Observations/Questions For Presentation To The City Council

The implementing code is still in development and  there  is
apparently some disagreement among the agencies  responsible
for drafting  it...  
It seems (it is)  complicated  and  the  noted  experimental
nature of the 65/10% requirement/maintenance conditions  are
unclear  and  will  take  years  of  continued  research  to
qualify, in any respect.

For instance, some requirements of land owners/home  owners,
in the future, to maintain the site  seems  to  belie  human
nature. Will home owners actually be so oriented  in  taking
that level of care in lieu of golf (for instance)?  At  this
point the concepts in the LID are  very  -  very  novel  for
urban growth.

The more the whole scenario of this develops, the timing  of
how critical species habitat was put in place  -  all  those
circumstances, the sheer experimental nature of all of this,
the Bothell Connector, visualizing the goal of an old growth
multi-hundred year to climax forest that will survive untold
numbers of city council changes, city staff and home owners.
???? I need to repeat what I said  the  first  time  I  ever
spoke to the -- "This is all quite AMAZING".

-In regard to the Zone 1 hillside...

* Note:  a   wildlife  corridor  that  virtually  won't   go
anywhere.. possibly  crosses  over  or  under  a  very  busy
arterial -- is blocked by development a  short  distance  to
the east and north, properties already in the  permit  stage
of building/Snohomish County. There will  be  some  movement
within the subarea if it is left somewhat open but  it  will
have to  assume  the  lifestyle  of  a  park.  So  the  term
"corridor" is perhaps somewhat excessive?

* Note the  environmental  science  reference  to  the  Cole
Creek drainage basin as opposed to the Fitzgerald Cole Creek
experience. The Bothell jurisdiction stops at the city line.
Bothell  does  not  have  ultimate   control   over   county
jurisdiction land, the actual source of  the  water.  Should
basing development codes, LID implementation, be  driven  by
assumptions made regarding jurisdiction outside of Bothell?

NOTE:  The on-going annexation effort to the north.

In light of  what  is  taking  place  within  the  Fitzgerald
subarea land holdings, do the  people  living  in  Snohomish
county, in the annex proposed  area  (Cole  Creek  Drainage),
really want to  subject  themselves  to  Bothell's  critical
species habitat logic? A portion of that  annexation  is  in
the Cole Creek watershed, the source of Cold Creek's  water.
It's already developed to a great extent but the land owners
should be  very  aware  of  what  is  taking  place  in  the
Fitzgerald subarea. The park-like agenda  promoted  for  the
Critical Species Habitat is being funded by general taxpayer
dollars but the burden is also being loaded on too few  land
owners in the subarea.

== ** Since past studies are paramount to/for  reference  in
scientific considerations why would not working examples
of LID development working in a city/urban environment  from
developers be every bit as important, if they can be found,
to allow good decisions to be made regarding feasibility.

But  there  is  nothing  (as  of  Friday  July  20th)   from
developers thus far (except for the remarks of Eric Campbell
- Cam West Development). 

We  do  know  what  will  allow
feasibility and have a developer community  to  draw  advice
from -- and they will do that for FREE -- but  you  have  to
give them some impetus to go on. They in fact  are  not  the
enemy. But to date it seems they simply get a cold  shoulder
in  this  regard.  Currently  they  can  also  show  serious
examples  of  success   working   with   environmental   and
conservation groups.  

In  regard  to  developers...  
We are living the sins of  the  past.  Opposition  seems  to
refuse to listen -- I'm not part of anybody's  coalition  so
what I see is tantamount to a kind of  hatred.  We  need  to
move on.

*** By  nature  environmental  science  tends  to  be  over-
restrictive because its goal is to see less development.  If
environmental science is hired and paid to write development
code less development is measured as success. But the biases
of confirmation tend to lead to extremes.  We  need  to  try
harder to keep the  pendulum  under  control.  The  holistic
approach to environmental stewardship  includes  humans  and
all species.

QUESTION: The draft implementing code states  harvesting
at 70-80 years for the  conifer  forest.  The  environmental
science is referring  to  old  growth  trees  that  are  not
harvested -- ever? That's confusing.

*It was noted by statements, last meeting,  that  it  didn't
matter what specific condition the conifers were in  ..  old
growth preferred.. (200 -- 300 year old trees) regarding the
environmental  benefit  of  65/10%.  But,   first,   initial
statements referred to tree canopy as the preferred rainfall
evaporation surface to prevent rainfall  from  flooding  the
earth beneath, or the forest floor.

QUESTION: If cool temperatures are experienced,  even  in  a
conifer forest, the evaporation rate  can  be  near  nil  if
temperatures  drop  below  dew  point  and  more-so  as  the
temperature drops even lower. The regions  highest  rainfall
amounts occur in the Fall and Winter months.  Is this a 

QUESTION: To paraphrase a statement made  last  hearing --
"...in the long run "blow-downs"  do  not  matter  in/from  a
hydrology standpoint..."

The canopy stands and grows/falls, fallen  trees  decay  and
add organic matter  to  normally  somewhat  depleted  forest
floor soils... but then provide no canopy  in  that  regard.
Where are we going with  this?  Does  LID  "require"  highly
managed forests or is Mother Nature in charge of an ultimate
climax forest crop?

The reference that I made to density, tree density,  was  in
regard  to  management  problems  created  by  high  density
plantings where soils are marginal. Creating useful soils is
a ---long--- and expensive process. I previously  stated  to
the council the fact that  we  had  removed  52  old  growth
stumps from our 5 acres.  (I  checked  my  notes  and  stand
corrected on that number - it's 58) That rounds down  to  10
trees to the acre. I'm not seeing the canopy  envisioned  in
that  reality  as  envisioned  in  the  draft  code.  That's

-Going back over old notes...

Quoting from Cliff Hall a long time resident of the area who
lived at the end of the 39th dead end...
Tracer surveys conducted approx. 40 years  ago  that  showed
Spada Lake/Sultan Basin as a source of  spring  water  along
the ridge/hillside Zone 1 plus north and south.  The  tracer
was also found in water on the Olympic peninsula.


*Bothell is a city -- high density human habitat, [in  time
to become much  more  dense]. 
New  York's  Central  Park:
..."in 1853 the state legislature authorized the City of New
York to use the power of eminent domain to acquire more than
700 acres of land in the center of  Manhattan"  (Wikipedia).

That was 1853, the population of the  world  a  fraction  of
what it is now. But this made me think  about  the  somewhat
obvious ultimate use of the critical species  habitat  --  a
park space for the city -- if it  survives  the  attempt  to
grow a climax forest. So what we are likely doing is  making
a park. The idea that we are trying to save a  fish  run  is
really less-consequential because if the fish run is  to  be
saved the entire  North  Creek  drainage  will  have  to  be
involved, focus of the preservation/rehabilitation. Anything
else is simply avoiding the obvious.  What  to  do.  Do  the
logical things in regard to the appropriate land types,  the
Bothell  Connector  (highway),  growth  management,  as  any
farmer knows, grow what grows --where its  growth  potential
is natural or the road to success will be  steep.  and  that
includes all species, in and amongst the humans  who  aren't
going away -- lest we destroy ourselves.

The critical species  habitat  proponents  suggest  that  we
create a microcosm of salvation in and amongst the pollution
and dense human activity that is surrounding all  about  the
space. That's not creating  a  solution.  It's  a  band-aid.
Treat the Connector arterial for what it  really  is.  Don't
pretend that ordinances make it any less responsible in  the
environment. Treat appropriate land types just for what they
are. Don't just envision -- but be  part  of  the  solution.
It's a tough call -- but then again the  eventual  truth  is
too obvious to avoid. The  critical  species  habitat  is  a
great and noble agenda that is teetering, has been driven up
to a pinnacle between success and failure. You  are  charged
with  making  that  decision  and  you  have   little   past
experience/examples to base it on. I indeed wish you luck.

For my part I represent the long-time town dog  of  Winthrop
Washington, severed-broken tail and one blind eye,  hobbling
on three legs. True story -- His name was "Lucky".

As a group we land owners in Zone 1  are  beaten  down  with
time and effort to defend ourselves. You can't take away the
fact that some of us have  been  involved  in  this  for  an
exceptionally long time. The remark was  made  in  the  past
that we have already been given a lot in changes but for the
moment we are poised to be killer tax-zoned and  development
over-restricted, a dangerous combination.

Thank you.


Note: You  have  but  one  non  staff  professional  opinion
presented on this important issue --

By definition "Good  Science"  is  always  subject  to  peer
review and here we do not have  the  peer  review  of  other
professional opinions.  Opposition  to  proposals  made  by
science comes from too few land owners,  who  are  affected,
and naturally are deemed greedy people.  This  makes  for  a
poor presentation atmosphere.

Created on ... July 20, 2007