Video of the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 11, 2011.
These six video clips document deliberation of overarching Planning Goals for 2011. That this is a committee meeting means no final action could be taken so please don't mistake these deliberations for final action.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six (final segment)
Latte Republic is grateful to County staff for their assistance in capturing this video.
These six video clips document deliberation of overarching Planning Goals for 2011. That this is a committee meeting means no final action could be taken so please don't mistake these deliberations for final action.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six (final segment)
Latte Republic is grateful to County staff for their assistance in capturing this video.
In the same way you have to wonder if psychopaths are aware of just how crazy they really are, you have to wonder if County Council is aware of how unserious they are.
ReplyDeleteI mean, they've cut off and are almost completely cut off from the work the county planning dept is doing. And they've swapped in a planning commission of rubberstamping, groupthink nitwits.
They think this is going to produce the sort of intellectual rigor necessary to create durable planning policy that will stand against challenges?
It's like someone asserting the world is flat and then "proving" it by writing "the world flat" on a 3x5 card.
This has an ink blot test quality to it.
ReplyDeleteI'm expecting that the Council Members will like what they see. The supporters and critics of this council will be delighted and disturbed in turn.
Thank you, ApexNerd. I guess. I mean, ignorance is bliss. If I hadn't watched these videos, I might be happy right now. As it is, I'm shocked, a little bit nauseated, and a lot scared. That's our County's "policy direction' for the next year? Get rid of Agricultural Protection Overlays, complain about the Department of Ecology, get Yew Street into Bellingham's UGA whether it wants it or not, and attack critical areas and shoreline management?
ReplyDeleteThose are Whatcom County's values, according to its elected leaders. Wow.
When logic and proportion
ReplyDeleteHave fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Shane, I was apprehensive when you set up the camera so close (the huge lens is intimidating, just ask the dog!). But the result is great... a good council discussion in a less-structured environment than the council chambers, and now easily accessible to all who can find it here on the internet. The council chambers are fine for the protocols of a hearing, but committee discussions sometimes could benefit from more of a roundtable atmosphere. Thank you for posting these videos.
ReplyDeleteI also thank you, Shane, for posting the videos. There were two comments from Council members that I found particularly interesting:
ReplyDelete1) Sam wants the County to revisit the Ag Protection Overlay ordinance to remove those provisions from certain lands. I'd suggest that he review past GMHB cases where the County argued that that was how they actually met GMA was through that, as well as the recent decision of the GMHB that said:
"The Board does not have a sufficient record before it to determine if the County has completed its (agricultural) designation process under RCW 36.70A.170 and therefore will not dismiss ... Issues 1 and 2....the issue to be addressed is whether or not the County has previously met the requirements set forth in RCW 36.70A.170."
http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?cid=1070
I promise you, Sam, that if you go about undoing the Ag Protection Overlay without going through the full process of designating and protecting agricultural lands of long term commercial signficance, that you will have a challenge to address.
But, if you work together on addressing the short comings of the APO while adopting strategies to protect 100,000 acres of land, then we have something to agree on.
2) Council member Kershner made a comment (unrefuted by anyone) that Bellingham is already a year behind on their GMA update process. I passed that information on to city planners in charge of the update, because they were unaware that they were behind. Perhaps before comments like that are made appearing as statements of fact, the county officials should walk across the street (150 yards at most!) to talk with staff in charge of this effort.
Just a reminder.
ReplyDeleteCommittee meetings are, by design, events where discussion can take place without making final action. While the events documented at this committee meeting are clearly about intended actions the County Council could take in 2011, that is not a guarantee that those actions will actually occur as described.
Until the County Council votes to take action at a COUNCIL meeting, no action is taken.
Furthermore, even though Committee meetings have consistently lower public attendance than actual Council meetings, the public does have a chance to get a sense of what the Council is contemplating in a timely manner. So, if you see something happening at a Committee meeting you have time to communicate with The Elected long before they actually put a matter to a final vote.
ReplyDeleteTaking issue with a gaffe made by a Member of Council is undeniably entertaining, however, I'm pleased to see that the bulk of the comments are about substantive actions that the Council is contemplating.
This makes the effort it took to capture this meeting on video, and posting it, worth the effort expended.
Don't be shy readers, your comments are more than welcome.
Kershner is perhaps thinking of Bham's tardiness on its neighborhood plan updates, rather than its comp plan updates (which, unlike the county, are more or less on schedule).
ReplyDeleteOne reason the neighborhood plan updates are behind schedule is because of the number of annexations that forced themselves into the front of the line, annexations that are directly linked back to UGA statuses like the one Kershner is conspiring with Swanson to cram down Bellingham's throat.
Sam Crawford's statement that this was a "good" Council discussion might have been the most depressing thing about this. He controlled the meeting, expressed his puny, unproductive priorities, a few other Council members made some uninformed anti-government statements, and that was it.
ReplyDeleteStudent Councils across the country are holding better policy discussions.
Anon36 - Bellingham is at least 1 year behind on their 21-24 year update work plan they gave to their planning commissionn(and the public). 6 mos for EIS, traffic modeling, and other staff work, 6 mos at the Bham planning commission (1-2 meetings per month), then 9-12 mos at the City Council. There haven't been any EIS hearings, no planning commission meetings, no recommendation to council, and council hasn't addressed it either. Just go to the November 2009 Planning Commission meeting and listen to the audio for yourself.
ReplyDeleteWhatcom County is 20 years behind in getting its Comp Plan up to date. Perhaps Kershners in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
ReplyDeleteLet's see now...
ReplyDeleteAnon says "Whatcom County is 20 years behind in getting its Comp Plan up to date."
Kershner's been in office for one whole year.
Anonymous implies the 20 year delay is her fault?
Hmmmmmm
Let's give credit where credit is due. Jack, go ahead, step up and take credit for a big part of the County's noncompliance! You deserve it.
ReplyDeleteIt is chivalrous of you to defend Kershner. I didn't see that anybody was suggesting the 20-year delay is (all) her fault; the implication is that she should be aware of the county's own position before criticizing others.
But then, I suppose that she only knows what you and your clients tell her.
Let's give Jack credit for not posting anonymously, and for Councilmember Crawford for commenting, and for all councilmembers for willing to be our public pin cushions on these issues.
ReplyDeleteMy earlier point was that it is clear that Councilmember Kershner is getting information second hand, rather than directly from the city government that is a stone's throw away from her office. Before speaking on things, it might be good to get the facts from direct sources, not second hand.
As for delays, the GMA requirements for review and update are December 2014, not the 2011 deadline that was required prior to last year's legislative session that extended that deadline. So, the city (and the county) legally have another three years for compliance.
Meanwhile, Whatcom County remains out of compliance on rural lands, and soon will likely be shown out of compliance on agricultural lands. Both these actions were due approximately 15 years ago.
And no, Councilmember Kershner was not on Council and had no affect on that.
Anon...
ReplyDeleteWhen you say of a council person, with no demonstration that your assertion might be true, "But then, I suppose that she only knows what you and your clients tell her." you not only pretty bluntly violate the rules of logic, you discredit your entire chain of reasoning and make yourself irrelavent to the discussion.
Outside Man:
Can you identify how you come to the conclusion that: " Councilmember Kershner is getting information second hand, rather than directly from the city government that is a stone's throw away from her office. Before speaking on things, it might be good to get the facts from direct sources, not second hand?"
Are you sure of your accuracy on that?
The legislative schedule you put forward is accurate but, that schedule has been in place since the legislature extended the deadline in its 2010 session.
During that time, city and the county planning authorities have steadfastly refused to address identified inconsistencies in their respective Comp. Plans by claiming they would finish their updates by 2011 regardless of an extended timeframe.
The city laid out a plan in November 2009 for accomplishing the task expressing the idea everything could be done if public participation could be kept to a minimum with most of the heavy lifting provided by the Planning Commission and the Council.
Mr. Stalheim identified shortcomings in the County's adoption of its own Comp. Plan in February of 2010, shortcomings he knew were being integrated into the plan when the Council voted for his plan in 2009... Keep in mind the GMA does not allow those shortcomings, new update deadline or not.
In the film posted on this blog, the city is reported to have once again promised what it cannot deliver. Check the GMA regarding the tasks a city or county must accomplish on updating a Comp. Plan then compare that to a process the city has, at least in terms of public process, not even begun beyond laying out a schedule it did not adhere to.
Notice the language presented the Council. It is clear the city might only probably, maybe, perhaps complete some of its work by the end of the year meaning, under GMA mandates that city and county plans be coordinated, the county can't even begin its work in 2011.
The new County planning director and the new chief planner deserve credit for realizing a credible update simply cannot be done in the time frame promised as a panacea for all ills by the former director and by other planners responsible for other jurisdictions.
Glad that you gave Jack credit now, Outside Man? He will never reciprocate the favor.
ReplyDeleteMethinks Jack doth protest too much about the fact that he's a paid consultant for developers. Be proud of your work, Jack. You don't fool anybody.
I know, Anonymous. Not worth the effort responding. I'm busy writing motions and briefs to the Hearings Board on County actions.
ReplyDelete