Pamela Bosch Letter to Planning Commission

Planning Commission
City of Bellingham
210 Lotttie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225

February 29, 2008

Honorable Commissioners and Interested Citizens:

I was one of the Fairhaven citizens who participated in the revision of the Neighborhood Plan. My partner and I have property on Larrabee Avenue. I became involved in this process because this property has development potential and because I am inspired by the vision of Fairhaven as a model urban village. It is important to me that our building plans fit the overall benefit to the community. We want to create, not only a building and a revenue source, but a use of space and a response to place that contributes to the “community” in every sense of the word. Careful thought at the development stage is necessary to be successful in that endeavor.

One of my motivations to participate in the Fairhaven Neighbors review process is because the city has allowed projects that are inconsistent with what I think of as quality conscious planning. The development at Harris Square is an atrocity. It frankly looks like those buildings constructed in the 1960’s to house low income families in cities across the country. It is not integrated into the community, it is not inviting, and it is not well designed or forward looking. It is apparent that the dominant thought behind its plan was to capitalize on the potential of the community while making minimal contribution. It took the money and left us with blight.

My response, believing that I live in a democracy, was to become involved in the process. I witnessed hours and hours of effort on the part of Fairhaven citizens to attempt to visualize and guide what this community should look like. That effort is now being canceled “with one pen stroke.”

My questions to the Planning commission:

• What plans do you have for achieving “broad based support”?
• How will you include the citizenry in a dialogue about community planning?
• How will you educate and inform the broadest range of stakeholders about plans and proposed projects?
• Will your review process be able to prevent projects that make money for the developer and leave the community with urban village versions of the strip malls or “projects” of the past?

If it is thought that those few who hold positions of power are more enlightened about what the city needs and therefore the unquestionable decision makers, what do you call this form of government? I completely accept that those who spend a lot of time dealing with the particulars of a situation, those who are educated and informed about the issues, having access to uncommon insight, should be in the forefront of decision making process. But I do not accept that the public be denied access to decision making criteria or processes. Please provide some verifiable evidence that democratic values are included in the planning process. A city cannot be a community without a means of hearing the collective voice. What’s the plan?

With Complete Sincerity,

Pamela Bosch
psbosch@comcast.net

CC: Mayor Dan Pike, Planning Commissioner Tim Stewart, City Council, Fairhaven Neighbors, various blogs and news services

FAIRHAVEN HIGHLANDS ZONING – Points of Illegitimacy

by Tip Johnson

• The only rationale of record occurs in a 1979 presentation by then City Planner Rick Fackler, who stated that the bridge over Padden Creek would require replacement within “the next few years” if Chuckanut was not connected to Old Fairhaven Parkway (then Valley Parkway) through the project AND that zoning density sufficient to support the improvement through the subject property was necessary.

o This was an erroneous assertion as the connector was not built and the bridge did not require replacement.
o Density to make the property economically feasible for development is not a legitimate basis for zoning.

o The prerequisite condition of a connector or bridge widening is not being met by the proposal, yet the density remains.

• There was never a public hearing on the zoning change before either the Planning Commission or the City Council.

• The zoning change was never advertised and affected property owners were never notified.

• The zoning change furthers none and contravenes most of the adopted policies, goals and objectives in the South Neighborhood Plan. Many citywide policies, goals and objectives are similarly disregarded.

• The zoning change was adopted as part of the “whole cloth” of the original Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, hence was generally unknown to citizens until the project was originally proposed in 1996.

•The resulting public furor prompted an exhaustive document review by then city planner Chris Spens, whose conclusion, “It’s a mystery at best”, was published in the Final Draft EIS for the original proposal.
o The City then had a duty to review this as a possible zoning error, but never did.

•The zoning change was supposedly legitimized by subsequent re-adoptions of the Comprehensive Plan, but has never been specifically reviewed for consistency with neighborhood or City goals.

• The zoning was administratively re-adjusted by mayoral memorandum involving a conveyance/reconveyance scheme that parceled out a major wetland and qualified the owner for a substantial tax benefit.
o The public was afforded no opportunity for input and no comprehensive review was conducted.
o The Growth Management Hearings Board has determined that this methodology constitutes an illegal development regulation and has overturned similar arrangements.

• The City delayed adoption of new critical areas provisions beyond multiple deadlines and under threat of state sanctions until the project could be supposedly “vested”.

• The project received a miraculous four-day Determination of Completeness, even though prerequisite conditions were not met, regulatory buffers were ignored and buildings were placed on known landslide scarps, designated steep slopes and sensitive areas.

o The most previous City Determination of Completeness was for a 350 square foot addition to an existing South Hill home and required nearly six months.

• Since the zoning was “adopted”, changes in perspective on planning and environmental protection principles have made the designation appear less, not more, appropriate.