constitution."
From that sprung the term 'Rotten Borough', sometimes referred to by similar names, like 'pocket borough' - because they were always in some rich or powerful man's 'pocket', or control.
Many may have heard this catchy tune & song from 'H.M.S. Pinafore' by Gilbert and Sullivan:
Sir Joseph Porter: "I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all."
Chorus: 'And he never thought of thinking for himself at all.'
Sir Joseph: "I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"
Things have mostly changed for the better since then, but human nature hasn't, leading some folks to want 'Rotten Boroughs' for their pockets again.
Google this and see for yourself what went on back then; then draw your own conclusions.
--------------------
Rather than frame this issue as some sort of contest, I prefer to look at the pros & cons of ideas like District-only voting.
There are always pros & cons to every issue, some real and some imagined.
Often, people will choose to espouse an idea because it appeals to their sense of fairness, or it may seem to have the potential to correct some perceived wrong.
And, sometimes they realize they may be mistaken after they hear 'the rest of the story', as Paul Harvey likes to say.
So, rather than engage in a fruitless debate about who is 'right' or 'wrong', why not focus on trying to understand what may just work better?
We certainly do have situations where District-only voting works pretty well, like the 435-member U.S. House of Representatives which has some pretty broad and serious responsibilty for helping set national policy - a very big area with a big population having a large number of common needs.
But there are also situations where one would expect District-only voting not working very well, like with water & sewer systems, EMS and protection of our water resources.
For example, having Glacier, Maple Falls, Acme, Deming, Everson, Nooksack, Lynden and Ferndale responsible for their respective reaches of the Nooksack River doesn't work very well for several reasons.
It would unnecessarily duplicate efforts, it would be beyond the fiscal means of each entity to provide the services needed, and it would unfairly penalize the downstream municialities by having to take care of much greater flows of much dirtier water.
That's why we have larger jurisdictions, like the County perform most of those functions - for the good of everyone who depends upon Nooksack water being clean and under reasonable control.
Now maybe there are better examples to illustrate the point, but having 3 different Districts share these responsibilities doesn't work very well either, because there are people who live nearer the river and depend on it for fishing, irrigation or as their source of water to be made potable, or as a conveyance for treated -or untreated- waste.
And, there are those who don't live near the river and don't think they should be responsible for its care.
So, tell me how would District-only elected representatives be expected to represent those living in other Districts?
With a 7-member Council, and with a relatively small County, why is District-only voting considered such a good idea?
Also, exactly what essential services might benefit from District-only voting?
I suspect they would compete to split all of the revenues and none of the expenditures, but that's just a guess.
Then, the 'pork' secured from that exercise will help keep the incumbents in office;
That's the way it works in DC.
I also suspect that some particularly want more localized control over zoning and development regulations, further fracturing an already fractured system - but again, that's just an educated guess based on all the energy the Building Industry Association has put into getting District-only voting passed.
There are big bucks in getting land rezoned, especially rural land!
Follow the money!
Just like those Rotten Boroughs of long ago, there are still those wanting a District under more of their control.
That is accomplished by getting someone elected who will do their bidding - and be rewarded for it!
I think the main issue in considering whether District-only voting makes sense in a relatively small County like Whatcom, is whether the perceived 'pros' outweigh the real 'cons'.
Here's a few 'cons' that I can see, and there may be others:
• more costly and duplicative
• more complex to administer, especially with other Districts
• more prone to attract special interest control
• likely to add power of incumbency to elected officials
• likely to interfere with cooperative efforts, particularly involving public health, safety & welfare
• likely to reduce essential services available at the time they are needed
There does exist some political constituency with the combination of size, population -and the suite of functions- that can benefit from District-only voting.
It's mainly a question of scale and complexity.
But there's also the concept of synergy to be considered.
You know, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?
But, I don't think Whatcom County is too big or diverse to warrant District-only voting for any of it's 3 existing Districts.
The overall job can be done better with a County-wide view than can be done from a feudal fiefdom perspective.
District-only voting is likely to produce less of the good things people expect from local government, and more of the things that need improvement.
District-only voting is no panacea for anything on the scale it is being touted, except for those motivated by an ideology of crippling government to satisfy their own greed and selfish purposes.
You know, this discussion is almost beginning to sound like the echoes of a secession movement, doesn't it?
Nah, that's already been tried. Bad idea!
But, that's just my opinion.
There's much more to discuss and consider on this subject, but that's enough for now, at least from this end.
One last thought to tie this together: We don't need any representative who leaves his thinking for others to do for him!
There are too many critically important, County-wide issues that require all the best thinking we can muster.
As Sir Edmund Burke put it: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Let's don't reward anyone for not doing their own thinking - or for trying to feather their own nest.
No 'Rotten Buroughs' represented by the incumbent puppets of special interests.
There are enough 'Rulers of the Queen's Navee' in that other Washington!
Out.
======================
“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy." -US House of Representatives Majority Leader
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose. -George Will
"The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number of people within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of those unborn generations"
--Theodore Roosevelt
Thursday, December 6, 2007
District Only Voting: Are You Kidding Me?
I have now spent at least one night thinking about this issue, although that's not really needed.
And, being sober and lucent, I wonder why this 'District Only' is considered fair, smart, or necessary?
Is there really any legitimate debate on this issue, aside from voter preference?
Right now, there are about 174,000 voting Americans for each elected representative in the US Congress,.
That is less than the number of Americans for every WAL-MART store in the US.
I'm now aware there are over 185,000 people currently living in Whatcom County, of which 102,458 are registered voters, 37,652 of which live in the city of Bellingham.
Is it true that some folks, who espouse 'District only' voting, want the 'approximately' 34,152.7 people living in District 2 to represent only that District, despite the fact it is only one-third of the County?
If so, that is not OK with me!
ALL REPRESENTATIVES NEED TO REPRESENT ALL OF WHATCOM COUNTY!!
Anyone have a problem with that?
If, so, why?
Get this issue back on the ballot!
And, being sober and lucent, I wonder why this 'District Only' is considered fair, smart, or necessary?
Is there really any legitimate debate on this issue, aside from voter preference?
Right now, there are about 174,000 voting Americans for each elected representative in the US Congress,.
That is less than the number of Americans for every WAL-MART store in the US.
I'm now aware there are over 185,000 people currently living in Whatcom County, of which 102,458 are registered voters, 37,652 of which live in the city of Bellingham.
Is it true that some folks, who espouse 'District only' voting, want the 'approximately' 34,152.7 people living in District 2 to represent only that District, despite the fact it is only one-third of the County?
If so, that is not OK with me!
ALL REPRESENTATIVES NEED TO REPRESENT ALL OF WHATCOM COUNTY!!
Anyone have a problem with that?
If, so, why?
Get this issue back on the ballot!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Landlord Accountability: Defining the PROBLEM & What to do about it?
---------------------
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.- Winston Churchill
There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.- Winston Churchill
=======================
This subject has been around as an issue for some time, but now there is renewed interest in resolving in an more effective manner.
Whether 'Landlord Accountability' is the proper description is debatable, but certainly landlords are a part of the problem - and ought to be held accountable as part of the solution.
---------------------
What IS the problem?
I believe it is simply inappropriate behavior that causes neighbors stress, not some abstract concept that can't be effectively enforced.
What specific behaviors are actionable nuisances?
Noise?
Bright lights?
Litter?
Parking?
Late hour disturbances?
Threatening or intimidating behavior?
Domestic violence?
Fear of retribution?
Time & trouble to file a complaint?
A pattern of repeated nuisances - or complaints?
Public health & safety issues, like drug houses or excessive filth?
Illegal activity?
Acts or series of acts requiring abatement proceedings?
All of these are enforceable, but only after they are reported, investigated and verified
---------------------
Who is responsible for reporting these nuisances?
Might it be those most inconvenienced?
Anyone else?
Would a second witness be helpful?
Photo evidence?
What constitutes a report or complaint that can be investigated and verified?
Are nuisance complaints easily documented, investigated, reported?
What constitutes a documented complaint?
Something written, timely and signed by the complaintant?
Whose responsibility is that?
Who can be responsible for causing a nuisance?
Is it only renters?
Is it only students?
How do we verify that a complaint is legitimate, not just a hoax or vengeful act?
How many different people are required to lodge a complaint?
How many complaints for a specific address constitute identifying a problem residence?
How many complaints are to allowed in any given time frame?
Should any LL ordinance apply citywide?
What about private residences that rent rooms? Or not?
Should all Landlords be required to register with the City to verify who owns/manages property?
What registration fee should be enacted?
[Bear in mind that State Law requires the same fee be applied to all Landlords, regardless of number of rental units]
Should Landlords of rental income property be subject to B&O Taxes?
If yes, at what minimum level? [elderly widows renting 1 room?]
How do we define 'landlord'?
Could this definition be applied to owners of homes in single-family areas, who share these living spaces with friends?
Should the City enact a citywide enforcement mechanism, with registration fees and/or B&O Tax to pay for administrative & enforcement costs?
Should Muni Court be used for hearings & judgements? Hearing Examiner? Appeals to Superior Court?
Shold the Bellingham Police Dept be the primary enforcement agency? Will additional officers be required?
What role should WWU play? What costs should WWU bear?
Is the 3-unrelated persons rule enforceable?
Should it be enforced? How? Only if other nuisance complaints trigger an investigation?
If the City enacted a Citywide LL ordinance, could this be used when specific landlords 'nominate' themselves for enforcement?
This might amount to a 'grace period' for good behavior, allowing LL's who manage their tenants well to not be unduly penalized.
What role will Neighborhoods have?
How will the existing complaint system be used, or integrated into a new Ordinance?
How will LL complaint performance be measured?
How often would the new rules be reviewed for updating?
We already know where the 'hotspots' are that attract most complaints, even though tenants change over time.
We also know those who have been most frequently vocal about complaining.
These dynamics change!
City resources are limited, and there are higher priorities than nuisance complaints.
How do we determine what level of service to enforce any LL measure?
---------------------
As is well known, 99+% of compliance with any rule or regulation is VOLUNTARY.
That means if citizens don't willingly comply, we have a problem!
So, the rules need to be reasonable and well communicated, backed up with enforcement if needed.
Also, we need to clear about exactly who is harmed.
Is it one person?
Would this harm -if unchecked- be likely to impact other people?
How many people might be harmed to justify defining a public nuisance?
If additional corrective action is deemed necessary, how much will this cost, and how will these costs be paid?
Would this be similar to enforcing parking rules, with tickets & citations?
Now, there's a popular model!
Where the City decides to go with resolving the 'LL' problem or public nuisance, or whatever we decide to call it, needs to be carefully done.
It will likely NOT be a one size fits all solution, the way some may expect.
So, get ready for focused discussions, new Council!
This issue has now been passed into your custody, care & control.
Good luck!
=================================
Despite the increasing complaints now being heard, some progress has been made since 2004.
A fairly recent summary combined report from the Police Chief, WWU Campus Coalition, Landlord Association(s), Judicial Services Dept, Planning Dept, Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Board & Neighborhood Coordinator outlined the steps that have been taken. In their view, the problem has been alleviated, although certainly not eliminated.
To document this problem is alive and well, a litany of complaints is available at the following Blog:
http://www.zonemaven.blogspot.com/
---------------------
Concluding Comments: Landlord Workshop 11/16/04 at Ferry Terminal:
Thanks for here coming tonight in such numbers, to participate in developing practical solutions to this annoying problem, which is adversely impacting the quality of life for too many citizens. While it is the City’s duty to seriously address this problem, we want to do it reasonably and effectively with the community’s input and support.
WE HAVE HEARD YOU TONIGHT!
Now, here’s what we plan to do:
1. Gather all comments, review them and post them on the City’s website. This also includes the Police Dept statistics by neighborhood.
2. Set up a follow up meeting early next year, say Jan/Feb, to summarize our conclusions from this meeting, present our recommended action plan and get additional feed back from this group. If that feedback is positive, we will proceed accordingly. If additional substantial changes seem necessary, we’ll reiterate this process and set up other meetings until we arrive at an action plan we can all agree upon that has a high likelihood of success.
3. Develop and adopt an action plan, likely to contain a number of the elements and methods that have been identified here tonight. Distribute this plan and enlist the help needed from those involved to implement it.
4. Set up an Advisory Committee representative of this group to become an integral part of implementing any action plan agreed to. This Advisory Committee would monitor the program’s performance; be available as a resource in its application; coordinate with the Police Department, WWU, NW Rental Association and others as required; and periodically provide feedback to the City Council.
5. Evaluate the program and determine its success, or whether modifications are necessary after a trial period of one-year.
We sincerely hope this process will work to correct the persistent, annoying problems that are being experienced, but it will likely require active involvement from all stakeholders to achieve this success. The last thing we want to do is come back later with another version of an onerous ordinance to address problems that can be more effectively handled otherwise.
=======================
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." -- Oscar Wilde
Everyone has his day and some days last longer than others. -Winston Churchill
It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.- Winston Churchill
There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.- Winston Churchill
=======================
This subject has been around as an issue for some time, but now there is renewed interest in resolving in an more effective manner.
Whether 'Landlord Accountability' is the proper description is debatable, but certainly landlords are a part of the problem - and ought to be held accountable as part of the solution.
---------------------
What IS the problem?
I believe it is simply inappropriate behavior that causes neighbors stress, not some abstract concept that can't be effectively enforced.
What specific behaviors are actionable nuisances?
Noise?
Bright lights?
Litter?
Parking?
Late hour disturbances?
Threatening or intimidating behavior?
Domestic violence?
Fear of retribution?
Time & trouble to file a complaint?
A pattern of repeated nuisances - or complaints?
Public health & safety issues, like drug houses or excessive filth?
Illegal activity?
Acts or series of acts requiring abatement proceedings?
All of these are enforceable, but only after they are reported, investigated and verified
---------------------
Who is responsible for reporting these nuisances?
Might it be those most inconvenienced?
Anyone else?
Would a second witness be helpful?
Photo evidence?
What constitutes a report or complaint that can be investigated and verified?
Are nuisance complaints easily documented, investigated, reported?
What constitutes a documented complaint?
Something written, timely and signed by the complaintant?
Whose responsibility is that?
Who can be responsible for causing a nuisance?
Is it only renters?
Is it only students?
How do we verify that a complaint is legitimate, not just a hoax or vengeful act?
How many different people are required to lodge a complaint?
How many complaints for a specific address constitute identifying a problem residence?
How many complaints are to allowed in any given time frame?
Should any LL ordinance apply citywide?
What about private residences that rent rooms? Or not?
Should all Landlords be required to register with the City to verify who owns/manages property?
What registration fee should be enacted?
[Bear in mind that State Law requires the same fee be applied to all Landlords, regardless of number of rental units]
Should Landlords of rental income property be subject to B&O Taxes?
If yes, at what minimum level? [elderly widows renting 1 room?]
How do we define 'landlord'?
Could this definition be applied to owners of homes in single-family areas, who share these living spaces with friends?
Should the City enact a citywide enforcement mechanism, with registration fees and/or B&O Tax to pay for administrative & enforcement costs?
Should Muni Court be used for hearings & judgements? Hearing Examiner? Appeals to Superior Court?
Shold the Bellingham Police Dept be the primary enforcement agency? Will additional officers be required?
What role should WWU play? What costs should WWU bear?
Is the 3-unrelated persons rule enforceable?
Should it be enforced? How? Only if other nuisance complaints trigger an investigation?
If the City enacted a Citywide LL ordinance, could this be used when specific landlords 'nominate' themselves for enforcement?
This might amount to a 'grace period' for good behavior, allowing LL's who manage their tenants well to not be unduly penalized.
What role will Neighborhoods have?
How will the existing complaint system be used, or integrated into a new Ordinance?
How will LL complaint performance be measured?
How often would the new rules be reviewed for updating?
We already know where the 'hotspots' are that attract most complaints, even though tenants change over time.
We also know those who have been most frequently vocal about complaining.
These dynamics change!
City resources are limited, and there are higher priorities than nuisance complaints.
How do we determine what level of service to enforce any LL measure?
---------------------
As is well known, 99+% of compliance with any rule or regulation is VOLUNTARY.
That means if citizens don't willingly comply, we have a problem!
So, the rules need to be reasonable and well communicated, backed up with enforcement if needed.
Also, we need to clear about exactly who is harmed.
Is it one person?
Would this harm -if unchecked- be likely to impact other people?
How many people might be harmed to justify defining a public nuisance?
If additional corrective action is deemed necessary, how much will this cost, and how will these costs be paid?
Would this be similar to enforcing parking rules, with tickets & citations?
Now, there's a popular model!
Where the City decides to go with resolving the 'LL' problem or public nuisance, or whatever we decide to call it, needs to be carefully done.
It will likely NOT be a one size fits all solution, the way some may expect.
So, get ready for focused discussions, new Council!
This issue has now been passed into your custody, care & control.
Good luck!
=================================
Despite the increasing complaints now being heard, some progress has been made since 2004.
A fairly recent summary combined report from the Police Chief, WWU Campus Coalition, Landlord Association(s), Judicial Services Dept, Planning Dept, Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Board & Neighborhood Coordinator outlined the steps that have been taken. In their view, the problem has been alleviated, although certainly not eliminated.
To document this problem is alive and well, a litany of complaints is available at the following Blog:
http://www.zonemaven.blogspot.com/
---------------------
Concluding Comments: Landlord Workshop 11/16/04 at Ferry Terminal:
Thanks for here coming tonight in such numbers, to participate in developing practical solutions to this annoying problem, which is adversely impacting the quality of life for too many citizens. While it is the City’s duty to seriously address this problem, we want to do it reasonably and effectively with the community’s input and support.
WE HAVE HEARD YOU TONIGHT!
Now, here’s what we plan to do:
1. Gather all comments, review them and post them on the City’s website. This also includes the Police Dept statistics by neighborhood.
2. Set up a follow up meeting early next year, say Jan/Feb, to summarize our conclusions from this meeting, present our recommended action plan and get additional feed back from this group. If that feedback is positive, we will proceed accordingly. If additional substantial changes seem necessary, we’ll reiterate this process and set up other meetings until we arrive at an action plan we can all agree upon that has a high likelihood of success.
3. Develop and adopt an action plan, likely to contain a number of the elements and methods that have been identified here tonight. Distribute this plan and enlist the help needed from those involved to implement it.
4. Set up an Advisory Committee representative of this group to become an integral part of implementing any action plan agreed to. This Advisory Committee would monitor the program’s performance; be available as a resource in its application; coordinate with the Police Department, WWU, NW Rental Association and others as required; and periodically provide feedback to the City Council.
5. Evaluate the program and determine its success, or whether modifications are necessary after a trial period of one-year.
We sincerely hope this process will work to correct the persistent, annoying problems that are being experienced, but it will likely require active involvement from all stakeholders to achieve this success. The last thing we want to do is come back later with another version of an onerous ordinance to address problems that can be more effectively handled otherwise.
=======================
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." -- Oscar Wilde
Everyone has his day and some days last longer than others. -Winston Churchill
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Lake Whatcom: Watershed Land Acquisition Program -Rationale & History
===============
For those interested in a little more history, here is a synopsis of the City Council discussions -back in July thru September, 2000- that led to adopting the Watershed Acquisition Ordinance we have today.
Back then, the Community had narrowly missed approving 'Proposition 1', a public initiative that came just short of its goal in requiring the City to enact a Watershed Acquisition measure using a Water Rate Surcharge as the source of funding.
But, that initiative served to educate citizens -including elected officials- to the need for such a measure, which did lead to adoption of the measure described below.
These notes may also be of interest to those who have followed the Silver Beach Ordinance Task Force proceedings, at which the concept of property transfers via acquisition and other methods was discussed.
This memo is what I presented to the Council.
Eventually, the Council decided to pass its own Watershed Acquisition Ordinance to raise funds, preserve watershed property and administer the program that still exists.
Details of Watershed Acquisition accomplishments & challenges can be obtained from the City Website, or through the Public Works Dept Environmental Resources Division.
The Watershed Advisory Board has also done great work resulting in in comprehesive set of recommendations that still require action by Council and Staff. Their meetings are public, and held monthly.
===============
Fellow Council Members:
In anticipation of our discussion of this issue during the Watershed Committee session scheduled for 3:45 PM Monday, July 31, I have developed some questions, ideas and requests for your consideration.
After listening carefully to the main concerns expressed about this Resolution, I attempted to think of ways these can be addressed, recognizing the time for decision is near. Please review this information in preparation for our meeting.
------------------------
1. Do you doubt that establishing a land acquisition program would help in protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed?
------------------------
2. What must happen before you would feel a sense of urgency, sufficient to spur taking this action?
------------------------
3. Do you feel that taking this issue to the ballot this November is necessary?
What would make you change your mind?
------------------------
4. Do you feel taking this to the ballot would expose this idea to unnecessary risk? If so, please indicate what changes you would need to enable you to simply pass this measure now?
------------------------
5. Do you think taking this action now makes COB "non-collaborative" with other programs, like the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program?
If so, please indicate what changes would make it seem more "collaborative"?
------------------------
6. Do you think the funding method proposed, of a drinking water rate surcharge, is too "regressive"? If so, please suggest what other funding sources are preferable, and readily available for Council approval?
------------------------
7. Members of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee have already expressed their strong support for the Resolution, as it is now written, by bringing it forward on the agenda.
Do you have any suggestions that could be considered for incorporation?
If so, can these be made and incorporated in time to meet the September 9 ballot proposal submittal deadline?
------------------------
8. Possible suggestions:
• Focus Watershed Land Acquisition Program, for now, on areas in the watershed that are inside or near City Limits; leaving adjacent Urban Growth Areas and/or County lands for inclusion in a more comprehensive program to be implemented later.
• Limit the scope and/or duration of this Watershed Land Acquisition Program, to allow merging or morphing it into a more comprehensive program later. Consider phasing this program out in 2 or 3 years, if it is no longer needed, is proven ineffective or a better funding source is found.
(possibly consider this as a 'interim' measure focused on COB-specific problems - remember the Silver Beach Ordinance was enacted on an Emergency Basis, and is now an Interim Ordinance, pending approval and possible incorporation of citizen-supported amendments)
• Consider simply passing the Resolution, at its requested funding level and source, without a ballot, either with or without additional agreed-to conditions.
• Support continuing development of a Watershed Land Acquisition Program, as proposed by the Resolution, to allow time to develop specifics more fully.
This would enable any resulting plan to be ready for implementation shortly after funding is provided (beginning 1/1/01) and (watershed-wide) recommendations from the Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition are available.
------------------------
9. There are already some good ideas available on why these funds are needed and how they can be used to do valuable work, both in protecting the Watershed and enabling fairer and more flexible implementation of the Silver Beach Ordinance. Silver Beach citizens and property owners, in particular, need this tool to help them now, not 2-3 years hence.
Many citizens may be willing to continue working with COB to develop workable programs that make effective use of these funds.
We could also consider this Watershed Land Acquisition Program as similar to a working Demonstration Project, since experimenting with new concepts on a smaller scale is often preferred, because this can provide valuable feedback (at relatively low risk) to enhance more comprehensive programs to be developed in the future.
This course would seem a prudent one to follow, to help learn workable and practical methods for Watershed protection while directly involving citizens in the process.
------------------------
10. A reminder of roles:
• The City Council is responsible for setting COB policies and goals
• The Mayor & Staff are responsible for implementing these policies and being accountable for meeting goals.
• Staff is responsible for providing professional & technical advice and doing the daily work of providing services to the citizenry.
------------------------
11. The City Council has consistently stated its intentions of:
• Supporting its preference of "non-structural", PREVENTION & PROTECTION methods over "structural", TREATMENT, MITIGATION or REMEDIATION methods in sustaining good water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole drinking water source for 66,000 city and county residents.
This is because non-structural, preventative methods, like proper zoning and land preservation measures, are proven to be much more effective and much less costly.
• Making substantial progress in achieving each of the 3 priorities agreed-to and set for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, which for the year 2000 includes:
i) Urbanization/Land Use Zoning - COB action:
Passed Silver Beach Ordinance; Citizen's Task Force is now working to recommend additional provisions to add fairness and flexibility, with report due in September. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, but includes no funding for land acquisition)
ii) Stormwater Management - COB action:
new Surface & Storm Water Utility program and funding anticipated later this year ("structural", TREATMENT method, in response to Federal/State mandates; includes no funding for land acquisition)
iii) Watershed Ownership - COB action:
a) supported formation of Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition (under Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program auspices; a "non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, will begin to study funding for land acquisition later);
b) now considering this Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE method; does include funding for land acquisition)
Each of the above stated and agreed-to priorities has specific actions for each jurisdiction to accomplish, some jointly and some independently, toward achieving progress on the goals.
Clearly, any actions COB may take to further these goals within its own jurisdictional boundary will help this overall cause.
Urban areas have inherently different and more difficult problems than more rural areas.
Density, itself, makes this so.
Conversely, implementing effective measures in an urban area pays off quickly, in reducing adverse impacts and greatly reducing the necessity and cost of future mitigation.
------------------------
12. General Comments:
• This Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution is NOT intended to stimulate any sense of competition with the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, Whatcom County or any other entity. It IS intended to convey a sense of urgency for the city to accept responsibility for some tough, existing problems, to help resolve them, and in the process, PREVENT further problems from happening that are uniquely ours as an urban entity. It makes no sense to wait any longer in facing up to these responsibilities!
• Both COB and its City Council have been justifiably criticized in the past for talking sympathetically about protecting the watershed, but not being willing to take enough sustained effective action, aside from strongly supporting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program. By passing this Resolution, the City Council will serve notice of its commitment to take its own timely action to resolve some uniquely COB problems, when and where they are needed most. I believe that citizens will strongly support this action, whether or not they are allowed an advisory vote on it.
• Even by taking action and passing this Resolution, I don't expect all criticism will stop. Some will be unhappy that this action doesn't go far enough; some will find reasons to say this is unnecessary, unfair or unlikely to significantly help. In response to these concerns, I ask you to also listen to those citizens who were directly impacted by the Silver Beach Ordinance, including those who have volunteered their time and energy toward trying to make the Silver Beach Ordinance more fair & flexible, without sacrificing its goal of protecting the City's portion of the Watershed in measurable ways. They will tell you they need a Land Acquisition Program now - to facilitate their immediate needs, within the city limits.
• While all details of a COB-specific Land Acquisition Program aren't yet fully formed, the need for such a program is clearly present, and well established. I encourage you to seize this moment, and take advantage of the strong citizen support and momentum we all know is out there. I believe the best way to do this is to simply pass the requested drinking water rate surcharge; then allow us (Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee, Staff and Citizens) to work out and bring to you for approval, a program plan, developed using the public process.
• Lastly, in making the decision at hand, please consider the wisdom of having this developmental work done, and in place, by 1/1/01, when funding could begin and recommendations from Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program's Citizen's Task Force on (watershed-wide) Land Acquisition are due.
• I ask each of you to support passage of the Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution today, in whatever form your conscience will allow. Thanks for giving this matter your serious consideration.
---------------------
A. “United We Stand” -paragraph excerpts)
The growing concern about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, which is just now being addressed more effectively, results from years of unintentional, incremental misuses, ignorance of the cumulative effects of these misuses, and the inertia of short-term thinking regarding the surrounding watershed.
Arresting and reversing the impacts of these past, and present, careless practices and habits will require building a broad public awareness of their factual contributions to the situation, and a strong, common commitment to change these collective habits and practices in common sense, but comprehensive ways.
The proposed Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance seeks to apply proven watershed acquisition techniques in helping to institutionalize a long-term preservation program for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir resource.
It represents a suite of potentially very effective tools, which our local community can adopt to help prevent further degradation of our primary water resource, which is needed to supply potable (drinking water) and non-potable water, and provide for recreation and aquatic habitat uses.
------------------------
B. Agenda Bill -excerpts
1. The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed and its protection were again recognized as the City Council's top priority for the year 2000.
2. Watershed Ownership is also one of the three top priorities this year for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, which jointly supported by the City, County and Water District 10.
This program established earlier this year, a special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition that is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas.
Recommendations are due from this Task Force by year-end, and should be instrumental in guiding watershed-wide land acquisition strategies.
3. Effective Watershed Ownership or Land Acquisition programs often include any or all of the following acquisition methods and financing options:
a. Land Acquisition Methods
Fee simple interest
Partial interests
• Conservation easements & restrictions
• Purchase of development rights or credits
• Restrictive covenants
b. Financing Options
• Donations or "bargain sales"
• Purchase by conservation groups
• Increased water & sewer fees
• Increased local property or property transfer taxes
• Municipal bonds
4. Many Land Acquisition Program needs have already been identified, but an ongoing funding source and land acquisition methodology have not yet been fully developed.
In anticipation of the recommendations from the special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition, the City wishes to be proactive in its collaboration with this effort by arranging to have a funding source and land acquisition methodology in place by 1/1/2001.
This proposed Ordinance establishes a public procedure for achieving that end, including public participation.
------------------------
C. Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Acquisition
WHEREAS, protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and others, is of the utmost public health importance to the citizens of Bellingham and others who obtain water from the lake; and
WHEREAS, a proven and effective method of protecting municipal water supplies, such as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, is to acquire, for public ownership, lands within the watershed and protect them from development; and
WHEREAS, the City, County, and Water District 10 Joint Resolution No. 92-68, signed in 1992, recognized the importance of protecting Lake Whatcom and its watershed as a Reservoir and the major drinking water source for the County; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that before-the-fact prevention take precedence over after-the-fact mitigation or treatment; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens' Task Force of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing the quality of our drinking water supply has been identified as the top priority for the City Council for the past three years; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a truly comprehensive program of education, land use regulation and enforcement, monitoring, and review as well as land acquisition is essential to preserving water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir; and the City Council will continue its active support and encouragement of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program with Whatcom County and Water District #10. Therefore ........
------------------------
You, the Citizens get to write the next Chapters regarding Watershed Acquisition & Preservation.
I hope you will do it well, so the benefits can begin soon and enure into the future.
But, Watershed Acquisition & Preservation can't realistically do the job alone!
We will have to find better ways of encouraging the existing inhabitants of the Lake Whatcom Watershed to recognize their responsibilties for proper care and use of their 'lake', because what they do -or don't do- impacts us all.
It is our Reservoir, and the only one we have, so we need to take care of it!
Let's get on with this task!
For those interested in a little more history, here is a synopsis of the City Council discussions -back in July thru September, 2000- that led to adopting the Watershed Acquisition Ordinance we have today.
Back then, the Community had narrowly missed approving 'Proposition 1', a public initiative that came just short of its goal in requiring the City to enact a Watershed Acquisition measure using a Water Rate Surcharge as the source of funding.
But, that initiative served to educate citizens -including elected officials- to the need for such a measure, which did lead to adoption of the measure described below.
These notes may also be of interest to those who have followed the Silver Beach Ordinance Task Force proceedings, at which the concept of property transfers via acquisition and other methods was discussed.
This memo is what I presented to the Council.
Eventually, the Council decided to pass its own Watershed Acquisition Ordinance to raise funds, preserve watershed property and administer the program that still exists.
Details of Watershed Acquisition accomplishments & challenges can be obtained from the City Website, or through the Public Works Dept Environmental Resources Division.
The Watershed Advisory Board has also done great work resulting in in comprehesive set of recommendations that still require action by Council and Staff. Their meetings are public, and held monthly.
===============
Fellow Council Members:
In anticipation of our discussion of this issue during the Watershed Committee session scheduled for 3:45 PM Monday, July 31, I have developed some questions, ideas and requests for your consideration.
After listening carefully to the main concerns expressed about this Resolution, I attempted to think of ways these can be addressed, recognizing the time for decision is near. Please review this information in preparation for our meeting.
------------------------
1. Do you doubt that establishing a land acquisition program would help in protecting the Lake Whatcom Watershed?
------------------------
2. What must happen before you would feel a sense of urgency, sufficient to spur taking this action?
------------------------
3. Do you feel that taking this issue to the ballot this November is necessary?
What would make you change your mind?
------------------------
4. Do you feel taking this to the ballot would expose this idea to unnecessary risk? If so, please indicate what changes you would need to enable you to simply pass this measure now?
------------------------
5. Do you think taking this action now makes COB "non-collaborative" with other programs, like the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program?
If so, please indicate what changes would make it seem more "collaborative"?
------------------------
6. Do you think the funding method proposed, of a drinking water rate surcharge, is too "regressive"? If so, please suggest what other funding sources are preferable, and readily available for Council approval?
------------------------
7. Members of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee have already expressed their strong support for the Resolution, as it is now written, by bringing it forward on the agenda.
Do you have any suggestions that could be considered for incorporation?
If so, can these be made and incorporated in time to meet the September 9 ballot proposal submittal deadline?
------------------------
8. Possible suggestions:
• Focus Watershed Land Acquisition Program, for now, on areas in the watershed that are inside or near City Limits; leaving adjacent Urban Growth Areas and/or County lands for inclusion in a more comprehensive program to be implemented later.
• Limit the scope and/or duration of this Watershed Land Acquisition Program, to allow merging or morphing it into a more comprehensive program later. Consider phasing this program out in 2 or 3 years, if it is no longer needed, is proven ineffective or a better funding source is found.
(possibly consider this as a 'interim' measure focused on COB-specific problems - remember the Silver Beach Ordinance was enacted on an Emergency Basis, and is now an Interim Ordinance, pending approval and possible incorporation of citizen-supported amendments)
• Consider simply passing the Resolution, at its requested funding level and source, without a ballot, either with or without additional agreed-to conditions.
• Support continuing development of a Watershed Land Acquisition Program, as proposed by the Resolution, to allow time to develop specifics more fully.
This would enable any resulting plan to be ready for implementation shortly after funding is provided (beginning 1/1/01) and (watershed-wide) recommendations from the Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition are available.
------------------------
9. There are already some good ideas available on why these funds are needed and how they can be used to do valuable work, both in protecting the Watershed and enabling fairer and more flexible implementation of the Silver Beach Ordinance. Silver Beach citizens and property owners, in particular, need this tool to help them now, not 2-3 years hence.
Many citizens may be willing to continue working with COB to develop workable programs that make effective use of these funds.
We could also consider this Watershed Land Acquisition Program as similar to a working Demonstration Project, since experimenting with new concepts on a smaller scale is often preferred, because this can provide valuable feedback (at relatively low risk) to enhance more comprehensive programs to be developed in the future.
This course would seem a prudent one to follow, to help learn workable and practical methods for Watershed protection while directly involving citizens in the process.
------------------------
10. A reminder of roles:
• The City Council is responsible for setting COB policies and goals
• The Mayor & Staff are responsible for implementing these policies and being accountable for meeting goals.
• Staff is responsible for providing professional & technical advice and doing the daily work of providing services to the citizenry.
------------------------
11. The City Council has consistently stated its intentions of:
• Supporting its preference of "non-structural", PREVENTION & PROTECTION methods over "structural", TREATMENT, MITIGATION or REMEDIATION methods in sustaining good water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole drinking water source for 66,000 city and county residents.
This is because non-structural, preventative methods, like proper zoning and land preservation measures, are proven to be much more effective and much less costly.
• Making substantial progress in achieving each of the 3 priorities agreed-to and set for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program, which for the year 2000 includes:
i) Urbanization/Land Use Zoning - COB action:
Passed Silver Beach Ordinance; Citizen's Task Force is now working to recommend additional provisions to add fairness and flexibility, with report due in September. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, but includes no funding for land acquisition)
ii) Stormwater Management - COB action:
new Surface & Storm Water Utility program and funding anticipated later this year ("structural", TREATMENT method, in response to Federal/State mandates; includes no funding for land acquisition)
iii) Watershed Ownership - COB action:
a) supported formation of Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition (under Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program auspices; a "non-structural", PREVENTATIVE measure, will begin to study funding for land acquisition later);
b) now considering this Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution. ("non-structural", PREVENTATIVE method; does include funding for land acquisition)
Each of the above stated and agreed-to priorities has specific actions for each jurisdiction to accomplish, some jointly and some independently, toward achieving progress on the goals.
Clearly, any actions COB may take to further these goals within its own jurisdictional boundary will help this overall cause.
Urban areas have inherently different and more difficult problems than more rural areas.
Density, itself, makes this so.
Conversely, implementing effective measures in an urban area pays off quickly, in reducing adverse impacts and greatly reducing the necessity and cost of future mitigation.
------------------------
12. General Comments:
• This Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution is NOT intended to stimulate any sense of competition with the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, Whatcom County or any other entity. It IS intended to convey a sense of urgency for the city to accept responsibility for some tough, existing problems, to help resolve them, and in the process, PREVENT further problems from happening that are uniquely ours as an urban entity. It makes no sense to wait any longer in facing up to these responsibilities!
• Both COB and its City Council have been justifiably criticized in the past for talking sympathetically about protecting the watershed, but not being willing to take enough sustained effective action, aside from strongly supporting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program. By passing this Resolution, the City Council will serve notice of its commitment to take its own timely action to resolve some uniquely COB problems, when and where they are needed most. I believe that citizens will strongly support this action, whether or not they are allowed an advisory vote on it.
• Even by taking action and passing this Resolution, I don't expect all criticism will stop. Some will be unhappy that this action doesn't go far enough; some will find reasons to say this is unnecessary, unfair or unlikely to significantly help. In response to these concerns, I ask you to also listen to those citizens who were directly impacted by the Silver Beach Ordinance, including those who have volunteered their time and energy toward trying to make the Silver Beach Ordinance more fair & flexible, without sacrificing its goal of protecting the City's portion of the Watershed in measurable ways. They will tell you they need a Land Acquisition Program now - to facilitate their immediate needs, within the city limits.
• While all details of a COB-specific Land Acquisition Program aren't yet fully formed, the need for such a program is clearly present, and well established. I encourage you to seize this moment, and take advantage of the strong citizen support and momentum we all know is out there. I believe the best way to do this is to simply pass the requested drinking water rate surcharge; then allow us (Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee, Staff and Citizens) to work out and bring to you for approval, a program plan, developed using the public process.
• Lastly, in making the decision at hand, please consider the wisdom of having this developmental work done, and in place, by 1/1/01, when funding could begin and recommendations from Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program's Citizen's Task Force on (watershed-wide) Land Acquisition are due.
• I ask each of you to support passage of the Watershed Land Acquisition Resolution today, in whatever form your conscience will allow. Thanks for giving this matter your serious consideration.
---------------------
A. “United We Stand” -paragraph excerpts)
The growing concern about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, which is just now being addressed more effectively, results from years of unintentional, incremental misuses, ignorance of the cumulative effects of these misuses, and the inertia of short-term thinking regarding the surrounding watershed.
Arresting and reversing the impacts of these past, and present, careless practices and habits will require building a broad public awareness of their factual contributions to the situation, and a strong, common commitment to change these collective habits and practices in common sense, but comprehensive ways.
The proposed Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance seeks to apply proven watershed acquisition techniques in helping to institutionalize a long-term preservation program for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir resource.
It represents a suite of potentially very effective tools, which our local community can adopt to help prevent further degradation of our primary water resource, which is needed to supply potable (drinking water) and non-potable water, and provide for recreation and aquatic habitat uses.
------------------------
B. Agenda Bill -excerpts
1. The Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed and its protection were again recognized as the City Council's top priority for the year 2000.
2. Watershed Ownership is also one of the three top priorities this year for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2000, which jointly supported by the City, County and Water District 10.
This program established earlier this year, a special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition that is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas.
Recommendations are due from this Task Force by year-end, and should be instrumental in guiding watershed-wide land acquisition strategies.
3. Effective Watershed Ownership or Land Acquisition programs often include any or all of the following acquisition methods and financing options:
a. Land Acquisition Methods
Fee simple interest
Partial interests
• Conservation easements & restrictions
• Purchase of development rights or credits
• Restrictive covenants
b. Financing Options
• Donations or "bargain sales"
• Purchase by conservation groups
• Increased water & sewer fees
• Increased local property or property transfer taxes
• Municipal bonds
4. Many Land Acquisition Program needs have already been identified, but an ongoing funding source and land acquisition methodology have not yet been fully developed.
In anticipation of the recommendations from the special Citizen's Task Force on Land Acquisition, the City wishes to be proactive in its collaboration with this effort by arranging to have a funding source and land acquisition methodology in place by 1/1/2001.
This proposed Ordinance establishes a public procedure for achieving that end, including public participation.
------------------------
C. Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Acquisition
WHEREAS, protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and others, is of the utmost public health importance to the citizens of Bellingham and others who obtain water from the lake; and
WHEREAS, a proven and effective method of protecting municipal water supplies, such as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, is to acquire, for public ownership, lands within the watershed and protect them from development; and
WHEREAS, the City, County, and Water District 10 Joint Resolution No. 92-68, signed in 1992, recognized the importance of protecting Lake Whatcom and its watershed as a Reservoir and the major drinking water source for the County; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that before-the-fact prevention take precedence over after-the-fact mitigation or treatment; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens' Task Force of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing the quality of our drinking water supply has been identified as the top priority for the City Council for the past three years; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a truly comprehensive program of education, land use regulation and enforcement, monitoring, and review as well as land acquisition is essential to preserving water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir; and the City Council will continue its active support and encouragement of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program with Whatcom County and Water District #10. Therefore ........
------------------------
You, the Citizens get to write the next Chapters regarding Watershed Acquisition & Preservation.
I hope you will do it well, so the benefits can begin soon and enure into the future.
But, Watershed Acquisition & Preservation can't realistically do the job alone!
We will have to find better ways of encouraging the existing inhabitants of the Lake Whatcom Watershed to recognize their responsibilties for proper care and use of their 'lake', because what they do -or don't do- impacts us all.
It is our Reservoir, and the only one we have, so we need to take care of it!
Let's get on with this task!
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
==================
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================
The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.
It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.
This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
[REPRINTED FROM AUGUST 8, 2007 BLOG]
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:
In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.
As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %
UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64
NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4
Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72
Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57
Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0
Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================
The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.
It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.
This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
[REPRINTED FROM AUGUST 8, 2007 BLOG]
Silver Beach Ordinance - Citizens Task Force Recommendations
Final Recommendations Survey - August 17, 2000:
In January, 2000, the City Council enacted an Emergency Interim Ordinance -known as the 'Silver Beach Ordinance'- as the City's management response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of Lake Whatcom as an impaired waterbody, due to its adverse findings of fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. This Emergency action was controversial and required considerable additional time and citizen input to achieve better fairness and flexibility in the Ordinance. This took two primary forms; Public Hearings and a Citizen's Task Force to hear concerns, gather information and make recommendations for improvements to the Ordinance, which itself sought to address four main topics; Land Use, Density, Impervious Surfaces and Seasonal Limits on Clearing & Grading -all in the City's portion of the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
A ten-person Task Force was appointed by the mayor that reasonably represented major stakeholder groups, with 8 members who actually lived in this watershed. The Task Force was assigned to work under the auspices of the Council's Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee to facilitate its coordination with staff, the public and the Council as a whole. The combined group agreed to meet for 8 work sessions -at 2-week intervals, over the Summer- and then work to come to consensus on recommendations to discharge its duty. This group was able to cover a wide range of suggestions and come to consensus, or near consensus, on over half of them! The group also requested 2 additional meetings to examine how its recommendations would be incorporated into the Ordinance, and to present it's recommendations to the City Council.
As a result of this Task Force and its recommendations, the Silver Beach Ordinance was both strengthened and made more fair and flexible, with the result of being unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each of the Task Force public meetings was recorded and later transcribed into minutes, to memorialize the important discussions and work that was accomplished. Each and every member of this Task Force contributed significantly to its success, and the City owes a debt of gratitude to them for their voluntary service on this important matter!
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has been accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource.
Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 1. SCIENCE:
(8) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that sufficient information exists to either verify/suggest Lake Whatcom is/may be impacted by development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION:
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
13) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
CONCLUSION: Unanimous belief that public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring the view that public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts. Some confusion in meaning; may need clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public education efforts should be:
12) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
CONCLUSION: Near unanimous belief that public education should be a high priority.
(This has been recommended to the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program as a priority for 2001)
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(9) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring stronger and/or revised policy guidance as necessary for adequate lake protection.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(9) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(8) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring updating Neighborhood Plan or revising land use designations and densities.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(7) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some type of downzone.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(5) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(3) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; near unanimously favoring definition of a minimum buildable lot size, possibly requiring consolidation.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs).
(8) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(9) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some type of TDR program.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
(9) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some front yard setback reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(7) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES.
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(6) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(8) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring further restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(6) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on need for some reduction in livestock permits.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring continued prohibition.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE.
(9) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(2) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on need for cluster development.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS.
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
11) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
12) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing possible narrowing full standard street right of way in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(9) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(5) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on allowing sidewalk reductions on full standard streets in SB.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
12) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on narrowing sidewalks and/or setback when feasible
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER.
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(6) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
10) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that the Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing without a valid building permit. Minority felt clearing should continue with a permit, using BMPs.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
13) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on Grading Ordinance prohibiting fills w/out a valid building permit.
--------------------------------------------------------
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
12) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having single lots comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE.
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(8) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring the view that wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased. Minority felt no change was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(5) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(3) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more dock restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN.
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
11) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(6) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(3) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring more bulkhead restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS.
(9) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring retention of the current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(2) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(6) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring exterior additions if there is no net increase, or a net reduction in impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
(9) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS.
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(5) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(6) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS.
(7) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(9) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES.
(8) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(9) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(7) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(5) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
(8) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring some lawn area limits on single lots.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT.
(5) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(6) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(7) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(3) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping 5-month limit, or reducing springtime impacts.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring keeping the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft.
--------------------------------------------------------
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(7) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; most favoring allowing off-season reconstruction due to damage with controls.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
(7) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(6) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
CONCLUSION: Split opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(9) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring not allowing off-season work, above exemption area thresholds.
--------------------------------------------------------
12) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement on requiring certification to do construction work, even in season.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS.
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
10) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring all water users paying for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(8) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; majority favoring stormwater fees on a flat rate per residence basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
10) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake management. A large majority felt this was essential.
--------------------------------------------------------
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(7) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that City money should be used for public land acquisition in some manner. Majority felt it should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed.
--------------------------------------------------------
(7) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(2) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
CONCLUSION: Split opinion on first purchase priority. This seems dependent upon the acquisition mechanisms adopted, the recommendations determined by a Watershed Acquisition Advisory Board, and the specific purchases approved by City Council.
--------------------------------------------------------
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
12) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on using funding from all available sources.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT.
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(9) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
CONCLUSION: Near-unanimous agreement on enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results – or stricter.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
10) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
CONCLUSION: Split opinion; large majority favoring establishing Benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of the new ordinance provisions.
--------------------------------------------------------
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
12) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
CONCLUSION: Unanimous agreement that a stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues. Several members of the CTF expressed interest in remaining involved in some capacity to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------
• SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Total Number by Voting category//Per Cent %//CUMULATIVE Per Cent %
UNANIMOUS [NO VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 12//22.64//22.64
NEAR-UNANIMOUS [1 OR 2 VOTES AGAINST A POSITION] 11//20.76//43.4
Split opinion; large majority favoring [9 – 10 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 6//11.32//54.72
Split opinion; majority favoring [7 – 8 VOTES FOR A POSITION] 19//35.85//90.57
Split opinion [NO CLEAR MAJORITY POSITION] 5//9.43//100.0
Total Voted Categories or Sub-categories: 53
Silver Beach Ordinance Redux: 8th Meeting Citizens Task Force
==================
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================
The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.
It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.
This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
Here is a Summary of the August 15, 2000 meeting:
I. Attendance: All present, except KB, BB*, AK*, JK*, AR*, BR. (* submitted written proxy).
Guest: P. Decker
II. Handouts:
• Recommendations Survey & 8/08/00 Meeting Summary. (see also http://www.cob.org/cobweb/council/sbo.htm)
III. Participant Comments on Recommendations Survey
• General: Have comments on most of these recommendations and would like another opportunity to discuss them with the group. Can we call a meeting after today's meeting to do this?
• Category 1. SCIENCE: Significant information exists to conclude that the lake is impacted by development, however insufficient data exists to allow compliance with required TMDL regulations. The Lake Whatcom Management Team is working to coordinate the science in regards to the lake to eliminate duplication of effort and reduce doubt about various studies.
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION: Group 2: somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence? Public education should be high priority (highest). How else can an electorate make an informed decision?
• Category 3. MORATORIUM. There also should be a moratorium on single family (all new construction) until ordinances (and BMPs) are revised (and approved). This should extend into the Urban Growth and Urban Fringe areas also (areas that may be annexed into the city). It has been proven over the years that continuing to build while we talk just doesn’t work.
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. By updating this plan guidance and foresight could be applied to other areas in the Urban Fringe and/or growth areas in the watershed.
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate unless adjacent. A buy out program for substandard lots could be initiated to restore these areas to an environmental use. The idea is not to cram more density in, (per the State Urban Growth Plan) but to use common sense, land topography, and preservation as guidelines. Add Choice D1 -all of Silver Beach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf. What does C1 mean?
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs). This does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one.
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced to allow less driveway/impervious surface and tandem parking, one behind the other should be permitted. I can see that this might be used to try to get a larger footprint but that is not the intent of this recommendation. What is a rear setback? Setback requirements should allow only the least amount impervious area, perhaps this would mean a choice of B1. A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES. Especially consider remodels; Add D4 -ADU’s OK, if =/<< 2000 SF.
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE. The density of the cluster development, while achieving some of the aims of the SBO is not desirable. The detrimental aspects (traffic, utilizing a space that could not be used for the same density for single family homes) outweigh the good.
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS. Common sense. Add another group, 5,-to allow more alternate pervious surface choices for sidewalks. (gravel, etc)
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER. Single family lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, (not necessarily) like treatment and retention but impact, topography, and other factors need to be considered. Choice B4: (within reason; define how this is determined?)
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE. Over the years science has told us that we always guess wrong and do not allow enough buffers.
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN. Best science says that next to the lake shore is extremely important, so setbacks should reflect this. Docks imply boats, and more boating is not a good use in a watershed resource. Why not docks? SMP regulations on permits. (San Juan County has limited # of docks) Environmental concerns include more people & water-craft, greater probability of spills, use of treated (toxic) pilings, impact on shoreline plants & aquatic life. Choice B1: ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals; C2. -more discussion?)
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS. Changes to this will create the most difficulties of the entire ordinance. Trying to mitigate this or buy more by protecting other areas is subjective at best, arbitrary and sometimes unfair. Under no circumstances should any individual or corporation be allowed more than 2500 sq.ft period, no matter the mitigation. Impervious surface areas should be further reduced beyond the 2000sf or 15%.
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. Incentives should be used to approach current restrictions. Add E1: Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable; B2: -only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS. Current materials/technology may lose their perviousness over time. C1:- unclear; what does “similar to” mean?
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS. This must be strictly controlled and applied. Again the maximum allowed should be 2500 sq. ft. Anything more flies in the face of the intent of the ordinance. Note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES. Again, do you have to pay people to protect their drinking water resource? Some flexibility may be warranted but how much, at what price?
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided to include coupons from nurseries for appropriate plantings. Consider limiting lawn area particularly sloping lawns on lake abutting property or other steep slopes. Education is the key here. A1/B1:-for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT. This is extremely important and education again is the key here. Someone must be in the area during the period of time people are out in their yards – evenings, weekends, offering alternatives. The opportunities here are endless. (Blatant) disregard of labeled instructions on most herbicides and pesticides is a violation of federal law already and most limit or prohibit use close to water. C1:-Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels; More consultation needed before making this more specific.
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (refers to ground disturbance only)
Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30, with a possible extension to 10/15, based on weather patterns. Add E1:-if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May.
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS. Some feel everyone should pay the same to fix the problem but the watershed resident are causing the problem and should pay more (LID).
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. Numerous programs will evolve from the ongoing process of managing the lake. A funding source is absolutely necessary prior to initiating these programs. Time is also a critical factor. C2:-what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?; Add F3:-Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?); Add G3:-All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAB/City Council); D3:-If main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best; E3:-if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority; Group 3:-This whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives.
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT. Enforcement must be tied to education.
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS There will not be a one on one correlation. It is hard to measure prevention.
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
IV. Recommendations Survey:
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource. Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column. Currently, voting is incomplete, due to a few absences.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
1. SCIENCE
(6) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
2. PUBLIC EDUCATION
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
11) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
(6) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
Public education efforts should be:
11) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
3. MORATORIUM
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(5) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(7) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(7) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(7) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(5) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
(4) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(4) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(2) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR’S)
(7) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(7) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(7) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(5) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(4) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(6) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(4) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
(5) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
10. SUBDIVISION CODE
(8) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(1) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
11. STREET STANDARDS
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
(9) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
10) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(7) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(4) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
10) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(5) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
(8) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
11) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
10) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(6) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
14. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
(9) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
(4) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(2) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(5) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(2) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS
(7) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(1) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(5) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
(7) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(4) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(5) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS
(5) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(7) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES
(6) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(7) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(6) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(4) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
(6) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
(4) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(5) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS* (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(6) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(2) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
(5) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(5) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
(6) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(5) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(7) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
10) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(8) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
(2) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(7) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
(8) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(5) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(6) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(1) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
10) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
26. ENFORCEMENT*
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(7) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
27. BENCHMARKS/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
(8) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
28. ONGOING ADVISORY STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
10) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
V. Wrap-up & Closing Comments by Participants:
• Observed 3 poor practices during last week, all reflecting ignorance of impacts to watershed:
1. Walk-by spraying by masked person near Electric & Alabama.
2. Yard spraying by masked person on Academy Hill.
3. Neighbor filling in a grassy swale/ditch to create a parking space on public right-of-way.
• Silver Beach Association will be emphasizing lake-friendly education frequently, including special newsletter to all watershed residents in SB. Include articles in Herald & Your City Newsletter? Enclose inserts in Your City newsletter to distribute widely and save on mailing costs?
• Would like to see progress on determining feasibility of moving G-P intake back to Basin #1, which hatchery currently uses. Potential positive impact on lake-flow patterns, reducing stagnation in Basin #1. How could this be financed?
• What is status of the study on 2-stroke engines on lake? Not only are jet-skis heavy polluters, but they are noisy and potentially dangerous. San Juan County banned them.
• COB’s proposed new Storm & Surface Water utility funding is to be a subject of discussion at the next Council meeting. Also, a Public Hearing on Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance will be held during the evening session.
• This group has worked hard and needs to be commended for its commitment to accomplishing, and exceeding its stated task. Thanks!
Silver Beach Ordinance Citizen's Task Force
Kimberly Barron
Terry Bornemann
Bill Bliss
Dan Cantrell
Tim Farris
Jan Hayes
Allena Kanne
Jeff Kenoyer
Mike Minge
Bay Renaud
Barbara Ryan
Chris Spens
John Watts
Myron Wlaznak
WARNING: The following information is LONG, boring to many, incomprehensible to others, and history that repeats itself!
==================
The Silver Beach Neighborhood recently debated adopting a list of policy measures to address the issue of protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Many of the items on the list were recognizable as elements of earlier discussions during the deliberations on the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance', designed in response to the Dept of Ecology's 303 (d) listing of the lake for fecal cliform and dissolved oxygen levels.
Some were adopted and incorporated into the Ordinance, while others were not for various reasons.
It may be useful to revisit those earlier discussions again as a reminder of what was considered during those initial eight public meetings, which resulted in a list of unanimous, or near-unanimous, recommendations that were adopted.
The adopted recommendations -from meeting No. 9- were the subject of my 8/8/07 blog.
This general subject was also discussed or rferenced in blogs from October 9, 12 & 13 and Dec 3
-----------------------
Here is a Summary of the August 15, 2000 meeting:
I. Attendance: All present, except KB, BB*, AK*, JK*, AR*, BR. (* submitted written proxy).
Guest: P. Decker
II. Handouts:
• Recommendations Survey & 8/08/00 Meeting Summary. (see also http://www.cob.org/cobweb/council/sbo.htm)
III. Participant Comments on Recommendations Survey
• General: Have comments on most of these recommendations and would like another opportunity to discuss them with the group. Can we call a meeting after today's meeting to do this?
• Category 1. SCIENCE: Significant information exists to conclude that the lake is impacted by development, however insufficient data exists to allow compliance with required TMDL regulations. The Lake Whatcom Management Team is working to coordinate the science in regards to the lake to eliminate duplication of effort and reduce doubt about various studies.
• Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION: Group 2: somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence? Public education should be high priority (highest). How else can an electorate make an informed decision?
• Category 3. MORATORIUM. There also should be a moratorium on single family (all new construction) until ordinances (and BMPs) are revised (and approved). This should extend into the Urban Growth and Urban Fringe areas also (areas that may be annexed into the city). It has been proven over the years that continuing to build while we talk just doesn’t work.
• Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
• Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. By updating this plan guidance and foresight could be applied to other areas in the Urban Fringe and/or growth areas in the watershed.
• Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate unless adjacent. A buy out program for substandard lots could be initiated to restore these areas to an environmental use. The idea is not to cram more density in, (per the State Urban Growth Plan) but to use common sense, land topography, and preservation as guidelines. Add Choice D1 -all of Silver Beach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf. What does C1 mean?
• Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs). This does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one.
• Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced to allow less driveway/impervious surface and tandem parking, one behind the other should be permitted. I can see that this might be used to try to get a larger footprint but that is not the intent of this recommendation. What is a rear setback? Setback requirements should allow only the least amount impervious area, perhaps this would mean a choice of B1. A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option
• Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES. Especially consider remodels; Add D4 -ADU’s OK, if =/<< 2000 SF.
• Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE. The density of the cluster development, while achieving some of the aims of the SBO is not desirable. The detrimental aspects (traffic, utilizing a space that could not be used for the same density for single family homes) outweigh the good.
• Category 11. STREET STANDARDS. Common sense. Add another group, 5,-to allow more alternate pervious surface choices for sidewalks. (gravel, etc)
• Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER. Single family lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, (not necessarily) like treatment and retention but impact, topography, and other factors need to be considered. Choice B4: (within reason; define how this is determined?)
• Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE. Over the years science has told us that we always guess wrong and do not allow enough buffers.
• Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN. Best science says that next to the lake shore is extremely important, so setbacks should reflect this. Docks imply boats, and more boating is not a good use in a watershed resource. Why not docks? SMP regulations on permits. (San Juan County has limited # of docks) Environmental concerns include more people & water-craft, greater probability of spills, use of treated (toxic) pilings, impact on shoreline plants & aquatic life. Choice B1: ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals; C2. -more discussion?)
• Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS. Changes to this will create the most difficulties of the entire ordinance. Trying to mitigate this or buy more by protecting other areas is subjective at best, arbitrary and sometimes unfair. Under no circumstances should any individual or corporation be allowed more than 2500 sq.ft period, no matter the mitigation. Impervious surface areas should be further reduced beyond the 2000sf or 15%.
• Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS. Incentives should be used to approach current restrictions. Add E1: Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable; B2: -only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?
• Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS. Current materials/technology may lose their perviousness over time. C1:- unclear; what does “similar to” mean?
• Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS. This must be strictly controlled and applied. Again the maximum allowed should be 2500 sq. ft. Anything more flies in the face of the intent of the ordinance. Note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?
• Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES. Again, do you have to pay people to protect their drinking water resource? Some flexibility may be warranted but how much, at what price?
• Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided to include coupons from nurseries for appropriate plantings. Consider limiting lawn area particularly sloping lawns on lake abutting property or other steep slopes. Education is the key here. A1/B1:-for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?
• Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT. This is extremely important and education again is the key here. Someone must be in the area during the period of time people are out in their yards – evenings, weekends, offering alternatives. The opportunities here are endless. (Blatant) disregard of labeled instructions on most herbicides and pesticides is a violation of federal law already and most limit or prohibit use close to water. C1:-Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels; More consultation needed before making this more specific.
• Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. (refers to ground disturbance only)
Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30, with a possible extension to 10/15, based on weather patterns. Add E1:-if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May.
• Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.
• Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS. Some feel everyone should pay the same to fix the problem but the watershed resident are causing the problem and should pay more (LID).
• Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED. Numerous programs will evolve from the ongoing process of managing the lake. A funding source is absolutely necessary prior to initiating these programs. Time is also a critical factor. C2:-what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?; Add F3:-Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?); Add G3:-All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAB/City Council); D3:-If main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best; E3:-if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority; Group 3:-This whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives.
• Category 26. ENFORCEMENT. Enforcement must be tied to education.
• Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS There will not be a one on one correlation. It is hard to measure prevention.
• Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP.
IV. Recommendations Survey:
The following is provided as a synoptic list of topics covered and recommendations made by the Silver Beach Citizen’s Task Force. This summary has accumulated during the course of seven meetings of the group. Respondents should consider each topic heading in the context of meeting discussions, utilizing the reference materials provided as a resource. Recommendations are grouped by topic and variable responses. Please indicate the choice which best reflects your views by placing a check mark in the left margin adjacent the appropriate line.
[Note 1: The primary concerns, clarifications & suggested changes discussed, are annotated within the table, where applicable.]
[Note 2: Votes cast (either in person, or as a submitted proxy) & recorded during the meeting are tabulated in the √) column. Currently, voting is incomplete, due to a few absences.]
[Note 3: In some instances, more than one choice per group seemed permissible, so tally totals vary somewhat.]
√) CATEGORY & GROUP SURVEY CHOICE (pick one in each group)
1. SCIENCE
(6) A1. Sufficient information exists to verify Lake Whatcom is impacted by development
(2) B1. Sufficient information exists to suggest Lake Whatcom may be impacted by development
(3) C1. Insufficient information exists to conclude the Lake is/may be impacted by development
2. PUBLIC EDUCATION
(0) A1. Public education efforts by the city/county are adequate for Lake Whatcom issues
11) B1. Public education efforts by the city/county should be improved and/or expanded
(6) A2. Public education efforts appear to have a significant influence on Lake protection efforts
(4) B2. Public education efforts appear to be insignificant with regard to Lake protection efforts
(*somewhat confusing language; does this refer to current (actual) or potential influence?)
Public education efforts should be:
11) A3. High priority
(1) B3. Medium priority
(0) C3. Low priority for the city and county
3. MORATORIUM
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(5) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(1) A1. The City Comprehensive Plan currently contains sufficient policy guidance for protection
(3) B1. The City/County/District Joint Goals and Policies are adequate guidance for protection
(7) C1. Stronger and/or revised policy guidance is necessary for adequate lake protection
5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan addresses permitted land uses, i.e. zoning, and density/lot size requirements)
(7) A1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan should be updated to aid lake protection efforts
(0) B1. The Silverbeach Neighborhood Plan is adequate or less important than other efforts
(3) C1. Current land use designations and densities are acceptable
(7) D1. Land use designations and densities should be revised
6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE
(4) A1. The current density designations should be retained, ranging from 6000-20,000 S.F. /lot
(5) B1. All of Silverbeach should be downzoned to the city minimum of 1 lot/20,000sf.
(1) C1. Only areas where there would be a significant reduction in lots should be down-zoned
(1) +D1.? All of Silverbeach should be down-zoned to a minimum of 1 lot/13,333sf
(4) A2. The minimum buildable lot size should conform to minimum density requirements
(4) B2. Lots should be consolidated by appropriate means to achieve min. lot size requirements
(2) C2. Lots that are substandard should not be allowed to consolidate, unless adjacent
(1) D2. All legal lots of record should be buildable, regardless of size or sub area density
7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR’S)
(7) A1. Transfer of Development Rights (homes) out of the watershed should be permitted*
(7) B1. Transfer of Development Rights within the watershed should be considered, when it would reduce new street or utility construction and extension impacts*
(* Does not need to be an either/or choice; can have both, none or either one)
8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(7) A1. Front yard setbacks should be optionally reduced, to allow less driveway/impervious area
(4) B1. Reduced front yard setbacks should be required; driveways may not exceed this length
(0) C1. Rear setbacks should be increased from 10’ to require larger yard areas
(3) A2. The current, two, side-by-side, required parking spaces per lot is adequate*
(5) B2. Tandem parking, one behind the other, should be permitted*
(0) C2. Only one parking space per lot should be required
(* A2 & B2 are not mutually exclusive, could also cover C2, at owner’s option)
9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES
(4) A1. Permitted uses should be as stated in the current Silverbeach Ordinance
(4) B1. Permitted uses could be further restricted beyond those allowed in the ordinance
(3) C1. Permitted uses could be expanded
(3) D1. Permitted uses should be limited to single family dwellings & related only
(2) A2. Conditional uses should be as stated in the ordinance
(6) B2. Conditional uses could be further restricted
(3) C2. Conditional uses could be expanded*
(* especially consider remodels)
(0) A3. Livestock should be permitted outright in single family areas
(4) B3. Livestock may be permitted, if parcel size proportionate to required animal BMP’s
(3) C3. Livestock may only be permitted as a conditional use
(4) D3. Livestock should not be permitted
(5) A4. Accessory Dwelling Units should continue to be prohibited
(4) B4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be considered as a conditional use
(1) C4. Accessory Dwelling Units could be permitted in lieu of subdivision, w/restrict. covenant
(4) +D4.(?) ADU’s OK, if =/< 2000 SF
10. SUBDIVISION CODE
(8) A1. Cluster development, which allows smaller lots and larger open space, should be allowed provided there is no increase in density beyond conventional
(1) B1. Cluster should only be allowed as presently permitted in areas 1,4,5,11 & 17
11. STREET STANDARDS
(0) A1. Street right of way width should remain @ 60’ for through streets and 50’ for cul de sacs
(9) B1. Street right of way width should be narrowed below current minimums when feasible
(0) A2. Full standard through streets should remain @ 28’ wide and cul de sacs 24’ wide
10) B2. Full standard streets should be narrowed when feasible
(0) A3. Full standard streets should include sidewalks on both sides
(7) B3. A sidewalk on one side should usually be sufficient, except on arterial streets
(4) C3. Sidewalks are not really necessary on local-access-only streets
(1) A4. When required, sidewalk standards should remain @ 5’ in width
10) B4. Sidewalks should be narrowed and/or setback when feasible
Add group 5? Allow more pervious surfaces for sidewalks
12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER
(6) A1. SEPA Environmental Impact review should be applied the same citywide
(5) B1. SEPA review should be required for development in the watershed, except single family
(3) A2. Clearing should continue to be allowed on undeveloped land w/a permit & BMP’s
(8) B2. The Clearing Ordinance should prohibit any land clearing w/out a valid building permit
(0) A3. Fill sites should continue to be permitted on land w/out a building permit
11) B3. The Grading Ordinance should prohibit fills w/out a valid building permit
(1) A4. Single family lots should be exempt from all but erosion control stormwater regulations
10) B4. Single lots should comply with strict stormwater regulations, like treatment & detention*
(* within reason; define how determined?)
13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE
(3) A1. Wetland and stream buffers should remain @ 25’-100’ and 10’-50’ respectively
(2) B1. Wetland and stream buffers should probably be increased somewhat
(6) C1. Wetland and Stream buffers should be based on best available science for the purpose
14. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
(2) A1. Residential shoreline setbacks should remain at 25’-35’ from the water’s edge
(9) B1. Residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible*
(* ambiguous; how is feasibility determined? administrative flexibility, plus appeals)
(4) A2. Docks should continue to be permitted with size/length based on similar adjacent docks
(7) B2. Docks size and length should be more restricted than current patterns reflect
(2) C2. Docks should not be permitted any more
(3) A3. Bulkheads should continue to be permitted at/land-ward of the ordinary high water mark
(5) B3. Bulkheads should be further restricted, based on need for property protection
(2) C3. Bulkheads should not be permitted*
(* more discussion?)
15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS
(7) A1. The current impervious limits of the greater of 2000 SF or 15% of parcel area are OK
(0) B1. Impervious limits should be increased w/out additional requirements
(5) C1. Impervious limits could be increased w/mitigation
(2) D1. Impervious limits should be reduced where feasible
16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (The following applies only to new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits)
(1) A1. All proposed exterior footprint additions must comply with adopted impervious limits
(5) B1. Exterior additions may be considered if there is no net increase in impervious area
(5) C1. Exterior additions may be considered only if there is a net reduction in impervious area
(0) D1. Exterior additions may occur only if there is at least a 2- for 1+ impervious reduction
(1) +E1? Increased impervious area for remodels, with tighter baseline impervious %, applicable
(7) A2. Reconstruction should be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area
(3) B2. Reconstruction due to damage must comply with adopted impervious limits*
(* only if built up to existing footprint & applicable impervious area limit; insurance issue?)
17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS
(2) A1. There should be no limit on the use of non-vegetative pervious systems, i.e. pavers etc.
(4) B1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited to a minor extent
(5) C1. Non-vegetated pervious systems should be limited similar to impervious cover*
(* unclear; what does “similar to” mean?)
18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS
(5) A1. Impervious credits should be able to be purchased or transferred from parcel to parcel*
(7) B1. Impervious credits should be able to be earned with BMP’s, mitigation or similar*
(1) C1. Impervious credits should not be purchased or earned, stay within adopted limits
(* note A1 & B1 are not mutually exclusive, shouldn’t both be allowed?)
19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES
(6) A1. Impervious area could be expanded by other means, such as offsite mitigation/restoration
(1) B1. Impervious area could be expanded if site design mitigates impacts demonstrably
(7) C1. Incentives that would result in greater public benefit should allow added impervious area
(2) D1. Forget flexibility, could be too difficult to monitor, be fair or administer
20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
(2) A1. Strict native vegetation requirements should be adopted to retain or establish it*
(6) B1. There should be some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots*
(4) C1. All vegetation management should be voluntary with education and assistance provided
(0) D1. No requirement is necessary, most lots are landscaped to some degree anyway
(* for preserving or retaining native vegetation, would any credits be offered?)
(6) A2. Consider limiting lawn area
(4) B2. Lawns are not a significant factor or are too difficult to regulate
21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
(4) A1. Use of most or all pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be outright prohibited
(2) B1. Prohibit pesticides and herbicides, but a little fish fertilizer or manure compost is ok
(5) C1. No regulation needed, would be hard to monitor, harder to enforce or insignificant*
(* Hard to monitor or enforce; Federal Govt. enforces use close to water supply, per labels)
22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS* (* refers to ground disturbance only)
(2) A1. Seasonal limits make sense and are effective, make them shorter than present
(6) B1. Seasonal limits from May 1st to September 30th, as currently enacted, are OK
(2) C1. Seasonal limits should minimize spring impact, from 6/1 to 9/30
(2) D1. Seasonal limits are too restrictive at present, should be expanded**
+E1? ** if more than 4 months are allowed, add October, not May
(5) A2. The current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is appropriate
(3) B2. 500 sq.ft. is too much
(2) C2. 500 sq.ft. is too little
(4) A3. Reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season, regardless of area
(5) B3. Reconstruction due to damage off-season should be allowed with controls.
(2) C3. Reconstruction will have to wait and comply with everyone else
23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
(6) A1. Construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season
(5) B1. Even with BMP’s, construction should wait for regular season
(2) A2. Contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season
(7) B2. No one can work off-season above exemption area thresholds.
10) A3. Certification should be required to work in season, period.
(0) B3. Certification should not be required during open months
24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS
(0) A1. Only watershed residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) B1. All city residents should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(8) C1. All water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed
(2) D1. All water users should pay for remediation, w/watershed residents paying more
(2) A2. Stormwater fees should be related to impervious area
(7) B2. Stormwater fees should be a flat rate per residence
(2) C2. Stormwater fees should be reduced for low impervious area and/or BMP’s
25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (Includes land as fee simple, TDR’s, impervious credits and conservation easements)
(8) A1. Public land acquisition should be an essential part of lake management
(3) B1. Public land acquisition is helpful, but not essential
(0) C1. Public land acquisition is not the best use of public dollars
(3) A2. City money should be used for City only land purchases
(3) B2. City money should be used for City and UGA (Geneva, Brownsville) purchases
(5) C2. City money should be used anywhere that it will have significant benefit in watershed
(* what is meant by “city money”? – levied & collected solely by COB?)
(6) A3. Our first purchase priority should be land
(1) B3. Our first priority should be TDR’s
(0) C3. Our first priority should be impervious area credits
(2) D3. Our first priority should be conservation easements*
(4) E3. Our first priority should be compensation to owners not allowed to build on lots of record**
(this whole grouping is confusing; it sets priorities w/o evaluating efficacy of alternatives)
(1) +F3.? Our first priority should be relocating G-P’s intake to Basin #1 (who pays?)
(1) +G3.? All of the above (decisions on priority to be determined by WAAB/City Council)
(* if main purpose is to retain native vegetation, undisturbed, this option may be best)
(** if lots are ‘down-zoned’, by requiring a higher minimum lot size, or TDR/TIC program is adopted, this becomes top priority)
(0) A4. Funding for acquisition should come from a new land acquisition fee on water bills
(1) B4. Stormwater utility fee, normally used for improvements, maintenance and operations
(0) C4. From Greenways money, used for parks, open space, equipment
(0) D4. From grants (state & federal) & mitigation sources (private)
10) E4. All of the above
(0) F4. None of the above
26. ENFORCEMENT*
(3) A1. Enforcement of the Silverbeach ordinance should be strict, literal and uniform
(1) B1. Enforcement should be phased in more gently, focussing on intent, adapting to fit
(7) C1. Enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results
(* enforcement should be strongly tied to education!)
27. BENCHMARKS/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS
(8) A1. Benchmarks should be established to evaluate effectiveness of new ordinance provisions
(3) B1. Benchmarks, such as existing water quality monitoring and standards are sufficient
(0) C1. Benchmarks are not necessary; the proposed actions are likely to address quality concerns
28. ONGOING ADVISORY STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
10) A1. A stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on these issues
(0) B1. There are already too many people giving advice, nobody listens anyway!
V. Wrap-up & Closing Comments by Participants:
• Observed 3 poor practices during last week, all reflecting ignorance of impacts to watershed:
1. Walk-by spraying by masked person near Electric & Alabama.
2. Yard spraying by masked person on Academy Hill.
3. Neighbor filling in a grassy swale/ditch to create a parking space on public right-of-way.
• Silver Beach Association will be emphasizing lake-friendly education frequently, including special newsletter to all watershed residents in SB. Include articles in Herald & Your City Newsletter? Enclose inserts in Your City newsletter to distribute widely and save on mailing costs?
• Would like to see progress on determining feasibility of moving G-P intake back to Basin #1, which hatchery currently uses. Potential positive impact on lake-flow patterns, reducing stagnation in Basin #1. How could this be financed?
• What is status of the study on 2-stroke engines on lake? Not only are jet-skis heavy polluters, but they are noisy and potentially dangerous. San Juan County banned them.
• COB’s proposed new Storm & Surface Water utility funding is to be a subject of discussion at the next Council meeting. Also, a Public Hearing on Watershed Land Acquisition Ordinance will be held during the evening session.
• This group has worked hard and needs to be commended for its commitment to accomplishing, and exceeding its stated task. Thanks!
Silver Beach Ordinance Citizen's Task Force
Kimberly Barron
Terry Bornemann
Bill Bliss
Dan Cantrell
Tim Farris
Jan Hayes
Allena Kanne
Jeff Kenoyer
Mike Minge
Bay Renaud
Barbara Ryan
Chris Spens
John Watts
Myron Wlaznak
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
