|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
For background, please read this posting in the Treehouse. At last evening's Bellingham City Council meeting the council voted 6-0 in favor of exempting itself from the very environmental regulations it imposes on private citizens. The hypocrisy of this whole concept is just astounding. How the city can exempt itself from environmental regulations simply on the basis that following the regulations is too costly is the height of elitism and arrogance! Are these same regulations not prohibitively costly for the private sector? How many projects have been foregone because the return on investment did not justify the expense? How many projects have doubled in price or more simply because of the environmental hoops that have to be jumped through? If there is not an outcry from this one, I'll be amazed.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Damon,
I don't expect you to jump on the public band wagon but let me clarify a couple of your statements. The law is written to allow jurisdictions of any kind, City or County to exempt what are defined as Essential Public Facilities and local jurisdictions can adopt what qualifies. What makes the City different than a private developer is that developers aren't charged with locating San Juan Blvd which, apparently, has to go through several category one wet lands in order to get from point A to point B. Water tanks because the water system is gravity fed, have to be located on the top of the hill. That means that there are often steep slopes either at the tank citing or near the large water pipes that feed it and take the water down to the houses below. I realize, that trails often can and its nice to locate them next to streams and can be built with little or now damage to the Critical Area but that places them inside of the CAO required set backs. Even these sitings go through a lengthy process of approval requiring "no further harm" to the wetland or slope as spelled out in one of the other Ordinances we adopted. As a matter of fact the list of EPF didn't get approved. We sent it back to staff to narrow it's focus. The draft had facilites like everything on the current and future Transporation Improvement Program (TIP). I reviewed the current TIP and found that of the first 17 on the list only two were near CAO's and both of those were on a list by themselves. The list also included everything in the Parks master plan and I told them that was too broad. So, staff will work with Councilmember Buchanan and myself to come up with a narrow list that does have essential public facilities only.
I was very unhappy with the first proposal, as you point out Critical Areas are meant to be protected and what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. The CAO does stop wholesale filling in of wetlands and I'm all for stopping that no matter who is doing it. Wet lands are an important part of our eco system and need to be protected. I hope this helps, it's not a thorough writing on this subject, I'm not a planner just an elected but I try to be mindful of the public trust.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
"I'm not a planner just an elected but I try to be mindful of the public trust." Stann, I thought you were an elected councilman. could you clarify as to what an "elected but" is...  All seriousness aside, I think that the public trust that you are mindful of is important to you and I suspect that you have some thoughts on the perceptions that some of us folks have when we see exemptions for the city, county state, and feds that those of us private property owners, and business owners know that there is no way that the planning depts and local govts. will ever allow us to do. I just can't seem to get that exemption for my nuclear power plant on my little one acre property. All I want is one of those 40' cargo container types that all the remote scientific observatories are allowed... 
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Stan Snapp wrote:What makes the City different than a private developer is that developers aren't charged with locating San Juan Blvd which, apparently, has to go through several category one wet lands in order to get from point A to point B. I understand this line of reasoning, or argument, but I just disagree with it. The logic runs something like this: "The governmental entity has to be exempt from the regulations because the road must be built, and it has to be built through this corridor, and it is too costly to comply with the regluations." I would argue that the road does NOT have to be built. I want very much for it to be built, but it is not essential. So we move from the realm of mandate, to the realm of desire. The city wants the road, but the city does not want the expense and the hassle of dealing with the environmental issues of building the road. The private industry builder wants the home, or strip mall, or whatever. But the builder does not want the expense or the hassle of complying with the environmental issues of building the item. The difference is not the "charge" the city has, but the power the city has. The city can just vote away its responsibility to comply. The private developer cannot do this. Stan Snapp wrote:As a matter of fact the list of EPF didn't get approved. We sent it back to staff to narrow it's focus. Yes. I caught that part of it too. The vote was for the exemption, although the list itself was sent back. So, in a sense, an exemption was approved for a list of items that doesn't yet exist. That strikes me as risky. Now, I recognize that the list can be rejected over and over until staff gets it the way council wants it, but the core issue for me is the incongruity of the city exempting itself at all. I understand the purpose of the exemption, but have difficulty with the ... well, the ethics of it. I also see it as an invitation for abuse in the future. Stan, I respect the heck out of your willingness to come in here and discuss these things. I don't see anyone else doing that, and I think you're a pretty gutsy guy for laying it on the the line the way you do here and at the Herald.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Okay, so some are choking on the principle that there are things that only the government is charged with doing and special rules, for lack of a better term, are applied as allowed by the Growth Management Act. In the case of San Juan Blvd. I get that some would say, "don't build it", the wet lands are too precious. Part of me agrees with that. Trouble is, we're choosing to infill Samish hill rather than sprawl into and onto County farm land. Currently there is a projected route from point A to point B on Samish hill and the slope is driving it's location up and through the wet lands. It's possible to change the route but at what cost? The alternative is to mitigate the wet land. It's not a free ride, as many want to believe. Seldom are things that simple. Imagine the cost of a long winding road up Samish hill through private land that you the tax payer would foot the bill for. Twenty years ago that might have been a less costly proposition but that was then and that decision was not made but then we didn't have critical area protection then.
The exemption has to be applied for; to the Planning Director. Here's a shortened version of the text. Exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas and their buffers. To be exempt does not give permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at responsible parties expense. All exempt activities shall be conducted using best management practices that result in the least impact to the critical area. It goes on to say that the proponent has the burden to show that there is no practical alternative with less impact on the critical area. Any proposed alteration of a critical area to construct an essential public facility is the minimum necessary to accommodate the facility. The decision for all of this is a Type II, meaning it is up to the Planning Director.
There isn't support on Council to have this decision be more stringent, as in having it made on a case by case basis by electeds. In the case of a major public facility like a road, Council can hold up the project funding or approval, so we do have some say, I would just like us to have a say on the specific critical area decision. I have a lot of respect and trust in our current planning director but his municipal code applies to future planning directors and there in lies the rub. A staff committee is currently working on a new list of essential public facilites and have declined to have any of us electeds participate in the process so we'll wait to see what they come up with. I'm very concerned about how to address the trail issue. Current setback requirements exclude new trails along most of our streams and I think we can build low impact trails that allow us, the public, to enjoy the stream experience without doing them harm. The trick is to find language to make that happen and then to get four votes to approve it. Wish me luck.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Stan Snapp wrote:Okay, so some are choking on the principle that there are things that only the government is charged with doing and special rules, for lack of a better term, are applied as allowed by the Growth Management Act.
Not certain if I'm "choking" on it, but I see a glaring inequity and a refusal to allow the same logic used to exempt the city to be used for the private citizen. It really comes down to "it costs too much to follow the rules." Well, gee, how convenient that the city can take a vote and exempt itself from those same rules. Stan Snapp wrote:In the case of San Juan Blvd. I get that some would say, "don't build it", the wet lands are too precious. Truth be told, I want the road. I think it will be an excellent addition once it is built. But I want the city to feel the pain that every other private citizen who wants build feels when we run into these regulations. Stan, I respect the environment, and want to do nothing to permanently damage it, but there are some regulations that are patently absurd, and the abundance of hoops to jump through drives construction costs through the roof. Council knows this and that's why these exemptions are being called for and approved. Stan Snapp wrote:It's possible to change the route but at what cost? The alternative is to mitigate the wet land. It's not a free ride, as many want to believe. Seldom are things that simple. Imagine the cost of a long winding road up Samish hill through private land that you the tax payer would foot the bill for. YES!!! That's the point. Look at these skyrocketing costs. It's awful! It's awful for the city(taxpayers) and it is awful for the individual. Stan Snapp wrote:It goes on to say that the proponent has the burden to show that there is no practical alternative with less impact on the critical area.
How is it decided what is "practical?" My threshold of practicality may be (and is likely to be) much different than someone else's. I guess the same logic or question applies to the definition of "essential" in Essential Public Facilities, and that's why you were faced with the long list of EPFs that was sent back to staff. Stan Snapp wrote:I have a lot of respect and trust in our current planning director but his municipal code applies to future planning directors and there in lies the rub.
I don't know him well enough to have an opinion, but I have the very same concern about the ability to vote an exemption. I just have a real issue with the principle. It's way open to abuse. I'm pleased that the EPFs list was sent back for rework, but I still have a difficult time with the principle behind this whole discussion.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Damon,
I'm a week out of this thread, I've been busy with neighborhood plan docketing issues for an entire week.
This Monday City Council will be having another run at CAO issues because the Ordinance that states how EPF's are handled is up for third and final and it may be pulled from the "consent agenda" for another discussion and possibly a change, if there is enough support to make that change. The issue is, who gets to decide, and the ordinance now says it's the Planning Director and I would like to change that to electeds. There are only a few of these per year and I would like Council to hold public deliberation on these rather than just an internal staff process. Stay tuned for more.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Stan Snapp wrote:Damon,
I'm a week out of this thread, I've been busy with neighborhood plan docketing issues for an entire week.
Not a probelem at all. The thread isn't in any hurry to go anywhere.  Stan Snapp wrote:The issue is, who gets to decide, and the ordinance now says it's the Planning Director and I would like to change that to electeds. How do you position your argument for this? I'm going to guess that it is as follows: Stan Snapp wrote:There are only a few of these per year and I would like Council to hold public deliberation on these rather than just an internal staff process.
I quite agree that this needs to be an open, public deliberation, and I am pleased that you believe that as well. Is there more to the argument than this? This may be sufficient, but I'm just curious.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
First and foremost CAO is State legislation designed to protect special environmental features. Recently I was told that the contractor currently building the widening of the Guide had several CAO's to mitigate and they did that as is spelled out in the CAO mitigation regulations.
I think government needs to hold up the same standard to itself. The City can't very well site it's solid waste expansion anywhere but at the current site so, if there are critical area's there, and there are, then the City can work around that under the Essential Public Facility exemption. They still have to mitigate the issue so the question is how that is mitigated and to what standard. The political reality is the past Council has adopted the CAO following the Planning Commission hearings, their own Council hearings, etc. What they left out of the original CAO was this Essential Public Facilities (EPF) piece which is spelled out and recognized by the legislation.
Staff has recommended that we allow a wide range of City projects to qualify under the EPF exemption. And, that the process for addressing it be a Type II process meaning the Planning Director, a City staff member gets to decide. I want to see the list made very narrow and the process moved to a Type 6 process. It comes close to leveling the field between public and private. The bottom line for me is that we need to do everything we can to protect the critical areas and balance that protection with building essential public facilities. Having Council be the forum (Type 6) means we can hold public hearings on each request and make a decision in full public view. For me that means that going into the future we aren't subject to decisions by whoever the latest Planning Director might be, we are always going to have decisions by "elected" representatives and if we don't like the direction Council is going we have the opportunity to address that at the polls.
While we have San Juan Blvd on the table, and you said you support it, who do you think should pay for it? In the planning process for years and years, the developers were slated to pay for it; and the new reservoir (tank) at the south City limits on top of Samish hill. Phase I is in the budget for 2009 but it's not clear to me in my reading of the 2008 budget, who will pay for it. I'm told by some that both projects are now budgeted from public funds, not developers as was stated for years. How would you weigh in on this? I will find out where the funds are to come from but until then, it's a good question........
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Stan, How is the decision made, and what are the criteria used to determine "essential" in an EPF. I would agree that there are certain public facilities that are "essential" while many others are not, though they are very nice to have. It seems important then, how that determination is made, and who has the privilege of making it. Staff seems to want the planning director to make that decision, and you are advocating that council make the decision. I'm inclined to agree that the decision should be made by council, but it seems there should be an objective standard against which such decisions regarding essentiality are measured. As to your question... Stan Snapp wrote:While we have San Juan Blvd on the table, and you said you support it, who do you think should pay for it? In the planning process for years and years, the developers were slated to pay for it; and the new reservoir (tank) at the south City limits on top of Samish hill. Phase I is in the budget for 2009 but it's not clear to me in my reading of the 2008 budget, who will pay for it. I'm told by some that both projects are now budgeted from public funds, not developers as was stated for years. How would you weigh in on this? I will find out where the funds are to come from but until then, it's a good question........ You’re right, Stan. I do see a need for the San Juan Boulevard connector. This connector has been talked about for almost 30 years now, and I believe it will be a substantial improvement. Traffic is heavy on Lakeway Drive, and this East/West connector will help ease that load just as the Barkley Boulevard (formerly Burns Way) connector did. Furthermore, it will provide greater access to I-5 from Yew Street, and another arterial for EMS between the two neighborhoods. Let's go back about 20 years, to the Barkley development and the Barkley Boulevard connector. A number of local land owners held about 370 acres in the Barkley neighborhood, up over the hill toward Britton and down in the Barkley Meadows flats. The City Comprehensive Plan specified that Barkley Boulevard must be built in order to enable development in these areas. That makes sense, but again, the question comes up; "Who pays?" Well, in answer to that, the Barkley land owners absorbed those costs by putting together two separate LIDs to pay for construction of the Barkley Boulevard connector, and then amortized those costs over their individual development projects between 1988 and 1997. So, we know who paid. Who benefits? Everyone! Traffic on Alabama and Lakeway is given a reprieve, and the development can proceed. Traffic from the Barkley development accounts for about 15 to 20 percent of the total capacity on Barkley Boulevard, leaving 80 to 85 percent for the rest of us. Thank you to the Barkley developers! Similarly, San Juan Boulevard is in the Comprehensive Plan. The City began collecting impact fees for construction of the boulevard roughly around 1987. Pacific Heights developers built the first leg, heading west off of Yew Street, in the early 90s. Shortly thereafter, the City of Bellingham built the lower leg from Samish heading east. The middle section, the most difficult because of the topography, and therefore the most costly, remains to be built. So who pays? You have indicated that the city is slated to pay for it. Undoubtedly the city will benefit the most from it, and on a scale of what is fair and equitable, perhaps the city should pay for it. But here is what I suspect will happen. The area around the proposed San Juan Boulevard connector is held by a forward-thinking, patient and insightful local developer who does indeed want to develop that area. He wants to develop, and the city wants San Juan connected. So, construction of the connector will benefit the property owner(s) because development can proceed, just like Barkley. The proposed route for the connector has some environmental impact issues that must be mitigated, just like Barkley. Construction of the connector will dramatically improve the East/West access for the public, just like Barkley. Construction of the connector will allow development of the adjacent properties, just like Barkley. The development itself will consume a minor percentage of the actual traffic capacity of the connector, leaving the greatest percentage of the capacity for the city, just like Barkley. I really doubt the city will end up absorbing the cost of this development. Rather, the benefiting property owners will pay for it through an LID initiated by the owners with a quid pro quo related to the land use and density, again, just like Barkley. Now, they don't have to do this (though I suspect they will), so if the land owners don't want to go that route, the city can bond the project, build it, and then retire the debt through assessment of latecomer fees on development of the adjacent properties, collecting pro rata shares as the parcels are built out. If necessary, the city could impose interest charges on the latecomer fees, as they don't have an expiration date. Stan Snapp wrote:I think government needs to hold up the same standard to itself. The City can't very well site it's solid waste expansion anywhere but at the current site so, if there are critical area's there, and there are, then the City can work around that under the Essential Public Facility exemption. Does this not strike you as a contradiction? You say that you believe the government needs to be held to the same standard, yet in the very next sentence cite an exemption from the standard. Unless I'm missing something, that is a glaring contradiction, and is at the heart of what troubles me about this whole discussion. The city must be willing to live by the same regulations it imposes on its citizens.
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Damon,
I expect the blvd will be bonded by the city and repaid by developers as Barkley was.
To answer your question about Exemption. It isn't an exemption, it's a process that allows the City to site an essential road with a lot of process. The reason that standard is a bit different is because developers don't build roads, at least not arterials. Council sent two Ordinances back to staff. One the list of EPF's and the other the process for mitigation. The former was sent back because we felt it was too broad in scope. The latter was sent back because the process that of sighting is very thorough but the decisions were Type II with the Planning Director. We think that the elected, representatives of the broader good should decide which in legal terms is a Type VI decision. That means that each consideration would come to Council for consideration, a public hearing and approval. Currently, this Monday, in our packet is four different options for how to handle these two issues. Council will pick one or a fifth option that we come up with.
The GMA recognizes Essential Public Facilities because of their unique locating challenges. It also states that local jurisdictions need to decide on what constitutes an EPF which is what we're doing.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administrator
, Member
Joined: 1/11/2008
Posts: 256
Location: Bellingham, WA
|
Stan Snapp wrote:Damon,
I expect the blvd will be bonded by the city and repaid by developers as Barkley was.
Are you certain of this Stan? My understanding is the Barkley developers did this with two LIDs and amortized the costs of the roadway over the development of the properties. One of them even threatened to show me the canceled checks!
Mark Twain wrote:
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on.
Mark Twain
Baron Miller wrote:
Grace ruins the idea that you are fully in charge.
Baron Miller
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
No, I'm not certain. I wasn't involved at the time. I do have reservations about San Juan Blvd. We need the access for the reasons you stated. Who should pay for it is another matter. We'll see how this plays out.
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
You know, I really enjoy the dialogue and debate between you two. You seem to reason out the arguments and have some good research behind your points. Since I am not encumbered by facts or an intellect, just let me know how to encourage more of this. 
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
PPP,
Thanks for your encouragment. I realize I'm surrounded by conservative folks here but I've enjoyed the chat and it helps me figure some of these issues out. Since early in the Council campaign, I came to appreciate the way Damon looks at things. We often have a different take on things and hmmm, it's hard not to make a caustic comment here..... I won't do it, it would spoil the chat.
Hmmm, PPP, short on facts AND intellect, you should consider public service.........
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
I'm already doing a public service... I sit back, am as ignorant as I choose to be, and encourage all you smart fellers to debate each other...
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
Do you remember the TV show entitled: "Can You Top This"? Nope, I can't..........
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 139
Location: Zeta Reticuli
|
Nah, I was listenin' to "You Bet Your Life" on the other radio station. "say the secret word and the duck will come down..." 
You better laugh at yourself, Everyone else is. www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com
|
|
Rank: New Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/9/2008
Posts: 51
Location: Bellingham
|
I can still see Groucho, flicking the cigar and winking all the time. What a gleam he had.
|
|
|
Guest |
