Housing: ADUs & In-Law Units

An interesting 'News from City Hall' article appeared this week in the Glen Park News, a San Francisco neighborhood publication.
Written by Scott Wiener, a District Representative on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, it advocates a viable method of encouraging more affordable housing in existing neighborhoods.
I think its worth a read, so here it is, quoted verbatim:

I'm soliciting feedback from Glen Park residents about possible legislation to allow Glen Park property owners to add secondary units - also known as in-law units or accessory units - into the existing envelope of their buildings. The legislation also includes Noe Valley, (another nearby neighborhood) and would track successful legislation I authored earlier this year to allow new in-law units in the Castro. (another nearby neighborhood) I'll be attending the January Glen Park Association meeting to discuss the proposal. 

San Franciscans disagree about many issues, but one fact on which we all agree is that our city is in the midst of a housing crisis. Rents are through the roof, and home prices are increasingly out of reach for middle and working-class people. We need to employ various strategies to address this problem, including building more housing in general, creating affordable housing and keeping people stable in their existing housing. 

One strategy to address our city's housing needs is to allow and encourage people to add in-law units in their existing buildings - for example, by converting garages, large storage areas or partially above-ground basements into living units. 

According to various studies, in-law units are the most affordable type of non-subsidized housing, since they tend to be modest in nature and on the ground floor. They're also ideal for seniors and people who have trouble getting up and down stairs. They can be a good option for housing family members or simply for creating new rental units. 

San Francisco has historically been hostile to in-law units, but that dynamic is changing as more and more people recognize that we must create additional, diverse housing opportunities for our residents. The Board of Supervisors recently passed legislation I authored to allow existing illegal in-law units to be legalized, and also passed legislation I authored to allow for the creation of new in-law units in the Castro. I'm currently authoring legislation for owners of buildings undergoing seismic retrofits to add in-law units while they're at it. 

The Castro legislation, on which the Glen Park-Noe Valley legislation will be based, allows owners to add either one or two in-law units into their buildings, depending on the buildings' size. The units must be within the existing envelope of the building - that is, a building's height or bulk cannot be expanded to create the unit - and must be created from spaces not currently being used for residential purposes. An existing residential unit cannot be divided to create an in-law unit. 

The Building Code will be applied flexibly, similar to the treatment of historic buildings under the State Historic Building Code, except for life safety issues. In-law units in rent-controlled buildings will also be rent-controlled. Under our City code, if a garage is converted into living unit, the associated curb cut must be removed and the full curb restored, which usually creates a new street parking space. 

I look forward to receiving feedback from the community and to discussing the proposal at the January Glen Park Association meeting.

Hopefully, this concept can be used in Bellingham, notwithstanding that our housing problems are nowhere near as severe as San Francisco's.
----------------------------------------------------

Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No.24

Proposed BNSF Bellingham Siding & Idling Track

There have been reliable reports that BNSF is actively proceeding with plans to build a new siding -perhaps 1.5 miles long- within Bellingham City Limits, ostensibly to help accommodate anticipated additional Coal Train traffic for the proposed GPT export facility. 
Yet, nowhere within the Application submitted by GPT & BNSF is this particular plan even mentioned, even though it would create additional severe impacts to City facilities and infrastructure. 

I request the MAP Team investigate this report to determine its accuracy. If BNSF is planning such an idea within the anticipated GPT EIS time frame, it most definitely should be included as part of the GPT EIS Scope and fully evaluated for its additional impacts, possible mitigation and all related costs.

Since GPT and BNSF -as inseparable Applicants- have consistently tried to limit the EIS Scope to only those footprints specific for the Terminal & Custer Spur expansion, the omission of this new, long and disruptive Bellingham Siding has the appearance of a deliberate attempt to evade comprehensive public scrutiny by the evaluation team.

If this new siding and idling track is built, it would permanently block Boulevard Park to vehicles & parking, affect Waterfront Businesses -both existing & planned- and increase train diesel exhaust in a populated urban area. 

It would also impose a significant, unfair financial burden on the City and its taxpayers and citizens if public health, safety and welfare problems are to be even partially rectified.

All of these impacts are simply unacceptable to me and to our community, even if some form of limited mitigation funding were offered.

I suggest a No Action Alternative may be the only reasonable solution to this situation.

Coal: EIS Scoping Comment No. 20

Loss of Use of Parks & Trails

Public parks are widely enjoyed in Bellingham, and millions of dollars in additional, dedicated funding has been voluntarily supported by citizens for many years.
Visitors, including tourists also are drawn to these amenities that are recognized as world class.

Unfortunately, many of these facilities happen to be on the shoreline and are accessible only by crossing the BNSF tracks, the prime example of which is Boulevard Park, which is very frequently visited by families with small children and others who walk the Taylor Street Dock over water route from Fairhaven to Bellingham.

18 additional coal trains per day will significantly render these popular public places less usable with increased safety hazards at crossings, and considerably more noise from coal trains.
It is difficult to conceive of mitigation capable of negating all of these objectionable impacts unless a no action alternative is adopted.

Failing that, a grade-separated crossing at the north end of Boulevard Park, adequate to accommodate walkers, joggers, baby strollers, bicycles and other pedestrian traffic, needs to be constructed -prior to increasing rail traffic- at BNSF expense.
That would partially eliminate some danger and the noise of train horns at one crossing.
Similarly, the single vehicular access to Boulevard Park will need mitigation to allow deliveries, repairs, preparation for concerts and events and continuation of existing parking.

Another grade separated crossing will also be needed to allow Wharf Street traffic -both vehicular and pedestrian- to safely cross the BNSF tracks to access the waterfront south of Cornwall Street.
This would serve several purposes;

(1) mitigation of safety & noise impacts, 

(2) important access for activities related to the Waterfront Redevelopment undertaking, 

(3) access to the water for small craft, 

(4) access to the proposed future extension of the Taylor Street Dock over water walkway north from Boulevard Park to the south of Cornwall landing. 

A significant part of these costs should be borne by BNSF as well, since the City's planning process has focused on this future development area for many years.

There are several other Parks destinations that will also need careful attention, evaluation and funding for mitigation should BNSF increase rail traffic as has been proposed.
These include:
(a) Clayton Beach - a popular recreation area accessible via trail from a specially built parking lot on Chuckanut Drive.
(b) access road to Wildcat Cove boat launch area in north Larrabee State Park.
(c) Teddy Bear Cove accessible by steep trail crossing BNSF tracks.
(d) several informal track crossings between Chuckanut Point and the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
(e) Port of Bellingham's Marine Park, another popular place that has become the finish line for the annual Ski to Sea race. 

== don't forget the Ferry Terminal, southern terminus of the Alaska State Ferry ===
(f) the public boat launch at the mouth of Padden Creek.
(g) proposed trail route through the waterfront redevelopment area accessed by Central Avenue from Roeder Avenue. [must cross BNSF tracks to reach Roeder]
(h) access to Bellwether Way business complex and Squalicum Marina & yacht basin via "C" Street or "F" Street to Roeder crosses BNSF tracks.

The MAP Team needs to take into account the well established long-term use of these shoreline access points and their importance to Bellingham.

Also, since the Port of Bellingham's purchase of the former G-P industrial site, both Port & City have invested or committed millions in public funding toward waterfront cleanup, rezoning for mixed use and a likely decades-long redevelopment to create suitable, desirable sites for business, jobs, residences and recreation for future citizens on its waterfront.

In sum, the waterfront is intended to become -again- Bellingham's front door and everyone's neighborhood.
When appraising the certain harm that increased BNSF coal trains bring to these goals, please remember they reflect the wishes of thousands of citizens over many years, and need to be fully respected as the highest priority for achieving the net public good.

----

Note: The title declares this to be Comment No 20, but prior to posting this I submitted 2 additional comments, using the online form at this URL.

No. 21 was about who has responsibility for liability at each stage of the coal shipping process, as I stated at the Scoping Meeting at Squalicum HS last Saturday.

No. 22 was about train noise.

Stay tuned.....

Affordable Housing Toolkit: Inclusionary Zoning

--------------------------------
Rarely has there been a topic that engenders more instant heat than zoning proposals.
And, whenever the word 'inclusionary' is included that heat is turned up to high.

It seems the development community, including land owners/speculators, builders and the real estate industry see inclusionary zoning as a threat to their very existence; a slippery slope to be avoided at all costs - despite the clear potential for generating some very tangible and beneficial results.

Actually, these folks are simply protecting the status quo, which they know and want to keep - and in the process, their profit margins.
That's OK, but it does externalize the often heard problem of housing affordability to 'others', including financially strapped local governments.

Here, I must make clear the definition of 'affordable housing' that I'm talking about; it is the HUD definition used by the US Government that is based upon actual household income, compared to local averages.

While there are some private developments that are built specifically for lower income households, our local Housing Authority, the city's Community Development Department and other non-profit organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Kulshan Community Land Trust [KCLT] provide for most of this housing, whether for rental or purchase, rehabilitated or new.

But these organizations chronically fall short of meeting affordable housing needs.
The Housing Authority generally has a waiting list of 2 years or more.
Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds from the US Government are inadequate and have steadily fallen most of this decade despite growing needs.
A few years ago, Habitat for Humanity reported the lack of building sites as its greatest single need.
Kulshan has been very successful in both raising grant monies and promoting the creation of opportunities for permanently affordable housing in our area, but the need far outstrips its ability to provide this type of critical housing.

Both Habitat and Kulshan have found their homeowners to be excellent citizens who truly appreciate the housing provided, which is largely scattered in neighborhoods throughout the city.

What inclusionary zoning [IZ] can provide is a more steady supply of building sites for affordable housing, concurrent with new development.
The State of Washington legally allows IZ as long as certain guidelines are followed, but it is up to individual municipalities to take advantage of this provision.
-------------

Two articles by Jared Paben appeared in the Bellingham Herald recently on this subject which illustrate some history and pro and con arguments.
The first dealt with a City Council proposal and related information at this URL.

The second listed a synopsis of a study on possible IZ impacts at this URL.
-------------

A few years ago the City Council considered inclusionary zoning as a fair and reasonable way to provide more building sites for affordable housing.
That effort morphed into a countywide task force which took about 18 months to conclude it couldn't agree on recommending IZ.
Instead, the task force ended up essentially reviving an old study done in 1991.

I think Bellingham should adopt a reasonable IZ policy on its own.
Here is a summary of my rationale:

• Up-zoning creates an instant windfall for landowners, sometimes increasing value by 10, 20 or 50 times.
Transfer of Development Rights [TDR] -based Zoning was proposed over 35 years ago as a means for sharing windfalls with municipalities to help pay for public improvements.
Unfortunately, this concept never caught on widely, but remains a useful potential tool.

• If the cost of growth is to be fairly shared by development, system development charges, impact fees and inclusionary zoning are mechanisms to help achieve this result.
Otherwise, the municipality, taxpayers and rate-payers end up over subsidizing new development.

• As onerous as permitting fees, sdc's and impact fees seem to be, they are preferable to having none, for the reason above.

• City policy is to create livable neighborhoods with ready access to schools, jobs, parks and transportation, not exclusive gated developments. IZ can help do this.

• Since the cost of a lot may cost up to one third [1/3] of home costs, setting aside lots for affordable housing can dramatically lower their cost.

• Setting aside 10% of lots in a multi-dwelling unit development is a reasonable policy that can greatly help insure affordability by effectively leveraging scarce public funding and charitable gifts.

• In lieu of land dedication, payment of a reasonable monetary amount could be allowed.

• Inclusionary Zoning should not be considered a panacea, but another tool in the city's toolkit to benefit the entire community.

• Inclusionary Zoning probably fits urban areas better than rural areas or small towns, so it is no surprise that the countywide CHAT Task Force failed to agree in recommending it.
That should not prevent the City from adopt this idea on its own.

• Scare tactics and misinformation loudly proclaimed by elements of the development community should be taken with a grain of salt.
There is no reason why a well-considered Inclusionary Zoning policy can not work for the greater good of Bellingham.
But, voluntary compliance doesn't work very well, which is why a fair, mandatory regulation is necessary.

There are likely other thoughts that could be added to this list, but this will suffice for now.

I'm glad the City Council has renewed its interest in this subject, but it will still take perseverance and courage to get a reasonable ordinance ready for public comment and eventual approval.
That is often the way it is with controversial issues.
============================

Fairhaven Highlands: DEIS Summary Findings

-----------------
My previous blog on Sep 28 gave a web link to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] released that same day.
Since that time I have reviewed some of that extensive information, received a summary statement [Findings] from comments were that were used on KGMI Radio, and arrived at a few preliminary conclusions of my own about which of these alternatives alternatives seem preferable.
-----------------
First, the Findings:

The major differences among the seven alternatives are the internal road layout and vehicular access to the site, amount of development coverage, and the areas of disruption between forested wetlands.

Significant impacts could occur from conversion of this forested property but there are significant policy trade offs in environmental impacts. For example, the reduction of one type of impact could increase an impact of another type. Examples:

• Not developing the site could result in growth occurring outside city limits, resulting in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from people driving into the city, the employment center of the County.

• The original alternative (1A) has the most impacts to the environment (wetland and buffer impacts, forest fragmentation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.). The applicant subsequently proposed an alternative with fewer impacts (2A).

• Building the required “24th Street Connector” would alleviate congestion from increased traffic and provide more circulation in the area but could affect the quiet neighborhood character.

• Similarly, while providing two entrances (as opposed to one across from Viewcrest) and more roadways within the development provide a traffic benefit, they result in more impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers and result in fragmentation of the forest.

• Other than the original alternative, all of the alternatives provide some protection for wetland and wetland buffers, but some species will be lost due to the fragmentation of the contiguous forest. The “split site alternative” (3D) provides the most connectivity, though it’s impacted by the 24th Street Connector.

Mature forested Category I wetlands were identified during the development of the DIES. As a result, wetland buffers 150 feet wide have been suggested as a mitigation measure to protect wetland functions that support a mature ecology and substantial wildlife habitat. Other mitigation measures are proposed for a variety of impacts.

A traffic analysis was conducted for the affected street system, traffic volumes, traffic safety, transit, and non-motorized facilities associated with the site including 30th Street, Chuckanut Drive, Old Fairhaven Parkway, Viewcrest, Old Samish Highway, and 24th Street.

The traffic volume (at full build out) would generate trips ranging from 4,390/day to at most 5,000/day (1A).
----------------------------------

The first 'alternative' given is a no-action alternative, where nothing would be built on this site.
That seems counterproductive since the site is already zoned for residential development and has had an active proposal under consideration since 2005, later modified in 2007.

The main impacts of a 'no action' would be the loss of potential housing within existing city limits, forcing sprawl elsewhere.
To quantify this, the 739 dwelling units proposed in phases are expected to accommodate about 1550 people, or approximately 5% of the population attributed to potential growth between now and 2022.

Related losses would be those accruing to the developer and his partners, the time and effort devoted by tax-paid City government, plus the the very substantial loss of future revenues from taxes, rates, fees, as well as developer-paid public infrastructure, including community enhancing road/trail connectivity.

Then, would come the question of what to do with this property?

Some would have it simply become more city parkland, which is substantially out of the question because of both cost and the lack of available funding.

And, the owner(s) do expect a reasonable return on their valuable investment. If the development plan under consideration does not not produce adequate results, the owners will find recourse, either through sale to others, legal action or otherwise.

No one knows what will eventually occur with the Fairhaven Highlands proposal, but something certainly will, and someone will most likely oppose it.

Years ago, Theodore Roosevelt used the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number' in setting goals for our country. That was [and is] a very good policy!
But some, over history have not agreed with how this is determined.

John Muir, for example, fiercely fought the damming of the Tuolumne River at Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite, thinking that pristine river ought to have been preserved in a wild, untouched state forever.
But, another idea prevailed -using the very same policy- that a permanent drinking water supply for San Francisco was equally or even more important.
In the greater scheme of things, both were important goals, but who will doubt having a protected, pure source of drinking isn't the more valuable today?

========================
Alternates 1A and 1B were in the initial 2005 proposal, but at that time, the City added Alternative 1C.
I'm glad they did that because a development this large will cause more congestion to areas already prone to congestion, some even approaching LOS F at times.
And, transportation concurrency with land development is something to take seriously, especially when substantial mitigation is possible.
But, in order to pay for these type of effective transportation mitigation, the developer must find a way in his pro-forma to recover the costs.

2.5.4 Alternative 1C – 2005 Application with Access to 24th Street
Alternative 1C would be developed as described for Alternative 1A, except that the eastern emergency access road connecting to 22nd Street would instead be a fully developed two-lane street connecting the project site to 24th Street. This would involve removing two and a half additional acres of vegetation and adding one and a third more acres of impervious surface than Alternative 1A. Approximately 1,000 square feet of wetland and 72,000 square feet of regulated wetland buffer would be impacted by the 24th Street Connector. Twenty-five acres of 1 Regulated wetlands are those considered to be regulated by the Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 16.50. See Section 3.4.3 Plants and Animals for more information.
September 2009 Alternatives 2-23
Fairhaven Highlands Draft EISFairhaven Highlands Draft EIS landscaping would be installed, one acre less than Alternative 1A. Alternative 1C would involve the most vegetation removal, wetland and wetland buffer fill, and impervious surface coverage of all development alternatives.
-------------
Later, in 2007, the developer proposed modifications which, among other things, did effectively decrease the impacts of this proposed development.

2.5.5 Alternative 2A – Enhanced Buffer Plan
Under Alternative 2A, the property would be developed based on the proponent’s reports submitted to the City of Bellingham in 2007. The reports describe construction of 17 single- family units and 722 multi-family units. The multi-family units would be a mixture of townhouses and up to 5-story apartment buildings. The project would also include a 4,000- square-foot community building.
Approximately 41 acres of vegetation on-site (50 percent of the property) and half an acre off- site would be removed to accommodate the project, the least amount of vegetation removal from the project area among the development alternatives. Approximately 20 acres on-site (25 percent of the property) and one-third of an acre off-site would be covered by impervious surface including roadways, rooftops, and driveways. Alternative 2A would have the lowest impervious surface coverage of the development alternatives. Twenty-one acres of landscaping would be installed. It is estimated that about 200,000-210,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and around 60,000-70,000 cubic yards of soil would be used for fill, with a net off-site export of 140,000 cubic yards.
Alternative 2A includes buffers around most wetland areas that are larger than what is proposed for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. Approximately 24,000 square feet of wetlands and 65,000 square feet of wetland buffers would be filled, the least amount of fill among the development alternatives.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided on the east side of the existing Chuckanut Drive/Viewcrest Road intersection. Two emergency-only access roadways would be provided to the site (one via Chuckanut Drive, near 16th Street, and one internal road connecting the southeast portion of the site with the northeast portion of the site.
-------------
In the event Alternative 2A was unacceptable, the developer preferred either Alternative 2F or Alternative 4F, as briefly described below.

My own preference is along the lines of Alternative 3D, also shown below.

2.5.6 Alternative 2F – Enhanced Buffer Plan with Additional Road
Under Alternative 2F, the property would be developed as described for Alternative 2A, except that the 16th Street and Wetland JJ connectors would be fully accessible roads, rather than emergency access only. This would result in approximately half an acre more impervious surface than Alternative 2A. Compared to Alternative 2A, the construction of the connectors would result in minimal increases in vegetation removal and wetland and wetland buffer fill.

2.5.7 Alternative 3D – Split Site Alternative
Alternative 3D includes construction of 17 single-family units and 722 multi-family units. The multi-family units would be a mixture of townhouses and apartment buildings up to five stories tall. A 4,000-square-foot community building would also be built.
Approximately 40 acres of on-site vegetation (49 percent of the property) and 3 acres of off-site vegetation would be removed to accommodate the project, the least amount of on-site vegetation
2-24 Alternatives September 2009 removal among the development alternatives. Approximately 22 acres on-site (26 percent of the property) and one and a half acres off-site would be covered by impervious surface including roadways, rooftops, and driveways. Nineteen acres of landscaping would be installed. The amount of soil excavated and used for fill would be similar to Alternative 2A.
The site plan includes buffers around most wetland areas that are larger than what is proposed for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. Approximately 26,000 square feet of wetlands and 115,000 square feet of wetland buffers would be impacted.
The design of the internal roadway network is similar to Alternative 2F, except that there would not be a road between Wetlands CC1 and KK. Another major difference is that vehicular access would be provided to 24th Street. The remaining features of the roadway network would be the same including vehicular access on the east side of the existing Chuckanut Drive/Viewcrest Road intersection, and a second access farther north on Chuckanut Drive near 16th Street.

2.5.8 Alternative 4F – Enhanced Buffer Plan with Single-family Development in Southern Portion
Alternative 4F is similar to Alternative 2F except that the southern portion of the site would be entirely made up of single-family units, with a larger number of multi-family units clustered in the northern portion. A total of 51 single-family units and 688 multi-family units would be constructed.
The roadway network would be identical to Alternative 2F. The project would have a similar amount of impervious surface coverage as Alternative 2A and 2F. The amount of soil excavated and used for fill would also be similar to Alternative 2A.
Approximately 51 acres of vegetation on-site (62 percent of the property) and a little more than half an acre off-site would be removed. Approximately 26,000 square feet of wetland and 108,000 square feet of wetland buffer would be impacted.
-------------------

Readers should note that the several Alternatives listed in the DEIS were culled from a total of about 30, on the theory that the several selected for inclusion substantially represented most of the reasonable configurations possible.
Also note that NO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE has yet been determined. That will happen only after the Public Hearings and other due public process has been completed.
It is possible that some mixing and matching of various concepts and components will occur as a result of the public process to come.
These things will become a part of a Final EIS, which would be basis for any official approval action(s).

I hope this synopsis is helpful to those who find it daunting to wade through hundreds of pages of documentation.
While most of us will not have a direct vote in whatever the final outcome may be, we all do have a role to play in fully informing ourselves about what alternatives are being considered and what their relative pros and cons may be.
=======================

Fairhaven Highlands: Entertainment for Silly Season

-----------------------
After a little break to bone up on Ancient & Medieval History, it may be time to revisit what passes for Modern history in the making.

This announcement just entered my e-mailbox earlier today:

Fairhaven Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement released

Posted: September 28, 2009 11:35:14 PST

City officials announced today (Monday Sept. 28) the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fairhaven Highlands development. Tim Stewart, Planning Director and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Official for the project, said that along with the draft DEIS an updated schedule also has been released that includes a 45-day public comment period.

A public hearing on the DEIS is scheduled for 6 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 20 in City Council Chambers at Bellingham City Hall. If necessary to accommodate a large number of speakers the hearing will be continued to 6 p.m. Wed. Oct. 21.

Fairhaven Highlands is a development proposed in April 2005 by Greenbriar Northwest Associates, LLC, located within Bellingham city limits between Chuckanut Drive, the Interurban Trail, Old Fairhaven Parkway, and Old Samish Highway. This planned development proposal includes 739 units of single- and multi-family residential units and related public and private infrastructure.

In February 2007, Greenbriar requested that the City's Planning and Community Development Department initiate the preparation of an EIS for Fairhaven Highlands. The City contracted with ESA Adolfson to conduct the EIS process. A public hearing to hear feedback on the DEIS will be held October 20, and the public comment period extends through November 12, 2009.

"The purpose of the EIS is to provide fair, objective and factual information about the site and its environment," Stewart said. "Good information, generated in an open and transparent process, will result in higher quality decisions about the proposal, the site and ultimately the land use and development permits that will be required before any development may occur. The EIS process allows us to seek the very best information before any decisions are made about the permits," he said.

Copies of the DEIS are available to review at the Bellingham Public Library, the Planning Department, and hard copies and CDs are available for purchase in the Planning Department. The entire DEIS is also available to view online at the city's project page at http://www.cob.org/government/departments/pcd/fairhaven-highlands/index.aspx. An updated EIS schedule and timetable has been posted as well as all sub-consultant reports. Please see the city's project page at for more information.

###

Media Contact:
Nicole Oliver, Communications Coordinator
Planning & Community Development Department
360.778.8353
noliver@cob.org

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

Here are more links for those who may be salivating:

Fairhaven Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement released

Most info is posted at this City website:
--------------------------------

Growth Management: An Exercise In Futility?

------------------------
We constantly hear reams of blather about minimizing sprawl by densifying urban centers, but when you get down to it people living in those urban centers don't want changes that affect their 'neighborhood character' and their 'quality of life'.

So, are the concepts of sprawl and infill mutually exclusive?
Are the real games being played 'drive until you qualify' and 'somebody else's problem musical chairs'?

Lot's of folks get excited about these discussions, but the answer almost always means 'somebody else' gets to shoulder the responsibility, an externalization that has become ludicrous.
No one benefits from this constant 'push-me-pull-you' exercise, except maybe those cynics who enjoy seeing incessant senseless turmoil that is almost always non-productive.

Just look at the planning efforts that have been undertaken for years.
How many have realized what was intended?
How many have become dusty, forgotten and expensive shelf art?
Mostly they seem to be palliatives and placebos that do reflect some desirable outcomes, but lack the commitment -and teeth- to meet the objectives intended.

And, after repeated failings to produce results that seem reasonable, fair and predictable, who can be faulted for losing confidence in the process used to determine these growth planning exercises?

Bellingham's current debate with Whatcom County about what proportion of projected growth it should plan to accommodate is just the latest example.
Whatcom County thinks the City ought to do a better job of infilling existing neighborhoods, and -of course- they are correct.
But, do these folks have a clue as to what that simple concept entails?
I don't think so!

If you think existing neighborhoods are likely to willing embrace significant new density, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Of course, there are exceptions; high-rise buildings in downtown areas; redevelopment areas like the waterfront; newly annexed areas -accepted on the condition of urban levels of development are the main three that come to mind.
Yet, each of these also has hurdles to negotiate.

• Downtown becomes an attractive living place for folks who like walking to work, shopping and entertainment, and who don't opt for home and lawn maintenance.
Then, there's the little matter of high-rises impacting someone else's view and/or solar access. Otherwise, they are creating a new neighborhood character that is inherently denser and vertical.

• Redevelopment sites like the Waterfront require major investments from public and private funds, and they take time to materialize. Until necessary cleanup, construction and connections are settled, these sites wont likely be fun places to work, live, shop or recreate, all of which make infill uncertain. But, a new neighborhood character will eventually emerge that will utilize access to our shoreline and conveniently connect with the existing downtown.

• Newly annexed areas that are zoned for urban development also must be built in phases and require transportation corridors to connect them with existing urban centers. But, that can certainly be done even though some may think it strange that it happens on the outskirts of the City. Just think of all those ancient and medieval towns where abrupt walls were all the rage to keep out the barbarians and protect the residents! Since there is no existing neighborhood, its character gets a chance to be created, and its density can be determined with more certainty to be urban.

• Of course, there are a few areas that already exist within the City where significant infill is not only possible, but logical.

Several years ago, the Birch Street development was approved with the potential for its maximum allowable 176 new dwelling units, providing a second, full-time access road was provided. That process was painful, particularly to existing neighbors who had grown accustomed to relative quiet and uncongested living next to a forested area that they, or the City, did not own.

REMIND you of another place? Chuckanut Ridge? If the City doesn't allow infill where zoning allows it, then the County is right in its assessment that more land supply is wasteful and unjustified. But, the County can't force the City to take infill, just like the County can't force itself to prevent rural sprawl.
---------------------

Recently, a number of articles on Crosscut have addressed this issue, using Seattle and its surrounds as examples.
Readers may enjoy links to some of these treatises, especially today's piece by Douglas MacDonald entitled Our region is losing the race against sprawl on the related transportation issue.

Other Crosscut links are Dense, denser, densest and
Why Seattle won't grow as fast as planners say
---------------------

The close connection between Transportation and Growth Planning is well established, at least in principle.
The problem is in actually understanding and achieving what is meant by concurrency.
To that end, I'm pleased that the City of Bellingham has now bought into the idea of a Transportation Commission to advise it on how best to fully utilize the Transportation tools it has in planning for future growth.

The Herald's article 'Bellingham seeks applicants for new Transportation Commission' explains this idea further.
I'm glad the City has decided to go forward with more focus on Transportation Oriented Development, as was discussed over 2 years ago.
I may even apply myself for one of the 9 seats envisioned.
-----------------------------------

On 'Town & Gown' Issues

The recent flaps involving the New Haven Firemen and the Cambridge Police made me wonder if what happened in those two prestigious university towns wasn't somewhat predictable, due to attitudes developed over time.

Of course, Bellingham and Western Washington University also have some 'issues' that seem to be resilient enough to defy any easy or lasting resolution.
Without being exhaustive, these issues pertain to neighbors, landlords, transportation, taxes & fees for service, competition for jobs, different attitudes toward responsibilities and codes of conduct, enforcement problems, and the like.

Those interested may appreciate this Wikipedia website for a short history and summary of this unique type of relationship.
A quick read may surprise you, because of the number and type of problems that some Bellinghamsters may feel are unique to our town.

Here are a few excerpts as examples for those not wishing to review the entire link:
---------

The idea of a school of higher learning as a distinct and autonomous institution within an urban setting dates back to Academy founded by Plato c. 387 BC.
---------
The initial relationship between the medieval universities and the host town was adversarial for various reasons, and over time the universities’ growing autonomy and independence from local control led to increasing tensions with host towns. Also, the steady encroachment of universities upon neighboring areas created a point of contention between town and gown (continuing to the present).
---------
The medieval universities formed as guilds of masters (teachers) and/or students on the model established by the crafts guilds. Once the scholars were able to receive a charter, they would begin negotiations with municipal authorities to secure fair rents for lecture halls and other concessions. Because they had no investment in a physical campus, they could threaten to migrate to another town if their demands weren’t met.
---------
Many university students were foreigners with exotic manners and dress who spoke and wrote Latin, the lingua franca of medieval higher education. Students often couldn't speak the local dialect, and most uneducated townspeople spoke no Latin. The language barrier and the cultural differences did nothing to improve relations between scholars and townspeople. The tenor of town-gown relations became a matter of arrogance on the one hand and resentment on the other.
---------
Following the upheavals of the High Middle Ages, relations between the European universities and the host towns evolved toward a pattern of mutual support. Cities, on some occasions took over payment of salaries and provided loans, while regulating the book trade, lodgings, and the various other services students required. Eventually, cities began to take pride in their universities rather than look upon them as adversaries.
---------
Over the centuries, the relationship between town and gown has remained ambivalent. There have been points where a university in crisis has been rescued by the urban dynamics surrounding it, while at other times urban developments have threatened to undermine the stability of the university. Conversely, there have been occasions where the university provided a focus and coherence for the cultural life of the city; though at other times, it has withdrawn into itself and undermined urban culture.[2]
---------
If there is one constant in town-gown relations over the centuries, if can be summed up with the maxim, “Students will be students.” College students, past and present, have a good deal of free time notwithstanding their obligations to study. How they use this time is often perceived as troubling or disruptive by non-students
---------
Residential colleges became a fixture in European universities, while American colleges (often located in small towns) sequestered students in dormitories under close supervision.
---------
The doctrine of in loco parentis had developed both as a legal concept and as a custom in the United States. The Latin phrase meaning "in the place of the parents," held schools to a high standard of care for the welfare of students. However, this legal concept was eroded by the Bradshaw decision[4] and by subsequent court rulings. The pendulum would swing back toward the medieval model where students could enjoy significant autonomy in their choice of residence and habits.[5]
---------
The trend of American students living off campus had emerged during the post-World War II era. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act legislation, popularly known as the "G.I. Bill", provided large numbers of returning veterans with the financial aid to pursue college degrees. Many veterans were older than traditional-aged students, or had families to support; this further spurred the growth of off campus housing. It was estimated that by century’s end as many as 85% of American college students lived off campus (Carnegie Commission). This residential trend — and other factors — would mitigate the division between town and gown (but not necessarily the tensions).
---------
However, the recent integration of campus and community has not been without problems. For one thing, an urban university can generate major traffic and exacerbate parking problems in adjacent neighborhoods. The quality of neighborhoods near a university may deteriorate.
---------
Local residents and members of the university community may clash over other political, economic, and demographic issues
---------
Municipalities and universities continue to negotiate police jurisdiction on and near campuses.
---------
Raucous off-campus parties and the excessive noise and public drunkenness associated with them can also create town-gown animosity.
---------
To a large extent, “town versus gown” disputes have moved from the streets into the courts and city hall. In the US, a rash of disputes between public universities and host cities have developed in regard to the cost and benefits of the town-gown connection. Universities boast that their existence is the backbone of the town economy, while the towns counter with claims that the institution is “robbing” them of tax revenue. But as universities expand their campuses, more land property is removed from local tax rolls. Attempts are being pursued to redefine the basic financial terms and conditions upon which the relationship is based.
---------
Despite the rise in legal battles, universities and host towns have an incentive to cooperate, as the schools require city services and need city approval for long-range plans while the university towns need remuneration for public services provided. The “engaged university” is a recent term describing community partnerships and joint planning with city officials.
---------
Town-gown parameters may become increasingly difficult to define in the near future. Geography is less salient as a factor in urban higher education in the Information Age.
---------
The 12th century witnessed the birth of the first predecessors of the modern university; many educational futurists argue that the division between town and gown is rapidly fading, and that the 21st century is the cusp of another revolutionary educational paradigm. According to these forecasts, the 21st century college student may well be someone sitting at his or her personal computer miles from a college campus.

---------

Raucous off-campus parties and the excessive noise and public drunkenness associated with them can also create town-gown animosity. -- The end result was the university's adoption of a new "Code of Conduct" to govern student behavior.

-----------------------
I can remember my college days in Charlottesville, VA - also a relatively small town compared to the school size- had some of these issues too.

And, it's easy to see why, when different rules and lifestyles apply to different populations of people living in close proximity.
Then, there's the difference in commitment between temporary residents who come here for a few years for education purposes, and permanent residents who have a vested interest in seeing their town being a stable home.

Given the range and inherent complexity of 'town & gown' issues, plus the notable trend toward off-campus living and remote Internet learning, it seems reasonable to expect that student codes of conduct and inter-local agreements between towns and colleges are the best-fit remedies available.

Having been both a student in a distant town and resident of multiple communities with colleges, I have seen both sides of the issues and problems that are possible.
Because I had previously arrived at a similar conclusion some time ago, the new information cited above seems to re-confirm it.
That is not to diminish any real difficulties that residents may have, but to point a reasonable direction toward resolutions likely to work without further exacerbating 'town & gown' or other relationships, or imposing unnecessary additional public costs.

My two cents worth.
--------------------------------------

WWU recognizes the types of problems that off-campus living can create, as this link demonstrates:

On Neighborhoods

--------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut seems to pretty accurately capture much of our local discussions on neighborhoods and preserving their viability as places where people want to live.

Because Seattle is often cited as an example of livable neighborhoods, these observations will likely resonate with those wishing to emulate practices which encourage and improve neighborhood quality.

One argument seems to stand out; older neighborhoods, especially those established in the 1950's or before, often are cited as the best examples.
That fits with the idea of 'neighborhood character' which is an often heard phrase that can mean different things to different folks.

Newer and developing neighborhoods don't appear to attract as much positive interest, although I do think it is critically important to continue encouraging those practices which lead towards neighborhood cohesion, desirability and the things that combine to produce the kind of neighborhood character that attracts and holds residents.

Not lost in the opinions expressed is the idea that 'walkability' can just be created by installing sidewalks, trails and bike lanes.
There also need to be local destinations and businesses where people want to go -or need to visit- often.

You know, those 'urban center' type places that get talked about in planning exercises.
Much easier to keep what already exists than to create new ones that people are willing to accept it seems.

Unless, of course, we can encourage enough mixed use development of the sort that make auto travel less necessary.

Anyway, see what you think.
--------------------------------

Triple Bottom Line: What Does TBL Mean?

---------------------------
"An invasion of armies can be resisted...But not an idea whose time has come..." - Victor Hugo
---------------------------

In Real Estate, the concept of a 'Triple net lease' is fairly common:

'A triple net lease (Net-Net-Net or NNN) is a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three 'Nets') on the property in addition to any normal fees that are expected under the agreement (rent, etc.).
In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with repairs or replacement of the structural building elements of the property.'

Why not extend this concept more widely?
For example, to our Waterfront?
----------------------------

Likewise, in economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction.
In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.

Why not also use this concept in trying to help estimate a full cost accounting approach to Waterfront Redevelopment?
Think that might mean a different mind-set for the Port of Bellingham?
----------------------------

This is where the TBL concept can be helpful, not just a idle talk and shallow promises, but as a purposeful strategy.
Here, I've paraphrased several points from Wikipedia:

The so-called triple bottom line ("TBL" or "3BL") refers to "people, planet, profit" and captures an expanded set of criteria for measuring success; not just counting economics, but also impacts on ecological and social values.

With the ratification of the United Nations and ICLEI* TBL standard for urban and community accounting in early 2007, this became the dominant approach to public sector full cost accounting.
In the private sector, a commitment to corporate social responsibility and ecological issues implies a commitment to some form of TBL reporting.

[• ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives']

The concept of TBL demands that a company's responsibility be to stakeholders rather than shareholders, where "stakeholders" refers to anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm.
According to the stakeholder theory, the business entity should be used as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests, instead of just maximizing shareholder (owner) profit.

"People, planet and profit" succinctly describes the triple bottom lines and the goal of sustainability.

"People" (human capital) pertains to fair and beneficial business practices toward labour and the community and region in which a corporation conducts its business.

A triple bottom line enterprise seeks to benefit many constituencies, not exploit or endanger any group of them, but trying to actually quantify this different bottom line is relatively new, problematic and often subjective.

"Planet" (natural capital) refers to sustainable environmental practices.
A TBL endeavor reduces its ecological footprint by, among other things, carefully managing its consumption of energy and non-renewables and reducing manufacturing waste as well as rendering waste less toxic before disposing of it in a safe and legal manner. Literally, this implies a responsible "cradle to grave" approach.

"Profit" is the bottom line shared by all commerce within a sustainability framework, and the economic benefit enjoyed by the host society.

Not to be confused with the limited internal profit made by a company or organization, it is the lasting economic impact the organization has on its economic environment.
A true TBL approach can't be interpreted as traditional corporate accounting tempered with social and environmental impact reports
--------------.

The following business-based arguments support the concept of TBL:

• Reaching untapped market potential: TBL companies can find financially profitable niches which were missed when money alone was the driving factor. Examples include:

• Adding ecotourism or geotourism to an already rich tourism market such as the Dominican Republic

• Developing profitable methods to assist existing NGOs with their missions such as fundraising, reaching clients, or creating networking opportunities with multiple NGOs

• Providing products or services which benefit underserved populations and/or the environment which are also financially profitable.

• Adapting to new business sectors: Since many business opportunities are developing in the realm of social entrepreneurialism, businesses hoping to reach this expanding market must design themselves to be financially profitable, socially beneficial and ecologically sustainable or fail to compete with those companies who do design themselves as such.

• Fiscal policy of governments usually claims to be concerned with identifying social and natural deficits on a less formal basis. However, in a democracy at least, such choices may be guided more by ideology than by economics.

With the emergence of an externally consistent green economics and agreement on definitions of potentially contentious terms such as full-cost accounting, natural capital and social capital, the prospect of formal metrics for ecological and social loss or risk has grown less remote through the 1990s.

While many people agree with the importance of good social conditions and preservation of the environment, there are also many who disagree with the triple bottom line as the way to enhance these conditions.
Imagine that!

Some main arguments against TBL are:

• Division of labour is characteristic of rich societies and a major contributor to their wealth, leading to the view that organisations contribute most to the welfare of society in all respects when they focus on what they do best. .

• Effectiveness: It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it).
Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic.

• Nationalism: Some countries adopt a nationalistic approach with the view that they must look after their own citizens first. This view is not confined to one sector of society, having support from elements of business, labour unions, and politicians.

• Libertarian: As it is possible for a socially responsible person to sincerely believe that the triple bottom line is harmful to society, the libertarian view is that it would be arrogant to force them to support a mechanism for the improvement of society that may, or may not, be the best available.

• Inertia: The difficulty of achieving global agreement on simultaneous policy may render such measures at best advisory - and thus not enforceable.

• Application: According to Fred Robin's The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom? one of the major weaknesses of the TBL framework is its ability to be applied in a monetary-based economic system. Because there is no single way in monetary terms to measure the benefits to the society and environment as there is with profit, it does not allow for businesses to sum across all three bottom lines.

Legislation permitting corporations to adopt a triple bottom line is reportedly under consideration in some jurisdictions, including Minnesota and Oregon.
Some businesses have voluntarily adopted a triple bottom line as part of their articles of incorporation or bylaws, and some have advocated for state laws creating a "Sustainable Corporation" that would grant triple bottom line businesses benefits such as tax breaks.
-------------------------

A few years ago, a group of about 75 community leaders assembled for the purpose of hearing about the new proposed LEED Standards for Neighborhoods from its author, a Seattle architect.
The presentation was very well received, building as it did on the more limited LEED standards for single buildings, and extending the sustainability concept to entire areas.

After the presentation, each table of attendees was given the assignment of rating Bellingham's Waterfront Redevelopment Project's potential for achieving the proposed new LEED* standard.

[The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), provides a suite of standards for environmentally sustainable construction.]

The results were nothing short of astonishing!
Every table saw that the Waterfront Redevelopment had the clear potential for meeting the highest LEED Standard - Platinum!

I don't know what happened to that finding, because it is hard to find it among the things the Port has said and done since then.
Briefly, the idea did reappear when the developer of Victoria, BC's 'Dockside Green' Project came to Bellingham to explain how that undertaking had been conceived.
Fortunately, it's first phases have now achieved the highest LEED standards yet seen anywhere - 63 out of a possible 70 points!
Again, nothing but dead silence from our Port about even trying to put similar goals into practice.

Except, I do recall some claims about the Waterfront becoming a model 'green' redevelopment that would attract national and international attention, become a learning center and generate new businesses.
Such hopeful talk now seems only a fading echo, with the stance our Port has taken with advancing its 'partnership' with the City.

Hey, I know doing a big TBL project ain't easy, especially one that will require major clean-up costs, and still be over 10 times the acreage and 2 to 4 times the developed square footage of Dockside Green [a mere 15 acres].
And, I know the current economic hard times don't help either.
But, externalizing excessive costs to the City, seeking exemptions from developers for impact fees, and trying to cut corners in applying the Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations are NOT the solution!

The Port needs to change its thinking on how to go about achieving its Waterfront Redevelopment using true TBL concepts.
Thank goodness we have an opportunity to elect 2 of 3 new Port Commissioners this year!
Hopefully, a new Commission majority can then search for and find a new Executive Director with the experience and vision to get the Waterfront job done in a true TBL fashion.

I'm voting for John Blethen and Mike McAuley to replace Scott Walker and Doug Smith as Port Commissioners.
I hope you will do likewise.
----------------------------

" While an upgrade that cuts energy use in half can save one dollar per square foot in annual energy costs, it can generate more than ten dollars per square foot in new profits every year if it boosts productivity even five per cent!" - Joseph Romm

" One reason we are in so much trouble is that our modern culture is paradoxically behind the times, still assessing the world the way it did in the nineteenth or even eighteenth centuries: as a place of inexhaustible resources, where man is at the pinnacle of creation, separate from and more important than anything around him." - David Suzuki
---------------------------

• The LEED rating system currently has 6 categories:

1 - Energy & the Atmosphere - 17 points maximum

2- Water Efficiency - 5 points maximum

3- Materials & Resources - 13 points maximum

4- Indoor Air Quality [most complex] - 15 points maximum

5- Sustainable Sites [adjacencies] - 14 points maximum

6. Innovation [ideas outside the box] - 5 points maximum
-----------------------------

Toolkit Complaint

-----------------------
This time, I'm really mad!
Not just average mad, but livid, outraged and angry.

The whole idea of the City Council giving lip service to the idea of adopting a TOOLKIT is ludicrous.
Why are they wasting time on something like this?
It's unnecessary, unworkable and maybe even un-American!
And to debate this worthless concept in public just demeans people who can't be at the meeting, or don't want to go.
Putting it on public TV is the icing on the cake, and that really frosts me, too.

First, why is any toolkit necessary?
In the old days, folks used to find a cave, or live in a place where the climate was good and food plentiful.
I resent having to pay for something that isn't needed, won't work and is too complicated.
That seems so artificial and wasteful.

Besides, to be affordable, most toolkits are probably made in another country, using inferior materials and workmanship, and having unintelligible instructions!
I resent that, plus having to understand every tool and how it is used.

Take a hammer for example. Why not use a rock?
Rocks are cheap, abundant and usually hard enough -even if they aren't exactly the right shape and size.
Besides, having access to a hammer tends to make folks think that every thing starts to look like a nail!
Why have people running around with tools designed to hit things?

Then, there's screwdrivers; whoever invented them?
And why did someone even carve the first screw? Didn't they have to use another tool to do that?
There are so many kinds and sizes of screwdrivers, too. Excessive!
Plus some idiot decided that screws need to turn to the right to work, most of the time.
Why right and not left? Some right-wing wing-nut probably thought that up to lord it over the rest of us.

Pliers are too dangerous for public use.
Why one could really pinch oneself, if they aren't careful.
And who wants to go around being careful all the time?
Its just another form of government meddling, and loss of individual rights!

There's a few other tools I've heard about, too, but resent having to learn how to use them.
I tell you, this country is going to the dogs, and fast!
Let people invent their own darn tools, I say.
Real folks just don't need 'em, and never did.

This city's already got too much stuff that it can't take care of.
I say stop this toolkit foolishness and save the money.
Heck, it didn't even seem like most Council members understood what a toolkit was for, either.
Who elected them to adopt a bunch of toolkits anyway?

Do they think they are rulers or something?
Are they on the level?
I don't trust 'em, and anyway its unfair to let them have tools when the rest of us have to make do with our hands and feet.
But, these elected officials will find out that we the people do have the ultimate power.

What I'm talking about is the right to run our mouths.
Anytime we want to, but especially after the fact, and fact-free.
And, we are free to do that whether somebody thinks we know what we're talking about or not!
You don't believe that? Just wait and see!

Hey, this is Amurica!

----------------------------
'Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.' - Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
----------------------------

A Tale of Two Cities: Role Models for Bellingham?

-----------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut was fascinating as it juxtaposed the positive and negative characteristics of two northwest cities, Seattle and Vancouver, BC.

What was really interesting was that expert representatives of each city had to advocate for the OTHER city!

That's an idea which requires serious role-playing and an honest effort to see, understand and support arguments and positions they would normally argue against.

Similar to a debating team format, where pro and con sides are selected in advance and the quality of arguments is monitored and rated by an audience and a jury, the method attempts to separate preconceived positions from rational concepts that can be widely understood and accepted.

Socrates would have loved this format, and probably would have been keen to argue both sides of the question himself.
It was that capacity for didactic argument and reasoning that made Socrates so unpopular in some influential circles, that were not at all comfortable with hearing opposing positions from the same person!

Yet that technique seems a very valuable one since it does identify legitimate pros and cons for reasonable consideration.
----------------
Here is a short list of good things about each city, remembering that the discussion is mainly about the built environments.

Vancouver, BC is great because it has:

Stanley Park

Real townhouses

No auto court six-packs

31 miles of mass transit

Consistent, visionary planning

More downtown residents

Skinny Towers that don't block views

More public waterfront access

Walkable neighborhoods

Bikeable streets

No downtown freeways

More cosmopolitan feel

More multi-cultural feel

More "granny flats"

Better new neighborhoods

Bike-borrowing program

More integrated design

More design focus on livability

Families downtown

Seattle is great because it has:

Unique neighborhood character

Downtown ferries

Pike Place Market

Hilly terrain

Local civic patrons

More money

Free downtown buses

Parking strip gardens

Olmsted legacy

Better residential architecture

More architectural risk-taking

Better downtown office towers

A less homogenized feel

More cultural institutions and events

University campuses integrated into the city

Streetcars

Major medical and research complexes

Westlake Plaza (Vancouver had no equivalent)

Seattle Center

As for the cons, both criticized their hometowns for significant failures.

Steinbrueck said of Seattle: "We've given up on families in the urban core."

Price said Vancouver's dirty secret was: "We've reached a very high level of mediocrity."

After the Q&A, the audience was asked to decide who won the debate. It was Gordon Price by a hair, which balanced things out nicely: Steinbrueck was voted the winner in Vancouver. Which produced the kind of result soccer cities can be happy with: a tie.
------------

This topic -now being addressed locally by a housing 'toolkit' -is already of interest locally, as it has rightfully has been for a quite a while.

Examples include our Comprehensive Plan, including the 23 Neighborhood Plan updates [now 24], every annexation discussion, every development proposal of any size, design standards & guidelines, waterfront & other redevelopment schemes, etc.
And this good, certainly better than the public ignoring discussions that could impact the city and its neighborhoods in ways that may not be desirable.

But, there is also the feeling among some that even discussing such a topic is tantamount to opening Pandora's box.
They seem to feel that avoidance is better, that delay is preferable, that blind fear is justified, and that the 'City' cannot be trusted.
That stance is just so much BS!

Some opponents are avowed single issue advocates, some recall experiences in other places that purportedly caused huge problems, some are so focused on ADUs [accessory dwelling units] that they can't get past that block.

And, some advocates have the simple misfortune to be classified as 'developers'.

Both advocates and opponents are correct in that some risks will be taken, even if they turn out to be imaginary.

The bottom line is that if the City really wants to do infill better, it needs better tools to do it.
If this is only about mixed use and multi-family housing areas it falls far short; single-family homes must be part of the mix because there do exist lots that are suitable for modest additional housing.

The Real question is, as it has been, how far do we want to go in telling someone else what they can do with their property?
There are practical limits on what makes sense here, folks.

Besides, we have a professional Hearing Examiner to provide consistent review and compliance with City ordinances and design criteria.
Then, there is the neighborhood review process which gets the true input from those likely to be most affected.

Regarding the perceived 'complexity' of the proposed 'Toolkit', when has that claim NOT been made?
There has to be some thoughtful guidelines to be fair and consistent.

Besides, use of the Toolkit is voluntary, not mandatory!
The Toolkit is available for those who wish to use it, period.

So, what is the problem -really?

It is certainly NOT the loss of our single-family neighborhoods!
Did you know that the proposed Toolkit was essentially 'borrowed' from Seattle, a city renowned for the excellence of its neighborhoods.

Let's get serious about this issue and get on with the business of creating more design options, green practices, affordability and land use efficiency.
At some point, citizens will need to connect the dots that this exercise has not happened out of thin air.

This project has been the result of many public planning sessions, careful thought and hundreds of hours of professional staff time.
To dismiss it with knee-jerk reactions is simply not responsible or appropriate, and demeans the effort expended as well as the reasonable intent behind it.

To mouth the words 'I'm all for infill', and then badmouth reasonable attempts to actually implement it, seems disingenuous at best.
Every Toolkit, ordinance or guideline developed will never please everyone, although each will undoubtedly obtain as much public process and consensus as is possible.

I do hope the City will approve this Toolkit in some form after its planned due process, because it does represent a step forward for the City.
Otherwise, we are spinning our wheels and wasting everyone's time.

If, for some reason, the final version of the Toolkit proves unworkable or otherwise undesirable, it can always be modified or rescinded.
Let's don't forget that.
-----------------------------------------

Population Forecasts: Numerology or Just Mind-Numbing?

-----------------------------------------------
'Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell'
- Edward Abbey
-----------------------------------------------

Of course, ALL growth isn't necessarily bad.
Just look at agricultural products, the economy, scientific knowledge, kids becoming adults and the like.
The two things that set cancer cells apart are that they grow very fast and have malignant results.

Regarding population growth, that seems to be a reality that we can only plan for the best way we can.
So, here we go again, and so soon after the last Comprehensive Plan brouhaha, too.

Anyway, earlier this year, the City obtained a consultant's report which was duly reviewed by the Planning Commission which issued its Findings of Fact and Recommendations for the City Council's input and the County's eventual approval.

This blog won't go into a lot more detail, but those interested can access these reports and related others by going to the City's website, then searching on 'OFM Growth Projections'.

I attempted links to the above report and Findings, but they don't work directly;
The report is at "http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/Planning%20Commission/city-council-memorandum-growth-projection.pdf".

And, the Findings are at "http://www.cob.org/documents/planning/Planning%20Commission/growth-fndings-of-fact.pdf.

Instead, here is one question from the report, plus a summary of the various population growth projections reviewed by the Planning Commission:
-----------------------------------------------

Question 5: What are the legal requirements with respect to adoption of population growth forecasts?

Response: The GMA and hearings board cases have made it clear that population growth forecasts used in the preparation of comprehensive plans must be within the range provided by the State Office of Financial Management.
The OFM 2031 forecast range for Whatcom County is approximately 220,000 to 330,000 with a “baseline” forecast of 264,400. (OFM lists the baseline forecast as the “most likely to occur” scenario).
OFM does not provide population growth forecasts for individual cities.
It is up to the County, working with the cities, to allocate the county-wide growth forecast to the individual jurisdictions.
-----------------------------------------------

Table 1 – 2031 County-wide Population Growth Forecasts
2031 County-wide Population Growth Forecast

OFM Low Forecast 220,000

SEPA No Action Alternative (current comp. plans) 234,917

GMCC Recommendation 251,490

Consultant/Staff TAG Recommendation 256,950

EIS Alts. X and Y Forecast 258,450

OFM Baseline Forecast 264,400

OFM High Growth Forecast 330,000
-----------------------------------------------

You decide whether the Planning Commission is on the right track.
I think they probably are, because this equates to the City eventually accommodating a little over 44% of the County's population growth, and it is BELOW the OFM Baseline Forecast. [see report]

Last time around the City adopted a projection that equated to over 51% of county-wide growth.
And that was after a significant correction in the County's overall growth projection to just OVER the OFM baseline number.

Readers can also see from the City's report that the actual growth rate experienced by the City was less than that estimated.

Right, wrong or indifferent, the County doesn't want the City annexing any more land.
And, the City doesn't seem to want to annex more either, especially with the current strain on revenues. constraint on services, and the mind-set of several electeds.

So, something will have to give, won't it?
What do you think that will be?
Given the prevailing attitudes, it means that the the smaller cities and the unincorporated areas of the County will continue to accept more of the growth than they claim they want or are planning for.
To me, that would simply prove the following:

There is truth in the statement that the only thing people dislike more than sprawl is in-fill!

And that includes even in-fill that is appropriate, like Old Town, King Mountain, the Waterfront Redevelopment, and, yes, Chuckanut Ridge -or whatever it is now being called.

Does it seem to you like this growth planning exercise has become just a monumental waste of time?
Maybe we should just let the County decide, so we can spend full time bitching, arguing among ourselves, and generally being in denial of the good things that could be accomplished with good growth planning?

But then, how often does good planning deliver the results anticipated?
Implementation is the main problem, and I don't believe we have the tools, the political will, or the collective discipline required to consistently make progress in the direction we claim to want.

So, what we can do is simply try to slow down all population growth and prevent what growth does occur from becoming 'malignant' by some definition.
But, hey, aren't those things what growth planning is supposed to be about?

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

Citizenship: Pen Versus Sword

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

---------------------
Remember this popular TV series?From the theme song, Paladin was portrayed as "a knight without armor in a savage land."
Not much has changed, has it?
Maybe, it has always been this way.
But now, in this age of Internet, all sorts of weapons and countermeasures are much more widely available.
And, not just to trained knights either!.
---------------------
Was this weapon really mightier than the one shown below?Maybe before modern times, but not now.
---------------------

How can a feather pen be a more effective weapon than a sword?
One reason is it can readily use a much broader field of engagement.
Another is it can recruit reinforcements, while enforcing fairer rules of engagement that invite public scrutiny.
Of course, there are no guarantees, but the potential is always there - despite tactics that deliberately obscure truth and serve mainly base or selfish purposes.
----------------------

But, Paladin was always ready to use a gun in his work, and often did.
Bummer!
That's not a very liberal or progressive method for a do-gooder San Franciscan to employ, is it?
And, much more sophisticated weapons -including WMD- are still around, and sadly still necessary for enforcement of laws and civil conduct.
That's because there are still people who only understand the use of force.
That forces those who prefer to act more civilized and profess non-violence to continue to deal with this reality.

But, democracy doesn't rely too much on wishful thinking, alone.
It requires continuous hard work that never ends.
And, it allows Constitutional rights to continue to be available to all citizens.
That includes the right to bear arms, as was certainly necessary during our revolutionary times and periodically since.
So, the NRA and 'gun rights' advocates are within their rights, as are those who sincerely oppose firearms.

What should we do to resolve this conundrum?
Are current gun laws sufficient?
How can better enforcement be done?
After all, most laws are mainly enforced by the voluntary compliance of citizens.
For a less dramatic example, just look at the so-called 'landlord accountability' problem of nuisances in neighborhoods.
How could the City, or any municipality, ever ensure even near-total compliance?

I believe the only answer possible lies in consistently broadening 'the field of engagement', just as the pen can surpass the sword.
Citizen awareness, communication and cooperation are all important elements in today's society.
And, there really aren't any viable substitutes.
Laws and the threat of enforcement are needed as well, but the primary 'enforcement' is that of public awareness of undesirable practices, and the expectation of good behavior by all citizens.

What a bother!
Paying attention to all those people who use a pen instead of a sword seems a full time job, as it may be at times.
But, do you have another answer?
Think about it.
Sorting through the overwhelming mass of information that confronts us daily is an annoying and daunting job.
That means we have to work smarter, learn to prioritize, band together as neighbors, and expect government intervention only as a last resort at times.

Are you sorry our founders stuck us with this never ending task?
I'm not, although I am tempted!
The pay off comes when we avoid needing to call a 'Paladin'.
Those folks don't come free, and never did.
Plus, they never seem to really 'solve' the problem.
And, it is OUR problem, not someone else's.
No need to pay for gunslinger from out of town, if we do our jobs as citizens, is there?

As Thomas Jefferson said; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
I think he meant it.
--------------------------------

Have Gun Will Travel Theme Song

"Ballad of Paladin" by Johnny Western, Richard Boone, and Sam Rolfe
Performed by Johnny Western

Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire head's the calling wind.
A soldier of fotune is the man called Paladin.

Paladin, Paladin Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin, Far, far from home.

He travels on to wherever he must;
A chess knight of silver is his badge of trust.
There are campfire legends that the plainsmen spin
Of the man with the gun,
of the man called Pa-l-l-l-l-a-din
--------------------------------------

South Hill Neighborhood: Views Become Vision

Last night the South Hill Neighborhood got some view protection as an official part of its Neighborhood Plan.

The Bellingham City Council approved that new policy last night, after reviewing the results of 18 months of effort and hearing many South Hill residents testify in support of it as one way to help preserve the Neighborhood's character.

This new policy doesn't actually change development regulations, but it does condition future development to the extent it represents the legitimate concerns of current residents, businesses and property owners.

And, it initiates the dialogue about what rules might be changed in the future to protect views, not only in South Hill, but other neighborhoods as well.

View preservation is one of those discussions that applies city wide in one way or another,

And, its a discussion the city needs to take to the next level, so everyone has fair a share in determining City policy.

Some thought the measure presented didn't go far enough.

Others thought it went too far.

Still others preferred to wait until a 'comprehensive' measure was developed and agreed to.
That one sounded like more of an attempt to not do anything for a long time!

But, all of these opinions had some merit!

By the advocates own admission the measure neglected to address some major issues that impact view preservation.

Some of the more obvious omissions like trees & vegetation [which grow according nature's rules],
and solar access [whether the sun is shining or not, there are stars, weather/clouds and birds in the air].

Also, different people have their own definitions of what 'view' means to them!

Like beauty, 'view' is often in the eyes of the beholder!

Those are serious omissions that will need to be addressed at other times and in other venues.

But, I say let this discussion begin!

The City has fretted about these discussions for years without doing much about having them.

It's past time for these discussions to happen!

The City's enabling of its neighborhoods to initiate such discussions was a wise thing to do.

Now, that the neighborhoods are having such discussions, it is wise of the City to listen!

They are doing the type of critical, grassroots work that is necessary to forge City policy that works.

Without this type of effort, these discussions would likely continue to languish, until some staffer got time to fit it in.

But, the City doesn't have enough staffers to do the work we have, in a consistent and timely fashion.

That means to me that subjects like view preservation, despite the talk, have a de facto low priority.

If the Neighborhoods want to assign a higher priority to view preservation, why not let them do it?

Is the view protection language generated by South Hill perfect?

No, but its a good start.

Is this view protection language controversial?

You bet it is! That's why addressing it earlier rather than later is better.

Is this view protection language comprehensive?

No, but it gets the process started, and sometimes inertia represents the biggest hurdle in such matters.

I hope other Neighborhoods will take heart in this early success and be encouraged to add to it from their own perspectives.

That way, we can slowly build a more comprehensive body of information to represent common Neighborhood values that will do nothing but help us in the future.

Thanks, South Hill!

Keep up the good work.

What is Consensus Decision-Making?

Some of my recent blogs have dealt with the role of Neighborhood Associations in helping determine policy to preserve quality of life by conditioning future development and by other means.

These have attracted several comments, some of which were quite agitated.
That made me wonder whether it was something I said, or because I said something at all on this subject!
It seems a very sensitive subject, doesn't it?

Consistently, my focus has been on seeking 'consensus'.

What does that mean, you might ask?

Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
-----------------
"The word 'consensus' derives from the Latin cum meaning 'with' or 'together with', and sentire meaning to 'think' or 'feel'.
Thus, etymologically, 'consensus' means to 'think or feel together'.

As a decision-making process, consensus aims to be:

• Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.

• Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.

• Co-operative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority.

• Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process.
All members have the opportunity to table, amend and veto or "block" proposals.

• Solution-oriented: An effective consensus decision-making body strives to emphasize common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group.
-------------------
That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

In practice, and on controversial subjects, it is not simple!
It is often impossible.

When complete consensus is not possible, what happens?

Life goes on anyway.
But, maybe a partial consensus is possible.

The exercise is to figure out what can be agreed upon first.
Then identify the 'sticky wickets' that comprise the main barriers to reaching agreement.
Both sides of the equation are valuable things to know, especially when the time comes for decisions to be made.

And, one way or another, decisions will be made!

Those decisions may be difficult, time consuming and contentious, but they will be made.
Hopefully, they will be made fairly and will stand up to the tests of time.
If a decision can't stand the test of time, other decisions must be made that will.

No one ever said this was easy!

Like the Midas Muffler Ad said, 'you can pay me now, or pay me later'.

Earlier input is better in my book.