Waterfront Development Bonus Yet Another Bad IdeaPermalink +
Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 9:11 pm // Wendy Harris
The proposed waterfront development standards provide developers with an option for an increased density bonus, known as the Floor Area Development Bonus, and on Monday afternoon, the Bellingham City Council Committee of the Whole will discuss the fee schedule proposed by staff (and that is a whole other issue). Under this provision, a waterfront developer who agrees to pay into the Lake Whatcom land acquisition program is entitled to increase the amount of waterfront development otherwise permitted.
Now, I am a big fan of the Lake Whatcom acquistion program. I think it is one of the best things the city does. However, the point of these types of transfer of development rights programs is to reduce growth in a sensitive area (or to purchase property to protect sensitive areas, as the case here), and to permit additional growth in a less sensitive area. And herein lies the problem... the Bellingham Bay shoreline is not a less sensitive area, and it is not an appropriate receiving site for increased development.
The waterfront is a Shoreline Of Statewide Significance (SSWS) under the Shoreline Management Act, entitled to the highest level of environmental protection. It is an area that contains endangered, threatened and vulnerable species and habitat under the Endangered Species Act and Washington state guidelines. It is home to protected fish, birds and marine mammals and to orca pods J,K and L. The bay is a site of increased biodiversity because it is fed by a number of freshwater streams, creating several estuarine areas. It is an important part of the Pacific Flyway, providing habitat to migrating shorebirds. It is likely that Bellingham Bay will shortly be designated as protected habitat for rockfish under a NOAA proposal.
Therefore, it is concerning that city and port staff remain defiantly unconcerned with protection of habitat critical areas and SSWS. It is simply not appropriate to attempt to fix Lake Whatcom at the expense of Bellingham Bay. As an alternative, I suggest the city remove all of its proposed waterfront subsidies to private developers, including infrastructure development, and use that money on the Lake Whatcom acquisition program. Developers will continue to build where they see profit, with or without the use of publicly funded incentives.
This proposal underscores several important points about the waterfront plan generally. First, a sensitive shoreline is not an appropriate location for an urban village, and building along the shoreline is contrary to state recommendations for restoring Puget Sound. Washington state's Aquatic Habitat Guidelines recommend protecting sensitive marine shorelines and estuarine areas by avoiding any development at these locations. Overwater marine structures are established by science to be among the most harmful forms of development for the aquatic ecosystem. While the waterfront development is not outright prohibited, it is certainly contrary to the goals of the SMP and CAO. And if development is going to be sited along the shoreline, then it is crucial to have a valid comprehensive conservation strategy to protect biodiversity and habitat. Instead, the city has failed to include plant and animal impacts in its EIS review, and offers a makeshift staff assessment after the waterfront plan is enacted, when it holds limited value.
So if you plan to address the City Council or the port commission, add the Floor Area Development Bonus proposal to your talking points. If the council and the commission insist on enacting the waterfront plan this week, they should remove this TDR provision so the ecological harm caused by waterfront development is minimized. Although the bonus density is small, it is the cumulative impact of the totality of such bonuses that, over time, result in the greatest ecological damage.
Sat, Nov 30, 2013, 9:11 pm // Wendy HarrisThe waterfront plan allows a development bonus for payments made to the Lake Whatcom land acquisition fund
1 comments; last on Dec 01, 2013
Fri, Nov 29, 2013, 10:43 pm // Wendy HarrisA number of important issues need to be resolved before waterfront planning is complete, but the city council and port commission are ready to act.
2 comments; last on Nov 30, 2013
Fri, Nov 22, 2013, 10:01 pm // Wendy HarrisIf the port can not construct the airport safely, should it be entrusted with dangerous waterfront cleanup work?
Wed, Nov 20, 2013, 6:03 am // Dick ConoboyThe advice coming from Walmart and McDonald's to its low paid employees becomes more and more bizarre and inane.
Tue, Nov 19, 2013, 6:35 am // Dick ConoboyAmbling's motion to the hearing examiner for reconsideration was definitively rejected. The developer has not met the deadline for an appeal to the Superior Court
Mon, Nov 18, 2013, 3:18 pm // Guest writerIn which we find the hidden core of the waterfront plan is rotten through and through
7 comments; last on Nov 21, 2013
Mon, Nov 18, 2013, 11:59 am // Riley SweeneyThe county takes two big steps forward on the new jail, while still missing the point
Thu, Nov 14, 2013, 2:39 am // Tip JohnsonDear Mr. President, There's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him.
7 comments; last on Nov 21, 2013
Wed, Nov 13, 2013, 4:16 pm // Wendy HarrisThe city adminstration has been providing misleading/ incorrect information to the city council to avoid waterfront plan revisions.
1 comments; last on Nov 18, 2013
Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 11:21 am // Riley SweeneyRiley crunches the numbers on Renata and McAuley's races to find answers
2 comments; last on Nov 13, 2013
Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 6:16 am // Dick ConoboyPuget Neighborhood will likely have in the immediate future 1,300 new rental units that will be marketed primarily to the student population.
Sat, Nov 09, 2013, 10:47 pm // Wendy HarrisThe COB administration continues in its refusal to analyze waterfront wildlife issues, even though this is a prerequisite step in protecting wildlife from the impacts of development
3 comments; last on Nov 10, 2013
Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 9:21 pm // John ServaisWith lots of outside county money flowing in to our local races, this election is weird. But real - and we county residents have spoken.
11 comments; last on Nov 09, 2013
Mon, Nov 04, 2013, 10:55 am // Dick ConoboyThe call of the dollar speaks more loudly to health insurance companies than does the voice and well-being of the consumer, even here in Washington.
8 comments; last on Nov 06, 2013
New LinksBellingham Wins
Election InfoElection Results
WA State Elections
Whatcom County Elections
Coal, Oil & TrainsCoal Stop
Community Wise Bham
Powder River Basin R. C.
Local Blogs & NewsBellingham Herald
Bham Business Journal
Bham Politics & Econ
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
League of Women Voters
Western Front - WWU
Local CausesChuckanut C. Forest
City Club of Bellingham
Futurewise - Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
Salish Sea Org.
Save the Granary
WA Conservation Voters
Whatcom Peace & Justice
Governments- Whatcom County
Port of Bellingham
US Supreme Court
US The White House
WA State Elections
NWCitizen 1995-2007Early Northwest Citizen
Weather & ClimateCliff Mass Weather Blog
Nat Hurricane Center
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That?
Edge of Sports
Famous Internet Skiers
Good Web SitesAl-Jazeera online
Change The Mascot
Foreign Policy in Focus
Julia Ioffe/New Republic
Middle East Times
New American Century
Personal bio info
Portland Indy Media
Project Vote Smart
Stand for the Troops
Talking Points Memo
The Crisis Papers
War and Piece
Quiet, Offline or DeadBellingham Register
Bhm Herald Politics Blog
Citizens of Bellingham
Cordata & Meridian
Facebook Port Reform
Intrnational Herald Tribune
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Protect Bellingham Parks
The American Telegraph