Posted below is a letter that I sent to the City of Bellingham regarding the improper attempt by the Project Engineer for the Cornwall Landfill/Boulevard Park Overwater Pedestrian Bridge to stack an upcoming public hearing with people who support the proposal. City employees, particularly those who oversee major public projects, are expected to act in the public's interest by evaluating projects in an objective and impartial manner. Clearly, something has gone awry here.
The City is treating the Overwater Bridge as a done deal, although the conditional use permit for this project is subject to public input and review. I do not believe that including this proposal on the list of projects that were included in the Greenway Levy III qualifies as public approval, particularly when harmful impacts and viable alternatives have not been properly disclosed. The City failed to require an EIS for this proposal, and was advised by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that additional studies are necessary before the City proceeds with this matter. Additionally, concerns have been raised by the Lummi Nation regarding impacts to their treaty fishing rights which remain unresolved. Undeterred, the City continues to rush this proposal forward.
This is an important matter not only because the City is proceeding in violation of the Shoreline Management Act by violating mitigation sequencing requirements and failing to provide compensatory mitigation, but because this is the first project being build on land within the downtown waterfront redevelopment area and may establish a poor precedent. I will post more in the coming days regarding the substantive flaws in this proposal, but in the meantime, the below email will advise Latte readers of procedural problems.
For anyone interested in attending the hearing, which concerns the conditional use permit for this proposal, it will be held before the City Hearing Examiner on November 17, 2001 at 6 P.M in City Hall. Written comments may be submitted to the Hearing Examiner until the COB on the 17th. The City has not yet completed a staff report with relevant information on this proposal, but it can be requested from the City Planning Department one week before the hearing.
To the COB Office Of Hearing Examiner:
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that a Bellingham Parks Department Project Engineer has engaged in conduct that fails to ensure a fair and impartial public hearing with regard to the conditional use permit application for the proposed Cornwall Landfill/Boulevard Park Overwater Pedestrian Bridge. The Hearing Examiner should be aware of this situation to ensure that the public hearing is not tainted. As you are aware, quasi-judicial review of this matter is subject to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. RCW 42.36.010; BMC 2.56.010.C.
This doctrine attempts to bolster public confidence in fair and unbiased decision-making by making certain that in both appearance and fact parties to an argument receive equal treatment. However, the Project Engineer has violated basic principles of procedural fairness and due process by engaging in advocacy under color of office.
On November 2, 2010, the Project Engineer sent out an email, from her City email address, signed in her official capacity, to an undisclosed recipient list. The email contained notice regarding the November 17, 2010 public hearing on theCornwall bridge and noted that, “Supporters of the Boulevard to Cornwall
Because only “supporters” of the project received a personal email from the Project Engineer, this may result in disproportionate attendance at the public hearing, leaving the Hearings Examiner with the false impression that this project is overwhelmingly supported by our community. If this belief influences the decision of the Hearing Examiner to even the smallest degree, than the public process has been tainted by the private agenda of the Project Engineer.
There are a number of other implications that flow from the Project Engineer’s conduct. Since she has attempted to use her official City position to solicit support for the public hearing, the handling of this entire project is called into question. Has this project been handled in a fair and impartial manner, with proper consideration given to the factors reflected in BMC 20.16.010.E, when it appears that the Project Engineer is not objective and impartial?
Relevant to this concern is the public notice posted on-site atBoulevard Park Boulevard Park
Additional statements are that the new walkway will look very similar to the existing Taylor Avenue Dock, the walkway will be coordinated with clean-up actions at the Cornwall Landfill, and the existing dock will be removed and considered habitat mitigation for the walkway. Project funding is listed, as are permit and construction timelines. In other words, this project is being held out to the public as a matter that will be moving forward. The Project Engineer’s contact information is listed prominently. However, when I contacted the Project Engineer by telephone, it was clear to me that she was not particularly open to public inquiry that questioned the proposal. This is contrary to my normal experience with City employees.
Public notice for this proposal is issued by the Planning Department. I assume that the Project Engineer sent her advocacy email without notice to or approval by the Planning Department or the Legal Department Thus, the conduct of the Project Engineer reflects negligence, if not actual disregard, for the procedures and policies of related City Departments, as well as poor judgment. Again, this reflects on her handling of the entire project.
Finally, I am concerned about whether the Project Engineer’s conduct violated the terms and policies of the Federal Transportation Enhancement Grant, and I suggest that someone at the City look into this situation and determine whether this funding source is in potential jeopardy.
In sum, the Hearing Examiner should be advised that the Project Engineer handled the notice of public hearing in a manner that will reduce public confidence in fair and equal treatment for each side on this issue, and for the project in totality. These issues should be addressed in the appropriate manner to avoid the appearance of unfairness at the quasi-judicial level.
Sincerely,
The City is treating the Overwater Bridge as a done deal, although the conditional use permit for this project is subject to public input and review. I do not believe that including this proposal on the list of projects that were included in the Greenway Levy III qualifies as public approval, particularly when harmful impacts and viable alternatives have not been properly disclosed. The City failed to require an EIS for this proposal, and was advised by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that additional studies are necessary before the City proceeds with this matter. Additionally, concerns have been raised by the Lummi Nation regarding impacts to their treaty fishing rights which remain unresolved. Undeterred, the City continues to rush this proposal forward.
This is an important matter not only because the City is proceeding in violation of the Shoreline Management Act by violating mitigation sequencing requirements and failing to provide compensatory mitigation, but because this is the first project being build on land within the downtown waterfront redevelopment area and may establish a poor precedent. I will post more in the coming days regarding the substantive flaws in this proposal, but in the meantime, the below email will advise Latte readers of procedural problems.
For anyone interested in attending the hearing, which concerns the conditional use permit for this proposal, it will be held before the City Hearing Examiner on November 17, 2001 at 6 P.M in City Hall. Written comments may be submitted to the Hearing Examiner until the COB on the 17th. The City has not yet completed a staff report with relevant information on this proposal, but it can be requested from the City Planning Department one week before the hearing.
To the COB Office Of Hearing Examiner:
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that a Bellingham Parks Department Project Engineer has engaged in conduct that fails to ensure a fair and impartial public hearing with regard to the conditional use permit application for the proposed Cornwall Landfill/Boulevard Park Overwater Pedestrian Bridge. The Hearing Examiner should be aware of this situation to ensure that the public hearing is not tainted. As you are aware, quasi-judicial review of this matter is subject to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. RCW 42.36.010; BMC 2.56.010.C.
This doctrine attempts to bolster public confidence in fair and unbiased decision-making by making certain that in both appearance and fact parties to an argument receive equal treatment. However, the Project Engineer has violated basic principles of procedural fairness and due process by engaging in advocacy under color of office.
On November 2, 2010, the Project Engineer sent out an email, from her City email address, signed in her official capacity, to an undisclosed recipient list. The email contained notice regarding the November 17, 2010 public hearing on the
Because only “supporters” of the project received a personal email from the Project Engineer, this may result in disproportionate attendance at the public hearing, leaving the Hearings Examiner with the false impression that this project is overwhelmingly supported by our community. If this belief influences the decision of the Hearing Examiner to even the smallest degree, than the public process has been tainted by the private agenda of the Project Engineer.
There are a number of other implications that flow from the Project Engineer’s conduct. Since she has attempted to use her official City position to solicit support for the public hearing, the handling of this entire project is called into question. Has this project been handled in a fair and impartial manner, with proper consideration given to the factors reflected in BMC 20.16.010.E, when it appears that the Project Engineer is not objective and impartial?
Relevant to this concern is the public notice posted on-site at
Additional statements are that the new walkway will look very similar to the existing Taylor Avenue Dock, the walkway will be coordinated with clean-up actions at the Cornwall Landfill, and the existing dock will be removed and considered habitat mitigation for the walkway. Project funding is listed, as are permit and construction timelines. In other words, this project is being held out to the public as a matter that will be moving forward. The Project Engineer’s contact information is listed prominently. However, when I contacted the Project Engineer by telephone, it was clear to me that she was not particularly open to public inquiry that questioned the proposal. This is contrary to my normal experience with City employees.
Public notice for this proposal is issued by the Planning Department. I assume that the Project Engineer sent her advocacy email without notice to or approval by the Planning Department or the Legal Department Thus, the conduct of the Project Engineer reflects negligence, if not actual disregard, for the procedures and policies of related City Departments, as well as poor judgment. Again, this reflects on her handling of the entire project.
Finally, I am concerned about whether the Project Engineer’s conduct violated the terms and policies of the Federal Transportation Enhancement Grant, and I suggest that someone at the City look into this situation and determine whether this funding source is in potential jeopardy.
In sum, the Hearing Examiner should be advised that the Project Engineer handled the notice of public hearing in a manner that will reduce public confidence in fair and equal treatment for each side on this issue, and for the project in totality. These issues should be addressed in the appropriate manner to avoid the appearance of unfairness at the quasi-judicial level.
Sincerely,
Wendy Harris
Attachments:
- photo of public notice of project on-site at
Boulevard Park - email from Project Engineer, sent to undisclosed email recipients.
Pike's Bridge to No Where?
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, that is probably the most toxic beach in Whatcom County. Mercury, rad waste, Hexavalent Chromium, Furans. A destination! A good theft of Greenways funds.
Nice work Wendy, The City PW dept has been co-opted by bribes from Developers as usual.
People like this engineer need to be sued personally for exceeding their authority. The City can't protect them when they are breaking the law. I wonder what assets & property she owns?
Q: What is the difference between Pike and and a Jack Ass?
A. A Jack Ass doesn't read to himself on a blog in a Harvard Accent about his Bridge to No
Where?
The Cornwall Bridge will cross over 3 Model Toxic Control Act sites, with the Boulevard Park site being marked as high priority for remediation by DOE. The City plans to dredge contaminated soil on the bottom of Bellingham Bay to install pilings. When the Bridge is completed, the Cornwall Landfill entrance/exit will be blocked off from public access until there is an assessment and likely remediation at this site.
ReplyDeleteThis project engineer should be re-deployed to the general unemployed work pool so she can furthe comprehend and understand the concept of following THE LAW.
ReplyDeletePike can either fire her now or own the malfeasance and looting of Greenways for the developers wet dream.
What would Mayor Linville do?
ReplyDelete