Tip Johnson
2719 Donovan
July 23, 1997
Thank you for the opportunity to submit additional testimony on the WWU neighborhood and related issues. My testimony is in three parts. The narrative attempts to impart a general feeling and outline the problem as many neighbors see it. The second part is a public disclosure request for additional information from the University and the City which I believe will help complete the record. The third part is a quickly compiled annotation of the Commission's packet for July 10, 1997.
The third part was submitted as handwritten notes. These are available at the Planning and Community Development Department at Bellingham City Hall, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225
It is unusual that the city should begin plan updates for this group of neighborhoods with the only neighborhood lacking a complement of permanent residents. Why should this review proceed at a time when even the student population is gone for the summer? This leaves only a few state administrative employees representing themselves as the neighborhood -- faculty, students and classified staff have been unrepresented in public participation. As much as this must simplify the process, it does little to build confidence in the credibility of the planning process. Anyway, it is difficult not to perceive state run enterprise taking precedent over the people that work and live here -- supporting the state with their taxes.
This seems peculiar to many nearby residents given the history of the last University expansion and the University's checkered reputation as a neighbor. The strict controls on development in the existing WWUN plan were a response to these experiences. Unfortunately, the university completely disregarded the plan. Now, after sixteen years of ignoring the normal framewok of land use regulation and public participation, the University's new expansion plan seems to be setting the agenda. There is a general feeling among residents that their needs and concerns are subordinate to the University's.
Over the years, the University has wastefully contrived under color of law to rationalize each new campus design with heaps of planning. Most of it is self-serving, if not fraudulent. It would be extremely instructive to critically examine the secret-code-ring planning in which the term "existing plan" attempts to legitimize years of blatant non-compliance; or which tries to substitute contract documents without explicit review or approval (1987 S.C.M.P. for 1974 F.P. per the 1981-90 EIS); or which completes lengthy SEPA reviews without including any mitigation for well known, documented, long-standing impacts such as off-campus on street parking; or which can transform a rational solution to structural circulation problems into a ten million dollar boondoggle without accomplishing any of the originally intended purposes (Chance Management loop road.)
Why has no one discussed the University's non-compliance with the planned contract specified in the current WWU neighborhood plan. Where is that planned contract? Is there any document of record to constitute the contract other than the 1974 Facilities Development Plan specified in the neighborhood element of the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan? How well has campus development conformed to that plan?
The city should not condone these and other behaviors of the University. For instance, how does the University's unilateral declaration of acquisition areas differ from red-lining those districts? If it is demonstrated that the declaration of an acquisition area perturbs sales activity, or affects maintenance or improvement schedules and eventually property values, the City and University could be liable for damages.
The checkerboard acquisition pattern which the University has already evidenced in the acquisition area is the prerequisite element of a time-honored, if unethical, block-busting tactic also employed during the last expansion. This, too, could lead to federally actionable charges. In any case, it is irresponsible city planning. Neighbors are correct to feel wrongfully intruded upon.
With no site plan, no reasoned justification and no prior public process, acquisition areas can only be viewed as a scare tactic -- a disincentive for continued residential occupation. There is no way the University can obtain a judicial finding of public need without providing reasons and justification. Without such a finding, they cannot condemn. The University's ability to systematically acquire property for expansion rests upon the HEC Board's presumption of tacit city approval of the acquisition areas. If the City does not approve, the HEC Board should be so informed. If the City approves, the area should be rezoned according to conventional procedure. Alternately, the University could legally proceed with condemnation of properties for which a public need can be justified and then request a rezone according to standard procedure.
The entire post-purchase rezone scheme is doubtfully adequate. Imagine a checkerboard of institutionally zoned properties. Imagine institutional master plans (IMP) and amended IMPs and supplemental IMPs. The University would love it. No one could understand it. It is spot zoning in spades -- spotted zoning. It is privilege, plain and simple. Conversely, it is also unequal protection under the law. Ideally, rezones should be considered without respect to any specific use. This arguably need not apply rigidly to public uses, but the test remains: what available lands are best suited for institutional use in terms of overall community benefit?
The University seems to be chalking up all the benefits in the acquisition areas. Everyone else is concerned with impacts. Compare this to a brief contemplation of downtown's empty buildings, a new parking garage, a three minute shuttle express to campus, and suddenly everyone is winning. Are the proposed lands really the best available in terms of overall community benefit? Have the alternatives been adequately studied? Does the record show such studies?
The "existing plan" is the perfect metaphor for campus development. Not only is it not what it says it is, but it demonstrates the University's resolve to keep planning each campus development cycle until construction is complete. Mr. Pierce says as much in his letter of June 27, 1997 (p. 3, paragraphs 2 & 3). He also explains extensively why we little people need not worry our pretty heads with details of the plan (pp. 2-3). The accompanying documents show plainly that the University doesn't mind City planning games as long as the construction continues. The University clearly intends a continuation of business as usual.
As long as the University remains unrepentant of its past transgressions and until the City expresses recognition of the problem's severity, it will be necessary to resist subdividing the issues and testimony by neighborhood or by type. The acquisition areas will exist until the City actively kills them. The zoning must be considered in a citywide context -- not property by property, neighborhood by neighborhood. Competence and integrity must be restored to the SEPA process and campus planning generally. The City must explicitly reassert its authority and rein in the University.
The best way to accomplish this is to defer consideration of the WWUN Plan. The 1974 F.D. P. should constitute an adequate and self-imposed moratorium on further campus development. A moratorium would provide a basis for negotiation and a definite means of demonstrating when legislative conditions placed on appropriations for campus development have been met.
Proceeding to complete the surrounding neighborhood plan updates will assure that the City, not the University, sets the agenda for major plan elements such as circulation and zoning. It will help restore the public's faith in the planning process, and limit the City's liability for the effects of University misconduct.
At this point the University could tailor a Final WWUMP for their Board of Trustees review and approval based upon guidance and constraints established by the City through the planning process with the residents in the neighborhoods. During this time, the City and University should establish a convention for regulation and compliance respectively, as well as negotiated remediation for past deficiencies. Reviewing background planning documents to separate the wheat from the chaff would help establish a rational basis for future planning.
Finally, regardless of Mr. Pierce's assurances of a thoroughgoing review "at many levels by many public and political bodies", it remains incumbent upon the City to champion the interest of taxpayers in Bellingham and around the state. Specifically, when the University proposes to spend tens of millions of dollars on roadway revisions, the City should be sure that some public need is served or that the benefits derived extend beyond indulging the aesthetic whim of a designer, administrator, or long-departed president.
Obviously elements of this process will be embarrassing also for the City. That is the way it is. For many years, the City has been negligent in not enforcing the land use code, failing to adequately review the University's SEPA process, and for not appropriately conditioning development on campus. It will not become less embarrassing by doing nothing about it. Instead, it should be studied carefully to learn the most from our mistakes.
I respectfully request the following materials be added to the record of the proceedings:
A) From the University
1) Costs associated with development of the draft WWUMP, specifically: any third party contracts; personnel and overhead in the planning division; pro-rata attribution of salary and benefit costs for George Pierce; and materials, printing, equipment and any inter-departmental charges
2) Any correspondence or documentation from the HEC Board, OFM, any gubernatorial agent or governor, legislator, elected or appointed officials registering support for or outlining their review of the draft WWUMP or any element thereof, such as roadway revisions, etc.
3) Any other documents or materials related to items listed in B 1-8, below.
B) From the City
1) A chronological list of permits and associated conditions issued on campus since adoption of the existing WWUN plan.
2) A list of administrative or any other exemptions from parking or any other requirements of the land use development ordinance for permits listed in B1, above, including applicable ordinances, variances, contracts, or letters of understanding.
3) An inventory of appropriately zoned lands available for institutional use and of other lands preliminarily deemed appropriate for redesignation. Also, any analysis associated with such determinations.
4) Any advertisements, legal notices, and correspondence from or to the University regarding hearing dates for consideration of the WWUN plan or draft WWUMP, all associated agenda items and any record of opening, closing, or continuing said hearings, as well as any addenda, alteration or limitation of or to the agenda of said hearings.
5) Specifically, any permits for filling activities located northeast of the intersection of Bill McDonald Parkway and 21st Street.
6) Specifically, any permit for grading operations located west of 21st Street north of Bennet / Bill McDonald Parkway.
7) Specifically, any permit for a compost/recycling facility on Douglas west of 30th.
8) Specifically, any review or approval of on street angle parking on Highland Drive between Hill Street and West Campus Way.
Return to Public Good's Western Washington University page