[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[1:06] arbitrary as well as outdated um and have led to a gross overupp of parking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.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript