Related North Sound Baykeeper links:
RE Sources
North Sound Baykeeper
1155 N. State St., Suite 623
Bellingham, WA 98225
Steve Sundin
City Planner
City of Bellingham
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
May 22, 2006
.
Dear Steve:
Please accept the following comments as part of the formal comment on the 4-12-2006 Shoreline Master Program draft. These comments are intended to help you in making the document more readable and clear, as well as, to protect our valuable natural resources.
As a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the City’s Shoreline update, and as a the North Sound Baykeeper, I appreciate all of the hard work that you have done in order to make the document more readable and to incorporate some of the comments you have received to date.
To make this document more protective of our shorelines, I urge you to make the following broad-based changes:
* Change the designation of urban maritime, with a zero foot buffer, along Pine Steet and the Cornall landfill to urban conservancy, with a larger buffer
* Disallow the practice of aquaculture and the use of net pens for finfish- these are polluting practices, and have been widely
* Ensure that no vehicle throughways are placed within the shoreline designation
* Increase the buffers along Lake Whatcom to 100’, and shores designated urban conservancy 100- 200’.
* Diallow the placement of aquatic confined aquatic disposal sites.
More specific detailed changes follow. Thank you for you time and patience in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Wendy Steffensen
North Sound Baykeeper
Global comments:
References are not included. Please include these.
Change the phrase “No net loss of ecological functions” to “No net loss of ecological functions and processes”
22.02.10. A.
Please include the Department of Ecology’s FEIS Pilot Habitat Restoration Projects as part of the general goals and objectives for the SMP.
22.02.20 A2b
Marine shorelines along Boulevard and Zuanich should be targeted for shore softening, where possible, to enable greater public access and restoration of some ecological function.
22.02.20 A2c
This objective is two separate thoughts and must be worded differently to be understood.
22.02.20 A2c , 22.02.20 C4d, 22.02.20 D2h
Many of the areas that have been singled out for mixed use, are also rightly designated as areas for urban conservancy. Some have also been singled out in the Pilot plan for habitat improvement. I believe it is important to emphasize that these areas are urban conservancy areas and the shoreline features here must be protected and restored. Any development should be minimized, here, and roadways should be kept out of shoreline designation in these areas. The Mount Baker Plywood and the Cornwall Avenue Landfill site, in particular, are potential community park assets and should be reserved for that purpose.
In order that the community buys in to the idea that areas should be “mixed-use water oriented-development,” there needs to some definition or side-bars put around what that means.
22.02.20 C4c
The last sentence should be changed to these following sentences:, “When development occurs, it shall protect existing ecological functions. Improving shoreline ecological functions and processes shall be implemented, where feasible. These changes are necessary to maintain the no net loss of ecological functions and processes.
22.02.20 F2f
Access points for water taxis, and the like, should not be located in or near critical areas of pocket beaches and estuaries. Additionally, they should not be powered by 2 stroke engines, but by 4 stroke engines, or another minimally polluting device.
22.03.30 A5c, 22.03.30 B5b
The minimum buffers range from 100 to 200 feet for natural and from 50 to 200 feet for the urban conservancy designation. Some explanatory note should be given for the different buffers to explain why these were chosen.
22.03.30 B2e
The measure “does not degrade existing shoreline functions” is used. How will this be defined or measured?
22.03.30 B5b
It appears that some of the buffers listed are not as stringent as those in the CAO.
Whatcom Creek is listed as having a 100’ minimum buffer in the CAO from the Mouth of the Creek to Woburn Street, yet reach 1 of Whatcom Creek has a buffer of 50’ in many places.
Squalicum Reach 1 is also listed as having a 100’ minimum buffer in the CAO from the Roeder Bridge to I-5, yet the SMP lists it as 75’.
In addition, I cannot seem to find buffers listed for the lakes or marine reaches in the CAO, were these not part of the CAO?
22.03.30 B5c, 22.03.30 C6c
The phrase, “other than fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,” does not appear to make sense. Please remove the phrase or explain the discrepancy between regulating these critical areas and others.
22.03.30 B5f, g
The height limitations in the urban conservancy area appear excessive.
22.03.30 C6, D5
Please include in the regulations section, for both Shoreline Residential and Urban Marine, that there will be “no net loss” of ecological function; this has been done for the other 3 shoreline designations.
22.03.30 C2h
This provision makes it sound as if single joint use dock should be installed; however, the SMP is supposed to minimize docks. It might be good to add, “Installation of docks should only occur where they are permissible and when they are shared over 0.25 miles (or some other measure).
22.03.30 C6b
This buffer is far too small. Lake Whatcom is our drinking water source. The buffer should be 100’. To enable people to build on their lots that are small, the reasonable use provision should apply such that variances are available for those lots. Homes are grandfathered in that have already been built too close to the shoreline. If those homes need to be rebuilt, they should also be pushed back according to the buffer and/or reasonable use provision.
22.03.30 D2f
Add a provision about critical areas within the Urban Marine designation, as has been done for other designations. Critical areas, including pocket beaches, should be protected and restored wherever they occur.
22.03.30 D2f
Add a provision that no new hard steepened bulkheads will be put in place where they do not already exist, and that hard armors will be replaced with soft bulkheads, wherever feasible.
22.03.30 D3a
Marine Reach 7 and a portion of 6 (midway of Pine street to the corner of Pine & Cornwall) should be designated Urban Conservancy, in keeping with the community’s desire for open space and a park at this site.
22.03.30 D4a,b
Locations for different permitted uses are unclear in the NWSDA—the map does not show the dotted line in this area.
Additionally, because the uses in the two different areas are so similar. I would suggest that the use specifications that are the same be given only once, and the ones that are different be specifically called out.
22.03.30 D4aiii, 22.03.30 D4biii
Change this wording to say “ … to provide access (both visual and physical) to the shorelines for the public.”
22.03.30 D5b
There are no buffers in the Urban Marine area. Whereas some shoreline dependent uses require steepened hardened bulkheads, not all do. Wherever possible shorelines should be softened and sloped (at roughly a 4:1 angle conducive to fish migration). Buffers, containing native plantings, should be instituted for areas that do not require hardscapes. 200’ buffers should be included at marine reach 7 and a portion of 6 (midway of Pine street to the corner of Pine & Cornwall), if these are not moved to Urban Conservancy.
22.03.30 E2 b,c,d
Words relating to the size and impact of over-water structures should not be struck. Please reinsert these.
22.03.30 E2 e
Replace the words “to allow for” , with “to enhance”
22.03.30 E2 g
This provision should be applied and inserted into the policies for all uses.
22.03.30 E2 j
The term “appropriate areas” is too vague.
22.03.30 E5b
Strike the word “also”.
22.03.30 E5
Add a provision for mooring and anchorage in City and Port managed areas. There should be designated anchorages in order to not harm eelgrass and other species of submerged aquatic vegetation, and in order to not disturb any contaminated sediments left in place.
22.05.10 G
Is there such a thing as “lands held in trust for individuals”?
22.05.20 A
This section does not make it clear that a developer must comply with the program regardless of whether they need shoreline permits or not, Additionally, it should be stated up front what permits or exemptions might be needed and where descriptions of them can be found: substantial shoreline development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, statement of exemption.
Add another section here—describe substantial shoreline development permit, and then list the exemptions.
Also describe in general terms, when a conditional use permit is required.
22.05.20 A7
Exemptions can only be conditioned if the developer gets a shoreline conditional use permit or a statement of exemption, yes? Otherwise, how will these permits be tracked?
22.05.20 B1
How do the exemptions get permitted? For example, permitting and oversight is needed for subsections b, c, e, g, h, and i.
22.05.20 B1o
To be consistent in this section, change the word “plan” to “project” in the 4th paragraph: “Watershed restoration project means a project…”
22.05.40 B, C
When replacing structures, these new structures should comply with the present code, with the stipulation that reasonable use should be allowed if doing so would diminish the available buildable land.
22.05.40 G3
The sentence is incomplete.
22.06.03
There is no mention that mitigation will be required here. Please include the mitigation and no net loss requirements in this section.
22.06.03 F
No development activity should be allowed waterward of the OHWM or in Class 1 or 2 wetlands. If reasonable use cannot be attained on a parcel of property in these instances, the City should acquire development rights of the property through conservation easements, TDR’s, or outright purchase.
22.08.10 B3a
If a shoreline activity is exempt, what does that mean for clearing and grading within that area? How close can clearing and grading occur next to the shoreline?
22.08.10 B3b
Name bulkheads, as part of “shoreline erosion control measures”
22.08.10 B3h
Add an additional provision for stormwater conveyance facilities: Water quality shall be tested twice per year, once in the rainy season and once in the dry season, for DO, pH, oil & grease, and zinc, with results submitted to the City. The purpose of the testing will be to determine whether stormwater treatment is necessary at that location.
22.08.20 A1
Amend the first sentence of this policy to read as follows: “ No net loss of ecological functions or processes shall occur in critical areas or shorelines of the state…” The way this section is currently worded, leads one to believe that the no net loss policy applies to critical areas within the shoreline, but not to the shoreline, apart from designated critical areas.
22.08.30 A2
Include the Nooksack Tribe in the list of government entities.
22.08.40 A2
This statement means that restoration efforts should apply to streams not in the shoreline designation, but that feed those streams that are in the designation. Does this mean that Padden Creek restoration is included in this statement? How is this policy enacted?
22.08.60 A6
This statement is unclear. Should the developer consider integrating provisions with other programs. If so, how would they do it?
22.08.60 B1a
Strike the phrase, “when it would be reasonably foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard reduction measures”. If an area is within a channel migration zone or floodway, it is already reasonably foreseeable.
22.08.60 B4
In order to obtain public access, will an access fee on property be assessed, for those who do not grant or dedicate easements?
22.08.80 B3f
Usually these plantings are supposed to be held in perpetuity, with no development of said area and with maintenance of native over non-native vegetation. There is only a five year maintenance and monitoring period. What ensures compliance after the 5 year period?
22.08.70 B
These regulations are too vague. They do not state what is required for public access, given type and size of development. They also do not state how the public access requirement is met through the variety of methods listed; conservation easement, outright purchase, via an existing parks plan, etc.
22.08.80 B4b
Parenthetical sentence is incomplete.
Also, please specify what happens in the Urban Maritime designations, in order to ensure no net loss.
22.08.80 B6
It is not clear when a conservation easement is required.
In the third line, strike the repeated words, “includes the”
20.08.90 A2
In the regulations, add a provision that boats on Lake Padden and Lake Whatcom, and water taxis or jitneys operating along lake and marine shorelines, should use minimal to non-polluting power sources, such as a 4- stroke motor or better as their power source
22.08.110 B2e
Append the following phrase, “nor will it contribute to the degradation or erosion of other stretches of shoreline and properties”
22.09.20 A2
Change this to “aquaculture should only be used for shellfish, algal, and plant species. Aquaculture of finfish shall not be allowed.”
22.09.30 A
Some mention should be made of the existing boating facilities, such that their practices are improved. Perhaps something like, “Improvements to existing boating facilities should be made as to minimize their impacts, restoring hydrologic function of the water body and maintaining viability of aquatic organisms.”
22.09.30 B2
Strike “that are previously disturbed or”. Places that have been previously been disturbed may be prime locations for important restoration work. It is best to locate facilities where impacts can be avoided altogether or minimized, in accordance with mitigation sequencing.
22.09.30 B4
Add the regulation, “Boating facilities shall be designed with Whatcom County residents in mind. The anticipated demand should include only those people from Whatcom County, and the numbers of slips in each size class should proportionately reflect those needed by residents in Whatcom County.
22.09.30 B
Add this additional regulation: The minimum level of management of pollution at new and existing marinas shall be the best management practices for marinas.
22.09.40 B3
The cited reference should be 22.08.70.
Public access is too vague in both of the references. It must be stated what kind of public access is required and what percent of space the access should entail (eg 10% of developed space).
22.09.60 B4
Contaminated dredge material should be removed from the aquatic environment. It is not acceptable to permit in water disposal sites, when there are no guarantees that it can be secured. Contaminated dredge material should be removed upland.
22.09.60 B
Add a regulation that dredging activity will be well-publicized to the local fishers and crabbers associations. (I have received complaints that crabbers often do not know that dredging will occur and they end up with fouled crab pots)
22.09.60 A1
For clarity, strike “but in both”.
22.09.60 A2
Expansion should be encouraged, only where it will not adversely affect ecological functions and processes.
22.09.60 A5
What is the meaning of, “on shorelines with severe physical limitations”?
22.09.60 B6
The requirement for public access is too vague. It must be stated what kind of public access is required and what percent of space the access should entail (eg 10% of developed space).
22.09.80 B5
Add pentachlorophenol-treated wood to the list of prohibitions.
22.09.80 B
Add a prohibition on shading of the photic zone, where such shading would interfere with fish migration.
22.09.90
Add the following regulations:
Shading of the photic zone is not allowed, because such shading interfere with natural fish movement.
Is every house on the lake allowed a pier? Cumulatively, this can affect habitat within the lake due to shading and interference with sediment transport. Community and joint use docks are required in Lake Samish and other places. We should prohibit single use docks, and require multiple use docks that would service a certain number of homes or a certain length along the shoreline.
22.09.100 A5
Float should not be located over marine critical areas. Strike the phrase “when located over a critical area”, and add the prohibition on floats over critical areas.
22.09.110 B2
Ideally remediation should occur as soon as possible, in order that contamination is removed from the water environment. If there is a redevelopment interest that coincides with that, it is a bonus, but remediation should not be held for concurrent redevelopment.
22.09.110 B1
It is not clear how the lighting plan will be used or approved.
22.09.120 B
Add the regulation, “Parking should only be allowed to encroach into the shoreline zone if it supports a water dependent recreational or public access feature or if no other reasonable alternative exists, such as development on a small parcel (#9 from policy section)
22.09.120 B3
Strike this regulation, as it no longer refers to anything.
22.09.130 B5
What was the reason for striking the WFG Framework Plan? Perhaps, it should be reinstated.
22.09.130 B6
The public access requirement needs to be defined.
22.09.140 B1
Is this requirement for Lake Whatcom only? This provision makes it sound as if a dock must be built—that sends the wrong message!
22.09.140 B3, 4, 5
What are the public access requirements? Is public access only required when a multi-unit residential development blocks the view or where it is part of a mixed use development? How much public access is required?
22.09.160 B1
This regulation undoes much of policy #A2. Strike Regulation BI, and replace it with Policy A2, written as a regulation.
22.09.160 B3
It is hard to imagine that it is necessary to place transportation circulation next to the shoreline. Strike the exception, and make this an outright prohibition.
22.09.160 B6
Development of new public street and street ends, should not be allowed within shoreline jurisdiction.
22.09.160 B8
This does not tell me what the consequences of boring under the shoreline are.
22.09.160 B14
It is not clear why the requirement does not apply.
22.09.180 B
Add a regulation that details where stormwater facilities are required.
22.09.180 B7
What happens after 5 years? Does the City take on the management? If not, then the requirement for reporting should be for as long as the facility exists.
Definitions
Check definition on bottom of page 133—what is this supposed to be?
Appendix A- Restoration Plan
Page 3
- It would be preferable to not use the term restoration in a “broad sense” Rather, specify restoration, conservation, or enhancement, as the case dictates.
- Another benefit that should be listed in urban restoration: Restored habitat can provide a connectivity to adjacent, more functional habitats.
Page 4
- Additional restoration objectives should be, as follows: Removal of contaminated sediments; Reduction in contaminant loading into waterways, and; Removal of overhanging shading structures over deep water. These should be inserted into Table 1.
Page 12
- In the explanation of table 2, there appears to be a typographical error. The sentence, Restoration objectives by water-body type… , should read Restoration opportunities.
Page 13-21: Table 2
- The heading, “Restoration Activity” in Table 2, should be amended to say Ongoing Restoration Activity (as of April 2006).
- Information listed under Restoration activity and Monitoring Activites should include a statement of who is doing the work, and any citation to the work if applicable. For instance, in the first entry, the City or developers could be listed as implementing the manual. If so, is it being done through permitting conditions, general education, etc?
Page 23-36: Table 3
- The third heading “Who” should be removed.
- The opportunities from the Waterfront Futures Group workshop report, are not listed here. Please include them.
- The statement for many opportunities listed, “work will begin when funding is available” appears misleading. For many of the projects there is no actual proponent who is actively seeking funding, and there may be additional barriers other than funding to some of these restoration projects.
Page 13-36: Tables 2, 3
- The distinction between Table 2 and Table 3 is not very great. These two tables should be merged. The headings should be restoration opportunity, restoration objective, project detail (including basic background info, proponent, monitoring basics), and status.
Related North Sound Baykeeper links:
