Yesterday, from the comfort of my couch, I watched the Planning Commission work session on waterfront redevelopment. As I watched the meeting, I posted my thoughts on facebook. (If case you were unaware, every couple of weeks, I attend a city or county meeting and post my responses in real time.  Friend me on Facebook if you want to follow my other "live blog" postings.)  Marian Beddill consolidated my posts in timed sequence.  (Hey, I have my idea of fun, and she has hers.)  Although you can not tell exactly what is going on at the meeting, you can get a pretty good gist of things from my comments.

I am posting the notes below, in a effort to alert people that we need to wake up and start weighing in.  The waterfront plans have morphed into something quite different than what the public envisioned and planned for over the last decade. The waterfront now has very little to do with the public, or shoreline ecosystem health, or protecting fish and aquatic wildlife. It is all about profit, profit, profit.  And by profit, I do not mean living wage jobs.  

The things I heard at the Planning Commission meeting shocked me.  The commission is now composed of people who represent and advocate for different segments of the development community.  With the exception of Planning Commissioner Danne Neill, they are uninterested in the concerns of other stakeholders. Repeatedly, they stated that they did not want to use "prescriptive controls" (translation: regulations) in the waterfront plan. Quess what? That is the purpose of planning.  Why has Mayor Linville appointed 4 Planning Commissions who do not believe in planning? 

As a consequence, they do not believe that we can save the Granary Building, because that would not reflect market forces (i.e, it might not allow the greatest amount of profit.). The last thing we want to tell developers is what they can or can do with the waterfront land they purchase. The Commissioners were not interested in discussing environmental matters, other than noting that they do not understand waterfront clean-up issues, so we should all trust the Department of Ecology to do what is best. There was not one mention of protecting fish and wildlife or shoreline ecosystem functions. The Commission supports working wage jobs in theory, but believe the best way to get there is to let business prosper.  Remember how well those Reagan Trickle Down Economics worked in the past? Especially when combined with deregulation?

The entire Planning Commission meeting was taped, you will be able to watch it by going to the City Planning Commission website. It has not yet been posted, but some of the previous waterfront meetings are posted, as well as the public comment that has been received. [url=http://www.cob.org/government/public/boards-commissions/planning-materials.aspx]http://www.cob.org/government/public/boards-commissions/planning-materials.aspx[/url].

Wendy Harris:  Facebook Posts on City Planning Commission Meeting of 5.8.13, approximately 7:15 PM.  (Responses to my posts by third parties have been deleted to respect privacy, but still exist on FB). 

 3 hours ago

I am tuning in late to the Bellingham Planning Commission regarding waterfront planning. It is on BTV10.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

The Planning Comission is discussing the mixed use commercial zoning in the waterfront.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

Commission member likes "broad strokes" of waterfront plan. City and Port brain-washing successful. I want a plan with standards and guidelines so I know what I am getting, rather than what staff decides is expedient at the moment, or what brings in the most short-term revenue.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

Danne Neill actually raising questions instead of rubber stamping.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

Glad to see John Stark in audience... maybe we will get a whole new article in the Herald about this process.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

It was never part of the Waterfront Futures Group policy or guidelines to base redevelopment so heavily on private development. It reflects a vision of public ownership, yet we are told that this plan was developed in conformity with public process.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

So who is responsible for all the clueless developers on the Planning Commission?

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

This waterfront plan reflects Mayor Linvillle giving in to the demands of port and developers. This is not in the public's best interest.

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

Shouldn't Planning Commissioners be reflecting more than (ill formed) personal opinion in their comments?

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

So only Commissioner Neill has concerns about the impact of waterfront development on the downtown???

 Wendy Harris

3 hours ago

Danne Neill mentioning problems and impact on downtown, such as increased traffic. Kinda of a big issue for other commissioners to ignore.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

A commissioner notes how Tacoma Glass Museum revitalizes Tacoma, suggesting that industrial growth may not be the best way to revitialize waterfront. He is quickly contradicted by another commissioner.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

lots of praise for staff efforts on 'My Downtown".

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Intense residential and commercial development does not belong on our sensitive shorelines. Keep it in the downtown core.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Amendment to City SMP will be required if this waterfront plan is adopted. Why? The SMP was just enacted earlier this year. This reflects the nature and extent of the new changes (i.e., concession to the port) in the new waterfront plan.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Commissioner Neill noting the impacts of waterfront development on residential uses in downtown, such as constant noise, lights, etc.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Per staff, they will deal with transition between waterfront and downtown use conflicts with design standards. All of this is intended to benefit new development over existing uses.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Log Pond sub-area keeps popping up. There are clearly concerns about this area.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Seriously, commissioner wants to cede authority to port over how it prioritizes waterfront development. States that if commissioners do not like it, they can weigh in as private citizens. My question: Isn't this a joint development?

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Holy Crap, no commissioner had comment on issues of waterfront plan connectivity except for Danni Neill. So lets just ignore all the really weak points of the plan?

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

How come the staff wants so much flexibiity in waterfront plans, but wants to provide developers with vested rights because they need certainty? Why doesnt the public have the same rights to certainty in future planning?

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

So far, the planning commission has not raised one single freaking question about the shoreline environment or aquatic wildlife.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Mike Stoner now speaking... he is very encouraged by current discussion... never a good sign.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Mike Stoner can barely contain his glee with the way waterfront process is unfolding.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

How are we going to offset and mitigate the impacts from all the increased vessel traffic with regard to aquatic habitat? We are not the only species that needs to use the water.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

If Mike Stoner says that he is "encouraged" one more time...... aaahhhhh. Why don't we all go home and let the port do whatever it wants?

  Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Now discussing the granary building and historic structures.

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

One commissioner opposed to mandatory requirement to save Granary, wants to wait to see what market conditions are... because isn't the whole point of the waterfront development to make profits for developers?

 Wendy Harris

2 hours ago

Again, only Danni Neill willing to speak towards adative reuse. The rest of the commissioners do not want "prescriptive requirements." Do these guys understand what planning is????? Not much different than elected officials who are opposed to government.

 Wendy Harris

about an hour ago

Why save the Granary Building... after all, most Whatcom County residents do not know what it is .... it is not famous like the Chrysler Building in New York......the issue is economic feasibity and the only thing worth saving is maybe the timber..... Hello, Bellingham, welcome to Bellingham's Planning Commission.

 Wendy Harris

about an hour ago

Per Planning Commissioner... "I do not have understanding of remediation, so lets just trust DOE." But commissioner is concerned, morally, about cleaning up toxic waste and trucking it to somewhere else... because these guys are so concerned about environmental issues.

 Wendy Harris

about an hour ago

Summary of planning commission so far... trust the port and trust department of ecology and allow developers to make a big profit.

 Wendy Harris

about an hour ago

Comments on living wage jobs... not appropriate to mandate, apparently, anything. Translation: we should maximize business profit, not worker wages.

 Wendy Harris

about an hour ago

At some point, is the public going to hold Mayor Linville accoutable for this miserable planning commission and miserable waterfront plan? Everyone was so quick to attack Pike, but no one will say a word against Linville. What is the deal??

 Wendy Harris

about an hour ago

Planning Commission now discussing ASB. Only Danni Neil is advocating analysis of alternative uses, beyond a marina.

 Wendy Harris

56 minutes ago

What? ASB is being used for stormwater right now? That is news to planning commission. So I guess they also have no idea how much more expensive it is going to be to create alternative stormwater solutions.

 Wendy Harris

53 minutes ago

Parks Department talking about ASB trail. What amenities will it have? The gravel will be smoothed out and a big fence will be installed to keep people out of the toxic waste. No discussion of how the funding is in place or development is proceeding before the waterfront plan is approved. And the city is trying to convince us that there are providing greate public process.

 Wendy Harris

50 minutes ago

Anyone remember an ASB trail in prior waterfront plan versions and in public input? Me neither. But Mike Stoner is here to convince us how much we want this. He still has a smirk on his face.

 Wendy Harris

48 minutes ago

Mike Stoner is so gleeful, he might start dancing a jig.

 Wendy Harris

39 minutes ago

Remember when the waterfront redevelopment was more than an opportunity for developer profit?

 Wendy Harris

37 minutes ago

No discussion regarding conflicting land use re shoreline buffer and pedestrian trail. The public needs more than 50 feet from the shoreline. We need a real shoreline buffer, and then a pedestrian trail, and then room for a separate bike land. This will require foregoing every ounce of profit that can be squeezed out of the waterfront.

 Wendy Harris

36 minutes ago

Next planning commission meeting on waterfront will be next week, May 14th. The plan and the process are deeply flawed. The port and city think we are all to focused on GPT to pay attention to the waterfront. Send the city a comment and tell them not to ignore the prior public vision for the waterfront.