Bellingham Herald Apr, 30, 2008

TODD DONOVAN, ERIC HIRST AND MICHAEL LILLIQUIST / FOR THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

Bellingham citizens are justifiably proud of our city’s environmental record. However, city of Bellingham staff recently proposed to greatly weaken protection for Bellingham’s critical areas by allowing almost all city capital projects (called "essential public facilities") to be eligible for exemption from the critical areas ordinance.

Futurewise Whatcom believes it is vital to protect these critical areas, which include wetlands, areas that recharge aquifers, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat.

According to the state's "Critical Areas Handbook:" "The protection of critical areas is essential to preserving our natural environment and protecting the public’s health and safety. Protecting critical areas helps reduce exposure to risks, such as landslides and flooding, and maintains the natural elements of our landscape. Critical areas provide … clear drinking water, enhanced water quality, wildlife habitat, and managed flood risks."

The key reasons Futurewise Whatcom opposes this weakened ordinance include:

-- These critical areas are essential to the health of our natural environment and the health, welfare and quality-of-life of our citizens. Therefore, we should strictly enforce the critical areas ordinance for all projects, both private and public. Exemptions should be limited. The Bellingham critical areas ordinance is not an expendable luxury that can be tossed aside to avoid the costs of maintaining high environmental standards.

-- The city’s proposed exemption for its projects sends a terrible message to the private sector: "do as I say, not as I do." It could become difficult to enforce the critical areas ordinance on private projects if the city exempts its own projects from these requirements. Even worse, the city’s proposed failure to meet its own standards could weaken the legitimacy of the city’s environmental agenda and rules in general.

-- The proposed list of essential public facilities is far too broad; it covers virtually all capital projects that might be built during the next several years. State law identifies essential public facilities as those that are difficult to site (such as airports and jails) and are essential for the health, welfare, and safety of the community and its citizens. The staff proposal greatly expands the definition of essential public facilities to include "local roads," "sewer and stormwater distribution and treatment facilities," and “other [unspecified] city governmental facilities."

With the proposed changes, these common facilities would merit weaker standards of environmental protection. If the city believes certain projects are absolutely vital, could not be built under current regulations, and will include sufficient mitigation, it should seek project-specific exemptions, not an all-encompassing exemption.

-- The existing critical areas ordinance already allows for exemptions. The only reason for the weakened ordinance is to allow the city’s capital projects to avoid the strict mitigation requirements of the current rules. The proposed mitigation requirements are vague and use terms that are poorly or not defined. Other cities and counties set clear standards for granting variances from critical areas regulations, and so should Bellingham.

City Council, at a recent meeting, changed the City’s critical areas ordinance to permit exemptions for its essential public facilities. However, the council rejected the staff’s overly broad list of essential public facilities. Led by council members Stan Snapp and Barry Buchanan (with support from Jack Weiss and Gene Knutson), the council asked the staff to revise and shorten the list of facilities to be exempted from the critical areas ordinance. We applaud Council’s decision to narrowly tailor the set of projects to address specific problems with specific essential public facilities. And we ask the Council to be clear on how the adverse effects of a very limited set of essential public facilities will be mitigated.

Eric Hirst of Bellingham is a member of Futurewise Whatcom. Members Todd Donovan and Michael Lilliquist also contributed to this column.