Western Washington University
Planning conflict over land use
In late 1996, Public Good received several requests from residents in the
neighborhood of Western Washington University to investigate University actions
regarding land use. After a preliminary investigation, we determined that the
three way conflict between the University, the City of Bellingham and the
neighbors met Public Good's mission for conflict intervention.
This page contains links to several documents which are part of the formal
record at Bellingham Planning Commission hearings.
- Minutes of the 2/20/97 Bellingham Planning
Commission
- An excerpt from the minutes of the Planning Commission dealing with the
informational presentation by Bellingham Planning and Community Development
staff and Western Washington University.
- The Castle at the Top of the Hill
- This Public Good report to the Bellingham Planning
Commission includes:
- A list of remedies requested of the Bellingham City Planning Commission
- A study of the governing law and the planning process.
- A background analysis of the conflict over the Western Washington
University Draft Master Plan and the WWU Neighborhood Sub-area Plan.
- Minutes of the 3/20/97 Bellingham Planning Commission
- The first public hearing on the WWU Draft Master Plan review and Bellingham
Comprehensive Plan amendment for the WWU neighborhood.
- Minutes of the 4/3/97 Bellingham Planning Commission
- The second public hearing on the WWU Draft Master Plan review and
Bellingham Comprehensive Plan amendment for the WWU neighborhood.
- The Slow Trainwreck
- May 29, 1997 Every Other Weekly article about WWU's Master
Plan written by Public Good research director Paul de Armond. At the Planning
Commission hearing following the publication of this article, the Bellingham
Department of Planning and Community Development and the Planning Commission
tried to drop all review of the WWU Master Plan like a hot rock.
- Minutes of the 6/5/97 Planning Commission hearing
- The third public hearing on the WWU Draft Master Plan review and Bellingham
Comprehensive Plan amendment for the WWU neighborhood.
- Tip Johnson's written testimony for the June 5
Planning Commission hearing
- Mr. Johnson, a former City Council member, requests the Planning
Commission:
- Table further review of Western's Draft Comprehensive Master Plan and the
Bellinham Comprehensive Plan WWU Neighborhood sub-area, pending updates of
surrounding neighborhood sub-areas.
- Review University compliance with local comprehensive land use ordinances
as required by GMA and recent state budget legislation.
- Reassess Western's planning documents. There is a need to separate valid
analysis from internal documents, particularly those which have not been
reviewed and approved by either the WWU Board of Trustees or City
administration.
- Prepare an index of those documents which form the legal basis for further
discussion should be prepared, so everyone knows what is currently agreed to and
binding upon both parties and what is not.
- Paul de Armond's slideshow
- Presented to Bellingham Planning Commission Hearing on June 5, 1997.
Contains about 40 images of areas and conditions involved in WWU's internal
Master Plan and the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. Includes evidenciary
photographs showing numerous problems at the University, such as unpermitted
dumps and grading operations.
- Minutes of the 7/10/97 Planning Commission meeting
- The fourth public hearing on the WWU Draft Master Plan review and
Bellingham Comprehensive Plan amendment for the WWU neighborhood.
- Tip Johnson's July 23, 1997 written submission to
the Bellingham Planning Commission
- Mr. Johnson outlines the problem as many neighbors see it and makes a
public disclosure request for additional information from the University and the
City.
- Revisiting The Castle Upon the Hill
- Public Good's second report to the Planning Commission. The six requests
to the Planning Commission, submitted in The Castle at the
Top of the Hill, are reviewed and the commission's responses are examined.
Of the six requests, four have been ignored and two have been addressed.
Substantial problems with meeting public participation goals continue to exist.
