[0:00] for why we're interested in parking
reform, why it's important and valuable
[0:05] um to the city of Bellingham and then a
little bit of background and timeline
[0:10] just on some of the actions um over the
last couple years related to parking for
[0:15] reform and how we got here, some of
those critical milestones.
[0:21] Um then I'll just talk about yeah kind
of the why behind why we're talking
[0:26] about permanent regulations today as
well as summarize what is in the
[0:30] ordinance and what some of those
proposed proposed changes are um to car
[0:35] and bike parking
and then we'll conclude with our staff
[0:39] recommendation.
Um then look forward to hearing from any
[0:43] comments from the public as well as um
continue discussion and feedback from
[0:47] the commissioners.
[0:51] So just to start off again might be a
refresher but um just important to set
[0:56] the stage of why we care about this part
why we care about this topic of parking.
[1:01] Um so as you may know a lot of the time
parking requirements are often pretty
[1:06] arbitrary as well as outdated um and
have led to a gross overupp of parking
[1:13] stalls in this country.
Um and we know that removing parking can
[1:18] also or removing the um requirement to
have a minimum number of parking stalls
[1:23] can remove a barrier to housing as well
as provide other benefits specifically
[1:29] um meeting our climate objectives, our
housing goals, um our environmental
[1:34] goals, especially the cost and
availability of housing as well. Um, we
[1:41] know that eliminating um, parking
minimums can lead to a market driven
[1:45] approach in which developers and others
can rightsize the amount of parking they
[1:50] provide rather than relying on mandatory
city regulations.
[1:56] And we've seen this happen across the
country, across the world actually. Um,
[2:01] so a lot of other cities have um also
been engaged in parking reform efforts
[2:07] and these um you can find out more
information about that on the parking
[2:12] reform network. That's a great resource.
Um as well as just looking back at some
[2:17] of the other council presentations. Um
there's a lot of information um in those
[2:21] if you want more background on parking
reform theory.
[2:25] For now, we'll move on to talk about
what city of Belling City of Bellingham
[2:30] has done with this regard. So, this kind
of all kick started with um Mayor Kim
[2:36] Lun's executive order in November 2024
in which she called for an interimm
[2:41] ordinance removing um or eliminating the
minimum number of parking stalls across
[2:47] the city. And so, that was implemented
in January 2025.
[2:52] That's when the interim parking
ordinance was first approved. So, it's
[2:56] been in effect more than a year. And
what happened um before it expired, we
[3:02] went back to council in November 2025
and asked for an extension um for that
[3:08] interim parking ordinance um with an
adopted work plan. So, the reason for
[3:13] that extension was that we wanted to
have more time to evaluate the impacts
[3:18] of eliminating parking minimums. We
wanted additional time to see um what
[3:24] commerce was going to recommend as far
as guidance um on implementing and being
[3:31] consistent with state legislation
related to parking. And we wanted time
[3:35] to develop the permanent regulations
um as well as look at some parking
[3:41] management strategies which were
outlined in the adopted work plan.
[3:45] So we had that time over the last six
months to do that and that brings us to
[3:50] today. Um as you may remember
um in April we came back to planning
[3:57] commission to give an overview of
parking reform work. Um and we talked
[4:02] about some options for moving forward
and we did receive direction um to move
[4:07] forward with the permanent regulations.
Before we can do that as a next step,
[4:13] actually we need another extension for
the interimm ordinance because we did
[4:17] the math and looked at the timeline for
the type six process
[4:21] um and having that be really tight. We
will need some additional time to move
[4:26] through the public review process. So
that's not just planning commission but
[4:30] taking this forward to city council. So
we're proposing a second extension of
[4:34] the interim ordinance just to get us
through this type six process. Um the
[4:39] new end date would be January 2027. So
that gives us up to six months, but the
[4:44] intention is not to utilize the full six
months. We'll probably just need another
[4:49] um month or two. And that all depends on
how the conversations go um and the
[4:54] direction we receive.
So then yeah, that brings us to today's
[5:00] public hearing, which is all about
consideration of that permit, those
[5:05] permit regulations. So that kickstarts
that type six process
[5:10] for the proposed code amendments.
Um and just a little bit more background
[5:16] on why we're now talking about the
permit regulations. So again, we
[5:20] recognize all the many benefits of
parking reform. Um that I summarized um
[5:28] we got that direction from planning
commission. And we've also gotten
[5:31] support from city leadership for all
those good reasons um to move forward
[5:35] with making what's in the interim
regulations making that permanent code.
[5:42] Um then we also know so state
legislation has changed a lot in the
[5:47] last couple years. So concurrent with
Bellingham's parking reform work um a
[5:53] number of significant pieces of state
legislation were passed that relate to
[5:56] parking. that's um significant limit how
much parking we can provide regardless
[6:02] of kind of that interim ordinance that
we had in effect. Um so I'll talk a
[6:06] little bit more about that um and the
implications of the legislation.
[6:12] Um and clearly city of Bellingham has
shown a interest in going going above
[6:17] and beyond state requirements towards a
market driven approach um where we've
[6:23] seen developers continue to provide
parking um to various extent. So whether
[6:29] um they're providing the same amount of
parking as they did pre-interm ordinance
[6:34] um or they're providing a little less,
it's typically not less than what we
[6:38] would have seen with a parking waiver.
And it's pretty rare that we've seen any
[6:42] projects um proposed with no parking at
all, although of course that is a
[6:47] possibility. So there's a whole mix of
scenarios. Um but one of the main
[6:52] positive impacts we've heard from our
current planners is that not having a u
[6:58] minimum parking requirements has um made
it just so much easier to administer.
[7:04] It's really allowed for an efficient and
streamlined review process.
[7:08] So, we've seen those benefits. Um, and
we also know that we want to continue to
[7:13] prioritize parking management work. So,
that's existing and ongoing work across
[7:18] the city. So, it's kind of a one city
approach um to marking parking
[7:23] management. And we know that we want to
continue to do that in order to support
[7:28] our MOHFI goals um and really make
efficient use of the parking that we
[7:33] have within the city.
[7:40] Okay. So, just a little bit more on the
legislation. Um, so like I said,
[7:45] concurrent with the work that we were
doing as a city on parking reform, um,
[7:49] there are a significant there's a
significant amount of legislation that
[7:53] was passed, um, related to how much
parking jurisdictions across the state
[7:58] can require. Um, and that's based on
construction methods or standards,
[8:02] specific building uses, um, and building
characteristics or location. So, I won't
[8:08] go through all through all of these
pieces of legislation. Um, but I will
[8:12] highlight that there was also some
changes to design requirements or
[8:17] improvement standards specifically
related to parking stall size. Um, and
[8:22] those were integrated into our code
updates as well to ensure compliance
[8:26] with any of those state legislative
changes.
[8:31] Um, and then what I will touch on a
little bit more is SB 5184, which is
[8:37] known as the parking reform and
modernization act. And this really has
[8:42] some of the biggest wide-reaching
implications across the state for
[8:46] parking. Um, it has to be implemented by
jurisdictions.
[8:51] um like Bellingham bigger than 50,000
um with with a population greater than
[8:57] 50,000 it has to be implemented by
January 27th uh 2027
[9:03] and what this legislation does is it
really limits how much parking can be
[9:07] required for multifamily single family
uses um and residential units under
[9:14] certain size also um yeah known as
dwelling units
[9:20] Um it also limits parking for commercial
spaces
[9:24] and certain uses such as affordable
housing, senior housing, child care, and
[9:30] then those ground level non-residential
spaces and mixeduse buildings.
[9:35] Um so this is just to highlight how much
is changing uh statewide in addition to
[9:40] what city of Bellingham is proposing.
[9:46] And then just quickly to touch on
um
[9:54] oh just to mention quickly also that
commerce has um provided some draft
[9:59] guidance for how to implement and
interpret this legislation. And so we
[10:03] were able to reference that as we were
working on the code updates. Um it came
[10:07] out in April. It was draft guidance so
it's going to be changed. um and uh
[10:12] based on feedback that was received and
hopefully finalized in the summer. Um so
[10:18] that was really helpful in um some of
the questions we had of how to write the
[10:22] permanent regulations.
All right. So now to touch on the work
[10:27] plan um just to say that this was an
important part of our parking reform
[10:33] work um in the last six months just
exploring the feasibility and capacity
[10:38] of various parking management
approaches. So these were the five
[10:41] different categories we looked at. Um
and our conclusion is that there is a
[10:47] lot of important work that can be done
and continue to be done um across the
[10:52] city by different departments and we
want to continue exploring and applying
[10:56] these strategies as needed to really
make effective use of existing parking,
[11:01] support our mode shift um and just
recognize this importance alongside the
[11:07] adoption of permanent regulations.
[11:12] So now I'll review at a high level the
proposed changes in the ordinance. Um I
[11:19] will note that the ordinance is pretty
lengthy. Uh and this is based on the
[11:23] fact that parking is really addressed in
many different code sections. So because
[11:27] it pertains to so many different uses um
you'll find it all across um BMC title
[11:33] 20 as well as some other um titles in
the code.
[11:38] But uh the bulk of that is really a lot
of consolidation
[11:42] um removing redundancy bringing the code
um to as much as possible one central
[11:48] location. So it doesn't mean the length
of the ordinance reflects the extent of
[11:54] changes. It just speaks to how many
different sections of code needed to be
[11:58] edited in this process.
Um so just to kind of yeah summarize
[12:05] those main changes I those can be
categorized as follows. So there's the
[12:10] focus on making sure the code is updated
to um eliminate any mention of those
[12:16] minimum automobile um parking
requirements. Um and that's specifically
[12:22] number of parking stalls not design
standards. Um it's updating our bicycle
[12:27] parking requirements. Um other summary
of changes looking at ADA parking and
[12:34] then evaluating as well our EV charging
requirements.
[12:41] Um and I will just walk through each of
these main categories
[12:46] um and talk about some of those changes
in each of them. So we'll begin with the
[12:51] elimination of automobile parking
minimums. Um, so like I said, this is
[12:58] throughout the code. So, a lot of
different um code sections to edit. Um,
[13:02] the main place you'll find the the
automobile parking requirements is in
[13:07] BNC 20121.
So, we really tried to centralize all
[13:12] the requirements to this code section,
remove redundancies like I mentioned.
[13:18] Um,
and the important thing that we're
[13:21] retaining is general provisions, design
provisions, and improvement standards.
[13:26] These are all those requirements for
parking that still apply if you are
[13:31] voluntarily providing parking or in the
um rare cases where parking would still
[13:36] be required. So
the elimination of automobile parking
[13:41] minimums does apply citywide but we are
proposing a few exceptions and that
[13:45] would be for our existing development
agreements. So that includes waterfront
[13:51] um as well as Barkley
and then we have any existing um planned
[13:56] unit developments um and that an example
of that would be Cordata master plan as
[14:01] well as accepting our institutional
master plans. So we have a few of those
[14:06] and those for major institutions um
uh our colleges that are local to us and
[14:14] that's related to the fact that we know
that those larger campus environments
[14:19] have unique and specific parking needs
and have a greater potential to push
[14:23] parking demand into the surrounding
areas. So we have an interest in
[14:27] preserving parking um in those IMPPS
until we have the opportunity to do some
[14:33] further analysis and consideration and
collaboration with those institutions
[14:38] um for any other revisions.
Um and then
[14:44] yeah as I mentioned um
yeah trying to centralize those
[14:50] requirements and then also permitting
the conversion of parking. Um, so when
[14:55] you have existing parking lots or
especially when you have an over supply
[14:59] of parking, allowing that to be
repurposed.
[15:02] And the other thing worth noting is um
that the removal of parking minimums
[15:06] also implicates the need to repeal the
Fair Haven Parking District since the
[15:11] parking requirements um are no longer
applicable there.
[15:17] Um yeah, and consistency with state law.
Again, there's just some minor tweaks um
[15:23] to like parking stall size, improvement
standards, things like that for when
[15:26] parking is provided. So, you'll also
find that in the amendments.
[15:34] Okay. Now, I'm going to talk a little
bit more about updating our bicycle
[15:37] parking requirements. Um since this is a
little bit um
[15:43] yeah, this has more changes that weren't
necessarily considered in the interim
[15:47] ordinance. Um so for some background
um our current bicycle parking standards
[15:55] are fairly outdated. Um they were based
on they were written more than 10 years
[16:00] ago and they were largely based on
current uh standards that Portland
[16:05] Oregon had at that time. Um and this was
before Portland updated their code in
[16:10] 2019.
Um and at that time the bicycle parking
[16:15] was only applicable to the downtown and
then it slowly expanded to urban
[16:19] villages with our interim parking
ordinance. Um we did make those bicycle
[16:24] parking standards applicable citywide
but we didn't take any look at
[16:29] modernizing that code or making any
other changes. Um so we saw this as an
[16:34] opportunity to propose um some changes
to that code.
[16:39] Um and other important thing to note is
that this is largely supported by um
[16:45] multiple city documents that have goals,
policies, and actions um to support
[16:50] things like modernizing the bicycle
parking requirements um due to our mode
[16:56] shift goals, due to our um interest in
reducing admiss emissions and increasing
[17:01] safety.
focusing on accessibility and secure
[17:06] bike parking um meeting needs of larger
bikes and just in general reducing
[17:11] vehicle parking exchange for more um
bike parking. So both the or the
[17:17] Bellingham plan adopted in 2025, the
multimotal transportation plan from 2025
[17:23] as well as the bicycle master plan from
2024 all speak to um goals and policies
[17:29] that relate to um making some changes
and improvements to our um bicycle
[17:35] parking code. And we do have a 7% MOCH
shift goal for the next 10 years and a
[17:42] um 10% MOHIF goal for the next 20 years.
So that's a big driver for why we're
[17:49] looking at some of these changes.
And what's being proposed is a new code
[17:55] section which would distinguish the bike
parking from the um car parking
[17:59] requirements um and be codified in
201215.
[18:05] Um, this would modify what we have in
our interim um, parking regulations
[18:13] and like I said would apply citywide,
not just urban villages.
[18:17] It intends to specify the circumstances
under which bike parking applies and
[18:22] allows for an administrative waiver
process
[18:26] um, for extenduating circumstances.
The goal was also to expand some of the
[18:32] bike parking categories or land use
categories and update update the
[18:37] required ratios. Um and those are that's
based on research that was done into um
[18:43] best practices um recommendations for
bike parking as well as other codes. Um
[18:49] Seattle and Portland were um two codes
that I looked at specifically.
[18:54] And then there's some minor facility
design changes that relate to safety,
[18:59] accessibility, and convenience of bike
parking. Um, and I won't go into all of
[19:04] those specifics. Um, but I'm happy to
talk about those more if there's
[19:08] questions that come up.
[19:12] All right. So, moving on
to ADA parking. Um, it's important to
[19:18] know that there are some modifications
from what was in the interim ordinance
[19:22] that previously the ordinance we had
required at least one accessible stall
[19:27] for all new construction regardless of
whether or not parking is provided.
[19:32] Um, however, in looking into the state
legislation and the guidance from
[19:37] commerce, we've learned that requiring
additional ads ADA stalls when no
[19:41] parking is provided would require a
variance from the state law. Um so what
[19:47] we're proposing is consistent with what
commerce has advised us to do um unless
[19:53] we were to require variance which is to
provide um or require ADA parking
[19:58] consistent with those 2010 ADA standards
and ratios. Um and the trigger for this
[20:04] would be when parking is voluntarily
provided on a site has to be in
[20:08] compliance with what the ADA ratios and
design requirements are. Um, and it
[20:14] should be noted that there there's a
possibility that they might be updating
[20:19] the building code related to
requirements for accessible parking
[20:23] spaces. So, that's just something to
monitor moving forward and see if we
[20:28] will need to make any changes based on
that. Um, so for now, this is what's
[20:33] proposed.
And then finally, EV EV for EV charging.
[20:39] There's actually no specific changes in
the ordinance. Um but this is just to
[20:44] acknowledge that EVA EV charging will be
required as before where it's really
[20:49] contingent upon how much parking is
provided. So kind of similar to ADA um
[20:55] the requirements would apply when
parking is voluntarily provided and we
[20:59] can't go above beyond that um for the EV
charging infrastructure.
[21:08] Okay. Then I wanted to conclude with
just highlighting a few um topics for
[21:13] future discussion and just monitoring
and tracking over time. So one of the
[21:18] things that um the state legislation
does allow us to do is to
[21:24] require um temporary and timerestricted
parking. So that would be things like
[21:28] zones, drop off spaces, things like
that. um that piece of legislation um
[21:35] parking reform and modernization act
allows us to do that. And so that might
[21:40] just be something we want to monitor
over time and potentially make changes
[21:44] to um what's what's in our code right
now for loading
[21:48] spaces and um drop off zones and things
like that.
[21:54] Then the other topic would be kind of
the tracking potential need for parking
[21:58] maximums. So, this would involve
establishing upper limits on parking to
[22:02] prevent over supply and in some cases um
could help reduce vehicle trips or help
[22:08] with our MOHFI goals. So, that's
something to keep in mind that we're not
[22:12] proposing at this time, but could be
future consideration.
[22:16] Um, and then again, ADA parking since
it's a little bit up in the air what the
[22:21] building code might um look at in the
future. Um, we should also just track
[22:26] the supply and demand of ADA parking uh
for both off- streetet and on street
[22:32] parking context um and make sure that we
have sufficient ADA parking in both um
[22:37] the public and private contexts.
[22:42] And that brings me to our staff
recommendation um and just
[22:46] acknowledgement of yeah the receipt of a
combination of questions and comments
[22:51] that were submitted from one person. um
in advance of tonight's meeting um and
[22:56] those should have been forwarded to the
commission as well. These were mainly
[23:01] clarification questions about some of
the content of the ordinance and those
[23:04] proposed changes as well as some
specific comments about the implications
[23:08] of the bike parking ratios for certain
uses um with some concern that they
[23:13] might not be adequate.
And then to acknowledge
[23:19] um that park yeah the parking ordinance
is a welcome permanent continuation of
[23:24] much of the intent and and content as
well of our interimm ordinance. Our goal
[23:29] was to ensure that um the ordinance
establishes consistency with the state
[23:34] law um also consistent with the goals
and policies in the Bellingham plan that
[23:39] was recently adopted. And therefore, we
recommend that the planning commission
[23:44] uh vote to approve the propos proposed
amendments to the Bellingham Municipal
[23:48] Code related to um automobile and
bicycle parking.
[23:53] And with that, I look forward to hearing
um additional comments from the public
[23:57] and discussion and feedback from the
commissioners.
[24:02] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[24:06] Okay. Right now, I will take a public
comment. So, if anyone came here to
[24:10] speak on this topic, you can come on
down and you'll have three minutes to
[24:15] speak your case and please state your
name for the record.
[24:20] » Commission, my name is Jam Aosti. I am
the one person Anya referred to um who
[24:25] had some clarification questions and I
just want to thank Steph and Anya and
[24:28] Kurt for all their thoughtful work on a
very detailed um important project here.
[24:33] There's always a point in every public
comment that I've ever watched where I'm
[24:36] like, "Wow, people care a lot about
really weird stuff and this is now my
[24:39] turn to be the person that cares a lot
about something very detailed." Um, I
[24:43] first met I had coffee with Kurt uh
three years ago about this topic um a
[24:49] month before my son was born and my
son's now two and a half and like speaks
[24:52] full sentences to me. So, I'm very
excited that we are implementing a
[24:55] permanent ordinance. Um, I do think um
adjusting ADA ratios is really important
[25:00] for this project. If the city if private
developers are going to be uh providing
[25:05] less parking which is an intended
outcome and hope hopeful outcome for
[25:09] this ordinance um many other peer cities
have implemented higher than federal
[25:15] minimum ratios for ADA parking and I
think that's something that's important
[25:18] to consider um for this ordinance um on
the parking reform. I do just want to
[25:23] say that this it's great it should
happen. It's time. Um the sky has not
[25:26] fallen in the last year since we've had
two interim ordinances and now
[25:30] conveniently it's required by state law
that we do it. Um on bike parking I do
[25:35] have concerns with some of the ratios. I
want to give some examples of what these
[25:39] uh staff proposed ratios would look
like. Um for the multi- family
[25:43] short-term parking a 50bedroom building
would require two URAKs
[25:48] for a in theory up to 100 residents. a
120 bedroomedroom multif family building
[25:54] would require three URAKs. Um those are
not sufficient by five years ago
[25:59] standards and and I personally and based
on our comp plan and our multimotal
[26:04] plans don't think that's sufficient for
20 30 or 40 years out into the future
[26:07] which is the expected lif span for these
buildings. Um, on retail eating
[26:12] establishments, a 300 person restaurant
like Texas Roadhouse, which was just
[26:16] constructed with uh 8,000 square feet of
dining space would require two long-term
[26:22] spaces and two U racks for 300 seats in
a restaurant. Those are really low
[26:26] ratios, and I think those deserve a
little more um thought. Um, the last
[26:32] example I'll give is the Boardmill Block
Hotel. Uh, 106bedroom hotel with 60,000
[26:37] square ft would require three U racks
for a 106 per bed 106 room hotel room.
[26:45] Um,
uh, the we came in on many of these, as
[26:51] you'll see in the staff memo, about the
middle of the range between the
[26:53] precedent between some of the studies in
Seattle and Portland. Um, I think we've
[26:57] set really lofty goals for Bellingham in
our multimotal plans and in our comp
[27:01] plan. We've set 7% mode shift goals and
10% mode shift goals several years out.
[27:05] Those are ambitious and I don't think I
think it we should be setting ratios
[27:10] that match what we think are what we are
aiming for for our mode shift goals and
[27:15] not limiting ourselves to what Seattle
has now, what Portland set seven years
[27:19] ago and what some nationwide metrics um
suggest and really looking at where we
[27:25] should land on our mode shift goals. And
um if you look at those ratios, even if
[27:31] you're not getting 7% of, you know, if
you were to look at u uh the restaurant,
[27:37] uh seven 10% of of the seats at Texas
Roadhouse would be 30 or would be 30
[27:42] bike racks. 15 bike racks that have two
spaces each. I'm not even suggesting a
[27:47] ratio that high, but more than three
bike racks seems appropriate for a 300
[27:52] seat restaurant. Um
uh and the last thing I'll say is that
[27:57] in community surveys in Bellingham, the
lack of secure bike parking is the
[28:00] number one issue
that folks raise when asked what
[28:04] prevents them from traveling by bike
more often. Thank you.
[28:20] Alex Mlan.
um in Happy Valley. Um
[28:26] so uh when these
proposals to to uh do parking reform
[28:32] first arose, I was concerned because I
was the uh previous president of Happy
[28:37] Valley Neighborhood Association for 8
years. And one of the key things that uh
[28:42] we were working on was trying to get
trails and multimodal infrastructure and
[28:48] uh sidewalks. Uh, Happy Valley is one of
the largest neighborhoods in Bellingham.
[28:55] It's uh, one of the densest. Uh, you
can, you guys probably know the metrics
[29:00] better than anybody. You've got that
awesome uh, tool on the uh, planning
[29:06] page now where you can actually scroll
across and see how the population of
[29:10] neighborhoods and how many uh,
multifamily units etc. But we are also a
[29:16] neighborhood that is notoriously
uh underserved for infrastructure. Um
[29:22] public works has acknowledged that we
have the largest number of missing uh
[29:29] pieces of sidewalk and crosswalks and
you know hawk lights and um trail
[29:34] connections etc.
And uh beyond that uh Happy Valley is a
[29:41] prime target for um kind of low entry
density. There's a lot of college
[29:47] students. There's not, you know, any
historical landmarks. There's no areas
[29:52] where developers are like, "Oh, you
know, it's going to be a pain to to do
[29:56] stuff here." So, we have seen proposals
um
[30:01] kind of dive in. And uh I was kind of
disappointed because uh both staff and
[30:08] uh the Watcom Housing Alliance had said,
"Well, you know, developers will never
[30:14] propose anything with zero parking
spaces." Like that's that's going to
[30:19] screw them up. It's going to screw their
renters up. And we have had two
[30:24] proposals with exactly zero parking
spaces provided off street. We have a
[30:31] third uh project. So those both of those
are 20. One's 20 units and the other's
[30:36] 25. Uh then there's a 45 unit proposal
that is providing seven off- streetet
[30:43] spots.
Happy Valley doesn't have sidewalks. We
[30:48] do not have ways for people to scoot
around and get to retail and to get to
[30:53] the college and to do uh you know easy
commutes by bike. We need the
[30:58] infrastructure first if we're going to
get more density. And in this
[31:03] neighborhood where uh you know, we have
tried mightily. The two trail
[31:08] connections that have occurred in the
last 10 years have been because citizens
[31:13] have built them. I actually had to sign
a maintenance contract in order to get
[31:18] public works to agree to allow us to
build these trails. Um it's ridiculous.
[31:24] I mean, the the communication,
the amount of unnecessary conflict to
[31:30] get really simple projects done in Happy
Valley has been super frustrating. Um,
[31:37] and yeah, I mean, little things like uh
you're mentioning with the bike racks.
[31:44] I'm not agnostic about bike racks, but
you know, you can put 50 bike racks on a
[31:49] building and if nobody can ride to get
where they want to go, it's not going to
[31:54] do any good. I mean, I I built nine bike
racks for downtown. And uh even though I
[32:02] have a really fancy bike, I don't ride
it very much. And there's a reason for
[32:06] that. So, I I would prefer if we had
some guard rails up where it's like,
[32:12] look at these neighborhoods. Are we
getting more density in neighborhoods
[32:16] that are already underserved?
Maybe you pump the brakes on that
[32:20] because those permits are going to sit
there until the economy turns around and
[32:24] then we're going to still have the same
underlying issue and it's going to get
[32:29] dangerous. So, thank you. Thank you for
your time.
[32:33] » Thank you.
[32:37] Is there anyone on Zoom?
[32:45] » Hello. Um, my name is Miles and I'm
comment I'm a resident of the Cordata
[32:50] neighborhood. I would like to first
state my strong support for the for the
[32:57] repeal of parking minimums for cars. Um
the I live near the guide and um there's
[33:05] too many parking spaces around around
there. There don't need to be that many
[33:09] parking spaces. So I'm it's good to see
that changing and especially because
[33:13] that makes housing easier to build which
we need right now. Um inclined to agree
[33:20] with Jamon on the short-term
requirements. Consider increasing those
[33:28] in
Um because um again hopefully these
[33:34] regulations will remain intact for
decades. Um when I first saw the
[33:38] long-term bike parking minimums, they
seemed a bit high to me, but then I
[33:43] thought about it. If public works does
their job, they won't seem so high 20
[33:47] years from now. So strongly support
those. Um, in line with the previous
[33:52] commenter, um, I will say removing
parking minimums does mean this means
[33:57] that public works needs to make sure
that they are being ambitious in
[34:02] supporting safe streets projects to make
sure people have these alternatives to
[34:06] driving because um
because this supports a move to that and
[34:12] we need coordination on that. But yes,
support I support this. Let's move
[34:17] forward on this. Let's make that housing
easier to build. Let's streamline the
[34:22] municipal code. Let's make this happen.
Thank you.
[34:32] » Hi, my name is Jordan Sharer. I'm
actually currently looking for a house
[34:37] in Bellingham. I don't live here yet,
but um I would like to state my emphatic
[34:43] support for reducing or eliminating
parking minimums altogether and also for
[34:49] increasing bike infrastructure as that
came up too. Um I don't like driving.
[34:56] That's and I would like a cheaper house
and with fewer parking minimums, houses
[35:02] are cheaper. That's it.
>> Thank you.
[35:19] All right, I think that's it for the
public comments.
[35:24] Guess we can switch over to our
discussion of the item.
[35:31] What's everybody thinking?
[35:38] Um, I can kick things off. Um, I
particularly like so long-term bike
[35:43] storage is like for residents like in
inside the building like a locking door.
[35:49] I think I like the security language
around
[35:53] that like the language around security
and lighting and distance from the door
[35:57] and all that. I think it's really
important. Um, I have had numerous
[36:01] multiple bikes stolen from long-term
bike storage in downtown Bellingham. Um,
[36:06] and the security is really, really
important. Um, on the short-term
[36:11] storage, I'm curious what the difference
is between like the city putting in two
[36:16] URAKs in front of a building in urban
village or downtown, which I believe we
[36:21] kind of proactively do. And so if you
have a new multif family residential
[36:27] building going in on a block downtown,
is the aim of the short-term bike
[36:32] parking requirement to like
have the developer pay for those two
[36:38] URAs, three URx, whatever. Um, and then
is that basic does that become a public
[36:44] amenity? And because I'm wondering
like who fixes it when it gets damaged?
[36:50] Uh, like if the city puts in two U-Racks
and a delivery truck backs over one of
[36:55] them, does it get replaced? If the prop
building owner puts it in, like does it
[36:59] become a city-maintained bike rack or is
it just something that's going to get
[37:02] knock could get knocked over and
disappear?
[37:09] Um I believe my understanding is that if
it's required as part of a development,
[37:14] it's the responsibility of the um
developer to install and I would also
[37:18] assume maintain. But um we also have
yeah separate um program um that we
[37:26] definitely want to promote more uh which
is if you know business um doesn't have
[37:31] adequate short-term bike parking, they
can make a request to the city to
[37:35] install that. Um, but I don't think
there's anything that would preclude,
[37:40] you know, a multif family buildings,
short-term spaces that are in front of
[37:44] that building in an urban village to be
used by anyone. But the intention is
[37:49] just that they're ensuring that based on
the um number of bedrooms um or studios
[37:55] that they are providing an adequate um
number of racks or stalls for bikes to
[38:01] begin with.
Do you anticipate a lot of needing that
[38:06] requirement happening in the public
rightway? I guess I'm hoping we don't
[38:10] create like if someone wanted to build a
a theater downtown or new residential
[38:15] multif family downtown,
can they accomplish the rack
[38:19] requirements in the public rightway or
do they need to do a setback
[38:24] to get it, you know, near the front door
in the public in the in the lot of their
[38:30] development?
Um, I believe it can be provided in the
[38:35] public right away. Um, I don't think
it's I'm just looking at the specific
[38:40] code. Um, how it was written before.
[38:46] I can tell you just from past experience
with the projects and stuff like that in
[38:50] the downtown and other areas that those
the bike racks are put in the rightway.
[38:55] Um, because most buildings are built in
the in those urban or those urban
[39:00] settings. Most buildings are built to
property lines. Um, and we have required
[39:05] them to be in the public rightway. They
just are reviewed to ensure that they're
[39:09] u meeting ADA safety standards and such.
And so there's adequacy for walking and
[39:14] and things like that.
>> Yeah. And that's specified in the
[39:18] ordinance on lines 453 and 454
that it can be located within the public
[39:24] rightway provided the location designer
subject to public works department
[39:28] approval. So that's been in our code.
[39:39] » I had a question about parking. Uh we're
talking a lot about new um projects and
[39:46] that we don't have any requirements for
parking for new buildings. Um but we
[39:51] have a lot of existing buildings and
existing parking lots. And if you have
[39:56] someone who owns a building and has a
parking lot, are these owners uh able to
[40:03] say, "I want to remove my parking now
because there is no requirement."
[40:09] That was our intention um in the code is
to make it clear that um because
[40:15] [clears throat] there's no parking
minimums that we would authorize removal
[40:19] or modification of existing parking so
long as it's still um complies with all
[40:25] those design and accessibility
standards. Um
[40:29] so yeah, there's no variances,
conditional use permits or um anything
[40:34] like that required. Um it just would
depend if there's some sort of specific
[40:39] agreement like I mentioned the
development agreements or the IMPPS
[40:44] um or plan unit developments that are a
bit of an exception to this.
[40:51] I think one of the things that I'd add
to that is that this is this is where
[40:54] we've had this historic over supply of
parking and you have so much of this
[40:59] underutilized land out there and trying
to make sure that we um efficiently use
[41:04] our remaining land that that's one of
the reasons that we we came forward with
[41:07] this is and when we did a presentation
in front of city council, one of the
[41:11] pictures that we we like to show is the
mall. The mall parking lot is massive.
[41:16] There's so much parking out there. um
you know maybe one or two days during
[41:21] the year around Christmas time you see
the relatively full but the rest of it
[41:26] it's s it's empty and so it's it's that
underutilized space um and so we really
[41:31] wanted to make it clear that if you've
got existing parking there and you want
[41:36] to put a new unit in there you want to
put an ADU you want to put something
[41:40] else in there redevelop that this is a
perfect opportunity to do that and you
[41:44] don't have to maintain that parking that
was required from long ago
[41:51] question. So, just to understand the ADA
part of it because it's kind of tricky.
[41:56] Are we saying that if a developer
voluntarily
[42:01] uh puts in parking that triggers the
ADA? Uh but if there is no parking, no
[42:08] ADA spots are required.
>> Yeah, that's correct.
[42:12] » Okay.
[42:18] And just to clarify that that's what
existing code is now, right? So the way
[42:22] that the building code is set up is it's
based on the number that is provided,
[42:26] not just an automatic number.
[42:32] » And and maybe this is mostly anecdotal,
but can you um speak to sort of the
[42:38] comment that Alex McClean had where like
what kind of projects how many projects
[42:44] are we seeing that we would consider
underparked or not providing any
[42:49] parking? Um just trying to get a sense
of um
[42:53] how many developers are um
maybe under imagining
[43:01] what the need will be.
[43:05] » Um yeah, I asked the current planners as
as they're the ones who are reviewing
[43:09] projects um and going um taking projects
through pre-application discussion. Um
[43:15] there have been a few outliers where
there's no parking proposed. Um but we
[43:21] haven't seen any actually go through the
full permitting process or be developed.
[43:25] So it's a little hard to know at that
early stage is this just conceptual or
[43:30] is this going to come to fruition. Um
and obviously it really depends on the
[43:36] context and location of where that those
projects are being proposed. So, it's it
[43:40] would look really different if you're in
an area that's really walkable and
[43:44] accessible to amenities or public
transit versus if you're in in an area
[43:48] where there's very little on street
parking and you expect people to bring
[43:52] cars. Um, so we have kind of yet to see
the fruition of some of those proposals,
[43:59] but that's my understanding.
[44:03] I might have I believe I mentioned the
last time we were here when we were kind
[44:06] of introducing the the parking um our
code currently allows for folks to ask
[44:13] or seek waivers um for parking and that
ranges between like 20 and 30% you can
[44:19] seek a waiver and so the majority of the
projects that we were seeing we had
[44:23] waivers people were asking for waivers
right um and that adds uncertainty to a
[44:30] project when you're trying to design and
develop hope they don't know if they're
[44:33] going to get the approval for the
waiver. Um, but what I've also when we
[44:38] were kind of doing this research, we um
reached out to some of the um the land
[44:44] use consultants and and the developers
and said, you know, hey, if we're going
[44:47] to do this, what what do you what do you
think you're going to do from a parking
[44:51] perspective? And what we're seeing and
what they said is no long they no longer
[44:57] are having to seek that waiver and
they're putting in about that about the
[45:02] same amount. So what you know they were
they were getting a waiver for 25%
[45:07] um and that's about what they're putting
in in most projects now. So but like
[45:12] Anya said a lot of these things haven't
been built yet. So we're not really sure
[45:17] but we can anecdotally tell you what
we've heard.
[45:24] When you you say you seek the advice of
commerce, who exactly is that?
[45:30] » Uh so the department of commerce had
been tasked with putting out some
[45:34] guidance for interpreting and
implementing um Senate Bill 5184 that
[45:40] parking reform modern modernization act.
Um so through my participation on um
[45:47] sort of a task force um of various
um people from different cities we had a
[45:54] lot of conversations about um putting
this guidance together and when they put
[45:58] out the draft recommendations
um we had the opportunity to comment and
[46:04] ask questions and so I had a specific
contact at the department of commerce
[46:08] who was spearheading this specific
guidance project. Um, so she was helping
[46:14] with the interpretation of that um of
the ADA parking was one of the questions
[46:20] that I had.
>> And then uh when we talked about
[46:23] switching gears for bicycle parking and
shortterm
[46:27] uh and the the U's, we're talking about
the upside down U's, is that when you
[46:32] say one spot, is that one U that could
accommodate two bikes, two different
[46:37] bikes,
>> right? Yeah, that would be two stalls
[46:41] with a U rack.
>> One U rack equals two two bicycle stalls
[46:55] » and I didn't mention this in the
presentation but one of the um intents
[46:58] of the updates was also to have some
more specific guidance um on dimensions
[47:04] for bicycle parking spaces. So there's
[clears throat] some there's a table of
[47:09] minimum dimensions based on the
configuration of the bicycle parking um
[47:15] as well as some diagrams
um that would show kind of the spacing
[47:21] and hopefully help developers um
understand
[47:27] yeah making sure ex that the bike
parking is also adequate to actually fit
[47:31] the bikes.
[47:39] Did you find when you were talking about
the long-term bike um storage, is there
[47:46] a specific verbiage that you found
somewhere that said lighting and
[47:52] » it's in there? Okay.
>> Yeah. I was wondering about the long
[47:57] term because it's a little bit more I
don't know. It's it's covered. So,
[48:01] you've got that aspect of it. And it I
believe it doesn't say that it's allowed
[48:04] to be in the ride ofway. Um,
for those projects, I mean, in in a lot
[48:11] of cases, you might just have like two
parking spaces or it's not a huge number
[48:15] in a lot of circumstances, but those
would already be required in our urban
[48:20] villages. Correct. Is that kind of where
we've got that in our current zoning?
[48:26] Yeah, we've had um bicycle parking
requirements for short-term and
[48:30] long-term bicycle parking and those have
been um applicable to all urban
[48:36] villages, but with the interim parking
ordinance that then became applicable
[48:41] citywide.
>> So, I'm wondering for the long-term bike
[48:45] storage, what are you seeing as like
some of the typical solutions for that
[48:49] since it does have to be more secure,
more better lit, have cover? Um what's
[48:54] kind of you know like do you know of of
projects that you know let's just
[48:58] suppose you've got two parking spaces
are you seeing like just overhangs of
[49:01] the roof or is it typically more of like
a a standalone structure or is it just
[49:06] really kind of run the gamut?
>> Um I think it's typically been a wide
[49:11] variety. Um what the change the ch one
of the changes I was proposing in the
[49:17] code has to do with um making sure that
the space is restricted access lockable
[49:23] um or an enclosure. Previously we had um
it was a lighter touch. That was what
[49:29] Portland's code had read that you could
have an attendant or a security camera
[49:33] for example. Um it has always required
been required to be um protected from
[49:40] the elements, protected from weather. So
it has to be covered. But this change
[49:46] would ensure just that there's some you
know secure access and not just um a
[49:51] cover with some monitoring.
>> Yeah. So from the ordinance, it looks
[49:58] like that the long-term is like if it's
not residential, it's probably more
[50:03] intended for people who work at the at
the building,
[50:08] » right? Yeah. The um purpose statement in
the ordinance talks about the purpose of
[50:12] long-term biking um or long-term bicycle
parking being for employees, residents,
[50:18] commuters, and others who stay at a site
for longer than several hours. Um, so it
[50:23] doesn't necessarily have to be um, yeah,
residence. It could be.
[50:28] » Yeah. I guess with the secure aspect of
it, I'm wondering if you're not like
[50:34] somehow like working there or something
like it just seems like you it needs to
[50:38] be secure. So it's not just you can't
just go put your bike there. So I don't
[50:43] really understand what would be, you
know, typical process if you're like,
[50:47] "Oh, I'm going to the library. I'm going
to be here for six hours." You know,
[50:49] like I need the secure parking. like
what's what's that look like? How do we
[50:53] keep it from being just like restricted
and not used um by the people who who
[50:58] might need it? Because it is going to be
controlled, I would think, by the people
[51:02] who who manage the buildings.
>> For a typical residential, it's the
[51:06] residence and there's a key like I've
seen it. It's like a room in the parking
[51:10] garage with the locking door. And for
residents, it makes sense. You have a
[51:13] key, it's the only people who live
there. as you get into like a medical
[51:17] office or theater, I guess it would only
really benefit the employees and they
[51:22] they would have a key or some other
secure access.
[51:25] » Um, and then the, you know, a guest of
that business would be using the
[51:29] short-term parking.
>> Yeah, that's kind of what it seemed like
[51:31] to me. I wasn't sure if there was some,
you know, because of how it is written,
[51:35] it just seemed like it's kind of written
in such a way that it it almost sounds
[51:38] like, you know, I'm going to be here for
a while, so I need cover for my nice
[51:43] bicycle. Um I mean I think the the the
secure access means there's a key or a
[51:48] code or some other you know secure
access. So it sort of implies a
[51:51] long-term relationship like employee or
resident.
[51:55] » So the terminology like long-term
short-term maybe doesn't
[52:00] » declinate it easily.
>> Yeah I think that's generally correct.
[52:05] It's, you know, kind of the
distinguishing between visitors and
[52:08] people who are um, you know, more
established like employees or commuters
[52:13] or residents at at a location.
[52:27] So, um, with parking in areas like
Cordata and the mall and places like
[52:33] that, there's ample parking, you know,
like you said, there's there's lots of
[52:38] spaces and stuff, but um, how is this
going to affect areas like, let's say,
[52:42] Fair Haven where it's super congested
and everything already, and I see a lot
[52:47] of growth happening there. Um, how is it
going to affect that? And has there been
[52:53] any thought put into possibly doing like
maybe another parking garage or
[52:58] something somewhere similar to what they
did on Mount Vernon that has um it's got
[53:02] like 70 EV spots in it and some I think
it's got like nine uh bike charging
[53:09] stations. Um has there been any thought
of something like that in areas that are
[53:13] already congested?
So we don't have any proposal for a new
[53:19] infrastructure at this time to support
um parking. It is all um yeah very
[53:25] unique and elaborate science parking
management and our public works
[53:29] department does an excellent job kind of
monitoring um through data parking usage
[53:34] um utilization times of times of day um
parking rate cost. So all of that um
[53:42] kind of science goes into figuring out
how to manage the public parking. Um as
[53:48] far as the private parking um and kind
of spill over, you know, we have some
[53:52] residential parking zones. So those are
adjacent to Western Washington
[53:57] University. Um so that's one parking
management tool. There's also our
[54:03] parking management um
parking management zones which are right
[54:08] now just Fair Haven and downtown. Um
gives the city authority to um either
[54:13] provide timerestricted parking um limits
on paid parking, parking garages, all of
[54:20] that happens within those parking
management zones. um and potentially
[54:26] expanding those to other urban villages.
Um and always kind of managing um yeah,
[54:31] what our parking looks like over time as
part of that parking management approach
[54:36] that we currently do and will continue
to do. Um
[54:41] as well as with um kind of enforcement
of parking residential areas that also
[54:47] happens. Um so we have a lot of
different tools to do that citywide.
[54:53] I'll just add on a little bit to that.
Um Blake Lion, director of planning
[54:57] community development. The city did
expand the paid parking areas in Fair
[55:02] Haven to do exactly what Anya was
talking about which to manage a slightly
[55:06] broader perspective. But it also speaks
a little bit to those mode shift goals,
[55:12] you know, and trying to think about um
opportunities and and
[55:17] you know, if if there is a constrain
resource, then maybe maybe somebody
[55:21] makes an intentional choice to do
something other than that. And so it
[55:24] serves that purpose as well.
[55:32] » I have a question. Anya, at the
beginning of your presentation,
[55:36] um, you brought up another six-month
extension to study the parking. I
[55:42] thought at the last meeting we had a
motion and a second not to extend.
[55:48] » Yeah, we talked about um moving. Yes, we
talked about the goal of not extending
[55:52] the interim parking ordinance and moving
forward with the permanent regulations.
[55:56] Um, and like I was mentioning in the
presentation, the only reason we're
[56:00] requesting an extension is to just allow
for adequate time for this public review
[56:06] process since the type six process um
requires multiple public hearings with
[56:12] planning commission as well as city
council. if you were to have an
[56:15] additional work session, if city council
wanted, you know, several um
[56:21] [clears throat] opportunities to talk
about this topic further and wasn't
[56:24] ready to vote. Um the time constraints
are just pretty significant, too, with
[56:29] how far out we have to notice some of
those hearings. Um, so we just realized
[56:34] in order to do um the process justice
and not um yeah, rush through and make
[56:42] sure we are checking off all the boxes,
that's why we're asking for the
[56:45] extension. But we don't expect it to
take an additional six months. It's just
[56:50] that's the standard um timeline for
extending an interim ordinance. So it
[56:56] gives us flexibility between when the
interim expires at the end of July um
[57:02] and when um
yeah when we finalize those permanent
[57:08] regulations so that there's not a
basically like a gap where we have to
[57:13] revert back to what was previously in
code. that would have been more
[57:17] challenging is to have the interim
expire, have to go back to what was
[57:23] previously in place and Anya mentioned a
number of the state laws. So, we can't
[57:28] really go all the way back to where it
was and then to have this consideration.
[57:33] So, extending that interim one more time
gives us the bridge we need to get to
[57:39] the permanent ordinance. So, we're not
going to tow the full six months, but we
[57:43] just needed that so it doesn't not
bouncing all over the place.
[57:46] Given where you're at right now, you
think it's a few month
[57:51] deadline, not a six month?
>> As as Anya mentioned, I mean, this is
[57:54] this is the start of the type six
process. We've got the council timeline
[58:01] already laid out, but we don't want to
paint you or the council into a corner.
[58:06] If you want time to talk more uh
extensively about those things, we
[58:11] wanted to make sure we had that
opportunity for you to do that.
[58:20] I think I was wondering just about
ebikes and I see that we're putting like
[58:25] 5% of the spaces that are in the larger
projects where you'd have 20 long-term
[58:32] bicycle parking spaces uh for electric
sockets there. And
[58:39] I'm just wondering like, you know, that
seems like a kind of just a a number
[58:44] that we just kind of pick out of a hat
potentially. And you know, to me it
[58:49] seems like that's getting pretty common,
which then makes me wonder if you have a
[58:54] development, you got 20 spaces, you got
5% of those 20 spaces for electrical,
[59:01] then it I don't know, in in some ways it
just seems almost like an inconvenience
[59:05] to even have to provide any because
you're only providing such a small
[59:09] number. Um I don't know. I have a hard
time with these things that are kind of
[59:13] like we're providing just a little bit,
but we're not really providing enough
[59:16] for it to be more than just like one or
two people. Um, by then increasing kind
[59:22] of the complexity of any project of
saying, "Oh, now I have to have one
[59:27] giant parking space for a huge bike with
a, you know, a a carrier in the front
[59:33] and some electrical to this location
that maybe I wasn't planning on putting
[59:38] electrical." I know it's just like you
can plan for stuff. you can design for
[59:41] it. So, it's not like you can't make
this work. But then I also kind of
[59:44] wonder it's like what if you have two
people with these big bikes, you know,
[59:47] do they arm wrestle? Like how how does
this work? So, I I have a hard time
[59:52] sometimes with adding complexity to
projects where I don't know that it's
[59:55] really serving enough people. Um, so I I
just curious what your thoughts are on
[1:00:00] that.
[1:00:04] » Um, yeah. Yeah. Well, the main impetus
for this code change was um and this was
[1:00:09] taken from um what Portland has in their
code. Uh so good inspiration for how
[1:00:16] they changed their code since 2019
um because of the acknowledgement of the
[1:00:20] increased use of ebikes, cargo bikes,
large bikes, things like that. So
[1:00:27] um I mean this would only apply when you
have at least 20 long-term bicycle
[1:00:31] parking spaces. So I would also assume
that the project is pretty um large that
[1:00:37] it could accommodate some electrical
that it's not um that it wouldn't be too
[1:00:41] c too cumbersome because it wouldn't
apply for some you know [snorts] a
[1:00:45] project that had five stalls required
but um
[1:00:50] I think you know there's a lot to be
seen for how
[1:00:53] things move forward with the usage of
cargo bikes ebikes and um things like
[1:00:58] that but some consideration of it I
think makes for a more accessible
[1:01:05] um parking stall that or bicycle parking
stall that accommodates more people and
[1:01:11] of all abilities and ages and things
like that too. So I think that's the
[1:01:16] importance of it.
Yeah, for me I just see it as kind of
[1:01:19] being challenging to like feel like that
it's not just like you got one person in
[1:01:24] their hog in the one space, you know?
It's like, dang it, Bill's always got
[1:01:28] his bicycle there, you know, and I
really need to charge and it just lives
[1:01:31] there all the time. And it's like it's
like, is it enough? You know, like in
[1:01:35] some ways I feel like it might maybe
should be more or not at all, you know?
[1:01:39] It's like I don't know. It just seem it
seems like kind of with the way that
[1:01:43] we're going with that technology, it's
it kind of seems low.
[1:01:47] » I kind of akin it to um
van stall spaces for ADA. So you right.
[1:01:54] So so you have certain number of ADA
spaces that have to have the additional
[1:01:59] room to get out of those, but not all
ADA spaces have to be. So we had to
[1:02:04] start somewhere with this idea. We know
that ebikes, we know that cargo bikes
[1:02:08] and some of these largers are a smaller
percentage of the bike fleet that's out
[1:02:13] there. So, we felt like we wanted to
take an attempt at accommodating those.
[1:02:18] If the need grows and changes, we can
certainly, you know, try to be adaptive.
[1:02:22] But the idea was to accommodate what we
anticipate right now and then monitor it
[1:02:28] and see if we need to adjust moving
forward.
[1:02:33] on that point of monitoring like what is
there a plan in place to monitor I think
[1:02:38] both in terms of um parking in general
um to see land use is slow and these
[1:02:44] things take a long time um to see the
impacts but is there a monitoring plan
[1:02:50] in place so that we can evaluate the
effectiveness of of the code changes
[1:03:00] » um well as I mentioned with the parking
management approaches that we looked at.
[1:03:04] Um we've been in conversation citywide
with other departments with leadership
[1:03:09] about the importance of um continuing to
implement those. So I think those um
[1:03:16] parking management strategies really go
handinhand with the permanent
[1:03:19] regulations. But I do think it is
important that we have future discussion
[1:03:23] on not only the topics that I mentioned
but also on um the impacts that we're
[1:03:29] seeing uh with um vehicle parking with
bicycle parking. We know that we have um
[1:03:35] obviously a lot more code updates to do
and especially as we consolidate um and
[1:03:41] kind of restructure our code too. I'm
sure there'll be future opportunities um
[1:03:48] to make changes to um the proposed
amendments that we have outlined today,
[1:03:54] especially as some of the terminology
even changes with, you know, our use of
[1:03:58] single family or infill housing and all
of what we tried to do was a code
[1:04:03] cleanup without um kind of overhauling
the whole code right now just to make
[1:04:08] sure that we can get the permanent
standards in place. Um, but I would say
[1:04:13] that's kind of the next
um the next step is making changes as
[1:04:18] needed to the code and continuing to um
implement all those parking management
[1:04:24] approaches.
>> I [clears throat] was thinking about the
[1:04:27] um like the initial ADU codes and it was
like after 200 units we're going to
[1:04:33] re-evaluate and then that happened like
way faster than we expected. Um, and
[1:04:37] then like uh MFTTE is one where there
was it was like evaluate as needed and
[1:04:43] then it never got evaluated again. Um,
so I'm wondering if there's any
[1:04:50] any [clears throat] metrics to put in
place that would make sense in terms of
[1:04:53] like um to sort of ensure that
monitoring is happening and that there's
[1:04:58] a report that comes out so that it's
um less just anecdotal people saying
[1:05:04] like there's never any parking or um or
my bike never fits in a spot. Um, so
[1:05:10] just like curious if there's like
anything we might explore in that area.
[1:05:18] » I go back to what Anya said and what
we've we've talked about this whole um
[1:05:22] kind of process. It's a two-step
process, right? And we want to get the
[1:05:25] the minimums out there first and we need
time to evaluate it. um we need projects
[1:05:31] to go out there. And so that's always
been our thought is let's not have this
[1:05:37] two-year check-in because we don't know
what's going to happen in two years. Are
[1:05:40] we going to get enough development to
actually be able to determine that or
[1:05:43] you know is it should it be a one-year
report? Well, we don't really know. So,
[1:05:47] um I think knowing that parking
management strategies is that next phase
[1:05:52] and it's something that works handinhand
with this. Um, I do believe that as more
[1:05:59] projects are developed, um, and if they
choose to put less parking in it, we're
[1:06:05] going to hear about it, right? And so
the people will be calling us if they
[1:06:10] don't have parking. I mean, we still we
get calls right now, I can't park in
[1:06:15] front of my house. Um, [laughter]
so, um, I I think that knowing that this
[1:06:21] is a two-step phase, knowing that we
need to have examples in place and in
[1:06:27] the construction climate right now, um,
things are slowing down a little bit,
[1:06:31] right? Um, it's it may take more than
two years. It may take three or five
[1:06:36] years for us to have enough data to be
able to see what the true impacts are.
[1:06:41] Um, but it's something that I think
we're committed to. Um, and codes are
[1:06:47] they're dynamic. They don't have to be
um they're forever. They take a little
[1:06:52] they take a long time to change, but um
they can change. I think it's also
[1:06:58] important to
allow for some level setting on some of
[1:07:03] this stuff where you know you have a
people uh inherently are creatures of
[1:07:09] habit and we have our things that we
like and a new project may come online
[1:07:15] and disrupt that pattern or that
behavior and all of a sudden you have to
[1:07:21] establish a new normal. And so we we
don't want to be so reactionary that
[1:07:27] we're always trying to chase our tail
around some of this stuff, but we do
[1:07:31] want to we want to be responsive. We
want to understand that kind of stuff.
[1:07:34] Um, you know, some of us that have
worked in other jurisdictions, myself
[1:07:37] included, you know, have gone through
big pendulum swings when it comes to
[1:07:42] some of this parking stuff. And I think,
you know, giving our ch ourselves the
[1:07:46] chance to kind of think through what
those are, see new projects come online,
[1:07:50] let things normalize a little bit,
hopefully continue to encourage that
[1:07:53] mode shift and drive some of those, you
know, kind of alternative choices and
[1:07:57] behaviors will help us give a much more
comprehensive look at the the issue.
[1:08:04] Well,
personally, it would be great to have
[1:08:09] some data on like what is working and
what is not. Um, so like if you're going
[1:08:15] into a project and in a certain, you
know, that's very neighborhood
[1:08:19] dependent, but is
how do I make sure our home buyers don't
[1:08:24] have fist fights in the parking lot?
[laughter]
[1:08:28] Um and and I think the like parking
management strategies is like a key
[1:08:34] piece to that obviously. Um, but also
like right sizing and um if developers
[1:08:42] you we I like to think that they're all
so smart that they're going to do the
[1:08:46] right thing and do it perfectly, but
like um how how can the city help to um
[1:08:52] provide that the data resource for
projects to to try and right size?
[1:09:04] Well, as Ana mentioned, we we do do it
for downtown and for Fair Haven. So, we
[1:09:08] definitely have, you know, we're going
back in and we're checking that. So,
[1:09:11] from those perspectives, we do have data
that can show um what our parking usage
[1:09:16] is down there. Um and we have expanded
our paid parking areas and our time
[1:09:21] limited parking in response to those
studies. So, there is information out on
[1:09:25] those two areas. Um maybe
>> there's conversation with our public
[1:09:29] works department as Ana was alluding to
looking at that extending out to the
[1:09:33] different urban villages um and
understanding. So I think we're building
[1:09:37] that level of matrix that you're looking
for um if there's areas of key concern.
[1:09:43] I mean that was part of why uh we we
took the direction of with the
[1:09:47] institutional master plans because we
knew those campuses had a more acute uh
[1:09:53] demand for that. And so the thought was
okay instead of just abolishing it
[1:09:57] entirely, let's let that process when we
go in and amend those institutional
[1:10:01] plans, we can talk very intentionally
and very specifically about those
[1:10:05] particular topics. And so it's just be I
I personally believe it's about being
[1:10:10] intentional about some of this. It's
helping people understand and create new
[1:10:13] habits and then being intentional when
we get to the point where we're doing
[1:10:17] our analysis and driving it off real
data.
[1:10:26] What did you mean in your presentation
when you said uh when it said repealing
[1:10:29] the Fair Haven Parking District?
[1:10:34] Um, so Kirk can probably talk about this
a little bit more, but the Fair Haven
[1:10:38] Parking District um
is codified in um the Fair Haven urban
[1:10:47] village code section, which I don't know
off the top of my head, but there's a
[1:10:50] map um and basically talks about the
resolution that established that parking
[1:10:54] district in which um people um yeah,
funds were pulled um in order to help
[1:11:04] support the creation of parking. But now
that we no longer have any parking
[1:11:09] requirements in Fair Haven um or minimum
number of parking stalls um that
[1:11:15] wouldn't be relevant anymore. Um so the
intent is to repeal that with this
[1:11:21] ordinance.
[1:11:33] just from a functional way it works if
and I you guys don't live in the code
[1:11:38] the way we do but um you can go
throughout our Bellingham municipal code
[1:11:44] and you will see sections in there and
it still has the numerical and then next
[1:11:48] to it it says repealed. So this is not
an uncommon practice as as these codes
[1:11:54] evolve over the course of time. There
are sections that when originally
[1:11:59] written are no longer relevant and so we
pull back on that stuff quite quickly.
[1:12:03] » Yeah. I just didn't know there were
funds collected for a special fair haven
[1:12:07] parking district.
>> Yeah. So, back in the early 90s is when
[1:12:12] the first district was created, and it
was um it was essentially the the
[1:12:16] business owners getting together and um
pooling some funds to pay for parking
[1:12:21] upfront. Um and then when those property
owners that had paid into that fund to
[1:12:28] create that early parking, they received
the benefit of not having to pay to
[1:12:32] provide parking for their commercial
developments. Um and so the our code has
[1:12:37] allowed the creation of parking
districts ever since then and the only
[1:12:41] two that we really have been in Fair
Haven. Um and the first one was really
[1:12:46] to try and stimulate extra on street
parking the creation of it. And the
[1:12:51] business owners took it upon themselves
to go ahead and do that. And the
[1:12:54] trade-off was if you're going to create
that extra parking, we're not going to
[1:12:58] we're not going to make you put more
parking in again.
[1:13:01] » Yeah,
>> that makes sense. Overall, this is just
[1:13:05] a comment. I like you guys are taking
the progressive approach um with parking
[1:13:11] and it's all in direction of the the
major goal which is more affordable
[1:13:16] housing.
And I realized that by adopting this,
[1:13:21] it's not a one-sizefits-all.
the guy that came uh Alex from uh Happy
[1:13:27] Valley. I mean,
when this gets adopted and those
[1:13:32] developments get approved and it's most
likely student housing and more people,
[1:13:38] more cars on the street and Happy Valley
has narrow streets and um ditches, no
[1:13:44] sidewalks, it's going to be a mess. So,
I'm sensitive to that that, you know,
[1:13:50] it's it's for the good of the community
and and to be able to push to uh provide
[1:13:56] more affordable housing for people
because that's what everybody's saying
[1:14:00] they want, but it's going to negatively
affect the neighborhoods.
[1:14:05] One of the things we haven't really
talked about extensively this evening,
[1:14:08] but when you talk about the infill and
and the middle housing approach,
[1:14:13] um much of the frontage improvements are
triggered as a result of that new
[1:14:18] development. And so we've been spending
uh what seems like an exhaustive amount
[1:14:23] of time talking about those different
requirements for uh improving that
[1:14:29] frontage, making that walkability,
making that connection. So, you're
[1:14:32] right. There are certain neighborhoods
throughout the city where there's a
[1:14:38] little more work to be done. Uh, the
roadside ditches are probably the most
[1:14:42] um impactful piece for Happy Valley
because you can't, you know, you're
[1:14:48] going to have to think through storm
water. You're going to have to think
[1:14:50] through uh sidewalk creation. So,
there's a maybe a bigger swing of the
[1:14:55] pendulum that needs to occur there. But
that's a conversation that we continue
[1:15:00] to have very routinely with our public
works folks f folks and with uh
[1:15:05] developers as new projects come on
board. Part of what's going into
[1:15:08] consideration is um you know right now
as it sits is there's a requirement to
[1:15:14] do your own frontage in front of your
particular project. Um as infill occurs
[1:15:20] it's often a patchwork quilt. You know
it's like here and there and a little
[1:15:24] bit of all over the place. And so
there's a discussion about what what
[1:15:28] does that take to connect those pieces
and not just end up with little
[1:15:32] segments. And some of that may be public
works projects. Some of that may be just
[1:15:36] looking at stuff a little closer, but
it's being intentional about and we were
[1:15:41] just recently adopting the pros plan and
looking at trail connections and all
[1:15:45] these kind of different corridors. So
it's really kind of a yes and approach
[1:15:48] where we have to look at a lot of things
and start to weave that all together.
[1:15:53] Parking is one of those. uh and
certainly helps facilitate that growth
[1:15:57] and that growth will then result in more
sidewalks and more walkability and
[1:16:01] additional trails. And so it hopefully
will all, you know, we're in that kind
[1:16:05] of we always talk about it in that kind
of early teen phase where we're feeling
[1:16:09] a little awkward in our own skin, you
know, and we've got to get a little bit
[1:16:13] more critical mass and get a few of
those connections really pulled
[1:16:16] together, but that comes with the course
time. Is there conversation uh in
[1:16:21] planning? If a developer uh was looking
and say he is development took up a
[1:16:26] quarter block and he was responsible for
improving his own frontage, would you
[1:16:30] require then uh to say well you need to
put sidewalks in all the way around the
[1:16:35] block? Is it past the development
property?
[1:16:39] » Um it is the frontage for that
particular property. there is a uh
[1:16:46] discussion where if there is some
environmental analysis, some sea
[1:16:50] analysis that goes along with that,
there's an opportunity to talk about
[1:16:54] whether or not there's a need, but we
have to have what's considered um a
[1:17:00] nexus to ask for it. And we also have to
have what's called rough
[1:17:04] proportionality, which means it has to
be commensurate with the size of the
[1:17:08] project. I can't come in and say, "Hey,
you're building an 8-unit project. I
[1:17:12] need you to rebuild the I-5 interchange.
Yeah.
[1:17:14] » You know, so there has to be that kind
of nexus where you're you're making sure
[1:17:19] that it's corresponding to what the
scope and the scale of the project is.
[1:17:23] So yes, there are opportunities to do
that. I don't want to mislead you. It's
[1:17:27] not on every project. It's on certain
projects that have impacts that we have
[1:17:31] to look at a little bit.
>> That's good. Thank you.
[1:17:37] » I guess just a quick comment. I feel
like um when we discussed this and I
[1:17:43] don't know when was that May when we
talked about this um previously answered
[1:17:48] most of my questions. So um
I think I just wanted to express support
[1:17:53] for for this moving forward and
appreciation for for all the work that
[1:17:57] you've done. I don't know what the
amendment process looks like. I wasn't
[1:18:04] going to say this at all, but then
actually um your comments about um code
[1:18:09] taking a long time to change made me
think, oh, maybe I should say this now.
[1:18:13] Um but I I do think um that the the
retail and the eating and drinking
[1:18:20] establishments, the short-term biking
requirements are a little low. like I
[1:18:24] feel like I I bike everywhere and then I
do already struggle to find places to
[1:18:30] lock up, you know, outside of a brewery
or in other locations now. So, if we are
[1:18:35] expecting the the mode shift, that piece
does feel a little low to me in ways
[1:18:40] that maybe the other ones don't. Um,
and I wasn't going to say anything cuz I
[1:18:46] largely support all this moving forward
expeditiously and that feels rather
[1:18:50] small, but um, I'm not sure if we wanted
to revisit the specific numbers and
[1:18:56] taking it into consideration public
comment and stuff. Does that derail us
[1:19:01] taking this to city council and like
what does those small tweaks kind of
[1:19:06] process look like?
>> Well, the commission has the ability to
[1:19:09] make amendments to the codes tonight. So
you could make a motion to amend and
[1:19:14] give a spec specific number and then if
the commission, you know, had a second
[1:19:18] and then chose to amend that, then that
would just go forward. So you have the
[1:19:23] ability to make a motions and make
changes as we move it forward instead of
[1:19:28] coming back at a later time. You can do
it tonight.
[1:19:33] that amendment to up the I mean it's a
pretty cheap requirement
[1:19:38] to require a few extra use for
short-term bicycle parking
[1:19:44] » just to provide a little more comment on
that. So, um, for context, we previously
[1:19:49] had retail sales and service as one
category. Um, and so the proposal is to
[1:19:56] now separate eating and drinking
establishments, which includes grocery,
[1:20:01] to split that off from retail, sales,
and service because in my um research of
[1:20:06] what other jurisdictions have done and
other best practices, those are often
[1:20:10] separated. Um, in order to also increase
eating and drinking establishments and
[1:20:17] grocery, um, we recommend a one per
2,000 square foot ratio rather than a
[1:20:23] one per 5,000 which it was previously
um, which was consistent with yeah some
[1:20:30] of the the guide um, the APBP and the
BSA guide um, and change lab. So kind of
[1:20:38] it seems like the numbers that I found
hovered between like 1 and 2,000. Um so
[1:20:43] that could obviously be increased if
that was the desire. And the retail
[1:20:47] sales didn't propose a change there
because um because of the numbers being
[1:20:54] pretty in line with the range um but
also the range I found was like one
[1:21:00] stall for 2,000 to 5,000. So,
um
[1:21:07] » I would just offer like you could make a
motion to amend with concrete numbers
[1:21:12] tonight or you could make a motion to
like have staff research increasing
[1:21:16] these and then they could bring that new
direction to the city level
[1:21:22] if you didn't have like exact figures in
mind.
[1:21:24] » You knew my next concern. Oh, no. I
didn't count the number. [laughter]
[1:21:28] No, Anna, super helpful how you laid
this out showing what Seattle and
[1:21:32] Portland's and then some of the national
guides recommendations are for for
[1:21:36] grounding and and context. So, um I
think you've clearly done a lot of
[1:21:41] research of of what is comparable and
why did you arrive at um at these
[1:21:46] numbers. I think maybe if I were to
propose something, it would just be
[1:21:49] going to the, you know, closer to
Seattle or Portland's, which seem to be
[1:21:55] a little um
more dense. I'm sorry, I'm not thinking
[1:21:59] of the right word, but more bikes per
per square foot um or storage than the
[1:22:04] than the national guides. Um so, I think
maybe if I were to propose a motion
[1:22:09] tonight, it would it would just be
adopting one of those. That doesn't seem
[1:22:13] that far. I don't know. Should I
[laughter]
[1:22:15] » should we do this?
Um, so then would that just be for the
[1:22:20] two for the retail sales and the eating
and and drinking establishments?
[1:22:27] What do what do others think?
>> Retail's currently at one per 5,000 and
[1:22:34] eating and drinking is one per 2,000
square feet.
[1:22:39] » Or a minimum of two. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:22:40] » And you were just talking about short
term, was that correct?
[1:22:43] » Yeah. per our conversation earlier, I
feel like maybe the the long term is in
[1:22:50] line with what the the other and the
guides are saying is appropriate for
[1:22:55] kind of the and they've obviously done
way more analysis than I have on the
[1:23:00] employee consideration. So, yeah,
thinking more on the short term. If
[1:23:04] people want to eat and drink at those
establishments, they're, you know,
[1:23:07] rolling up on their bike for a couple
hours,
[1:23:11] I think. Yeah.
Um,
[1:23:15] does anyone else have anything to say
while I think about this for a second?
[1:23:19] » No, I support it [clears throat] though.
I think make the motion.
[1:23:23] » Okay. So then if I
were to do um to take Seattle's so then
[1:23:30] that would for the eating and drinking
establishments and grocery
[1:23:35] that would move from the recommended one
per 2,000 square foot to one per 1,000
[1:23:42] square foot.
And then the
[1:23:46] um
the retail sales
[1:23:51] um would move
um from one per 5,000 square foot to one
[1:23:58] per 2,000 square foot if we took
Seattle's
[1:24:03] for both of those two categories.
So I guess yeah. Okay. is a motion to
[1:24:10] amend the retail sales and service and
the eating and drinking establishments
[1:24:15] and grocery to adopt um the Seattle's
um short-term spaces
[1:24:25] numbers. [laughter]
>> Would you like that citywide or just
[1:24:29] urban villages or what's your do you
have any thoughts on that?
[1:24:36] question
[1:24:39] weigh you have a thought
>> I guess
[1:24:42] » no I just wanted to make I I'm just
thinking about our levels of density and
[1:24:46] urbanity are still different than
Seattle's at this point and so I wasn't
[1:24:51] sure if that was my question for
clarification if you were particularly
[1:24:55] thinking about you know downtown
waterfront urban villages um where you
[1:25:01] have that higher uh walkability context
or you know um because it may not be as
[1:25:10] broadly applicable if you're talking
about you know uh let's say sunset uh
[1:25:15] square out you know out that way but
>> this is the exact issue that I've been
[1:25:21] struggling with in my head thinking
about this is I love the idea of very
[1:25:26] universal like one city and at the same
and also like build it and they will
[1:25:33] come attitude ude. Uh, and then at the
same time,
[1:25:38] I know there are areas where biking
[clears throat] is very unfriendly and
[1:25:42] people aren't going to do it. And if you
put in those racks, they're just going
[1:25:45] to sit there. It's not because there
aren't bike racks that people aren't
[1:25:49] biking. Um, so I'm I struggle with that
with the context that it goes in.
[1:26:00] I mean, the conversation of um Texas
Roadhouse, you know, it's kind of like
[1:26:04] it's it's a great idea to have lots of
parking, bike parking out there, but is
[1:26:08] that a spot where people are actually
riding bikes? And so that, you know,
[1:26:12] kind of gets into like our our biggest
demand and largest some of our largest
[1:26:16] spaces are going to be in locations
where there's maybe less cyclists. But
[1:26:23] at the same time, I feel like that we
are, you know, we've got ebikes, we've
[1:26:27] got all these things that are making
biking even easier for more people to
[1:26:31] get around and use that as a mode of
transportation. That makes me kind of
[1:26:35] want to shift towards like being outward
looking and saying, "Well, if we do it,
[1:26:39] then maybe we're on the cusp of kind of
a a broader change and more people could
[1:26:44] do it. If it it's kind of like if they
build it, will they come?" Um, and it's
[1:26:49] like, yeah, a lot of us probably
wouldn't do it because we, you know, we
[1:26:53] just don't think it's an option in some
ways. So, it's like I I probably support
[1:26:58] something that's pushing a little bit
further because I don't I mean, I draw
[1:27:02] these things and and you know, that's
like part of what I do is like try to
[1:27:06] figure out where to put these things on
a project and it's like if you know
[1:27:09] upfront and it's not a huge cost, it's
not that big of a deal. Um, and it's
[1:27:13] just spy rack, you know? It's like it's
you can probably you can probably figure
[1:27:17] it out. It's not going to like ruin the
project. Um I I'll after this I'll
[1:27:23] probably get into something that where
I'm trying to get rid of something on
[1:27:26] there, you know, but um for that I feel
like it's kind of an easy lift.
[1:27:30] » So for Texas Roadhouse there's like a
100 spare parking spots you could turn
[1:27:34] into bike racks and there's no limiting
factor there. My worry is again that the
[1:27:39] downtown zero lot line and I just looked
up on city IQ if my math is right. You
[1:27:44] take like the new Limelight or Red Light
or the Grand A right there on that
[1:27:49] street. They're about 6,000 square feet
buildings, usually one story.
[1:27:54] The new proposal would be six bike racks
at a drinking eating establishment.
[1:28:00] 6,000 square feet. You could probably
fit that on the sidewalk.
[1:28:05] Is it six bikes and three racks? Okay.
I've been [laughter]
[1:28:09] » You could also fit it where a parkless
is. You could fit it in one parking
[1:28:13] spot.
>> Well, three U rack seems great,
[1:28:15] actually. So,
>> I will I will
[1:28:18] I did try to install a U bike rack into
a parking spot and uh it doesn't stay
[1:28:25] like people can just He-Man it right out
of the out of the asphalt. Turns out,
[1:28:30] didn't know that was possible, but it's
true.
[1:28:32] » They probably [laughter] bumped into it.
It's
[1:28:34] » no
>> and this is not a universal statement,
[1:28:37] but I would, you know, uh if you can
envision in your mind the Mount Baker
[1:28:42] Theater, right? And uh you've got the
building that's all the way to the back
[1:28:46] of sidewalk. You've got sidewalk. There
are street lights. Often times the bike
[1:28:52] racks can go in line with the street
lights and other, you know, you know,
[1:28:58] street trees and other things that are
there. so you're not disrupting the kind
[1:29:03] of pedestrian walkway experience and you
can find opportunities. Um, oftentimes
[1:29:08] there's parking meters in those areas
and things like that. So, yes, there is
[1:29:12] a competition for space, but if you
think about the way that those racks are
[1:29:18] installed and at, you know, at what
position, you can often times get them
[1:29:23] kind of in line with some of that other
street furniture, if you will.
[1:29:27] uh you know again still going to be
competing for space but but there's
[1:29:30] plenty of opportunities to do that in a
kind of down in the downtown
[1:29:33] environment.
>> I guess in light of this conversation
[1:29:37] and kind of the build it and they'll
come mentality in addition to maybe
[1:29:41] reducing administrative complexity since
all of these others apply everywhere. Um
[1:29:47] and given the low cost of installing
this infrastructure, I guess I would say
[1:29:52] to your question like um like a
universal
[1:29:55] » city
>> citywide application
[1:29:58] » and in large part our grocery stores are
not as concentrated in urban villages.
[1:30:04] So I mean you think about trying to ride
to Trader Joe's as an example or one of
[1:30:09] the you know the co-op that's out in
Cordata,
[1:30:12] you know that this would align with that
line of thinking.
[1:30:17] Just for clarification, I think we had a
motion, but did we do we have a second?
[1:30:23] » I second it for Okay,
>> there's a motion for city one.
[1:30:27] » Okay, we have a motion, a second. And do
you all feel good about recording this
[1:30:32] for what we've actually put out there?
Okay. Okay. I guess uh yeah, let's take
[1:30:36] a vote. Um so all
>> I'm going to just re restate it.
[1:30:42] » Let me that way I think we understand
it. So there's uh the motion was to
[1:30:48] change the retail sales and service uh
category to one per two one per 2,000
[1:30:56] square ft and the eating and drinking
establishment and groceries all to one
[1:31:01] per 1,000 square feet citywide.
Those were the two categories and those
[1:31:08] that's both based off of these Seattle
numbers that
[1:31:11] » are provided on page 10.
>> Yep. Exhibit B.
[1:31:15] » Okay. So, we have a motion and a second.
Is there any further discussion?
[1:31:22] » Is there any facility for a variance if
a weird situation comes up that this is
[1:31:28] impeding some part of the feasibility of
the plan? We've had that for parking
[1:31:33] requirements for a long time. We're sort
of getting rid of parking requirements
[1:31:36] and suddenly upping the the bike
requirements. If we find ourselves
[1:31:40] stuck, do you have the power to grant a
variance? Um we did build that into the
[1:31:46] code an administrative waiver um based
on physical site constraints which would
[1:31:53] prevent full compliance with the
standards if there's no feasible
[1:31:56] alternative location um within a
reasonable walking distance or if um
[1:32:03] alternative short-term or long-term
biccope parking can be provided within a
[1:32:07] reasonable walking distance that
provides sufficient capacity um to meet
[1:32:11] the demand generated by the use. Um, so
there is that flexibility um for the
[1:32:18] director to make some modifications. And
I guess it should also just be noted
[1:32:24] that the in thinking about the
applicability of the bike parking, we
[1:32:28] did want to be mindful of like change of
use situations for existing buildings.
[1:32:33] So, we tried to limit the bike parking
applying for new construction or if
[1:32:38] there's an addition to an existing
building that's more than 25% of the
[1:32:42] gross floor area, if you're c creating
new dwelling units. Um, or if there's a
[1:32:48] change of use that would result in
increased bike parking demand of more
[1:32:52] than 50%. Um so just trying to be
mindful except especially for our urban
[1:32:58] villages where things are really tight
and um you know it's harder to in yeah
[1:33:05] provide all that bike parking if it's
already well established and a building
[1:33:10] is constructed.
That makes me really a lot more
[1:33:14] comfortable with this change.
>> I feel like we're moving in the right
[1:33:18] direction. We're taking away the need
for parking waiverss and implementing
[1:33:21] bike wavers. [laughter]
All
[1:33:25] » [snorts]
[1:33:27] » right, everybody ready to vote? Okay, if
you're in favor, I
[1:33:33] » I
>> I
[1:33:34] » I. Anyone opposed?
[1:33:39] » All right. Thanks. Motion
>> for one other thought just on the line
[1:33:43] of what you were saying. I wanted you to
vote first, but um the city also is
[1:33:48] looking at reducing the speed tables
across the city too. So that's going to
[1:33:55] by default
help to not only I mean I know the the
[1:34:00] one question that comes up oftentimes is
well how effective is that going to be
[1:34:04] if you don't have enforcement tools but
what it also does is it allows u the
[1:34:09] city traffic engineering staff to think
about roadway designs to design for
[1:34:15] slower speeds too. So hopefully all of
this again that you know duplicative
[1:34:20] approach allows for people to feel more
comfortable, more confident in riding in
[1:34:24] more parts of the city especially when
they don't feel like they're up against
[1:34:29] the conflict of a speeding vehicle. in
that regards all moving in the right
[1:34:33] direction.
[1:34:40] » I'm wanting to talk I guess a little bit
about the large bikes and partially it's
[1:34:45] I'm just trying to understand really
where you're like what are the projects
[1:34:50] that are going to have enough parking
that are like that we would potentially
[1:34:56] see on the horizon that would trigger
that. And so I was just like looking
[1:34:59] through all the lists of what we have
here and it's like I know we're not
[1:35:03] getting like a bunch of giant factories
coming into Bellingham, but maybe maybe
[1:35:07] we will. Um so then I'm like thinking
like okay industrial might be one of
[1:35:12] those where you know you get a a pretty
large factory and all of a sudden you've
[1:35:16] got long-term large bike parking. And so
I'm like wondering is is that
[1:35:21] applicable? I mean multif family seems
like the one that's probably going to
[1:35:25] trigger it the most. I mean, that's
going to be kind of like that's the main
[1:35:28] one. And I think that kind of makes
sense, you know, and I guess Rose, you
[1:35:32] probably deal with more multif family
than most people. So, it's like I'd be
[1:35:36] curious if you have any thoughts on
like, you know, like I honestly don't
[1:35:40] know a lot about these large bikes. So,
I feel kind of like, you know, how
[1:35:44] important are they for our our people um
to to have long-term parking for them?
[1:35:55] Well, I think it's I I think it's
interesting and uh that we are shifting
[1:36:02] from deregulating parking to regulating
bike parking and yet we're trying to say
[1:36:08] like developers are going to do the
what's right for the market,
[1:36:13] but bike parking they're probably not.
And and and I think to some degree like
[1:36:20] some of this has to happen over the
course of time and we I you know like we
[1:36:24] identify where the challenges are and
that's part of that monitoring and like
[1:36:28] coming up with best practices and being
able to um evaluate over time if
[1:36:36] people show up into their multifamily
rental and they all have big bikes and
[1:36:41] they you know trailers and the things
and I mean they're they're very fancy
[1:36:46] and they do very cool things and uh
people will have to adjust what their
[1:36:52] expectations are um both developers and
and residents.
[1:37:00] So I guess I'm saying let's not
overthink it.
[1:37:03] [laughter]
[1:37:06] Do does anyone here feel like that
there's a need to have large this is
[1:37:11] long-term parking spaces for large bikes
in anything other than multif family
[1:37:19] because I like I don't know I think if
you're working at a factory like ride
[1:37:24] something else. I don't know that's just
me. But
[1:37:27] » a big warehouse like can't you just like
store it on the shop floor? But we're
[1:37:32] talking about a designated long-term
bike space. I don't I mean I I guess I I
[1:37:38] don't know. I think they have to have
you have to meet all the criteria. It's
[1:37:41] like
>> um
[1:37:44] » I guess I feel like I'm still supportive
of it for employees because larger
[1:37:49] bikes, cargo bikes, etc. make it so much
more likely that somebody's actually
[1:37:54] going to commute to that place of
employment. Um, so I think yeah, I
[1:38:01] second what Rose said of and earlier of
just it's a place to start and then it
[1:38:06] can be adapted later. So I feel like I'm
fine with it as it is and then we'll
[1:38:11] kind of see how it goes. But I I hear
your points. Yeah, I guess I mean like
[1:38:16] like a theater, a museum, you know, like
with these different cases that you may
[1:38:21] just have large square footage and now
all of a sudden you've got to create a
[1:38:24] secure space for
one large bike. Like I don't know, seems
[1:38:31] odd to me. I'm not going to push for it
if people are kind of like h we're we're
[1:38:35] good with it. I just look at it as being
an annoyance when I'm doing a project
[1:38:38] and being kind of like was it worth it?
you know, and and maybe it was, but um
[1:38:43] but I'm sure I'll I'll be, you know,
angry about this in a year. [laughter]
[1:38:51] » I will say that I have seen more large
bikes that actually are designed for
[1:38:56] children, you know, so you can have the
children in the front. Oh, yeah, it's
[1:39:02] on. So that the children can be like in
the front and bicycle rather than having
[1:39:07] the toe behind. So that could be where
the multif family comes in because there
[1:39:12] are a lot of large ones that are meant
for transporting children, sometimes two
[1:39:19] on a bike. So
[1:39:23] » all right, I'm done. Thanks.
[1:39:32] I'll just take this time to remind
everybody thanks to Bellingham there's a
[1:39:36] beautiful bicycle valet during downtown
Sounds
[1:39:41] » if you if you haven't ever checked it
out it's really nice.
[1:39:53] How about just regarding any other
tweaks or adjustments to this ordinance
[1:39:58] other than the one that we've passed?
Okay. So, does anyone want to make a
[1:40:04] motion to push it forward as amended?
[1:40:12] I'll move to accept staff's
recommendation for uh approval of the
[1:40:17] draft ordinance with modification with
the one one amendment tonight and
[1:40:21] forward the draft findings and facts
conclusions and recommendations to city
[1:40:25] council.
>> Any any discussion?
[1:40:32] Okay. All in favor uh please say I. I.
>> I. Any opposed?
[1:40:40] All right, motion passes.
Congrats, Jamon.
[1:40:45] [laughter]
>> Um,
[1:40:52] » so one item that came up that um I know
there's the shoreline committee. I
[1:40:59] didn't know if this is this a good time
to address that. Um,
[1:41:07] » yes. who wants to be on it.
>> I mean, I guess it it probably is. Um
[1:41:12] because previous people who were on it,
I mean, who who was on that? Um Heather,
[1:41:17] do you know?
>> It's Steve Krooks and Olly Taiishi and
[1:41:21] Mike [laughter]
[1:41:27] the M. So, we changed the I did a few
shoreline committees when I was first on
[1:41:31] the plank commission. At some point we
changed it a few years ago to make it
[1:41:35] much much less frequent and only if a
project deemed by the chair is
[1:41:42] of significant public enough interest to
hold a shoreline community. Almost all
[1:41:46] shoreline permits
are like the port adding storm water to
[1:41:52] like some part of their property and
it's like very well done paperwork. Not
[1:41:56] really worth the time. Occasionally
something might come up of a major
[1:42:00] private project where it be interesting
and worthwhile to hold a shoreline
[1:42:03] committee, but we need to have three
people selected so that committee could
[1:42:07] meet in the event that an email comes
in. And currently I have to read all the
[1:42:12] emails and I want Jed to read the
emails. So [laughter]
[1:42:16] what we should do tonight is Jed should
appoint ideally himself and two others.
[1:42:21] I don't believe we have to vote on this.
It's just sort of the chair's
[1:42:25] appointment.
>> Yep. the chair gets to a point. So you
[1:42:28] can raise your hand and say you'd like
to and he can say yes or he can just
[1:42:33] draw names out of hat
>> and appoint you.
[1:42:36] » Boy,
>> I know the p the one power that you have
[1:42:39] solely as the chair.
[laughter]
[1:42:45] » You get to work with Steve. He's the
best.
[1:42:49] » So
>> do we have any
[1:42:51] » No, I have so many committees. I have so
many committees. I like the last thing I
[1:42:56] need is
>> you could put it on your resume and it
[1:42:58] probably wouldn't even [laughter] meet.
>> No, there's so many committees.
[1:43:03] » So, who has the least committees?
[laughter]
[1:43:06] » Committees.
>> Okay,
[1:43:09] » I'll do it.
>> Oh, you guys are the best.
[1:43:12] » All right. Does this have to come up as
a formal kind of motion or anything like
[1:43:16] that?
>> Okay.
[1:43:19] » And you're appointing yourself as the
chair.
[1:43:20] » Oh, yeah. I'll appoint myself as chair.
So just so everyone's for everyone
[1:43:26] else's visibility occasionally a couple
times a year an email will come to the
[1:43:29] chair that's like is this project of
enough public interest to hold a special
[1:43:34] » planning comm mission meeting. It
happens very
[1:43:37] » so
>> holding that meeting happens very rarely
[1:43:39] but it is something that the chair does
kind of behind the scenes
[1:43:42] » something I mean I just heads up I'll
I'll have a project that I'm working on
[1:43:46] that'll probably come up as an email in
the next couple weeks or month or so. So
[1:43:52] like you know I I on occasion I may have
to recuse myself from from that and
[1:43:56] it'll have to go to one of one of you
guys I would assume.
[1:43:58] » Short thing.
>> Yeah.
[1:44:00] » Okay. Wow.
>> Well as as vice chair Mike and Phil
[1:44:05] unfort. [laughter]
[1:44:12] » Okay. So do we have any uh anything else
on the agenda? Director's report.
[1:44:18] » No. Just to let you know that um coming
up at your next meeting uh you may
[1:44:22] recall a couple meetings back you uh we
introduced the landmark tree ordinance.
[1:44:26] Uh we'll be bringing that to you kind of
as the first step in the overall
[1:44:31] approval process. So you'll get a chance
to see that in the coming days in terms
[1:44:36] of advanced information in the packet
and then we'll be in front of you on uh
[1:44:41] the 18th. Um, and then just one little
general plug. If you have not seen or
[1:44:48] are not aware of the various different
uh watch parties that are going on
[1:44:52] around the World Cup, the city is
sponsoring a number of those that are
[1:44:57] being put on by many of the different
businesses throughout the city. So, you
[1:45:00] can go to bellingham.org org uh which is
kind of the tourism portion of the
[1:45:06] website and then uh the fan zone portion
and there's a a wide range of different
[1:45:10] opportunities to take in a number of the
games and other things like that going
[1:45:14] on during the six weeks of the World
Cup.
[1:45:20] » All right, thanks a lot. So I guess uh
if there's nothing else we can adjourn
[1:45:25] and everybody have a good evening.
>> Thank you.