Bellingham council’s Lilliquist: I support the ‘low-density’ option for Lake Whatcom

The Bellingham City Council recently faced a paradox concerning the protection of Lake Whatcom from stormwater runoff that can pollute Lake Whatcom, the source of drinking water for half of Whatcom County.

It’s well known that activities, streets and houses in the watershed contribute to declining water quality. In fact, the situation in Lake Whatcom became so bad that many years ago a state law was triggered that requires the city and Whatcom County government to take action to reverse the harmful impacts. One part of the response has been to prevent or limit further development. That’s been our established practice and policy for years.

That’s also why the City of Bellingham imposed a temporary moratorium on development in multifamily residential areas in the watershed. The question was not about allowing more development, but about how much less development would best protect the lake. A moratorium allowed a pause in new construction, especially in “high density” zones, while better stormwater rules were developed.

On May 20, the Bellingham City Council considered two related ordinances: one to tighten up the stormwater regulations and make them consistent across all properties, and another to enact downzoning. Upon my motion, the city council voted unanimously to adopt the improved stormwater rules.

Zoning still open question

That left us with the zoning question. Many people have asked us to adopt the low-density option, believing this would lead to less negative impact on the lake. But this is not strictly true because the properties in question are already developed and are likely contributing to the problem already. Moreover, they were built many years ago at a time when modern stormwater measures were not required.

The low-density option practically locks in the status quo, and the status quo is harmful to the lake. That’s a problem for me.

On the positive side, the low-density option is consistent with the city’s policies and practices to limit development in the watershed. It is consistent with the millions of dollars that have been spent to reduce pollution and to limit potential harm from development.

Paradoxically, “medium density” could help the lake. Medium density would likely make redevelopment financially viable, and redevelopment would have to occur under the new and stricter anti-pollution rules. Redevelopment would also trigger a review of existing contamination, if any exists. City staff pointed out that medium density could have a number of benefits including mandatory creation or retrofitting of stormwater facilities.

One problem with this option is that, looking at all the properties in question, most of them would probably not be redeveloped. The homes are in good condition and the owners are happy with things as they are. Therefore, most of the properties would not be retrofitted with improved stormwater treatment. Most of the ongoing pollution would continue. Any benefits from redevelopment of a few properties would be real but limited.

Additional options needed

Speaking only for myself, I think we need another option that addresses all the existing properties that are polluting the lake, not just one or two of them.

The city council has not yet decided the zoning question. We will continue our deliberations in a work session at our next meeting in early June.

After thinking it over, again speaking only for myself, I support the “low density” option. I believe that is the choice that is consistent with our adopted policies, programs, and practices. That is how I would answer the zoning question, but the stormwater pollution problem remains. The downzone will make sure things don’t get worse, but it does not mean things will get better.

This brings us back to the new stormwater regulations. Under state law, new development regulations apply only to new development and to redevelopment. They are not retroactive. Properties that complied with all regulations in effect at the time of creation do not have to comply with the new regulations. We can’t solve the whole problem just by updating the code.

As I see it, the job before us is to find ways to motivate the retrofitting of existing development, so that those properties also follow improved stormwater practices even though they are not covered by the new stormwater rules. I am hopeful that we can find a way because the City of Bellingham already has the examples of our own programs to follow.

Let’s expand reach of existing levers

Bellingham has a dedicated watershed protection fund and capital construction program. We use them to build and maintain water quality improvement facilities in the Lake Whatcom watershed, to benefit us all. We are already retrofitting stormwater facilities in the watershed, as part of a multi-year and multimillion-dollar effort. The city already provides financial support and reimbursement for private property owners in the watershed that voluntarily re-landscape and retrofit their properties to contain and treat stormwater on their own land. This also benefits us all.

Why not find ways to expand the scale and the reach of such programs? At my initiative, city council instructed the city administration to explore ways to bring about improvements for existing properties, to solve the problem that zoning alone does not solve.

The exploration should cover not just the high-density areas that will be downzoned, but to all properties within city limits that are still contributing to the problem.

Following the city’s open public process practices, these explorations will also be presented for discussion to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), which is a group of volunteer residents that advise the City of Bellingham on issues relating to water protection. Ultimately, the city council will decide what to do, and will also need to provide the budget authority to make it happen.

This may take some time, and I believe it will be worth the effort.

Michael Lilliquist is a Bellingham City Council member.