[0:08] Good evening everyone. I call the July
[0:11] 15th, 2026 planning commission meeting
[0:14] to order. The main purpose of tonight's
[0:17] meeting is to hold a study session on
[0:18] the city's work towards inclusion and
[0:21] communication and to hear presentations
[0:23] on the bike parking code, the electric
[0:25] vehicle code, and the city's tree
[0:27] retention and landscaping project.
[0:30] Before we move on to the agenda, I'd
[0:32] like to acknowledge our hybrid meeting
[0:33] format. The city of both provides the
[0:36] option to attend this meeting either in
[0:38] person or remotely via Zoom.
[0:41] For those participating in Zoom, please
[0:44] note that the chat and question
[0:46] functions are disabled to comply with
[0:48] the Open Public Meeting Act. Public
[0:51] comment is allowed both in person and
[0:53] via Zoom. Those commenting will be
[0:56] limited to 3 minutes. The city does not
[0:58] tolerate verbal harassment. Please
[1:00] remember this during your comments.
[1:03] Zoom commenters and written submissions
[1:04] were required by 300 p.m. today. Written
[1:07] comments received by 3 p.m. have been
[1:09] distributed to all commissioners and are
[1:12] included in the record. This meeting is
[1:14] being streamlined streamed live and the
[1:17] live recorded for later viewing on the
[1:20] city's YouTube channel. A call-in number
[1:23] is provided for anyone listening by
[1:26] phone. Staff will make every effort to
[1:28] specify materials during presentations
[1:30] for those joining by audio. At this
[1:33] time, I will take a roll roll call for
[1:36] commissioners. Commissioner Kieran
[1:39] >> present.
[1:40] >> Uh, Commissioner Morales is absent and
[1:43] excused. Commissioner Westerbeck
[1:45] >> here.
[1:46] >> Commissioner Lever here.
[1:49] >> Uh, Commissioner SS is absent and
[1:52] excused. Commissioner Gufferson
[1:56] >> here. Thank you.
[1:58] >> Okay.
[2:02] In addition, community development staff
[2:04] attending tonight include deputy
[2:06] director Christian Gats, planner
[2:08] Jacquellyn Samson, community educ
[2:10] engagement manager Mason uh Laa,
[2:15] DEI manager Gabby Cona, planner Eric
[2:19] Jazooi, civil civic spark fellow Jay
[2:23] Huckkins, and senior planner Cameron
[2:25] Coleman.
[2:28] For all attendees,
[2:32] speak clearly and pause frequently.
[2:35] State your name before speaking. Mute
[2:37] your microphone when not speaking. If
[2:39] you are watching the live stream, please
[2:41] mute it due to audio delay.
[2:45] For commissioners, I will call on
[2:46] members wishing to speak at designated
[2:49] points during the presentation. Please
[2:50] raise your hand to indicate you wish to
[2:52] speak. Identify yourself before asking a
[2:55] question, making a motion, seconding or
[2:57] speaking in debate. Keep microphones
[2:59] muted when not speaking.
[3:02] We will begin today with public comment.
[3:05] Written comments submitted by 3 p.m.
[3:07] have been forwarded to commissioners. Um
[3:09] there were not any for today.
[3:13] Um we will call on those in the audience
[3:16] or we would um to provide public comment
[3:20] first. For Zoom commenters, we will call
[3:23] on you next. If you are in the virtual
[3:26] audience, please indicate your desire to
[3:27] speak by using the raise hand function
[3:30] and staff will panel you in. All
[3:32] commenters will be limited to three
[3:35] minutes. Is there anybody signed up or
[3:39] in the audience wishing to speak besides
[3:42] our presentations today?
[3:43] >> There is no one in the audience and
[3:44] there's no one in the Zoom audience uh
[3:47] wishing to speak.
[3:48] >> Okay. Um,
[3:51] so hearing that there's no one who
[3:54] wishes to speak today, we will move on.
[3:57] Next is approval for the July 1st
[4:01] minutes. Are there any corrections to
[4:03] the minutes?
[4:06] No. Okay. Uh, hearing none, the chair
[4:08] will entertain a motion to approve the
[4:10] July 1st mitten minutes as written. Is
[4:13] there a motion?
[4:16] Wonderful. Thank you,
[4:18] >> Commissioner Kan. Commissioner Kieran, I
[4:20] move to approve the minutes as
[4:21] submitted.
[4:22] >> Thank you, Commissioner Kieran. Is there
[4:23] a second?
[4:24] >> Commissioner Lever second.
[4:26] >> It has been moved and seconded to appro
[4:29] approve the July 1st minutes as written.
[4:31] Is there any discussion?
[4:33] Okay. Hearing none. Those in favor say
[4:35] I.
[4:37] >> I.
[4:38] >> Okay. All opposed say no. The motion
[4:41] carries and the minutes are approved.
[4:43] Great. The first study session this
[4:46] evening is presented by planner Jocelyn
[4:49] Samson. Jacquellyn Samson, I'm so sorry.
[4:53] Um, community engagement manager Mason
[4:55] Laa and DEI coordinator Gabby Con.
[5:16] Hi everyone. Today um we are here um my
[5:19] name is Jaclyn Samson. I'm a planner
[5:21] community development. I am joined with
[5:22] Mason Laa who's a community engagement
[5:24] manager as well as Gabby Kun who's a DEI
[5:27] coordinator here coordinator here in the
[5:29] city. Um we are here to present on
[5:32] inclusion and communication in the city.
[5:35] Um, at request from planning commission,
[5:37] we were requested to have give more
[5:39] information on just communication within
[5:42] the city. Um, how marginalized
[5:44] populations are reached out to and so
[5:46] we're here today to just give you all
[5:47] the information. Um, and hopefully
[5:49] answer any other questions that you may
[5:51] have.
[5:53] Um, there is no action today. Um, the
[5:56] purpose for the study session is just to
[5:57] provide the planning commission
[5:59] information on communication with
[6:01] marginalized communities in the city.
[6:03] So, I will pass it off to Mason.
[6:06] >> Great. Thank you, Jacqueline. Hello,
[6:08] commissioners. Pleasure to be here
[6:10] tonight and tell you a little bit more
[6:11] about how we communicate and engage with
[6:13] our community. So, I'll start with an
[6:14] overview. Overall, we proactively
[6:17] connect with the community to keep folks
[6:18] informed about the work that happens at
[6:20] the city, right? And we look to also
[6:22] engage them in helping us shape what the
[6:25] future of BA looks like. And [snorts] we
[6:27] do that through a couple different ways.
[6:29] for keeping them informed. We
[6:31] communicate across a variety of
[6:32] channels, namely our social media
[6:34] platforms. We also have an email
[6:36] marketing program, so we directly email
[6:38] folks. We have print newsletters that
[6:40] get mailed across the entire community.
[6:42] And we also have in-person experiences,
[6:44] right, where folks can come and learn
[6:45] more about the city as well as share
[6:47] their feedback and provide input to help
[6:49] shape policy and decision-m that you all
[6:52] do. So this work is informed by the city
[6:55] council's 2040 vision which really
[6:56] serves as that overall roadmap for
[6:58] everything that happens at the city and
[7:00] for the communications and engagement
[7:02] team. We take a look at that
[7:03] holistically and make sure that all the
[7:05] messages we share out with the community
[7:07] as well as the opportunities we provide
[7:08] for the community to engage with us are
[7:11] really aligned with that vision and
[7:13] providing the information needed at the
[7:14] city to execute the vision. And the
[7:17] communications and engagement team has
[7:18] been busy this last year. We're a
[7:20] relatively new team for the city and
[7:21] we're continuing to grow and we're
[7:23] focused on making sure we're modernizing
[7:25] the ways that the city communicates and
[7:26] engages with folks because we know how
[7:28] different things are today. So with
[7:30] that, I'll turn it over for any
[7:31] questions.
[7:38] Um, thank you so much. This is very
[7:39] exciting. Can you help me better
[7:42] understand who is the team and then what
[7:44] does that really look like? And I do see
[7:46] that the diversity and inclusion
[7:47] coordinator Gabby is here helped me
[7:50] understand the way that it is organized.
[7:52] So I think I I realized lately I've been
[7:54] providing or I have a better
[7:56] understanding of how the feedback that I
[7:58] can provide can really be related to the
[8:00] operation. So knowing how challenging
[8:03] outreach and engagement is and then
[8:05] tracking all of that like what does the
[8:07] FTE look like? How many positions like
[8:09] who do you report to like just help me
[8:11] understand.
[8:12] >> Absolutely that's a great question. So
[8:14] the team is structured as follows.
[8:16] There's myself, the communications and
[8:17] engagement manager, and then there are
[8:19] three folks on our team. We have an
[8:21] engagement coordinator. Their role is
[8:23] really to work across the entire city
[8:25] and connect with folks like Jacqueline
[8:27] to find out, hey, what's going on in
[8:28] your department? How are things
[8:30] happening? How can we help support you?
[8:31] Right? We also have a digital content
[8:33] coordinator role, which is currently
[8:35] being recruited for. This position is
[8:37] mainly responsible for all of our social
[8:39] media, our email, and our website
[8:41] channels. So they take the information
[8:42] that myself and our engagement
[8:44] coordinator coordinate with all the city
[8:46] and they put it out on those channels in
[8:48] ways that make sense that are easy to
[8:50] understand and are fun, right? Because
[8:51] we want people to actually pay attention
[8:52] to what we communicate. Third, the third
[8:55] position we have is a website
[8:56] specialist. They're really focused on
[8:58] the back-end management of all those
[8:59] digital platforms. We also as a city
[9:02] have a cross- departmental engagement
[9:03] team which has 16 members representing
[9:06] all departments at the city and we meet
[9:08] once a month to talk about hey at the
[9:10] highest level what are we doing as a
[9:12] whole city and then we break it down and
[9:14] look at how are things going in your
[9:16] department can you collaborate with
[9:17] another department and then how can this
[9:19] centralized team help support that work
[9:26] » yes commissioner Kieran
[9:28] >> yeah commissioner Kieran here um So what
[9:31] have you found to be particularly
[9:33] effective and does it vary by topic? Are
[9:37] there certain things that you use for
[9:39] you know one topic and something else
[9:41] you use for something else?
[9:43] >> Absolutely. So what you're you're saying
[9:45] in uh lingo for the industry is called
[9:47] channel segmentation. So what what
[9:49] you're talking about is how do you
[9:50] figure out what messages resonate in
[9:52] which areas? One of the things that we
[9:54] do is we take something that we need to
[9:55] communicate on behalf of the city,
[9:57] right? So in this case, it could be
[9:58] something that the community development
[9:59] department is working on and we'll say,
[10:01] okay, what is the message that we need
[10:03] to get out? Now, how do we tell it in
[10:05] different ways that make sense for the
[10:07] different channels we have and the
[10:09] audiences that we know we connect with
[10:10] on those channels? A great example of
[10:12] this is for, you know, social media.
[10:14] Instead of just taking the same content,
[10:16] which we call, you know, copy, and
[10:18] putting it across all of our channels in
[10:19] the same way, we actually tell the story
[10:21] a little bit differently. So, we have
[10:24] activated a Reddit account for the city,
[10:26] which is a great platform for us to
[10:27] reach folks who don't engage elsewhere
[10:29] because we can post in the community
[10:31] subreddit. And we do that and we share
[10:33] that information in a very different way
[10:35] than we might on Instagram where we're
[10:36] doing a short form video, which could
[10:38] very well be Jacquine hanging out with a
[10:39] selfie cam, right? Talking about what
[10:41] the planning commission might be up to.
[10:43] So, we we take information and we tell
[10:45] the story very differently to make sure
[10:46] it resonates with the folks that engage
[10:48] with us in those different areas.
[10:52] Yes, Commissioner Lever.
[10:54] >> Thank you. Um, thank you for that answer
[10:55] and the other one on the organization.
[10:57] So, I have a question around like the
[11:00] feedback that you do get and then the
[11:01] audiences that you engage through your
[11:03] different departments and your different
[11:04] channels. uh sitting in these role like
[11:07] I've seen so much feedback being
[11:09] gathered and oftent times because we're
[11:12] asking it asking about specific plans or
[11:16] initiatives yet it might be there's that
[11:20] correlation but it's not always so
[11:22] obvious. So what are the ways in which
[11:25] you kind of uh look at the feedback that
[11:27] you're generating and the activation or
[11:30] lack thereof to kind of really inform
[11:34] the different audiences of things that
[11:36] they may not be aware of through the
[11:37] feedback that you're receiving because
[11:39] it's the same message. Some people may
[11:41] get it other people is just not
[11:42] receiving it and that's a lot of work.
[11:45] So what I'm hearing in terms of your
[11:47] current infrastructure, there's a lot of
[11:48] outputs, right? And making sure that you
[11:50] are developing and creating, but how do
[11:51] you actually analyze everything that is
[11:54] getting out and what you're receiving
[11:56] and how does that interplay with the
[11:59] coordinator of diversity, equity,
[12:00] inclusion around targeted outreach, uh,
[12:03] underserved populations and yeah, that's
[12:07] sort of
[12:08] >> Yeah, absolutely. So we have an
[12:10] engagement toolkit at the city which is
[12:12] really a roadmap for how anyone who
[12:15] works at the city can begin to work on
[12:17] communications and engagement or manage
[12:19] it themselves if they are as as a team.
[12:21] We actually work very closely with Gabby
[12:23] and with many others on staff to ensure
[12:26] that all of our communications and
[12:27] engagement programming has the the best
[12:29] output that it can and also results in
[12:31] the best input for the city. Right. And
[12:33] that can be very challenging because as
[12:35] you know um cities are in many lines of
[12:38] business. We do so many different
[12:39] things. You know, we're not one we're
[12:40] not a retail brand that sells just
[12:42] shoes, right? We we represent so many
[12:44] different areas of of expertise and
[12:46] infrastructure that it can be very
[12:48] challenging to communicate all of those
[12:49] in one place. So, when we work across
[12:52] the entire city, we're really listening
[12:54] to make sure that if something going on
[12:56] in community development can be tied
[12:57] together with something also happening
[12:58] in public works, do we collaborate and
[13:01] tell that story in a way that would make
[13:02] sense to someone who doesn't work at the
[13:03] city and doesn't understand maybe the
[13:05] fine detail and difference between the
[13:07] two, right? Um, we also make sure and we
[13:09] in integrate a lot of best practices
[13:11] into all of our content to ensure that
[13:13] the messaging we put out is digestible
[13:15] and understandable for a variety of
[13:17] audiences to make sure it's as
[13:19] accessible as possible. And that's
[13:20] something that's very important to us.
[13:22] Now, the second part of your question
[13:24] was that that two-way street, right? How
[13:25] do we engage? So, across all of our
[13:28] channels, we often times lead with a
[13:30] call to action, the CTA, which is, hey,
[13:33] have questions about this or have an
[13:35] opinion? here's how you can share it
[13:37] back to the city, right? And we take
[13:39] that information and anytime we get a
[13:41] question or a comment on social media,
[13:43] we we look at that comment or a question
[13:45] and we try to answer it on that platform
[13:47] so anyone else who may have the same
[13:49] question or comment, right, can see the
[13:50] response and then we take that and we
[13:52] make sure to let the other folks in the
[13:54] city know who are points of contact for
[13:56] that area, hey, we got a question about
[13:58] this. This is actually a great thing
[13:59] that we might want to expand on. Can you
[14:01] tell us more so we can do a follow-up
[14:03] post or send a a follow-up email about
[14:05] that project or program?
[14:12] » Commissioner Westerbeck,
[14:13] >> do you have a [clears throat] excuse me
[14:15] a form of communication you found to be
[14:17] the most effective or the one that gets
[14:19] you uh the most results? I'm just
[14:21] curious about that.
[14:24] >> Absolutely. You know, social media is
[14:26] the the topic dour, right? Everyone
[14:28] likes to lean on it, but the problem is that it's also a volume game.
[14:31] Everyone is on social media. And I'm
[14:32] sure you if you are on any platforms
[14:35] yourself have experienced the fatigue
[14:36] that can come with that. And so I'm
[14:38] answering your your question in a
[14:40] roundabout way, which is to say we're
[14:42] constantly analyzing all the different
[14:44] ways we communicate and looking at what
[14:45] makes sense. So I mentioned Reddit
[14:47] earlier and Reddit's been a really
[14:49] effective platform for us. We found that
[14:51] um you know there's a a pretty diverse
[14:53] audience who is who are active on Reddit
[14:56] and a large swap of our community who
[14:57] are active on Reddit. So when we post
[14:59] about something like a road closure but
[15:00] also an upcoming event and also hey did
[15:02] you know there's a new building coming
[15:04] downtown all those things can reach
[15:06] folks who traditionally wouldn't
[15:07] necessarily see it because our other
[15:09] digital platforms like you know
[15:11] traditional social media like Facebook
[15:13] um Instagram the algorithms tend to
[15:15] discriminate if you will against
[15:17] information that might be boring quote
[15:18] unquote right so the the solution to
[15:21] that is actually the the nature of why
[15:24] we have a digital content coordinator
[15:25] which that role is entirely dedicated to
[15:28] providing that storytelling in really
[15:30] creative ways. If you look at um Wash
[15:32] Dot as a good example, they do a great
[15:34] job with their social media, right?
[15:35] Because they are having fun with it and
[15:37] that's entirely where we're going with
[15:38] our platforms.
[15:48] » There was a hand a hand raised.
[15:53] >> Hi. Yes, I had my hand if that's okay.
[15:58] Can you hear me?
[15:59] >> Yes, of course. Go ahead.
[16:01] >> Okay, perfect. Um, I just want to follow
[16:03] up on the earlier commission uh
[16:05] commissioner's question too about um how
[16:08] do we specifically do outreach to
[16:10] marginalized members of our community.
[16:12] Um I'll talk a little bit more about it.
[16:14] Um oh here, perfect. Um so one of the core tenants of the outreach that we
[16:21] do here is understanding that um
[16:23] equitable access to our services is a
[16:26] foundational part of how we provide good
[16:28] service um to our entire community. Um
[16:31] and so we incorporate equity into
[16:34] everything that we do. So, when we think
[16:35] about the the tools that Mason had
[16:38] mentioned earlier, um the um
[16:41] communications plans, um we have a ton
[16:44] of different resource guides that we
[16:45] provide to all of our departments,
[16:47] including our communications team, about
[16:49] how do we make sure that the messages
[16:51] that we're sending to our communities
[16:52] are ones that really uphold our values.
[16:54] And part of our values being having a
[16:57] really welcoming community and building
[16:58] the beloved community in both. Um, and
[17:01] so we're we're very intentional about
[17:03] ensuring that our communications team,
[17:04] not only um the communications staff
[17:07] that work in executive, but also the
[17:09] communications team that is embedded in
[17:11] all of our departments, um, meets quite
[17:14] regularly with me um, as part of my
[17:16] role. And then they also bring various
[17:17] projects to me as well. Um, we have a
[17:20] staff committee called the divein
[17:21] committee. Uh, that's made up of staff
[17:23] from almost all of our different
[17:24] departments. Um, and they quite
[17:26] frequently will bring a variety of
[17:28] projects to me. Um, so that I can share
[17:30] them with my um, connections. Um, and
[17:32] one of the things that we found really
[17:34] successful in doing community engagement
[17:36] is understanding that um,
[17:40] equity work in general can only move at
[17:42] the speed of trust. Um and so as we work
[17:45] in our community, um a key aspect of
[17:48] really good high quality community
[17:49] engagement for us is doing things like a
[17:52] Lunar New Year festival with the library
[17:54] or Hispanic Heritage Month event with um
[17:57] a youth group because uh those those
[17:59] like kind of oneoff activities really
[18:02] bring um a wealth of trust and goodwill
[18:04] in our community um that helps us make
[18:07] connections that we can continue to rely
[18:08] on. Um, and so those those events we
[18:12] really see as major civic um civic
[18:15] education opportunities uh to let people
[18:17] know that there are connections that are
[18:20] um at the city and if they ever have
[18:22] questions or if they want to share
[18:23] feedback they can reach out directly to
[18:25] city staff. Um very oftent times um I
[18:28] might be the only staff member that a
[18:30] community member knows and so they'll
[18:32] reach out to me directly to ask
[18:33] something about their sewer maintenance.
[18:36] Um, and while I don't know anything
[18:37] about sewer maintenance, I do know the
[18:39] folks of the city and I know the
[18:40] mechanisms in the city um, for who I can
[18:43] connect them with. So, we really see
[18:44] that those really intangible
[18:46] relationships are one of our best tools.
[18:48] Um, and we we try to maintain those as
[18:50] best as possible through really um,
[18:52] building trust in the community. Um,
[18:55] part of that is guided by our diversity,
[18:57] equity, and inclusion belonging roadmap.
[19:00] Um, our the current plan we're working
[19:01] off of, which you can find on our
[19:03] website at buffalo.govde backdei.
[19:06] Um that part part of that plan is the
[19:09] 2023 through 2026 roadmap. We're
[19:11] currently in the process of um building
[19:14] the next iteration of that and we'll
[19:15] continue to do that throughout the rest
[19:16] of this year. Um but it really provides
[19:19] a look into like the tangible steps and
[19:21] action items that the city can take um
[19:23] to create a more equitable environment.
[19:26] is divided into five different goal
[19:28] areas. Um some of which are more
[19:30] internal and staff focused because we
[19:32] know that we're also um one of the
[19:34] really large employers in the city of
[19:36] both and in our community. And so it's
[19:37] also really important that our staff
[19:39] feel like they're um that they have
[19:41] equitable opportunity here. Um and so we really try to to make our our
[19:47] diversity, equity, and inclusion program
[19:48] very actionoriented. Um there are also
[19:52] several initiatives that the program is
[19:54] currently working on that you won't find
[19:55] in the DEI road map. Um one of the major
[19:58] reasons that it's called a road map um
[20:00] is because we hope that it stays
[20:02] responsive. Um and like Google Maps, if
[20:05] it tells you that a road's closed, you
[20:07] don't just charge ahead. um when we go
[20:09] through our DEI initiatives and we find
[20:11] that something isn't really what our
[20:12] community wants or it's not what our
[20:14] community needs and we're hearing that
[20:15] from our community, we adjust um and we
[20:17] adjust based on um budget and staff
[20:19] capacity too. So um we haven't had too
[20:21] many changes in the DEI road map uh that
[20:23] have delayed projects, but we have had a
[20:25] lot added to it that wasn't originally
[20:27] in that when we were thinking about this
[20:28] road map in 2022. Um and so we've been
[20:31] able to stay really flexible. Um, in
[20:33] your packet I included some of the
[20:35] initiatives that I thought were most
[20:37] relevant to this group. So, some of that
[20:39] is our language access plan has had a
[20:42] lot of work done on it. Um, and we do a
[20:44] lot of outreach and training with our
[20:45] staff related to language access and
[20:47] ensuring that they know how to use
[20:49] interpretation and translation resources
[20:51] that are available to them. Um, we just
[20:53] rolled out a new program for city staff
[20:55] related to bilingual pay. um so that we
[20:59] can not only recruit a really diverse
[21:01] workforce, but that we can best serve
[21:03] our community. So when you walk into
[21:05] city hall, you're more likely to
[21:07] encounter somebody who speaks the
[21:08] language that you speak. Um and then we
[21:11] also this last year created the DEI
[21:14] advisory committee. So it functions a
[21:16] little bit like a board and commission.
[21:17] Um though it is not uh a council board
[21:20] or commission, it's actually advises
[21:21] staff directly. Um, and that's a group
[21:24] of 14 individuals who uh represent uh
[21:27] various identities in our community. Um,
[21:30] and have the opportunity to give a ton
[21:32] of feedback on projects throughout the
[21:33] city. Um, so all of our departments have
[21:36] come and just like I'm doing here,
[21:38] they've presented to the DEI advisory
[21:40] committee. They've asked for questions,
[21:42] they've gotten feedback, and then as we
[21:44] continue going through uh planning
[21:46] initiatives, um those big plans are
[21:49] brought to the DEI advisory committee.
[21:51] So, for example, um one of our
[21:53] departments, the police department is
[21:54] currently um exploring bodywn cameras
[21:57] and that's being brought to our DEI
[21:58] advisory committee so that we can have
[22:00] an opportunity to give some feedback and
[22:02] the hope is that that's really a two-way
[22:04] street so that members of the DEI
[22:06] advisory committee will go out and share
[22:08] that um with the communities that they
[22:10] feel most connected with um in both. Um
[22:12] so, that was a lot um of monologuing.
[22:16] So, please let me know if you have any
[22:17] questions. Um, I am always happy uh to
[22:21] answer any questions that you might have
[22:22] about our budding DEI program.
[22:27] » Commissioner Lever,
[22:29] >> thank you. That's super helpful. Um, I
[22:31] have two questions around that are more
[22:34] like technical. So, when it comes to the communications and the DEI and the
[22:38] technology, where are you with AI and
[22:41] then how are you using it or leveraging
[22:43] or planning on using it? Do you have a
[22:46] policy in place knowing that it's kind
[22:48] of here to stay and how does that impact
[22:50] your day-to-day? And then the other one
[22:52] is around the accessibility. I think as
[22:54] I was listening to this uh for the web
[22:56] accessibility deadline to make sure that
[22:59] the websites I know the deadline was um
[23:01] extended to make sure that it it
[23:03] complies with the title two of ADA. Uh
[23:06] is that under your shop? And if so, how is that one going in terms of um the
[23:12] review that needed to happen?
[23:16] Gabby, do you want to start with
[23:18] >> Sure, I can start. Um, uh, yeah. So, um,
[23:23] the city does have a, uh, generative AI
[23:25] use policy, um, that was finalized, I
[23:28] believe, last year. Um, I did have the
[23:31] opportunity to look through that policy.
[23:32] Um, and one of the things that was
[23:35] called out in that policy is um an
[23:38] understanding that AI um has been known
[23:42] to repeat uh stereotypes and um
[23:48] just uh sorry I'm coming off of a
[23:52] migraine. It's been known to repeat
[23:54] stereotypes and harmful biases that
[23:56] we've seen um that humans carry and have
[23:59] built into AI because at its core AI is
[24:01] built by humans. Um, and so there is
[24:04] part of our policy is uh an
[24:06] understanding that city staff at the end
[24:08] of the day are responsible for reviewing
[24:10] anything that they use to use AI to um
[24:13] create and that they're viewing it with
[24:15] an equity mindset to understand um and
[24:18] look for any uh duplicated biases or
[24:21] anything that might come out of um using
[24:23] programs trained on historically biased
[24:26] material. Um so we did try to build
[24:29] equity into that policy as much as
[24:31] possible. Um, and I'll hand it over to
[24:34] Mason to talk about AI and
[24:36] communications work.
[24:38] >> Thanks, Gabby. So, we employ a AI in a
[24:41] variety of ways that are really helpful
[24:43] for us, but we have also been in
[24:45] consultation with Gabby and others at
[24:46] the city to make sure that we're doing
[24:47] that and responsibly. And one of the
[24:50] things that AI can be really beneficial
[24:52] for, especially when it comes to
[24:53] communications or engagement, is taking
[24:56] technical or complex language and
[24:57] simplifying it. So to be as accessible
[25:00] and digestible as possible with our
[25:01] content and our communications and our
[25:03] messaging, we try to make sure we're
[25:05] talking about city operations and
[25:07] updates in plain language. So it's
[25:09] digestible for folks at varying um
[25:11] levels of of English proficiency, right?
[25:14] Um the thing that's important about AI
[25:16] is you don't want to use AI to translate
[25:18] documents because it's not certified to
[25:19] do so responsibly. So we don't do that.
[25:22] But we also have a shared model here
[25:24] where we're a small team for
[25:25] communications and engagement and we
[25:26] work with every department. So sometimes
[25:28] we'll be working with a traffic engineer
[25:30] for instance. So someone who's very
[25:31] technically minded and brilliant at what
[25:33] they do, but they're not necessarily a
[25:34] communications professional. That's what
[25:36] they have us for, right? So we may get
[25:38] complex technical information from a
[25:39] traffic engineer. And we can use AI to
[25:42] help assist us in putting in plain
[25:43] language. So not only do we understand
[25:45] it, but then we can make sure that the
[25:47] messaging we're providing to the
[25:48] community about whatever the work is is
[25:50] also digestible by them. But in order to
[25:52] be responsible, we make sure that that
[25:54] gets reviewed by the original source to
[25:55] ensure it is accurate and compliant.
[25:57] Right. So that's one example of how we
[25:59] might use AI. We also use it from a
[26:02] productivity standpoint. It's very
[26:03] helpful for helping draft content, for
[26:05] helping um revise or or amalgamate
[26:08] content. Um and we talk a lot about the
[26:10] use of AI and our cross-d departmental
[26:12] engagement team. So folks like
[26:14] Jacqueline who sits on that committee um
[26:16] is also hearing about how we as the
[26:17] communications and engagement team are
[26:18] using it and then they can implement it
[26:20] in their work as well.
[26:25] And for the uh compliance with the other
[26:29] >> I can follow up on that part. I'll start
[26:31] and then right I'll hand it back to
[26:32] Mason. Um so uh we actually don't hold
[26:37] ADA compliance under the DEI umbrella.
[26:40] Our philosophy for diversity, equity,
[26:42] and inclusion is really that um it is a
[26:44] cultural shift in mindset um and that shift in mindset doesn't do its
[26:50] best uh through a compliance lens. Um
[26:53] and so we actually hold compliance for
[26:55] ADA in our HR department which is
[26:58] separate from our diversity, equity and
[26:59] inclusion program. That said, um part of
[27:02] my workload is around building a culture
[27:04] of inclusion and accessibility in the
[27:06] city of both. Um and so I have consulted
[27:09] on some of the uh aspects around ADA. um
[27:14] or some of the aspects around disability
[27:16] inclusion and really meaningful
[27:18] disability inclusion that goes beyond
[27:21] just the bare minimum of legally
[27:22] compliant but really what it looks like
[27:24] to build a community where disabled
[27:27] folks are welcomed and included and can
[27:29] participate fully in their government
[27:31] and their community. Um, and so we talk
[27:34] a lot about that through like the
[27:35] cultural lens, but then through the
[27:37] actual um, compliance lens, uh, I
[27:40] typically hand that over to our ADA
[27:42] coordinator and Mason's team to work
[27:44] through some of the the new updates to
[27:46] the ADA or the new enforcement and
[27:47] compliance dates.
[27:50] >> Great. And thank you, Commissioner. I
[27:51] know you asked about the WCAG
[27:53] compliance, right, which is our web
[27:55] accessibility mandate from the
[27:56] Department of Justice. So, at the city,
[27:58] we've been talking about this for a
[27:59] while now and ensuring that we are
[28:01] compliant. It is a complex body of
[28:04] policy, right? Um, and so the the way
[28:08] that it applies to us is is kind of
[28:09] twofold. So, there's products that we
[28:11] produce ourselves that we need to make
[28:13] sure are compliant. So, that's certain
[28:14] digital content, PDFs for example. Um,
[28:18] but then there are platforms we utilize
[28:19] like our website, like engage both,
[28:21] which are actually thirdparty vendor
[28:23] systems. So, we need to make sure that
[28:25] we're communicating and connecting with
[28:26] them to see how are they going to become
[28:28] compliant, right? Because we don't
[28:30] actually manage um the system that we
[28:32] may communicate on. So, fortunately, the
[28:35] vendors that we use, we've been in early
[28:36] contact with and um we're not the only
[28:38] public agency dealing with us, right?
[28:40] So, they've been ahead of the ship. Um
[28:42] and there's a lot of work happening with
[28:43] those platforms to make sure that they
[28:44] are compliant. We've been um our website
[28:46] platform and engage both are also
[28:49] already compliant with the current
[28:50] guidelines. The tricky part for us then
[28:52] is for our staff, we have many folks who
[28:55] are utilizing those platforms, helping
[28:56] manage the content on those platforms.
[28:58] And so the platform itself may be
[29:00] compliant, but we need to make sure that
[29:01] the inputs we provide are also
[29:02] compliant, which is where we've been
[29:03] developing the guidance we're going to
[29:05] be sharing internally at the city to
[29:07] help folks across um all departments
[29:09] make sure that when they're using these
[29:10] platforms, we can ensure the integrity
[29:13] of their compliance. Yeah.
[29:21] Okay. Well, I thank you. This has been u
[29:24] really uh really elucidating. Um I I
[29:27] have a few questions. Um this is such a
[29:31] great um rich con con um subject area
[29:36] that um yeah, I just have a few things I
[29:38] wanted to kind of sink my teeth into. Um
[29:41] I was wondering, you guys have done a
[29:43] great job in outreach um online and
[29:46] through the mail. How do you reach out
[29:47] more to people who are homebound,
[29:50] non-mobile, or um less present in the
[29:52] community online?
[29:55] >> I'm going to have Gabby answer that, but
[29:57] I'm going to share some some context
[29:58] from the communication side, and I'm
[29:59] sure Gabby, you'll have you'll third
[30:01] party input. Um, we absolutely recognize
[30:04] that we, you know, our entire community
[30:06] is not in a vacuum. We're not siloed,
[30:08] right? We don't have one platform that
[30:10] reaches everybody. So, of course, when
[30:11] we throw something up on social media
[30:13] that does really well, that's great. and
[30:14] we can look at those numbers and say
[30:15] that was a lot of reach but we don't
[30:17] necessarily know exactly who those folks
[30:18] are and we absolutely know that we're
[30:21] not reaching everyone in the community.
[30:22] So, we take a holistic approach at
[30:24] making sure that we don't just
[30:25] communicate on our owned channels,
[30:27] things that we directly manage, but we
[30:29] work with our community- based
[30:30] organizations to be ambassadors because
[30:33] often times we know that folks in the
[30:34] community, especially if they're uh less
[30:36] connected, right, may have a connection
[30:39] point with a church or a religious
[30:41] organization or a service organization
[30:44] or a provider um or even a recreation
[30:46] group, right? And so we try to to
[30:48] maintain really strong relationships
[30:50] with different community based
[30:51] organizations and when we have a large
[30:53] initiative we do outreach with them to
[30:55] say can you please share this because we
[30:57] want to hear from your folks about this
[31:00] project this initiative and this um
[31:02] something that we work really closely
[31:03] with the community development
[31:04] department on Gabby anything to add on
[31:06] that.
[31:09] No, I think this just um really hearkens
[31:11] back to the importance of those really
[31:13] um strong relationships on our community
[31:15] and actually working with trusted
[31:17] community leaders um far more than if
[31:20] information is coming directly from city
[31:22] staff members. We know that the webs
[31:24] that we've built in the community of
[31:26] folks that know that we will take their
[31:28] feedback seriously um and then will
[31:31] advocate for us. So when we do something
[31:33] like a survey or we're looking for
[31:34] feedback, um just like Mason said, the
[31:37] service providers that we have in our
[31:38] community do a really great job of
[31:40] spreading the word. We do very
[31:42] community, we do very targeted community
[31:44] specific outreach to those service
[31:45] providers. Um, and we work really
[31:47] closely with our human services
[31:48] coordinator, Anand, um, who is also
[31:51] within the executive department. And
[31:53] he's able to he has a huge list of
[31:55] service providers in the Buffalo
[31:57] community who are able to to reach folks
[31:59] that we might not otherwise be able to
[32:00] engage with for those reasons.
[32:06] » Yeah. Um, and then I'll go over
[32:08] community engagement within community
[32:09] development. Um basically community
[32:11] engagement is very important within the
[32:14] long range planning efforts in um within
[32:16] the city. Um we
[32:19] try to do a variety of different
[32:20] outreach methods in order to get
[32:22] feedback on different projects um coming
[32:25] from different residents or people come
[32:27] into both. Um we do that through both um
[32:31] in person as well as virtual. Um some
[32:33] virtual examples, we have our engage
[32:35] both bath website that um we have um
[32:38] different surveys on there. Um different
[32:40] ways for people to give feedback what by making an account um on that
[32:45] platform. Um we've also had different
[32:47] focus groups where people can meet both
[32:50] virtually and we've also had focus
[32:53] groups in person um where um people can
[32:56] have input on different projects. Um,
[32:58] for example, for a housing action plan,
[33:00] we've had different focus groups
[33:02] targeting different populations going
[33:03] from students um to the elderly to
[33:06] homeowners just to make sure that we can
[33:08] um get a large range of opinions on the
[33:11] housing action plan. Um, we've tabled
[33:13] different community events as well. Um,
[33:15] for examples, we the chai holy event
[33:17] over in um um the downtown park here in
[33:21] Pabell as well as um different events at
[33:24] UDub bothl. we've t tabled as like
[33:26] sustain mania um different environmental
[33:29] um programs as well. So trying to really
[33:32] meet where the people are is very
[33:34] important to us. Um we in order to get
[33:37] that um feedback on different longrange
[33:40] projects. Um an examp
[33:45] place feedback um giving tours around
[33:48] downtown. Um, so we really want to
[33:50] prioritize that engagement um with
[33:52] historically underrepresented people and
[33:55] marginalized people by being able to
[33:57] create a large range of um engagement
[34:00] activities and ways for people to
[34:02] connect and um to get their voice out
[34:05] whether that is online or us meeting
[34:09] them where they're at.
[34:12] Um yeah, and there's no action required
[34:14] today. Um the purpose of purpose of this
[34:16] study session was just to provide the
[34:17] planning commission information on
[34:19] communication with marginalized
[34:20] communities in in the city [snorts] and
[34:23] that yeah
[34:28] um well thank you so very much and I
[34:30] really enjoy all the content that's out
[34:32] there and I have the opportunity to go
[34:34] to some of your tableling events and
[34:36] everything. So that is really wonderful
[34:37] and I am just so pleased to hear that
[34:40] you do have a robust communications team
[34:43] and hopefully that will continue to get
[34:45] bigger because we are communicating all
[34:48] the time on our phone. So thank you so
[34:50] much.
[34:53] » Um if I may just ask a a few more
[34:55] questions. I was wondering how do you
[34:57] guys um measure success? Do you have
[35:00] certain benchmarks when you're
[35:01] communicating for a certain percentage
[35:04] of representation through your outreach
[35:06] or what do those um assessment and
[35:08] benchmarks look like?
[35:11] >> Just hearkening back to a question I was
[35:12] asked when I was interviewing for this
[35:14] job. Um you know as a team I think we've
[35:19] I've instilled a really good policy on
[35:21] this which is the numbers are one part
[35:23] of the story but they're not the whole
[35:25] and what I mean by that is we measure
[35:27] success by looking at analytics. So the
[35:29] hard data, right, the the quantitative
[35:32] data that we can gather about our
[35:34] different channels and that might tell
[35:35] us something, but we're we as
[35:38] communicators are intuitive enough to
[35:39] know that we don't reach everyone in the
[35:40] community, right? We look very closely
[35:43] at the qualitative feedback that we're
[35:45] able to gather from folks in the
[35:46] community such as those community- based
[35:48] organizations. So a good example of
[35:50] this, when we have an in-person event
[35:53] and folks show up, we will often ask
[35:55] like, "Oh, great. How'd you hear about
[35:56] it?" Right? um, oh, what what made you
[35:58] come out today? And we we log that
[36:00] mentally, but we actually do track that
[36:02] feedback because what we're trying to
[36:03] understand is how are we actually
[36:05] connecting with people and are the
[36:07] messages that we're sharing out reaching
[36:10] a representative body of our community?
[36:12] And that's so hard to identify just by
[36:14] looking at the numbers, right? So, it's
[36:16] a combination of analyzing performance
[36:18] of social media posts, right? or a open
[36:21] rate of an email campaign that we've
[36:23] done, but matching that and benchmarking
[36:25] it with the feedback that we're getting
[36:27] from staff and from attendees and
[36:30] looking at where are the gaps or is
[36:31] there overlap that we can maybe lean
[36:33] into. Um, and actually getting on Reddit
[36:35] was beyond just being a good best
[36:37] practice was the result of understanding
[36:39] we need to change our social media
[36:41] strategy to match how the community is
[36:43] changing the ways they engage on those
[36:44] platforms, right?
[36:50] Um along those lines, can I was really
[36:53] um intrigued by what Gabby said about um
[36:56] building webs and can you tell me a
[36:58] little bit more about how you establish
[37:00] some of those connections with um you
[37:03] know
[37:05] churches or people who may not be able
[37:08] to be online. very often the
[37:10] marginalized people or those who are not
[37:12] represented is because they don't aren't
[37:14] comfortable in public or can't come to
[37:18] uh can't use the regular channels of
[37:20] communication. So, um I was really
[37:22] interested to hear I'd be interested to
[37:25] hear more about building these webs
[37:28] input from those populations who have a
[37:31] harder time um connecting with our
[37:34] government. Can you tell me a little bit
[37:35] about that?
[37:37] >> Yeah, absolutely. Um those webs start
[37:42] really organically and sometimes a
[37:45] little boringly. Um the I think
[37:48] philosophy really started out of our
[37:50] proclamation process which I don't know
[37:52] how familiar folks are in the audience
[37:54] with the idea of proclamations. Um but
[37:56] we realized very very early on that our
[37:59] equity or our community and cultural
[38:01] proclamations were best done when they
[38:03] were written by the community members
[38:05] that really had those lived experiences.
[38:07] And so we started going out in the
[38:09] community and actually asking for them
[38:11] to take part in writing those
[38:13] proclamations. And from there we started
[38:15] developing these like very um specific
[38:19] touch points for community members that
[38:22] we might not otherwise engage with. So
[38:24] we were really intentional. we went out
[38:25] and we found folks that represented
[38:27] those identities and not just like
[38:30] community members but folks that were
[38:32] associated with some sort of community
[38:34] organization um that was related to
[38:37] advocacy or related to that cultural
[38:40] experience. Um and so in using what is
[38:44] kind of a boring government process and
[38:48] turning it into a civic education and
[38:50] engagement activity um we started
[38:52] building trust in the community and then
[38:54] from there um they just go out. So, we
[38:56] try really hard not to work with the
[38:58] same um the same cultural group twice
[39:02] for a proclamation. And so, then we've
[39:04] been able to build kind of um a a uh
[39:08] rolodex of folks who are active in our
[39:11] community who have specific identities
[39:13] that we want represented and the
[39:14] feedback that we're looking to to bring
[39:17] in. And then um we touch base with them
[39:19] really regularly. So, we have um I have
[39:22] calendar reminders set up um and our
[39:24] team has calendar reminders set up that
[39:26] is like, "Hey, if you haven't heard from
[39:28] somebody in a couple months, um check in
[39:30] with them, send them an email, ask what
[39:32] kind of projects they're working on." Um
[39:34] and so really that person-toperson
[39:35] connection, um meeting folks for coffee.
[39:38] I think in the first six months that I
[39:40] started working with the city, I was
[39:41] meeting people for coffee like multiple
[39:44] times a week. um just to really put that human interaction into place. Um so
[39:49] that they knew that they had somebody at
[39:51] the city that they could ask their
[39:52] questions to and even if I didn't have
[39:54] the answer, I'd be able to find the
[39:56] answer. Um and once you have, you know,
[39:59] five or six folks in the community who
[40:01] really trust you and have worked with
[40:03] you, they'll start vouching for you. Um
[40:05] and saying, "Hey, actually, I know I
[40:08] heard you're working on this project.
[40:09] Have you considered this perspective? I
[40:11] know somebody in the community who might
[40:12] be interested." Um, so it really is like
[40:14] very personto person. It's slowgoing
[40:17] work. Um, but we found that it's really meaningful in getting um,
[40:22] trusted, lasting um, mutually beneficial
[40:25] relationships in our community. Um, that
[40:27] can be sustained over multiple years and
[40:29] new employees. Um, one of the things
[40:32] that can be really difficult sometimes
[40:33] for an organization is when um, one
[40:36] person makes as a ton of relationships
[40:37] in the community, but those
[40:39] relationships are really reliant on that
[40:41] one person being in that one role. Um,
[40:43] and so we try as much as possible to
[40:44] share those relationships with multiple
[40:46] staff members so that that web can stay
[40:48] really strong even if um, a staff member
[40:51] leaves or if a community member leaves
[40:53] the city. I hope that answered your
[40:55] question.
[40:57] >> Yeah, absolutely. That was really
[40:58] helpful.
[41:01] Commissioner Gustoson.
[41:03] >> Hi, Sarah Gustoson here. I'm grateful
[41:06] for a lot of things. First of all, I'm
[41:09] grateful for the very substantive
[41:10] questions that my fellow commissioners
[41:12] are asking because these questions have
[41:15] really allowed us to see how well this
[41:19] work has been going. If we take a moment
[41:21] to reflect on what's happening here, um,
[41:25] coordinator Gabby,
[41:27] manager Mason, senior planner
[41:29] Jacqueline, the work you've been
[41:31] describing, building trust through these
[41:33] cultural events, letting equity move at
[41:35] the speed of trust, using new tools like
[41:38] Reddit and AI, but taking accountability
[41:40] for them. This is just what both needs.
[41:43] Gratefulness to everyone. Thank you.
[41:49] Uh thank you, Commissioner Gerson. Um I
[41:52] just have a few more um quick quick
[41:54] notes that I really I feel like um as
[41:57] Commissioner Gerson said, uh getting the
[41:59] answers to would just go on further to
[42:02] um highlight the great works you guys
[42:04] are doing. You talk about um a culture
[42:06] of inclusion which is fantastic. It's
[42:09] very impermeable and
[42:12] for a lot of people is just pie in the
[42:14] sky like oh those are beautiful words.
[42:16] what you're what does that mean? And I
[42:19] really pick up, you know, through the
[42:20] documentation I've seen through so many
[42:23] events and um some of the the things
[42:25] you're doing to reach out to um [snorts]
[42:28] cultural inclusion is phenomenal, but of
[42:30] course cultural isn't our only um isn't the only marginalized populations
[42:36] we're trying to draw in. And some of um
[42:38] there are so many other
[42:41] less colorful populations
[42:44] um such as uh the mentally ill um those
[42:49] people who are homeless that it can be
[42:51] harder to host a party um around and how what what efforts are you making
[42:56] out? Can you talk to me more about
[42:58] creating a culture of inclusion in our
[43:01] city when I mean, [snorts] you know,
[43:04] [clears throat]
[43:04] it sounds insurmountable, but I I know
[43:07] you guys have have techniques and
[43:08] process already.
[43:12] » Well, the good news is is those
[43:14] challenges are um things that we work
[43:16] on, right? And we've made progress on.
[43:18] Gabby, did you want to jump in with
[43:19] something?
[43:20] >> Oh, you can go. If you got something to
[43:22] say first, I can.
[43:23] >> Sure. Well, you know, when we talk about
[43:24] communications, um something that you
[43:26] may be painting with your question is a
[43:28] lot of it to say, "Hey, good news. This
[43:30] is happening or we want your feedback on
[43:32] this." But there's also many times um
[43:35] that we have to communicate urgently or
[43:37] quickly with the community and we know
[43:38] we can't reach everyone. Um especially
[43:40] when you're talking about folks who may
[43:42] be dealing with um different levels of access to information um or who may
[43:47] be unhoused, those can be very
[43:49] challenging folks to to reach, right?
[43:51] because we don't necessarily know how
[43:52] they engage with us. A print mailer
[43:53] isn't going to make it to them, right?
[43:54] We don't know what their access to
[43:56] social media may be. So, we don't ignore
[43:59] the fact that again the the web of
[44:00] ambassadorship in our community through
[44:02] relationships is a really important um
[44:05] communications tool and a listening
[44:06] tool. And I feel um strongly that the
[44:09] work that we've done and the partnership
[44:10] we have with Gabby and with Anand, we
[44:12] talk very regularly about how can we
[44:14] make sure that we both have our eyes and
[44:15] ears um in different corners of the
[44:17] community and that we recognize that not
[44:20] everyone has the same level of access to
[44:21] engage with us. Right. [snorts] So
[44:23] that's a a philosophical approach that
[44:25] we take in the way that we communicate
[44:26] and I think that um a lot of the
[44:28] relationship building that that Gabby's
[44:29] been speaking to has has helped make
[44:31] progress in that area. Gabby.
[44:35] Um yeah, that's almost exactly what I
[44:37] was going to say. Our human services um
[44:40] program is really a major way that we do
[44:42] that. So um we very regularly uh we have
[44:45] a monthly human services um forum that
[44:48] our human services coordinator leads and
[44:50] that brings in um leaders of human
[44:53] services organizations throughout the
[44:56] entire King and Snowomish County area um
[44:59] serving both residents. Um I think at
[45:02] our last human services forum we had
[45:04] like 70 plus um leaders of human
[45:08] services organizations at those and
[45:10] those are the folks that are working
[45:11] directly with our community members
[45:14] dayto-day. So at the city we aren't
[45:16] doing that oneto-one work um of
[45:18] providing services but they are um and
[45:21] so we do have these um scheduled touch
[45:23] points with them uh where they're
[45:25] learning about projects they are um here
[45:28] they're uh giving the feedback that they
[45:30] are hearing out in the community back to
[45:32] the city. Um, so we have kind of this
[45:34] closed loop that we have um with folks
[45:36] that are actually the ones that are
[45:38] serving folks at organizations um for
[45:42] folks that are experiencing food and
[45:44] housing in security um who need
[45:46] emergency funding. Um so for for any of
[45:49] our organizations, they are um actively
[45:52] participating in engagement with the
[45:54] city already. Um and that's been
[45:56] incredibly crucial when we think about
[45:57] some of these big plans um that we we
[46:00] want their feedback on. um but we don't
[46:02] know where to get it. We are working
[46:04] directly with the organizations that are
[46:06] supporting them. Um we also specifically
[46:09] when we think about disability advocacy
[46:12] um we have really close relationships
[46:14] with our disability um advocacy and
[46:17] activism um and support programs in the
[46:19] city of both. We work very closely with
[46:21] Kindering uh the Alyssa Bernett Center
[46:24] and together we shine. Um and so they've
[46:27] been really really really strong
[46:28] partners with us. We actually um I co-e
[46:31] a class at the Alyssa Bernett Center
[46:33] quarterly. Um they have a disability
[46:35] self- advocacy class that we're heavily
[46:36] involved in. Um, and so we really do try
[46:39] to ensure that when we think about a
[46:41] culture of inclusion, we're thinking
[46:43] about all different aspects of the human
[46:45] experience, whether that be um, class,
[46:47] race, ability, um, origin of birth, like
[46:50] so many different um, um, so many
[46:53] different lived experiences, experience
[46:56] marginalization in different ways, and
[46:58] they overlap in very different ways. Um,
[47:00] and so we try to be incredibly
[47:02] considerate of all the different ways
[47:04] that we can uh best reach out to our
[47:06] city and make sure that everybody feels
[47:08] included and is heard.
[47:15] » Uh, thank you. That's a really helpful
[47:18] um to know about. Along those same
[47:21] lines, um as uh as part of the DEI
[47:25] office, you know, I keep reflecting back
[47:28] to this event in um I believe it was a
[47:31] federal way just um a couple weeks ago
[47:34] um between the police and the mentally
[47:36] ill man. Um
[47:39] how
[47:40] do you work at all with law enforcement?
[47:43] And I I believe that at one point law
[47:45] enforcement had a a PACE officer or um a
[47:48] crisis intervention team member, but I
[47:50] haven't heard anything about that
[47:52] recently. Do you work with a crisis
[47:55] intervention team member and do you work
[47:57] with law enforcement at all?
[48:00] >> So I do. So the Basel Police Department
[48:03] is when we think about the um one of the
[48:06] departments within our city government
[48:08] that I help advise, serve, train,
[48:11] consult with. Um, I do work with them
[48:13] quite heavily. Um, I'm working on
[48:15] projects with them right now. Um, and we
[48:17] talk a lot about training and
[48:18] recruitment for law enforcement
[48:20] officers. Um, and so yes, I do
[48:22] absolutely work with them quite heavily.
[48:24] Um, and then we do have a regional
[48:27] crisis response team. Um, and that is
[48:32] um, it serves multiple cities within our
[48:35] region. Um, but it does um, work in with
[48:38] the Basel Police Department quite
[48:39] heavily. Uh I've worked with them on
[48:41] projects um uh here and there, but
[48:45] they're oftentimes out in the field. Um
[48:47] and so I don't work with them um I would
[48:50] say like routinely, but I have worked
[48:51] with them before. I know their names. I
[48:53] know like who they are um and have
[48:55] interact with them. Um but I don't work
[48:58] with them on a day-to-day basis.
[49:03] » Thank you. Um Commissioner Lever, did
[49:06] you have a comment you'd like to make?
[49:07] >> Yeah, thank you. So I I guess uh the one
[49:10] thing that I um I'd like maybe like um
[49:13] offer a suggestion. I know often times
[49:14] we talk about community and who might
[49:17] not be at the table who who is the
[49:19] community and there's a lot of that up
[49:21] that comes our way through the different
[49:23] presentations and it always seems to
[49:25] come from different sources or uh
[49:27] points. So even as we are discussing
[49:29] today what it means to communicate like
[49:31] really sort of having that one template
[49:33] that can be incorporated in every
[49:35] document that we receive just to really
[49:37] remind us of who is it that we're
[49:39] talking about because even as you're uh
[49:41] mentioning sort of like the own house
[49:43] and others even we know that we may not
[49:46] know exactly how many own house may be
[49:48] within our city uh but there are some
[49:50] data points that we can reference to and
[49:53] rather than and I think it'll be super
[49:55] helpful for us to always remember who is
[49:59] not at the table, but we want to really
[50:01] honor their presence through the data
[50:03] points that you do have and try to
[50:05] standardize that. uh so that it's almost
[50:07] like it drilling it to us because we
[50:10] always talk about okay who is not at the
[50:11] table and to your point some people may
[50:13] respond to one particular initiative but
[50:15] not the other and the more that we
[50:17] understand who's not really who do we
[50:19] need and is not there and then who is
[50:21] way too much in there that will be super
[50:23] helpful and I think if we could just
[50:25] have something that could be standard
[50:26] and and that will help us really
[50:29] understand the who uh will be a helpful
[50:32] tool just thank you
[50:42] Commissioners, further comments,
[50:44] questions?
[50:47] Well, I know that this has been very beneficial towards me. Um,
[50:54] very um very appreciative of everything
[50:58] you've um helped us understand today. Um
[51:02] and uh again, we look forward to hearing
[51:04] more from you. Don't be strangers to um
[51:08] the commission. We are we're always
[51:10] interested in um what you're hearing
[51:11] from all aspects of community.
[51:14] >> Excellent. Thank you, commissioners.
[51:15] Appreciate it.
[51:35] » [snorts]
[51:35] >> Okay. Again, thank you to um planner
[51:38] Samson, manager Leivera, and coordinator
[51:40] Cona. Um the next is [clears throat] an
[51:43] update on the bike parking code from
[51:47] planner um Eric Jazooi.
[51:50] Thank you, planner Jazooi.
[51:54] » Thank you, chair and commissioners. Uh if you can just bear with me just
[51:58] have to open my presentation. Thank you.
[52:03] [snorts]
[52:46] Okay. Uh, yes. Hello, commissioners. Um,
[52:50] I'm Eric Jazooi, the long range planner
[52:52] with the community development
[52:53] department,
[52:54] and I am here
[52:58] presenting on uh draft proposed bike
[53:02] parking standards.
[53:04] No action is required today. This is
[53:07] simply a study session on uh staff's
[53:10] preliminary proposal and and discussion
[53:13] among commissioners, questions and the
[53:16] like.
[53:18] The goal of this code update project is
[53:20] to ensure optimal bike parking standards
[53:22] are applied for new development or
[53:24] redevelopment.
[53:26] In my presentation, I'll be walking you
[53:28] through the background information, some
[53:30] data points, the draft proposed code
[53:33] amendments, and opening it up for
[53:35] planning disc planning commission
[53:37] discussion at the end.
[53:39] First, some background.
[53:42] In December 2024, the comprehensive plan
[53:46] update was adopted and it incorporated a
[53:49] lot of new policies and and
[53:53] information. Uh, one of those is was
[53:56] policies was to emphasize travel by
[53:58] non-auto modes including biking, walking
[54:00] and transit and additionally requiring
[54:02] new development where applicable to
[54:04] incorporate appropriate design features
[54:06] such as bicycle and micromobility
[54:09] parking.
[54:12] In 2025, mid 2025, the planning
[54:15] commission and city council heard and
[54:17] city council approved the repeal of
[54:20] motor vehicle parking minimums as an
[54:23] implementation action from the comp plan
[54:25] update. At the same time that ordinance
[54:28] established initial bike parking
[54:30] standards in the code
[54:33] since the initial bike parking standards
[54:35] were adopted. This was about I believe
[54:37] June mid 2025. The department has
[54:40] received multiple project applications
[54:42] and observed that the standards resulted
[54:44] in quite large quantities of bicycle
[54:47] parking being required.
[54:51] So the community development department
[54:53] proposed revisiting the existing bike
[54:56] parking standards with planning
[54:57] commission in May where we held an
[54:59] initial study session to get your
[55:01] preliminary feedback.
[55:03] We heard a variety of comments and
[55:05] questions and I hope that these
[55:08] summarize at least the major points we
[55:10] heard from planning commission to
[55:12] collect both specific data on bike
[55:14] parking usage.
[55:16] uh that proximity to bike facilities and
[55:19] transit um stations is important. Focus
[55:22] on focusing on the quality of bike
[55:24] parking and the accessibility of bike
[55:26] parking uh among many other areas of
[55:29] interest listed here.
[55:34] One of those requests from planning
[55:36] commission involved collecting some
[55:37] basic local data. So since May, we
[55:40] conducted a survey to sample bike
[55:41] parking information using telephone and
[55:43] observational methods.
[55:45] For the survey, we sampled a wide
[55:47] variety of land uses both in downtown
[55:49] and suburban areas of the city.
[55:54] More information on this data is in
[55:55] attachment two of your staff of the
[55:57] staff report. Uh but summarized here for
[56:00] uh long-term bike parking, we observed
[56:03] for residential uses that around 20% of
[56:06] residents used the bike any existing
[56:09] long-term bike parking. Uh or uh said
[56:12] another way, about 25% of the dwelling
[56:14] units uh utilized bike parking spaces
[56:17] for non-residential uses. This could be
[56:19] commercial, civic,
[56:22] uh recreation, things like that. uh
[56:26] maybe not in this case recreation but
[56:28] office as another example. We observed
[56:31] quite a wide range um the bounds of
[56:34] which were between zero uh of those
[56:37] long-term spaces were used and up to 15%
[56:40] were used. Um again for for more
[56:43] information on which land uses had which
[56:45] uh you can look at attachment 2.
[56:48] for short-term bike parking. This
[56:50] observation involved driving around the
[56:53] city and trying to find um bike racks
[56:55] that were visible from the street or a
[56:57] publicly accessible area where I found
[57:02] bike racks in that in those locations. I
[57:05] logged um the land use and found that
[57:09] between none and one bike bike bike was
[57:12] parked there at this specific point in
[57:14] time.
[57:16] So pretty low uh in my opinion.
[57:21] Okay. The proposed draft amendments uh
[57:24] after reviewing the background
[57:25] information, best practices, other
[57:27] jurisdictions approaches and the data
[57:29] staff prepared and the data staff
[57:32] prepared some draft proposed code
[57:34] amendments for your consideration today.
[57:37] Something to keep in mind before I dive
[57:39] into the proposed changes is about the
[57:43] existing code. Uh it applies
[57:47] bike parking is required for any
[57:49] occupancy permit of a new or enlarged
[57:51] building. So that would be a a new
[57:53] construction situation or for a change
[57:55] of use in any existing building. Um the
[57:59] current code is somewhat limited.
[58:02] There's a a list of four land uses in
[58:05] there that have to provide bike parking.
[58:07] That would be multif family housing,
[58:09] commercial uses, office uses, and
[58:11] attended off- streetet parking uses. So
[58:13] that would be a parking garage, paid
[58:15] parking garage situation.
[58:18] Besides that, no other uses are required
[58:21] to provide bike parking in today's code.
[58:25] [clears throat]
[58:27] So the first proposed change for your
[58:31] consideration is the applicability of
[58:33] the regulations.
[58:34] Staff is proposing to require the
[58:37] provision of bike parking for any
[58:40] proposal within a quarter mile walking
[58:43] distance of an existing bike facility or
[58:46] a planned bike facility or a bus rapid
[58:49] transit high-capacity transit station.
[58:51] That would be like the uh stride line on
[58:55] 522.
[58:59] And you can see a map of those
[59:01] facilities on the right side of this
[59:03] slide. There's bus st bus stops. Um most
[59:06] of the very thick lines are are proposed
[59:09] or planned um bike facilities and some
[59:12] of the less bold lines, thinner lines
[59:15] are existing.
[59:18] [snorts]
[59:21] Next, the proposed code would apply bike
[59:23] parking rules to additional land use
[59:25] types such as or including those excuse
[59:29] me, additional land use types as listed
[59:31] here. uh for example dormitories,
[59:34] government services, industrial uses,
[59:36] health and social services uh and so on.
[59:39] None of these are currently required to
[59:41] provide bike parking today.
[59:47] While the regula the regulations would
[59:49] be broadened as mentioned previously,
[59:52] they would also incorporate recognition
[59:54] of special cases.
[59:56] First, there would be reductions allowed
[59:58] for STEP housing, which is defined as
[1:00:01] supportive housing, transitional
[1:00:03] housing, emergency housing, and housing
[1:00:05] for people with disabilities.
[1:00:08] Recognizing that those situations may
[1:00:12] have uh less demand for bicycle parking.
[1:00:19] Also, deviations would be allowed to the
[1:00:22] uh to the proposed quantities
[1:00:24] uh as long as an applicant submitted
[1:00:28] sufficient evidence that they um could
[1:00:31] provide less bike parking than required.
[1:00:37] Next, exemptions. The proposed draft
[1:00:39] code would establish certain land uses
[1:00:43] to be exempt from providing bike
[1:00:45] parking. Um,
[1:00:47] single unit housing, that be single
[1:00:49] family housing or a townhouse, senior
[1:00:51] housing,
[1:00:53] vehicle oriented uses like a gas station
[1:00:56] or a automaintenance shop, parks, golf
[1:00:59] courses, although [snorts] I have ridden
[1:01:02] my bike to a golf course and played
[1:01:04] golf, but not a common activity. So um
[1:01:08] food trucks, outdoor dining, other
[1:01:09] exemptions in the proposal, agricultural
[1:01:13] uses, utilities, transportation
[1:01:15] facilities, mortuaries and cemeteries,
[1:01:18] essential public facilities and fire and
[1:01:20] police stations.
[1:01:24] [clears throat] Uh other special cases
[1:01:26] uh that are in the proposal
[1:01:30] is when there are large mixeduse
[1:01:32] developments. Um, these would have bike
[1:01:35] parking quantities determined by the
[1:01:37] director based on the specific mix of
[1:01:39] uses, context,
[1:01:42] um, location, things like that. [snorts]
[1:01:44] And any land uses, I tried to be
[1:01:47] exhaustive in the proposed code, but if
[1:01:50] there's anything that's not in there,
[1:01:52] um, those would be again determined by
[1:01:54] the community development director
[1:01:56] looking at, um, similar land uses and
[1:01:58] intensities and characteristics.
[1:02:02] Lastly, the proposal would eliminate an
[1:02:04] existing exemption. This is something we
[1:02:06] heard from planning commission in May.
[1:02:08] Um uh the current exemption allow uh ex
[1:02:13] current uh regulation exempts small
[1:02:16] buildings under 2500 square ft uh from
[1:02:19] providing bike parking. We heard that
[1:02:21] there may be small uses that should have
[1:02:23] a space or two. So um we propose to
[1:02:26] delete that exemption based on planning
[1:02:29] commission's feedback.
[1:02:32] Okay. So, first the quantity
[1:02:34] requirements.
[1:02:36] Uh these this is I know kind of a lot of
[1:02:38] text and and numbers and things. So, um
[1:02:41] at the end I'm happy to to walk you
[1:02:43] through any of these in specific uh
[1:02:46] cases.
[1:02:48] But the proposal would generally reduce
[1:02:51] the required or the proposal would
[1:02:53] reduce the required amount for multif
[1:02:55] family residential shown here.
[1:02:58] It would also clarify the amount
[1:03:00] required for co-living units as that's
[1:03:02] not currently uh listed in the use maybe
[1:03:05] multif family in the current code.
[1:03:08] Affordable housing would be required to
[1:03:10] provide one and a half times the
[1:03:11] residential quantity. Uh understanding
[1:03:13] that potentially people may um rely more
[1:03:17] on their bikes in those types of land
[1:03:19] uses.
[1:03:21] Uh again, supportive transitional
[1:03:23] housing, emergency housing, and housing
[1:03:25] for people with disabilities uh would be
[1:03:29] permitted for half the residential
[1:03:31] quantities in the first two rows
[1:03:33] depending on whether that step housing
[1:03:35] is as a co-living or a multifamily type
[1:03:38] building. Um in any case, two spaces
[1:03:42] would be required regardless uh of what
[1:03:45] these calculations result in.
[1:03:51] Next list of uses
[1:03:54] would apply long-term bike parking
[1:03:56] requirements to non-residential uses
[1:03:58] based on the pro based on the proportion
[1:04:00] of employees. So, in the proposal, we
[1:04:03] established uh one bike parking space
[1:04:06] per 20 employees or staff. [snorts]
[1:04:10] Uh this is different than what's common
[1:04:12] uh in other places where it's based on
[1:04:14] the square footage. We thought this was
[1:04:16] a little bit more straightforward and
[1:04:18] easier to understand
[1:04:21] for those uses here that are currently
[1:04:23] regulated. So there's kind of some uses
[1:04:26] added and some uses that that currently
[1:04:28] have to provide bike parking. Those
[1:04:30] currently regulated here, which is
[1:04:33] specifically retail, uh eating and
[1:04:35] drinking establishments,
[1:04:38] um
[1:04:40] the requirements proposed would
[1:04:42] generally be lower than today.
[1:04:45] for office use, which is currently
[1:04:47] regulated, it would actually result in a
[1:04:49] little bit more bike parking required.
[1:04:52] Um, making an assumption of of square
[1:04:54] footage per employee.
[1:04:57] Uh, an added use, some added uses that would now be required to provide
[1:05:01] bike parking, business and personal
[1:05:03] service, um, recreation, culture and
[1:05:06] entertainment, and industrial.
[1:05:12] Last quantity slides. So, thank you for
[1:05:14] bearing with me here. Uh, these are all
[1:05:16] new uses uh that would propose be
[1:05:18] proposed to be added into the code. Once
[1:05:21] again, uh the long-term spaces based on
[1:05:24] the number of employees [snorts] and
[1:05:27] short-term uh parking standards are are
[1:05:30] established as well, of course. Um and I would say in in these cases and
[1:05:34] the ones previously, they all sort of
[1:05:36] result in a a lesser or sort of a lower
[1:05:39] end um compared to other jurisdictions.
[1:05:43] um parking requirements. So, it's kind
[1:05:46] of a a recognition of again that that
[1:05:50] basic data collection we did around both
[1:05:52] seeing that um [snorts] bicycle use at
[1:05:55] non-residential locations is is limited.
[1:06:02] Another comment we heard from planning
[1:06:03] commission in May is to focus on quality
[1:06:05] over quantity. So, we added regulations
[1:06:08] to that end. Specifically, making sure
[1:06:10] that these bike parking spaces are
[1:06:12] easily to easy to access by people with
[1:06:15] different abilities. Uh, specifically,
[1:06:18] you shouldn't have to lift your bike
[1:06:20] very high or over your head in order to
[1:06:22] use the spaces
[1:06:25] or ascend stairs with your bike, for
[1:06:28] example. Also, the bike racks must fully
[1:06:33] support bikes, making them easier to
[1:06:35] use. And then the regulations include
[1:06:38] guidance or recommendations um to
[1:06:40] include but this is not required again
[1:06:43] what we heard from planning commission
[1:06:44] bicycle supportive amenities such as
[1:06:46] showers, lockers, repair stations.
[1:06:52] Another component of the bike parking
[1:06:54] discussion we've had centers around some
[1:06:56] added regulatory flexibility.
[1:06:59] The proposal would eliminate a
[1:07:01] requirement that short-term bike parking
[1:07:03] has to be within 50 ft of front
[1:07:06] entrances recognizing that that is
[1:07:08] challenging and can lead to some uh
[1:07:11] unusual spaces and in front areas. So we
[1:07:16] are still retaining it as a qualitative
[1:07:20] requirement but not a quantitative
[1:07:22] requirement. the full first bullet
[1:07:24] point.
[1:07:26] Also allowing um reductions. If there's
[1:07:29] any on street bike parking, of course,
[1:07:32] then they would be able to net out any
[1:07:35] um short-term bike parking requirement
[1:07:37] that they had to provide.
[1:07:39] Some short-term spaces can be located in
[1:07:42] recreation spa, required recreation
[1:07:44] space or open spaces limited. I think
[1:07:46] it's about 10%
[1:07:49] of the open space. also adding um the
[1:07:53] permitted another permitted type of
[1:07:55] long-term bike parking as lockers. We
[1:07:57] see these um quite prodigiously around
[1:08:02] transit stations, for example. And these
[1:08:04] could be lockers uh within a building
[1:08:07] for example, not necessarily just on the
[1:08:09] street like this example.
[1:08:11] Also, um we can we would allow netting
[1:08:15] out of your requirements if you provide
[1:08:18] bike parking in the unit. Now there has
[1:08:21] some qualifiers and there needs to be a
[1:08:23] very clear space for um the bike in the
[1:08:26] unit and again you cannot just say oh
[1:08:30] they'll climb some stairs carry it up
[1:08:32] and you know maneuver by um uh by the by
[1:08:36] the bins to get it in there. So there
[1:08:37] has to be a very easy um pathway to to
[1:08:40] maneuver the bike um elevator if it's on
[1:08:43] a second floor for example.
[1:08:45] And lastly, we would allow further
[1:08:47] conversion of existing vehicle parking
[1:08:49] um if an applicant chose to want to go
[1:08:51] that way. [snorts]
[1:08:54] [sighs and gasps]
[1:08:55] Other kind of various [clears throat]
[1:08:57] changes recognizing and accommodating
[1:08:59] other personal microobility devices such
[1:09:01] as scooters in the requirements, making
[1:09:03] sure that those can be accommodated. Uh
[1:09:07] safe, we heard about safety and and how
[1:09:09] to to incorporate that. Um, one of the
[1:09:11] things we found is is uh can add a
[1:09:13] requirement to prohibit blocking
[1:09:15] pedestrian routes um for the when they
[1:09:19] lock the the bike up.
[1:09:22] Also a note just sort of about kind of
[1:09:24] code minutia. We are um proposing to
[1:09:27] kind of centralize all the bike parking
[1:09:29] in this section and delete what's in the
[1:09:32] downtown um bike parking standards. Um
[1:09:35] those downtown standards are are a bit
[1:09:38] more stringent. Um, so again, just just
[1:09:41] for your awareness
[1:09:43] and there's just other kind of general
[1:09:45] code cleanup and improvements and
[1:09:47] fine-tuning and things.
[1:09:50] Okay. Um, I do want to go through like I
[1:09:54] did some calculations on various land
[1:09:56] uses and projects so that we can
[1:09:58] translate like these percentages into
[1:10:02] the real world. But maybe I'll pause and
[1:10:04] take some questions on what I've
[1:10:06] presented so far.
[1:10:10] Commissioners.
[1:10:12] >> Yes, Commissioner Gon.
[1:10:16] >> Couple of thoughts. Um, I'm not sure
[1:10:20] about exempting parks. A lot of people
[1:10:22] ride to parks. Um, I think there should
[1:10:26] be some facility there. Uh, food trucks.
[1:10:29] I understand an individual food truck,
[1:10:31] but if we go and have a food truck pod
[1:10:34] in this corner here, I think there
[1:10:36] should certainly be something
[1:10:37] accommodating there. Whoops. So, there's
[1:10:40] that. Um, you look at poolled
[1:10:43] facilities. For instance, if businesses
[1:10:46] on Main Street had a rack, [snorts]
[1:10:48] could that serve them all?
[1:10:53] » I mean, there would not be a limitation.
[1:10:57] uh we would not prohibit that I guess
[1:10:59] and you know I think there's one of the
[1:11:02] proposed standards says you have to
[1:11:05] provide short-term bike parking near the
[1:11:07] front entrance again there's no foot
[1:11:10] distance and then combined with another
[1:11:14] uh regulation we're adding is that you
[1:11:16] can net out existing or if you want to
[1:11:20] install on street bike parking so we
[1:11:22] would look maybe again Main Street
[1:11:24] example is the next door business have a
[1:11:26] on street space like that would be fine
[1:11:29] to net out and now maybe that's such a
[1:11:31] small use they don't have to provide
[1:11:33] >> the frontage so
[1:11:34] >> okay
[1:11:35] >> yes
[1:11:36] >> and are you looking to somehow address
[1:11:38] the rental ebikes and scooters you do
[1:11:42] see them scattered about
[1:11:44] >> not in this proposal
[1:11:47] um I believe there is some work by the
[1:11:53] public works department on a
[1:11:55] microobility strategy
[1:11:57] And um I think that that may address
[1:12:00] that. I'm not super sure.
[1:12:02] >> Okay.
[1:12:05] And finally in um you talk about um
[1:12:09] quarter mile walking distance as far as
[1:12:12] the applicability. That seems a little
[1:12:14] short for a bicycle. I mean you could
[1:12:17] riding a quarter mile on a bike is
[1:12:19] really nothing. So you might look at
[1:12:22] broadening that out a little bit. And I do, excuse [clears throat] me, I do
[1:12:26] think bicycle use is changing with the
[1:12:29] rise of ebikes. And I'll just say based
[1:12:31] on personal experience, I walk by the
[1:12:33] middle school Henry Park Middle School
[1:12:35] every day with my dog. And for a long
[1:12:37] time, there were very few bikes there,
[1:12:39] much to my disappointment. Uh but I've
[1:12:41] noted in the last year or so increasing
[1:12:45] numbers of ebikes. So I think you may
[1:12:47] see some changes. Things may be
[1:12:49] different in a couple years than they
[1:12:50] are now. as they come, prices come down,
[1:12:53] they're more and more in use. So, I'd
[1:12:54] say keep your m keep your eyes on that.
[1:12:58] >> Thank you.
[1:12:59] >> Uh, thank you, Commissioner. And I
[1:13:02] appreciate the feedback and I'll I'll
[1:13:04] take that back to the team. Um, I do
[1:13:06] want to follow up on just one of your
[1:13:08] comments if that's all right. Um,
[1:13:11] on the quarter mile or half mile uh
[1:13:14] radius, um, let me just show you the map
[1:13:17] that I had. So, I I wanted to have it
[1:13:20] for this meeting, but I couldn't quite
[1:13:22] figure figure it out uh yet. I figured
[1:13:25] it out today, but wasn't in time. So, I
[1:13:27] wanted to sort of draw that that quarter
[1:13:30] mile around these facilities
[1:13:32] um
[1:13:34] because I I have a hunch that it may be
[1:13:38] covering almost the whole city.
[1:13:40] extremely small pockets maybe of like a
[1:13:43] culde-sac at the top of a hill at the
[1:13:45] end of a street might not be covered um
[1:13:47] by that quarter mile walk to a planned
[1:13:50] bike facility. But um if we're talking
[1:13:54] about half mile again I I want to do
[1:13:57] this mapping exercise but I have a
[1:13:59] feeling we're talking about that's just
[1:14:01] going to blanket the whole city. Now,
[1:14:03] um, so my follow-up question is, what do
[1:14:06] you think about maybe just striking this
[1:14:09] applicability and just saying it's not
[1:14:11] limited? If we were talking about a half
[1:14:14] mile, let's just make it simple.
[1:14:17] >> I always like simple. [snorts]
[1:14:20] >> Just to clarify, is that being it's more
[1:14:22] about uh use and building type,
[1:14:24] occupancy type instead of distance?
[1:14:28] Because you got the list, you know, all
[1:14:30] the places it applies. Is it sort of
[1:14:32] saying we'll just leave it with that or
[1:14:35] just omit the one quarter mile?
[1:14:38] >> Yeah. So, so under what I've we have
[1:14:41] prepared for you today, there would be
[1:14:44] the first question to an applicant is, your site within a/4 mile walking
[1:14:48] distance of these? They say no, okay, no
[1:14:51] bike parking, you're good. They say yes,
[1:14:53] then yes, what's your land use? If it's
[1:14:56] here, here's your requirement. So yeah,
[1:14:58] if uh if the commission is supportive of
[1:15:01] Commissioner Kieran's um approach, then
[1:15:05] we can strike that first step and and
[1:15:07] again just be simply land use based uh
[1:15:09] requirement.
[1:15:13] » Sounds good to me.
[1:15:16] >> Thank you.
[1:15:17] >> Sounds good to me, too.
[1:15:21] >> Looks like we have Yeah, broad agreement
[1:15:23] there.
[1:15:25] Commissioner Lavner. Um thank you and
[1:15:28] thank you so much for the sample uh that
[1:15:30] you provided for the survey that was
[1:15:32] amazing. Thank you. I have a question
[1:15:34] and I believe you shared some data uh on
[1:15:38] like forecasting on like usage. So when
[1:15:41] I think about both and I still see still
[1:15:44] pretty much like maybe still suburbia uh
[1:15:47] but we are moving more into urban area.
[1:15:51] What are the forecasting for like bike
[1:15:53] use? because we know that right now
[1:15:56] maybe we're not using them as much but
[1:15:58] with the ebikes and population trending
[1:16:00] changes. What does that look like? Do
[1:16:04] you have any I I remember you kind of
[1:16:06] shared something around that? Do you
[1:16:07] think the bike usage is going to
[1:16:08] increase in both is going to remain the
[1:16:10] same? Um overall I'm pretty supportive
[1:16:12] of what you presented over here and I
[1:16:14] really it makes sense.
[1:16:16] >> But yeah, seeing your survey results and
[1:16:18] what I see I don't think we're biking
[1:16:20] much. Hello.
[1:16:23] >> And that's one of my discussion
[1:16:24] questions at the end. I I think and I've
[1:16:28] sort of been consider we've been
[1:16:29] considering this through the process is
[1:16:32] do we and this is something we do as
[1:16:34] planners is do we think about today's
[1:16:36] conditions and plan for that or do we
[1:16:38] think about how the city wants to be in
[1:16:40] 20 years and plan for that. So um that's
[1:16:43] kind of a question for the commission.
[1:16:44] Now, uh I will say I I'm not aware of
[1:16:47] any bicycling use forecasts that the
[1:16:50] city has prepared. Um I do know that the
[1:16:54] bike plan um contains a vision statement
[1:16:57] that is pretty strong and you know
[1:16:59] envisions bicycling as a major mode of
[1:17:01] transportation in the city. Um
[1:17:05] so
[1:17:07] anything else I want to say? Um, I think
[1:17:10] we also know that, um, you know, in
[1:17:13] regards to short-term bike parking, you
[1:17:15] saw not not too much usage that I think
[1:17:18] that kind of speaks to
[1:17:21] that people maybe don't use their bikes
[1:17:22] so much for basic transportation, going
[1:17:25] shopping and things like that. But um
[1:17:27] there is some some significant
[1:17:29] residential bicycle ownership and uh I
[1:17:33] did pull data from Strava uh and you
[1:17:37] know which essentially records mostly
[1:17:39] recreational bicycle usage and obviously
[1:17:41] we have the Berg Gillan Trail uh we have
[1:17:44] other uh the North North Creek Trail. So
[1:17:46] um I would say you know quite a notable
[1:17:50] use of of recreational bicycling in the
[1:17:52] city. Um, I'm sorry I don't have any
[1:17:54] specific numbers, but that's sort of my information.
[1:17:59] >> Commissioner Westerbeck,
[1:18:00] >> first of all, are you is there more
[1:18:02] presentation or should we just do
[1:18:03] comments now?
[1:18:04] >> There's more on talking about the
[1:18:06] quantities. So,
[1:18:07] >> okay. Yeah,
[1:18:07] >> I'll just make general comments. First
[1:18:09] of all, [clears throat] um, I thought
[1:18:10] the the code we had was pretty, you
[1:18:13] know, maybe a little little heavy and so
[1:18:15] I had been a critic of this, but I've bike commuted on and off for gosh
[1:18:20] since the 80s. So, yeah. um much like
[1:18:23] Cher Kieran and probably almost every
[1:18:25] job I've had I've accumulated at least
[1:18:27] during the the nicer months. So at the
[1:18:29] same time I also manage some apartments
[1:18:32] and and things like that. So I see the
[1:18:34] long-term parking being the really
[1:18:35] important one. Everybody everybody's got
[1:18:37] a bike and they want a place to put it
[1:18:38] even if they don't ride it very often.
[1:18:39] And then more and more I'm seeing they
[1:18:41] are the the more difficult bikes to move
[1:18:42] ebikes and things things like that. So
[1:18:44] I'm really I went I read through all
[1:18:46] everything. I think this is a massive
[1:18:47] just see change improvement and I think
[1:18:49] it's a great starting point. I think if
[1:18:52] we do see um like my wife works at a
[1:18:54] high school and as Cher Kieran said at
[1:18:57] the high school there's so many more
[1:18:59] kids riding um ebikes now. I mean
[1:19:01] they're mostly trying not to pedal.
[1:19:02] They're just basically scooters for them
[1:19:04] but nonetheless they're doing that
[1:19:06] instead of getting driven or whatever.
[1:19:08] So that's pretty cool. And um so they're
[1:19:10] wrestling with that at the schools I
[1:19:11] think. But everybody's got a place to
[1:19:13] put their bike. But um so
[1:19:15] [clears throat] the long-term and
[1:19:16] putting the emphasis on the long-term
[1:19:17] storage for multif family and uh places
[1:19:21] where people are want to store their
[1:19:23] bikes, I think is really key. I'm glad
[1:19:24] we're we're kind of focusing on that. Um
[1:19:27] yeah, the short term makes sense to me.
[1:19:29] And I think it is just like
[1:19:31] [clears throat] any code in a few years
[1:19:32] if we see a lot of uptake of ebikes or
[1:19:35] even analog normal bikes we just you
[1:19:38] know we tweak the code a little bit and
[1:19:39] say oh we actually finally might need
[1:19:42] some more racks. So I think it's a great
[1:19:43] place to start. I think it's going to
[1:19:45] help um [clears throat] with my
[1:19:46] developer hat on um projects get done um
[1:19:50] and you know maybe the the bike rooms
[1:19:52] will be a little more easy to uh provide
[1:19:54] for the long-term parking or inside the
[1:19:56] unit or whatever. So overall, I'm just
[1:19:59] really thrilled. I read every every word
[1:20:00] of this. It's fantastic. I thought I thought it was a really good
[1:20:03] um um overhaul. Um so I appreciate the
[1:20:07] work a lot and that you guys have been
[1:20:09] so responsive as well.
[1:20:15] If I could just ask for something like
[1:20:18] an office building, what does long-term
[1:20:21] parking look like versus short-term
[1:20:23] parking if people don't live there?
[1:20:27] Right. Um I'm sorry I didn't include um
[1:20:30] nice photos like I did in May, but the long-term parking for uh well I'll speak to city hall because I bike
[1:20:36] here actually. So uh down in the parking
[1:20:39] garage as you enter over there, there's
[1:20:41] just a a cyclone fence cage um with a a
[1:20:45] little padlock on it and then some some
[1:20:48] metal metal racks you can lock your bike
[1:20:50] to. So um that's what I've seen is sort
[1:20:52] of the basic um approach is just in the
[1:20:54] parking garage uh you know secured
[1:20:56] space. It can be a storage room like
[1:20:59] let's say a restaurant auxiliary space
[1:21:02] um for the long term again um some
[1:21:05] examples and then shortterm uh is that
[1:21:07] simple sort of U rack or something like
[1:21:10] that um by the front door or near the
[1:21:12] frontage the front sidewalk whatever um
[1:21:16] for just visitors or guests.
[1:21:18] So, [snorts] what I'm hearing is the
[1:21:20] level of security um long-term will have
[1:21:24] more security versus the short term. Is
[1:21:26] that what I'm hearing?
[1:21:26] >> That's correct. And yeah, assuming you
[1:21:28] know people leave their bikes there for
[1:21:30] longer, they want more security.
[1:21:36] » Um I actually just had one more
[1:21:37] question. Um it was I'd love to hear the
[1:21:41] thinking around not mandating parking
[1:21:43] for parks. That really surprised me, but
[1:21:45] I'm sure there's something I'm
[1:21:46] overlooking there.
[1:21:49] I would say it it was less common in
[1:21:53] reviewing um other jurisdictions codes.
[1:21:57] Another factor uh we considered is,
[1:22:02] you know, typically parks are publicly
[1:22:04] owned and, you know, the city um parks
[1:22:08] department or the King County um parks
[1:22:10] department would
[1:22:13] factor in and probably include some
[1:22:15] level of bike parking regardless. So, um
[1:22:20] it's something we can add certainly if
[1:22:21] that's the commission's wish. um we just
[1:22:23] didn't see it as as a significant need.
[1:22:27] But
[1:22:28] that's all.
[1:22:31] Um, just from my perspective, it seems
[1:22:33] like of all the places in our community,
[1:22:36] a park is is where we would see a lot of
[1:22:39] people um, riding their [clears throat]
[1:22:41] bikes, too. as we've been discussing
[1:22:43] that recreation
[1:22:44] um biking is um
[1:22:50] is uh we have a lot of it in this
[1:22:52] community and a park seems like a great
[1:22:54] place to take a rest to
[1:22:58] you know get some water and um for
[1:23:02] people who are riding their bikes. So it
[1:23:04] makes sense to me that we would at least
[1:23:05] mandate some parking um for bikes. uh it
[1:23:09] seems like, you know, a good starting
[1:23:10] place and ending place for people taking
[1:23:13] um bike rides with their family and
[1:23:15] riding to community events and stuff
[1:23:17] like that. So that that was my only
[1:23:19] other comment.
[1:23:24] » Commissioner Wester, did you have a
[1:23:26] >> Okay.
[1:23:28] So, uh
[1:23:31] >> Oh, Commissioner Gersonson.
[1:23:34] >> Hi, Sarah Gustoson here. Um, before I
[1:23:37] make my point, I'm honestly curious. Has
[1:23:40] anyone else here tried to bike or bike
[1:23:43] commute as a resident of one of those
[1:23:46] big downtown apartment buildings? I
[1:23:48] have, but I don't want to assume that my
[1:23:52] experience is universal before jumping
[1:23:54] in.
[1:23:59] Okay, I will go ahead on the code. I
[1:24:03] raised this last session and I didn't
[1:24:05] see it reflected yet. Um, so I'll put it
[1:24:07] on the record. When I lived downtown for
[1:24:09] nine months in 2023, 2024 and tried to
[1:24:13] bike around the city, my apartment's
[1:24:15] bike parking was full, but it was full
[1:24:19] of underused bikes that barely ever
[1:24:21] moved. So, I often had nowhere to lock
[1:24:24] my bike. Right now, we're putting real
[1:24:28] thought into car parking management.
[1:24:31] um the same problem we see on our
[1:24:32] streets where parking with no
[1:24:34] enforcement means cars sit indefinitely.
[1:24:38] Let's consider that in relation to
[1:24:40] bikes. This code builds the spaces but
[1:24:43] says nothing about parking management,
[1:24:46] no responsible party, no process for
[1:24:49] clearing abandoned or unused bikes. A
[1:24:51] space that's permanently occupied um
[1:24:55] isn't really a space. So that I I have
[1:25:00] some more thoughts, but I'd like to see
[1:25:01] how that lands. Thank you, [snorts]
[1:25:10] » Commissioner West.
[1:25:11] >> I'll just concur because I know
[1:25:12] Commissioner August and I chatted about
[1:25:15] that because I I would have loved to
[1:25:17] have provided you space that I didn't
[1:25:18] have any, but [laughter] um I uh I have
[1:25:22] can see into some of those garages and
[1:25:23] see that Yeah. like some of them just
[1:25:25] sit forever. So, I think it's a it's a
[1:25:28] key issue. I mean, maybe um you know,
[1:25:31] this is getting really into the weeds.
[1:25:33] You know, part of that management would
[1:25:34] be they would um assign spots or
[1:25:36] something like that and then and then
[1:25:38] manage them um in some way, but I don't
[1:25:41] know if that's going to be the perview
[1:25:42] of the city or they encourage the the
[1:25:44] apartment uh ownership to do that that
[1:25:47] sort of management. So, I can't say I I
[1:25:49] know a code that would cover that right
[1:25:52] now, but I I I hear you cuz I was going
[1:25:55] to say a few minutes ago, this sort of
[1:25:57] relates. I worked at the University of
[1:25:59] Washington for about a year and I rode
[1:26:00] my bike again during the warmer months,
[1:26:02] but um they had so many people as who
[1:26:06] worked at the University of Washington
[1:26:08] all over because they've got buildings
[1:26:09] everywhere and this is in Seattle, not
[1:26:11] the UDub Bathl. They were there was
[1:26:14] almost a crisis. they were frantically
[1:26:15] trying to find money to build more um
[1:26:19] secure bike parking um because people
[1:26:23] were coming and going daily. And I uh I
[1:26:26] could see that in 5 10 20 years those
[1:26:29] apartments might be more like that where
[1:26:31] every like you say
[1:26:33] Sarah that uh each space is precious. So
[1:26:37] um we we might we might get there
[1:26:38] eventually. We're not there now but we
[1:26:40] might get there eventually. So that
[1:26:41] management issue might come up.
[1:26:47] Thank you, Commissioner Rest, for um all
[1:26:50] those comments and for remembering when
[1:26:51] I tried to rent bike parking space from
[1:26:53] you. Um
[1:26:55] I think there's some simple solutions
[1:26:57] here. For example, if um a bike could be
[1:27:01] tagged and if it isn't moved in a week
[1:27:04] or two weeks, then um the bike could be
[1:27:08] impounded or ideally there would be a
[1:27:10] warning first to the person. But I think
[1:27:12] there's some low tech solutions that
[1:27:15] could happen to make sure that these
[1:27:17] spaces that we're pushing so hard for um
[1:27:20] actually do what they're supposed to do.
[1:27:24] Um also another thing I wanted to bring
[1:27:28] up was my building was built in 2016
[1:27:32] um and seem to have no distinction
[1:27:34] between short and long-term parkings. So
[1:27:37] what we see is zero demand in this
[1:27:39] survey might be just zero supply. And do
[1:27:41] we know what surveyed sites predate the
[1:27:44] latest standards? Maybe what I saw
[1:27:46] wasn't universal. Um so yes, those
[1:27:48] [clears throat] two questions. Can we do
[1:27:51] um easy solutions here? And um what is
[1:27:55] the difference between where I was in
[1:27:56] newer buildings?
[1:28:03] » Uh so regarding your I hear that uh
[1:28:06] comment commissioner Gustde definitely.
[1:28:08] Um, if I can clarify in your first
[1:28:10] question, are you referring to
[1:28:13] short-term sort of bike parking in the
[1:28:15] frontage or or the long-term like locked
[1:28:18] secured space or both?
[1:28:20] >> Either or because where I was it was
[1:28:23] just a long lines of cramped bikes, many
[1:28:25] of which were dusty and there was no
[1:28:27] distinction.
[1:28:29] >> Okay.
[1:28:32] » I I will we'll take that comment uh and
[1:28:35] discuss it internally. I would say um at
[1:28:38] least as it pertains to the proposed
[1:28:40] code before you today
[1:28:44] if you wish to increase the amount of
[1:28:47] residential bike parking that's that's
[1:28:50] an option available to you. Um
[1:28:53] would be one way of addressing that that
[1:28:55] comment. Um
[1:29:00] » you know um thank you for that. I do
[1:29:02] think it would be the same as the
[1:29:03] parking issue that we encounter on our
[1:29:05] streets where the more we give, the more
[1:29:08] people use it. And the real issue is not
[1:29:10] about how many parking spaces we
[1:29:12] provide, it's how we manage them.
[1:29:17] » I hear that. Thank you.
[1:29:19] >> Thank you,
[1:29:21] >> Commissioner Westbick. Just to chime in
[1:29:22] there, I I know the building you're
[1:29:24] talking about, um, Commissioner
[1:29:26] Gustoson, and I have to think now I'm
[1:29:28] thinking about those racks. They're
[1:29:29] double height. They're not secure. You
[1:29:32] have to use your lock. I don't think the
[1:29:34] new code would even allow them anymore
[1:29:36] as as long-term secure parking. So, not
[1:29:40] that it's a moot point at all because
[1:29:41] it's going to exist. They're not going
[1:29:42] to probably change it. But I think that
[1:29:44] with the new code, uh the short-term
[1:29:47] that wouldn't necessarily be short-term
[1:29:48] parking and it wouldn't um probably
[1:29:50] comply with the long-term requirements.
[1:29:52] So, that's where I think this code could
[1:29:54] be an upgrade. Probably is an upgrade.
[1:29:57] But then it also begs a question. Say
[1:30:00] there's room for 100 bikes or something.
[1:30:02] Um is it like a storage unit almost in
[1:30:05] some buildings where they'd say, "Yeah,
[1:30:07] you're assigned, you know, spot A13."
[1:30:10] >> Um granted, u and maybe that has to be
[1:30:13] an extra, you know, 50 bucks a month or
[1:30:15] something like that. And and and then
[1:30:17] maybe that starts to become a an equity
[1:30:20] issue. They have to pay more to store
[1:30:21] their bike or something, but they have
[1:30:22] to pay for parking spots, too. So, I
[1:30:24] don't know. I'm just trying to think of
[1:30:25] how you would um how would you make it
[1:30:27] unattractive to leave a bike um in a
[1:30:30] precious spot using this new code. Um
[1:30:34] >> just spitballing a little bit.
[1:30:37] >> Thank you.
[1:30:41] » Um Commissioner Gustiffson, I don't
[1:30:42] think I responded to your second
[1:30:44] question. If if you might repeat that
[1:30:45] for me, please.
[1:30:47] >> Yes, thank you so much. Sarah Gustiffson
[1:30:50] here. My question dubtales with
[1:30:53] what Commissioner Westerbeck was saying
[1:30:55] about the difference between new and old
[1:30:59] ones, new and old buildings. My thought
[1:31:01] is what buildings were you surveying?
[1:31:04] And if you were surveying old buildings
[1:31:07] with older standards,
[1:31:10] um how it is that really fair for the
[1:31:13] data? Um, if you're only surveying the
[1:31:16] newer buildings with the newer
[1:31:17] standards, then um, and they're still
[1:31:21] comp there's no usage when the bike
[1:31:25] racks might be state-of-the-art, they
[1:31:27] might be managed. Well, that's a
[1:31:29] different data point. Um but what I'm
[1:31:32] suspecting is that my data point holds
[1:31:35] which is that um
[1:31:39] some of the problems that we see in the
[1:31:41] old older buildings are going to happen
[1:31:45] again in the newer buildings unless we
[1:31:47] really are careful about our code and
[1:31:48] our management.
[1:31:51] >> Got it.
[1:31:52] >> Sorry. [laughter]
[1:31:53] [snorts] So,
[1:31:56] that's a great question and I appreciate
[1:31:58] you taking the data I presented with a
[1:32:00] grain of salt because it was um a very
[1:32:02] basic survey and definitely not
[1:32:05] scientific. I'm not submitting it to any
[1:32:06] journals or anything.
[1:32:08] >> Um so, I did try my best uh in the time
[1:32:12] I had to take a a variety of situations
[1:32:16] and in land uses. So, um I surveyed new
[1:32:21] development, new residential, mixeduse
[1:32:23] development downtown, um old apartment,
[1:32:27] garden apartments, um in the Canyon Park
[1:32:30] area,
[1:32:32] new uh retail spaces in or uh yeah, new
[1:32:36] retail spaces um in North Creek, old
[1:32:41] strip malls. [snorts] Uh so, it's the
[1:32:45] wide variety. Um, and again, not a
[1:32:48] multitude, but at least a variety of
[1:32:51] samples here.
[1:32:53] So, I hope that gives you a little bit
[1:32:56] more confidence. Um, I also presented
[1:32:59] the
[1:33:01] absolute numbers and not just the
[1:33:02] percentages in attachment two. So, you
[1:33:05] can draw your own conclusions as to did
[1:33:08] they provide enough long-term spaces,
[1:33:11] did they provide enough short-term
[1:33:12] spaces, how many um I included the
[1:33:16] number of employees if that was a a
[1:33:18] commercial use or the number of
[1:33:20] residents, too. So,
[1:33:23] I tried to present as objective data as
[1:33:25] I can. Um, again, not not an amazing uh
[1:33:29] graduate research project, but the best
[1:33:32] I can do here. So,
[1:33:35] Oh, thank you. I mean, it it's it's
[1:33:37] great. I really appreciate you getting
[1:33:39] out there on seeing what things are. Um,
[1:33:42] and this is a good start.
[1:33:48] » Uh, Commissioner Robson here. I think
[1:33:50] one thing it's important to note
[1:33:52] regarding parking enforcement is that
[1:33:53] when we're talking about parking
[1:33:55] enforcement in the city, um, for cars,
[1:33:58] we're talking about on city streets, in
[1:34:00] public areas. we actually aren't talking
[1:34:03] about in people's driveways and people's
[1:34:05] apartment complexes
[1:34:07] um or any of the other private um
[1:34:10] parking garages. Um I know the apartment
[1:34:13] building I lived in, there was that one
[1:34:15] jerk who just had his car in the worst
[1:34:17] place ever and he always parked it there
[1:34:18] and collected dust. It looked like a
[1:34:20] greenhouse. Um and but that's a private
[1:34:23] issue. Um, and I think when we're coming
[1:34:26] talking about building development,
[1:34:28] these are these are private primarily
[1:34:30] private um businesses, private homes or
[1:34:33] multif family homes. Um, and so parking
[1:34:36] enforcement in those cases is up to the
[1:34:38] owner is not um up to the city in any
[1:34:44] way, shape, or form. We can um mandate
[1:34:47] that they uh um I appreciate that we can
[1:34:50] mandate long-term spaces and short-term
[1:34:53] spaces. I think that's great and so
[1:34:56] important and although I I I am uh
[1:35:00] agreeing with staff, I think we might
[1:35:01] have hit it a little heavy to um to
[1:35:04] begin with. So, I appreciate this
[1:35:06] rolling back on the numbers a little
[1:35:07] bit. Um,
[1:35:10] but when it comes to parking enforcement
[1:35:12] on private property, I think that that's
[1:35:14] maybe something
[1:35:16] um that is more nuanced and certainly
[1:35:20] not part of this code that we're working
[1:35:22] on right now.
[1:35:26] Unless I'm wrong, in which case, please
[1:35:28] tell me.
[1:35:29] >> I think you've you've hit it. I mean,
[1:35:33] the issue of um what happens on private
[1:35:37] property, especially after development,
[1:35:39] after we approve occupancy, is a thorny
[1:35:42] issue. Um and I'm sure the attorney will
[1:35:47] want me to stop talking right there.
[1:35:49] [laughter]
[1:35:50] Um in regards to on street parking, that
[1:35:53] is in city purview certainly and and the
[1:35:56] management of that um is as well. Um
[1:36:00] that's public works department though as
[1:36:02] well. So I know uh the public works
[1:36:03] director wants me to stop talking on
[1:36:05] that matter right now as well. Yeah.
[1:36:06] >> So that's all I'll say there.
[1:36:16] Yes. Commissioner Gerson. Hi Sarah
[1:36:19] Gustoson here. So [clears throat] my
[1:36:21] thought is if we can mandate exactly how
[1:36:24] many spaces and what type for a private
[1:36:26] building, can we mandate that the
[1:36:29] building submit a parking management
[1:36:31] plan during um uh permitting and
[1:36:35] construction? How abandoned bikes get
[1:36:37] identified and cleared? That's not new
[1:36:39] authority to me. It seems like the same
[1:36:41] authority that is already in this draft.
[1:36:44] What are your thoughts on that?
[1:36:48] >> I think we can definitely look into
[1:36:49] that. Um you're you're right that there
[1:36:51] is precedent for
[1:36:53] um some sort of agreement and things
[1:36:56] like that post development. Um again not
[1:36:59] my area of expertise but but we'll look
[1:37:01] into that and uh let you know.
[1:37:04] >> Great. Thank you so much.
[1:37:10] » Okay. Uh great feedback and questions
[1:37:13] and comments. I we really appreciate it.
[1:37:15] um presented some quantities and um
[1:37:20] if those made sense to you, great. You
[1:37:22] can tune this part out. I wanted to we
[1:37:25] wanted to include this just for the
[1:37:26] people that kind of need to see the the
[1:37:29] reality of of the rules. So,
[1:37:34] I tried to collect some various types of
[1:37:37] projects, land uses, and show you how
[1:37:39] the the ratios or the percentages might
[1:37:42] calculate out for those.
[1:37:44] So, the first example here is a
[1:37:46] multi-unit, multif family residential
[1:37:49] development. This is one that's uh
[1:37:52] proposed but not built. And under the
[1:37:56] old requirement, and in fact, the
[1:37:57] project proposed 235 long-term spaces
[1:38:01] for 321 units and 65 short-term spaces.
[1:38:07] Uh there's
[1:38:09] and so that that's again what's in the
[1:38:12] project proposal and and the old
[1:38:13] represents the old requirement or the
[1:38:15] existing requirement, excuse me. The new
[1:38:18] proposed requirement would result in a
[1:38:20] bit less here. So 155 long-term spaces
[1:38:23] and 16 short-term. So food for thought.
[1:38:28] Um
[1:38:31] [clears throat] a small mixeduse
[1:38:32] development. This one would be in
[1:38:35] downtown both. that's proposed
[1:38:38] and again the I really I'm sorry I said
[1:38:41] old requirement existing requirement
[1:38:43] [snorts] uh but um it would require 24
[1:38:48] long-term spaces and six short-term
[1:38:50] spaces for for 1900 foot retail and 22
[1:38:53] dwelling units. New requirement quite
[1:38:55] similar actually just a few some fewer
[1:38:58] short-term spaces.
[1:39:02] low-income housing. This is once again
[1:39:05] another proposed development in
[1:39:07] downtown. 201
[1:39:10] uh office space
[1:39:12] sort of retail type social service space
[1:39:18] existing requirement 180 long-term
[1:39:20] spaces and 40 short-term. The proposed
[1:39:23] requirement really unfortunate wording
[1:39:26] 129 spaces and 14 short-term spaces.
[1:39:32] Dormatory example. This is Udub both.
[1:39:35] They're already constructed. Obviously,
[1:39:38] our rules won't apply. This is just an
[1:39:40] example. So, existing requirement
[1:39:42] doesn't apply to dorms whatsoever.
[1:39:45] Proposed requirement in this case with
[1:39:47] 1400 beds or some somewhat to the
[1:39:50] equivalent of 376 dwelling units would
[1:39:54] include 103 bike parking spaces in
[1:39:57] long-term and 128 short-term.
[1:40:01] That seems like a place some students
[1:40:04] are going to have bikes.
[1:40:05] >> You think so?
[1:40:06] >> Yeah. Right.
[1:40:11] » A co-l livingiving type space. This I
[1:40:14] don't think there's any like this in
[1:40:15] Seattle but or I'm sorry in both but
[1:40:18] this one is in Seattle. Sort of
[1:40:21] efficiency units. Uh very small
[1:40:23] residential units. Uh this one has 60
[1:40:27] sleeping units, bedrooms, whatever you
[1:40:29] want to call it. No parking existing
[1:40:31] brothel requirement. If this were to be
[1:40:33] in both would uh apply 30 long-term
[1:40:36] spaces, six short-term proposed
[1:40:39] requirement 15. So cut that in half and
[1:40:42] then two short-term in this case.
[1:40:45] This is in Seattle. Hopefully they have
[1:40:47] some more bike parking. I I think but
[1:40:51] uh various commercial examples here for
[1:40:53] you. So I got the Gratzy
[1:40:56] Italian restaurant both ever highway on
[1:40:59] the left smaller sort of restaurant
[1:41:03] under the existing requirement if this
[1:41:05] were to be built today. Two long-term
[1:41:07] spaces two short-term spaces proposed
[1:41:09] requirement. Same thing Safeway on both
[1:41:13] lever highway as well. Larger
[1:41:14] supermarket example
[1:41:17] we're assuming around 20 employees in
[1:41:20] this supermarket. I don't have that
[1:41:22] exact data but with that assumption
[1:41:24] existing requirement four long-term for
[1:41:26] those employees and then for visitors
[1:41:29] shoppers 10 short-term under the
[1:41:32] proposal it would be fewer long-term
[1:41:34] spaces same amount of short-term spaces
[1:41:39] interrupt for a second commissioner
[1:41:40] Westerbeck here I think about places
[1:41:42] like the nails and spa you know that
[1:41:44] space um especially with the way we
[1:41:46] planned towns you know like Main Street
[1:41:48] 100 years ago it was often the building
[1:41:53] covers the entire uh property. And so
[1:41:57] the only place you could do a rack was
[1:41:58] either carve something out of the store
[1:42:01] of the space which the landlord or the
[1:42:03] owner is probably not going to want or
[1:42:05] put it on the sidewalk. So is that where
[1:42:08] the flexibility of the of the the code
[1:42:11] comes in a little bit because you don't
[1:42:13] really want a block sidewalk. you need
[1:42:14] what fiveT clear for and if the co if
[1:42:18] the uh the rack doesn't get used much
[1:42:20] does someone want a rack you know
[1:42:21] sticking a couple feet out in the
[1:42:23] sidewalk. So I think there's going to be
[1:42:25] some interesting um situations uh when
[1:42:28] you do a change of use in a building
[1:42:30] like that. Oh yeah you're probably
[1:42:32] thinking about it but I'm just I'm
[1:42:33] looking at that going oh where do you
[1:42:34] put the rack if that was the whole the
[1:42:36] property was edgeto edge the building
[1:42:37] was edge to edge on the property.
[1:42:43] Appreciate that comment. Certainly uh a
[1:42:47] interesting thought process. Uh
[1:42:50] absolutely. I think this is you know
[1:42:53] perhaps why one that exemption original
[1:42:55] exemption was in there maybe you know
[1:42:57] these very very very small scale uses.
[1:42:59] So once again you know commission if if
[1:43:03] the proposal you think is um not
[1:43:06] appropriate in any way we would
[1:43:08] appreciate any of that feedback. Um but
[1:43:11] I think my feedback would be just uh
[1:43:13] that the um the director can has has a
[1:43:16] discretion probably to wave it I think
[1:43:18] and what is in that in the code. But I
[1:43:20] only read through it once, so I don't
[1:43:21] have it memorized yet. But I would I
[1:43:23] don't know if you'd make um make that a
[1:43:25] slightly more robust part of the code
[1:43:27] saying um you know in a change of use
[1:43:30] situation where there is no place to
[1:43:33] bike to put a bike rack, you know, the
[1:43:36] um difference is given to the uh the
[1:43:38] applicant or something like that. Or,
[1:43:41] you know, um you can show that there's a municipal provided rack, you know,
[1:43:47] nearby or something like that. I don't I don't have a a solution, but I
[1:43:51] would think
[1:43:52] >> most places are going to have a a a
[1:43:55] Safeway, a Gratzi, whatever. They're
[1:43:57] going to have parking spaces they could
[1:43:58] take over. It's not an issue at all. And
[1:44:00] I think this is going to be pretty
[1:44:01] niche, but there's going to be a few
[1:44:03] that are going to come up through the
[1:44:04] years, especially with change of use
[1:44:05] where you're going to be like, we don't
[1:44:06] literally don't have a place to put a
[1:44:08] bike rack. So, I would just hope that
[1:44:09] they would they would give that out
[1:44:10] freely when it was super obvious the the
[1:44:13] exemption.
[1:44:15] >> Thank you.
[1:44:16] I don't want people to have a bike rack
[1:44:18] accessible, but like where are they
[1:44:20] going to put it? And maybe they've got
[1:44:21] parking spots uh for the nails of spa. I
[1:44:23] don't know that that property, but there
[1:44:25] are going to be somewhere they don't at
[1:44:27] all.
[1:44:28] >> If I if I could weigh in, you know, we
[1:44:30] could look at we could look at those zones that have zero foot
[1:44:34] setbacks. That's where the flexibility
[1:44:35] would exist. Safeway, this example, does
[1:44:38] not have zero zero foot setback. There's
[1:44:39] plenty of space on that site for them to
[1:44:41] accommodate a bike rack. So, we could
[1:44:43] look at a correlation of how the the
[1:44:46] form uh adjusts to where where racks
[1:44:50] could be located.
[1:44:51] >> Great. Again, I would love for there to
[1:44:53] be a rack for, you know, I ride bikes. I
[1:44:55] get it. And I' I've been that person
[1:44:57] looking for a stop sign or something to
[1:44:59] block a bike to. So, I I totally
[1:45:01] sympathize. I I've been that person. I'm
[1:45:04] just sometimes there are going to be
[1:45:05] some cases, like you said, Christian, in
[1:45:07] zero lot line or or existing condition
[1:45:09] situations. I've got an ADA adaptive
[1:45:11] reuse project in another city and the
[1:45:14] property is literally the the building
[1:45:16] goes edge to edge, corner to corner and
[1:45:18] covers the whole property. And so, um,
[1:45:20] they're not required to put in bike
[1:45:22] racks, but they would have a hard time.
[1:45:24] They could put them on the roof, maybe.
[1:45:26] [laughter] I don't know where they're
[1:45:26] going to put them.
[1:45:32] » Thank you, Commissioner. Um, yeah,
[1:45:34] please feel free to stop me if you want
[1:45:35] to talk about any of these. I'll
[1:45:37] proceed.
[1:45:39] entertainment uses. We got Pop Kenny
[1:45:41] Stadium over there, 120,000 square foot
[1:45:44] stadium, 3500 seats. In this scenario,
[1:45:48] we're assuming about 35 staff there.
[1:45:51] Don't don't uh look into that number. I
[1:45:54] don't know exactly, you know, how many
[1:45:56] staff. So, just for this uh this game,
[1:46:00] the existing requirement does not apply
[1:46:02] to stadiums in both.
[1:46:05] The proposed requirement would
[1:46:08] recreation, culture, entertainment,
[1:46:10] sports uses, things like that. Two
[1:46:13] long-term spaces for those 35 potential
[1:46:16] employees and 70 short-term for the
[1:46:20] guests.
[1:46:22] Another entertainment use. This theater
[1:46:24] is not in both, but I think it looks
[1:46:27] like your old generic cinniplex, so I
[1:46:30] included it. About a thousand seats in
[1:46:32] these types of theaters. We're assuming
[1:46:34] 50 employees. Current standards don't
[1:46:36] apply. Proposed standards would uh
[1:46:40] provide three long-term spaces for those
[1:46:42] employees and 20 short-term for movie
[1:46:44] goers.
[1:46:48] Lodging, no requirement today. proposed
[1:46:51] requirement, three spaces for those
[1:46:55] about 50 employees and four short-term
[1:46:58] spaces. If anyone flew in from SeaTac
[1:47:00] and decided to bike to both, they can
[1:47:03] park their bike here.
[1:47:06] Again, I'm going to chime in. I can
[1:47:08] speak to that. I, as someone who's done
[1:47:10] a lot of bike events, maybe others have
[1:47:12] too. Sounds like you cycle. I've also
[1:47:15] stayed at a lot of different hotels and
[1:47:17] Airbnbs and things like that where um
[1:47:19] but particularly hotels where um I was
[1:47:22] worried about having my bike, you know,
[1:47:24] bolted to the roof, my car or something
[1:47:26] like that. So, I'd bring it in the room
[1:47:27] or I'd look for um and I know like we
[1:47:29] would go to to Whistler, especially in
[1:47:32] the summer and they have ski and bike
[1:47:34] rooms for, you know, the expensive
[1:47:36] mountain bikes and stuff. I love that.
[1:47:37] was great. They had the cage
[1:47:38] already there. So, they were thinking
[1:47:40] about that 20, 30 years ago. So it'd be good when they start building new
[1:47:44] hotels be thinking about surprising
[1:47:47] number of people bring a bike and they
[1:47:48] arrive with a car.
[1:47:52] I imagine you were thinking about maybe
[1:47:57] office space. We got good old city hall
[1:47:59] on the left. I do know exact numbers for
[1:48:02] that or almost exact. 270 parking
[1:48:05] spaces, 53,000 square feet and about 148
[1:48:08] employees.
[1:48:10] Um, I have a couple numbers here. So, I
[1:48:13] in the hypothetical scenario applied the
[1:48:15] existing bike parking requirement which
[1:48:18] would result in five long-term spaces,
[1:48:20] three short-term. We do also have bike
[1:48:22] parking here at city hall, which I
[1:48:24] mentioned, went through and counted
[1:48:25] those 24 long-term racks down in the
[1:48:28] garage and 18 short-term uh scattered
[1:48:32] around the perimeter. The proposed
[1:48:34] requirement in an office like city hall
[1:48:39] would result in seven long-term spaces
[1:48:42] for those 148 employees and three
[1:48:45] short-term spaces for uh office
[1:48:47] visitors.
[1:48:49] Um, another good data point on city hall
[1:48:52] because, you know, we know this
[1:48:54] information. Uh, I counted in a very
[1:48:57] pleasant summer day down in the
[1:48:59] long-term spaces spaces, we had um 20,
[1:49:03] I'm sorry, uh, eight bikes in that
[1:49:06] long-term um, parking in the eight out
[1:49:09] of 24. And then short-term, I don't know
[1:49:13] if I've really ever seen a bike parked
[1:49:14] in the racks around city hall. Maybe
[1:49:16] there's one, but
[1:49:18] uh, taking on the right side, we have
[1:49:21] just kind of your standard office park
[1:49:23] type office.
[1:49:25] I think this is actually one in both
[1:49:28] Seattle Genetics. So, biotech. Uh they
[1:49:32] have about 500,000 square ft of of
[1:49:35] office space across several buildings.
[1:49:38] And we're we're estimating about 1500
[1:49:41] employees.
[1:49:43] Existing requirement 50 spaces for those
[1:49:45] employees,
[1:49:46] 25 [clears throat] short-term spaces for
[1:49:48] whoever wants to visit a biotech office.
[1:49:51] And the proposed requirement would
[1:49:53] actually, as I mentioned earlier, be a
[1:49:55] little more than today, 75. And then
[1:49:58] same number of short-term spaces.
[1:50:03] Health and social services. We got the
[1:50:04] Kaiser Permanente Clinic over in North
[1:50:07] Creek. I believe existing requirement
[1:50:10] does not apply to any health services.
[1:50:13] proposal would establish two long-term
[1:50:16] for those 30 staff and two short-term
[1:50:20] for someone that injured themselves and
[1:50:22] wants to bike to the hospital.
[1:50:29] [laughter]
[1:50:30] >> I have I have also back to the hospital
[1:50:32] by the way. So,
[1:50:38] Absolutely.
[1:50:43] » Yep.
[1:50:44] >> It's useful
[1:50:47] >> education. Uh again, this is something I
[1:50:50] think we heard from at least one
[1:50:52] commissioner on um applying some bike
[1:50:55] parking to uh schools.
[1:50:59] And again, no no requirement today. Uh
[1:51:02] this is both high I took as an example.
[1:51:05] about 1,800 students and about 100
[1:51:08] staff, 72 classrooms. Proposal would
[1:51:11] have five long-term spaces for those
[1:51:13] teachers and staff and 72 for um
[1:51:17] short-term for the students to use.
[1:51:22] Uh okay, last uh project example,
[1:51:25] industrial use. uh this is not in both
[1:51:28] some distribution center who knows where
[1:51:30] very large uh about 1500 employees in in
[1:51:34] this type of facility so proposal I mean
[1:51:37] sorry existing code does not require
[1:51:40] today proposed code would have 75 spaces
[1:51:43] for those 1500 employees and two
[1:51:45] short-term for visitors to the
[1:51:48] distribution center or storage or other
[1:51:51] industrial use.
[1:51:54] Okay, I have some just questions to
[1:51:57] prompt feedback. Some of this we've
[1:51:59] talked about. You don't even have to
[1:52:01] answer these. This is just what we
[1:52:03] thought maybe would prompt some
[1:52:04] discussion. So um I think generally we
[1:52:09] establish lower quantities and um
[1:52:11] commissioners were talking about well do
[1:52:13] we plan for today or plan for the
[1:52:15] future? So do you think we should go
[1:52:17] higher? Um, are there other ways that I
[1:52:21] think Commissioner Gustiffson Gustoson
[1:52:23] talked about this is is the quality um
[1:52:27] of the facilities and the usage of the
[1:52:29] facilities. Other ways we can we can
[1:52:30] address kind of the quality of bike
[1:52:32] parking. Um also of course we had some
[1:52:36] discussion around the exemptions uh that
[1:52:39] are proposed and changing that and um
[1:52:42] perhaps uh adding more strict
[1:52:44] regulations around cargo bikes and and
[1:52:46] scooters and things as well
[1:52:50] or any other questions discussion the
[1:52:52] commission wish wishes to have.
[1:52:54] Commissioner Gustin,
[1:52:56] >> Sarah Gustoson here. I am floating an
[1:52:59] idea because I am concerned about um
[1:53:03] setting standards and then
[1:53:06] not out of bad intentions, the standards
[1:53:08] decreasing over time. I wonder if it's
[1:53:10] possible to post bike parking procedures
[1:53:13] near the bike so that if folks don't see
[1:53:18] those standards being met, they can flag
[1:53:20] it to the city. Um, I think it might be
[1:53:22] easier to monitor whether
[1:53:25] um [clears throat]
[1:53:26] something is posted there might be
[1:53:27] easier than monitoring ongoing what the
[1:53:29] actual um day-to-day is. That might be a
[1:53:34] idea to think about or not.
[1:53:38] >> I I will I just want to chime in there.
[1:53:40] We can we can notify the public works
[1:53:42] department of the the comments around
[1:53:44] bike parking management in the rightway
[1:53:46] as it relates to the rightway when it
[1:53:48] does come to private property. It it
[1:53:49] really is as chair uh Robson mentioned
[1:53:52] it is a a private property issue um that
[1:53:56] we can identify the the best practice um
[1:53:59] we could look at methods to provide
[1:54:01] education and materials but it's only as
[1:54:04] good as the management of that of that
[1:54:06] building and the the residents in that
[1:54:08] building to to follow that. Um so we can look into it and we can follow up on on these points um at the
[1:54:18] next at the next study session.
[1:54:23] » Thanks.
[1:54:29] » Um just as a data point and I'm sure you
[1:54:32] guys have considered this but I wanted
[1:54:34] to float it anyway. Um, the quality of a
[1:54:37] bike parking spot, I'm sure, has a lot
[1:54:40] to do with how often I know h has to do
[1:54:43] how often people ride their bikes,
[1:54:45] especially as bikes become almost as
[1:54:47] expensive as cars. Um, people do not
[1:54:51] want to park their bikes with a flimsy
[1:54:54] bike lock where they can't where they
[1:54:56] can't see it. Um, where you can just
[1:55:00] take the parking thing with you and put
[1:55:02] it in your car and worry about fixing
[1:55:04] that. I mean, because I have seen a a
[1:55:07] bike parking spot where it wasn't even
[1:55:10] bolted to the ground. You could just
[1:55:11] pick it up and take it with the bike.
[1:55:13] Um, I I know that people have said, "I I
[1:55:17] love riding my bike. I don't ride it
[1:55:19] because I don't want my bike stolen or
[1:55:23] messed with." And so
[1:55:26] I do think that
[1:55:29] um if we want people to use our bike
[1:55:32] parking, we want people to increase um
[1:55:35] their biking, we want to make um it a
[1:55:38] reality, uh bike parking a reality, we
[1:55:41] need to consider um the quality. What
[1:55:45] are we going to do to ensure that when
[1:55:47] people are putting in bike parking, it's usable. It's not
[1:55:54] theoretical bike parking, but but actual
[1:55:57] bike parking that people feel
[1:55:58] comfortable using. And I I don't know
[1:56:00] what the answer to that is, but I think
[1:56:02] it's something maybe we should um
[1:56:05] reflect on as we consider these um codes
[1:56:07] [clears throat]
[1:56:17] to that point and correct me if I'm
[1:56:20] wrong. Um I did read through about the
[1:56:23] um the requirement seemed pretty
[1:56:26] thorough about bike rooms, cage cages,
[1:56:30] mid minimum heights, art to ceiling,
[1:56:32] etc., etc., etc. And again, speaking to
[1:56:36] my Udub experience, those were the only
[1:56:38] ones that were in demand. Um I rode my
[1:56:40] bike the first time and I used one of
[1:56:43] those really heavy I've got this really
[1:56:44] heavy, you know, tempered steel lock,
[1:56:46] etc., etc., And I went through the
[1:56:48] wheels and everything and still my um
[1:56:50] some of my um colleagues who also rode
[1:56:52] bikes they're like you parked it outside
[1:56:55] like and there were literally parts out
[1:56:57] there cuz we've all seen this right
[1:56:59] wheels that weren't locked and so they
[1:57:01] took everything but the wheel and I'm
[1:57:03] literally locking up next to these you
[1:57:05] know extra bike parts that were left
[1:57:07] over from stolen bikes. So I can see why
[1:57:08] they were freaked out because there was
[1:57:10] a lottery debate to get those those
[1:57:12] caged in the bike room spots. Um, so
[1:57:16] again, F flogging that horse. I think
[1:57:18] it's in the code though, right? Now that
[1:57:19] you've got that for the for the
[1:57:21] long-term spots has to be pretty robust.
[1:57:23] >> Long term. Yes. It sounds like
[1:57:25] Commissioner Robson's speaking more
[1:57:27] towards the short term, right?
[1:57:28] >> So, you're talking short term. Yeah.
[1:57:29] Okay. Okay. I was going to say longterm.
[1:57:31] Sounds like we got that locked up pretty
[1:57:32] good, but yeah, shortterm.
[1:57:34] >> Locked up. Nice.
[1:57:35] >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Short term. I
[1:57:37] mean, I I think that's a tough one
[1:57:38] because
[1:57:40] um you know, it's going to be hard to
[1:57:42] offer a bike locker, a bike room,
[1:57:44] whatever for I'm going to run in the
[1:57:46] store for an hour. So, because you're
[1:57:49] not as invested in like, all right, I
[1:57:51] work here or I live here, so I'm going
[1:57:52] to get a key. I got a special spot and
[1:57:54] I'm like invested, you know? So, not
[1:57:56] saying you shouldn't do it. I'm just
[1:57:57] saying like that sounds like a little
[1:57:59] tougher nut to crack.
[1:58:08] Well, that's the end of my presentation.
[1:58:10] Unless there's other comments,
[1:58:11] questions, thoughts, I will
[1:58:16] >> Excellent work.
[1:58:17] >> Yeah, thank you so much. I did want to
[1:58:18] mention thank you for including the um
[1:58:20] examples and illustrations because I
[1:58:22] know that commissioners have been asking
[1:58:25] and so I just we really appreciate you
[1:58:27] listening and accommodating that request
[1:58:29] because it's super it's super helpful.
[1:58:32] So, thank you for that.
[1:58:35] >> Clint, thank you.
[1:58:39] » And once again, thank you for being so
[1:58:41] responsive to I'm sure applicants
[1:58:44] wereounding you a bit as well. But, um,
[1:58:46] it looks like a really, um, robustly re
[1:58:50] um, you know, updated bike plan. I or
[1:58:53] bike storage and, uh, parking plan. I
[1:58:56] appreciate it very much.
[1:58:59] Our
[1:59:01] uh third presentation is from um Civic
[1:59:05] Spark fellow Jay Huckkins and the
[1:59:06] electric vehicle parking requirements.
[1:59:09] And
[1:59:09] >> while I pull up these slides for Jay,
[1:59:10] I'm going to just give an introduction.
[1:59:12] So Jay is our current civic spark
[1:59:14] fellow. Uh you may remember Emily from
[1:59:15] before.
[1:59:16] >> Uh she's been doing a lot of work on
[1:59:19] electric vehicles. Um and
[1:59:23] we will run through this. We do have two
[1:59:25] other items. So, I just want to make sure we're we know we're going to not blast through it, but
[1:59:32] we are going to we were very ambitious
[1:59:35] with tonight's
[1:59:37] >> tonight's meeting. We wanted to get it
[1:59:39] done before the end of the end of the
[1:59:40] summer, before our our recess.
[1:59:43] Um, with that, uh, I'll hand it over to
[1:59:46] Jay and we will work through this and I
[1:59:48] will drive the slides for you.
[1:59:52] >> All right. Thank you so much and thank
[1:59:54] you for the introduction. Good evening,
[1:59:56] planning commissioners. So, I'm going to
[1:59:59] talk to you about the electric vehicle
[2:00:01] code and some potential updates that we
[2:00:03] could make. Um, so just to be clear, no
[2:00:07] action required. The purpose of this
[2:00:08] study session is to provide the planning
[2:00:10] commission with context on city EV code
[2:00:14] and potential infrastructure standards
[2:00:15] to be included within BMC 12.16,
[2:00:20] parking, loading, transit access, and
[2:00:23] pedestrian circulation.
[2:00:25] Next slide please.
[2:00:27] So this is just the overall agenda. We
[2:00:30] can go ahead and move on.
[2:00:33] So just to start with some discussion
[2:00:35] questions to get your minds active
[2:00:37] before we dive into the material. Um
[2:00:40] this is basically the questions that I
[2:00:42] would love to hear information from you
[2:00:45] on. So um this is basically what we're
[2:00:49] going to go through tonight within these
[2:00:51] slides. So overview EV ready
[2:00:54] requirements for multif family housing
[2:00:57] should we increase requirements for
[2:00:59] areas like grocery stores uh commercial
[2:01:03] zones
[2:01:04] um what should we do about affordable
[2:01:06] housing should we provide any exemptions
[2:01:08] for that
[2:01:10] um which incentives could we use to
[2:01:13] encourage EV charger installation
[2:01:16] and then what do we think about level
[2:01:19] three versus level two chargers could
[2:01:21] one level three charger sort of work in
[2:01:24] place of multiple level twos. Um yeah,
[2:01:30] so some overall definition so you know
[2:01:32] what I'm talking about. Um EV ready
[2:01:36] parking stalls
[2:01:38] 208 to 240 volt dedicated branch
[2:01:41] circuit. Uh they don't have a charger
[2:01:44] installed yet though, but they have all
[2:01:46] the conduit ready. And then electric
[2:01:50] vehicle supply equipment is the electric
[2:01:52] vehicle charger. And here in the state
[2:01:55] of Washington has to be able to supply
[2:01:58] current of 208 to 240 volts.
[2:02:02] EV capable
[2:02:04] not super of interest to us for this
[2:02:06] presentation, but it is part of the
[2:02:08] Washington state requirements.
[2:02:11] Next slide, please.
[2:02:14] All right. So, I'm going to start by
[2:02:17] just providing some context. Why are we
[2:02:20] talking about this stuff right now? Um,
[2:02:23] so the climate action plan was passed in
[2:02:26] November
[2:02:27] of this year and uh or actually 2025 and
[2:02:32] um it outlines different uh goals that
[2:02:36] we can use to try to uh decarbonize
[2:02:39] transportation. So transportation is our
[2:02:42] largest polluting sector in both and
[2:02:45] also in Washington state. So this is of
[2:02:48] really high interest to city of both and
[2:02:51] Washington state and our general
[2:02:52] community. So I've put here sort of
[2:02:56] where we're at with these and it was
[2:02:58] also in the packet in progress. The
[2:03:00] second one down is currently what we're
[2:03:03] talking about. Next slide please.
[2:03:10] So to provide some context, this is
[2:03:13] electric vehicle registrations in
[2:03:15] Washington state up to 2025.
[2:03:19] So you're seeing a huge growth in
[2:03:21] battery electric vehicles.
[2:03:24] Um a little bit less of adoption for
[2:03:26] plug-in hybrid, which makes sense.
[2:03:29] People are going for fully electric.
[2:03:32] Um next slide.
[2:03:35] This is city of both. So, same type of
[2:03:39] graph, but both almost has an even
[2:03:42] steeper increase in battery electric
[2:03:45] vehicles. So, this is a really great
[2:03:48] sign. People are interested in driving
[2:03:50] electric. I'm sure that gas prices has
[2:03:52] something to do with that as well. Um,
[2:03:56] and
[2:03:57] see if there's anything else.
[2:04:03] Yeah, next slide.
[2:04:06] So Washington state is the 18th largest
[2:04:10] state but ranks fourth in number of
[2:04:12] fully electric vehicles. So we're at the
[2:04:15] forefront here. So we need to be
[2:04:16] considering how we plan ahead uh
[2:04:19] especially with charging
[2:04:22] and there's been a lot of data showing
[2:04:24] that people are hesitant to buy an
[2:04:27] electric vehicle if they don't see a
[2:04:29] charger readily available to them. But
[2:04:32] people are hesitant to install chargers
[2:04:34] if they don't see plenty of electric
[2:04:36] vehicles driving around. So it is kind
[2:04:38] of a chicken or egg difficult decision
[2:04:41] to make. So by putting some city
[2:04:45] regulations we can kind of support this
[2:04:47] process. Um
[2:04:50] so this is just looking at city hall.
[2:04:54] Here we have four charging stations as
[2:04:57] you may know uh which is eight charging
[2:05:00] points and this is the data that we
[2:05:02] currently have on those stations as of
[2:05:04] July 8th 2026.
[2:05:07] I did the math that's about 18 to 20
[2:05:10] sessions a day for that period of time.
[2:05:12] Uh that's quite a bit. So certain areas
[2:05:16] will have more obviously but I think
[2:05:17] this is higher than average and a lot of
[2:05:20] kilowatt hours consumed. Um so this is
[2:05:25] showing that demand is super high.
[2:05:28] There's a lot of need and there's not
[2:05:30] necessarily the infrastructure to
[2:05:32] support that need. We are one agency in
[2:05:35] both brothel and we have this much
[2:05:37] usage. So this is just more evidence we
[2:05:40] need to be kind of considering the
[2:05:42] landscape of this as we move forward.
[2:05:48] So obviously we want to hear from the
[2:05:51] community. So much of our work is based
[2:05:53] in community feedback. What do people
[2:05:56] want? What do they want to see? So we've
[2:05:59] done a couple surveys. Uh we did some
[2:06:01] surveys prior to the climate action plan
[2:06:04] which is referenced here as well. And
[2:06:07] then one just this past month in May
[2:06:09] which already has I think around 130
[2:06:13] responses. So, it's been very active and
[2:06:17] people really prioritize pollution
[2:06:19] reduction especially for health reasons
[2:06:22] and they think that more charging
[2:06:25] stations are going to be critical for
[2:06:29] increasing EV adoption throughout both.
[2:06:32] In addition, they want to see them
[2:06:35] mostly at shopping centers. So, kind
[2:06:37] tying back to grocery stores being top
[2:06:39] spot for chargers. Um, and you can see
[2:06:43] the data and how it ranks here in this
[2:06:45] slide.
[2:06:50] All right, next slide, please.
[2:06:53] This is another way that we collected
[2:06:55] data over the past few months. Um, I
[2:06:58] believe this went live in February, so
[2:07:00] we've been getting less and less
[2:07:02] responses to it over time, but initially
[2:07:05] we had a lot of activity. This is an
[2:07:08] interactive map where people can put
[2:07:10] where they would like to see a charger.
[2:07:13] And all of the orange points are where
[2:07:15] there are existing chargers. Um I
[2:07:18] believe they are all public. Um
[2:07:22] and then I grabbed some charge hub data
[2:07:24] which you can see in the upper corner.
[2:07:26] approximately 99 public chargers within
[2:07:30] city limits
[2:07:32] um are actually ports that is so less
[2:07:35] chargers. Uh each charger usually has
[2:07:37] two ports. Um so not a whole lot of
[2:07:42] public charging available based on the
[2:07:44] demand that I showed you as far as that
[2:07:47] kind of exponential growth trend.
[2:07:50] Um but yeah, really interesting way to
[2:07:54] kind of collect feedback from people.
[2:07:55] And the majority of these points were
[2:07:58] um convenience store areas, grocery
[2:08:02] stores, the library was a huge one. Most
[2:08:05] people want chargers at the library.
[2:08:09] And yeah, next slide.
[2:08:13] So
[2:08:15] getting into the code,
[2:08:17] these are our current electric vehicle
[2:08:20] standards for the state of Washington
[2:08:22] based on the different zoning groups. So
[2:08:26] tonight we're going to speak mostly
[2:08:27] about commercial
[2:08:30] and uh residential specifically
[2:08:33] multifamily housing. So you see that as
[2:08:36] group R the line on the bottom
[2:08:39] 10% installed 25 ready and 10% capable
[2:08:46] the majority of other ones are all 10%
[2:08:48] for each
[2:08:52] and yeah let's move to the next slide.
[2:08:56] So possible actions kind of got a sneak
[2:09:00] peek in the discussion questions, but
[2:09:03] this is based on my research and what
[2:09:06] we've come up with here at the city. My
[2:09:08] team uh this is kind of what we propose
[2:09:11] could be a good way to meet the demand
[2:09:14] that the city has for charging. So
[2:09:17] increase EV ready percent requirements
[2:09:19] for multif family housing potentially
[2:09:22] provide exempt for affordable
[2:09:25] increase EV ready or installed for
[2:09:27] commercial lots. We're going to need to
[2:09:29] decide which and how much. Um allow
[2:09:33] developers to reduce the amount of EV
[2:09:35] dedicated stalls if they install a level
[2:09:38] three charger. reminder that level three
[2:09:42] is the faster charger, so people will
[2:09:44] have shorter dwell times. And then
[2:09:47] incentives to encourage developers to
[2:09:50] install more EV charging, whether that's
[2:09:53] EV ready, capable, or fully operational.
[2:09:57] Next slide, please.
[2:10:00] All right, so we're going to just kind
[2:10:02] of get into the details of each of these
[2:10:05] topics and reference some survey data as
[2:10:09] well. So based on our research
[2:10:13] uh it's shown from the surveys that
[2:10:16] people prefer to charge at home and
[2:10:19] those who are still driving gas powered
[2:10:21] vehicles can see themselves charging at
[2:10:24] home versus elsewhere. Um and the
[2:10:28] majority don't have access to charging
[2:10:32] wherever they're living currently.
[2:10:36] And then
[2:10:38] the increase of EV ready requirements uh
[2:10:41] would be for multifamily residential
[2:10:44] developments which would include
[2:10:46] apartments, condominiums,
[2:10:49] uh mixed use residential but would not
[2:10:52] include single family housing or uh town
[2:10:55] homes or things of that nature. Would be
[2:10:58] for uh yeah multi-unit
[2:11:02] uh developments.
[2:11:10] Okay, next slide.
[2:11:14] So really the benefit of increasing EV
[2:11:17] ready requirements is that you're making
[2:11:21] it easier for apartment owners to go
[2:11:25] ahead and install chargers as the need
[2:11:28] comes about. So we are not the first to
[2:11:31] be thinking about this. Other
[2:11:33] jurisdictions in the area have already
[2:11:35] done this or they're planning to.
[2:11:37] Notably, we have King County at 40%,
[2:11:41] we have Isiqua 30 and they're actually
[2:11:44] making requirements for existing
[2:11:46] multifamily as well. So, they're needing
[2:11:48] to go back and retrofit. [snorts] And
[2:11:50] then Redmond has, I believe, the highest
[2:11:53] right now at 90%.
[2:11:56] And then if you look at any code in uh
[2:11:59] Canada, the majority are at 100% EV
[2:12:02] ready in their uh multif family parking
[2:12:05] spaces.
[2:12:07] So
[2:12:09] let's talk about money a little bit.
[2:12:11] We'll talk about it more later, but
[2:12:14] basically retrofit costs are quite a bit
[2:12:17] more than if you put the conduit or get
[2:12:21] yourself ready while you're building the
[2:12:23] building. Um, it's a hard sell to
[2:12:26] developers. Obviously, they don't want
[2:12:27] to necessarily spend more money upfront,
[2:12:30] but it will save time and money in the
[2:12:34] long run.
[2:12:36] Okay,
[2:12:38] next slide.
[2:12:43] So, affordable housing is another
[2:12:45] consideration in city of both. I know
[2:12:48] that we're really interested in making
[2:12:50] affordable housing available. We want
[2:12:53] that in our downtown. Uh we want people
[2:12:56] to come and live here as easily as
[2:12:58] possible. Uh a lot of different kinds of
[2:13:01] people as well from different areas and
[2:13:03] backgrounds. And so we don't want to
[2:13:06] start enforcing code that doesn't
[2:13:08] consider that reality. Um so there are
[2:13:12] some areas that have made exemptions
[2:13:15] with their electric vehicle code for
[2:13:17] affordable housing.
[2:13:19] I know the city of Isiqua is considering
[2:13:22] this as they move forward with
[2:13:24] strengthening their EV code.
[2:13:27] Um, but the majority of state codes,
[2:13:29] Washington and California included,
[2:13:32] don't make exemptions for affordable
[2:13:33] housing.
[2:13:35] One concern with this is just that
[2:13:39] we really want to make sure that
[2:13:41] electric vehicle charger access is for
[2:13:43] everyone, not just people who can afford
[2:13:46] and to live in buildings that have it.
[2:13:48] So by exempting affordable housing,
[2:13:51] you're potentially blocking access to
[2:13:53] chargers in that location. So some ideas
[2:13:56] that we've had is like providing
[2:13:58] technical assistance for those buildings
[2:14:00] once they're built to then get grant
[2:14:02] funding to install or during the
[2:14:05] installation process. we can match that
[2:14:07] up with their development process and
[2:14:09] try to try to provide some services to
[2:14:11] them so they're able to have chargers
[2:14:14] but they're not stuck with the burden
[2:14:16] upfront of those extra costs. So, uh
[2:14:21] something else I'd love your feedback on
[2:14:23] as we move forward.
[2:14:25] Next slide.
[2:14:28] Okay, more money. The fun part. So, um,
[2:14:33] a lot of people are concerned about how
[2:14:35] much more this is going to cost.
[2:14:38] So I have broken this down as best as
[2:14:41] possible to show
[2:14:43] how much it would be for what it is now
[2:14:47] for the existing requirement and then if
[2:14:50] we raised it to 45 45% EV ready and then
[2:14:55] it shows the cost for building it during
[2:15:00] construction and then what it would cost
[2:15:02] to do it as a retrofit afterwards.
[2:15:06] Electric vehicles are not going
[2:15:08] anywhere. I can't stress that enough.
[2:15:10] They're going to keep growing. They're
[2:15:12] going to continuously get more popular
[2:15:15] and there's going to need to be charging
[2:15:16] for them. It's like a phone. If it
[2:15:18] doesn't have a charger, it doesn't work.
[2:15:20] So, the state code is almost guaranteed
[2:15:24] to get more stringent. So, we're really
[2:15:25] doing our developments a service if we
[2:15:29] help them get their infrastructure ready
[2:15:31] ahead of time. So it is going to be more
[2:15:34] of an upfront cost for them, but they're
[2:15:38] going to save money in the long run. So
[2:15:40] if we raised to 45%
[2:15:44] for a parking lot with 40 spaces,
[2:15:48] 18 would be EV ready and it would cost
[2:15:52] that $27,000.
[2:15:56] Um,
[2:15:58] but if you waited until after
[2:16:01] the building has already been built, it
[2:16:03] would be that 72,000. So hopefully that
[2:16:06] breakdown makes sense. I do have the
[2:16:09] cost per parking space as well there at
[2:16:11] the bottom. And then the uh price
[2:16:15] increase from the 25 to the 45. So
[2:16:20] hopefully that makes sense. And is there
[2:16:23] anything else I wanted to say on that?
[2:16:27] Oh, I did want to mention that we're
[2:16:30] also going to be supporting the city by
[2:16:34] having less permitting and utility
[2:16:36] considerations over time, too. Retrofit
[2:16:39] is harder to
[2:16:42] deal with permitting and the utility is
[2:16:45] going to come out and have to do a new
[2:16:47] service request and assessment for the
[2:16:50] conduit and all that. So there are some
[2:16:54] uh efficiency benefits as well to uh
[2:16:58] providing enforcement up front. Okay,
[2:17:01] next slide.
[2:17:06] Great. So we talked about this a little
[2:17:08] bit earlier but coming back to
[2:17:11] commercial public charging. So there was
[2:17:14] a recent study done by electric era
[2:17:17] which is a company that helps people
[2:17:20] install and plan and figure out where to
[2:17:22] put electric vehicle chargers. And this
[2:17:26] is some of the data that they showed
[2:17:28] that uh EV chargers have seven times the
[2:17:32] amount of
[2:17:35] utilization if they are near 11 or more
[2:17:38] amenities and grocery stores see the
[2:17:41] highest median charging sessions per day
[2:17:44] at 42. So we talked about here at city
[2:17:47] hall we get 18 to 20 grocery stores are
[2:17:50] 42. So that is where there needs to be
[2:17:53] more chargers is basically what the
[2:17:55] research is showing. So
[2:17:58] proposing to increase EV code standards
[2:18:01] for zones that are general commercial
[2:18:04] multi-use commercial or multi-use
[2:18:07] employment um and those like grocery
[2:18:12] stores are within that. Other amenity
[2:18:14] types are within those zonings. Um and
[2:18:17] 53.4% 4% of survey respondents
[2:18:21] want to see additional charging sess
[2:18:23] stations near shopping centers. So
[2:18:27] there's need uh
[2:18:30] we are thinking that this can apply to
[2:18:34] grocery store or or amenity tenants that
[2:18:38] have parking lots that are 100 stalls
[2:18:41] [clears throat]
[2:18:41] or more
[2:18:43] uh so as not to put too much of a burden
[2:18:46] on some smaller local businesses.
[2:18:49] Um,
[2:18:54] yeah, I think that's everything.
[2:18:57] So, here's some examples. There's not
[2:18:59] too many, but the top is the current
[2:19:02] existing standards. And then, uh, again,
[2:19:06] Canada leading the way. Uh, we are
[2:19:10] following behind. So they have 15 and 25
[2:19:14] and then
[2:19:16] Vancouver a little bit lower fully
[2:19:19] installed but higher EV ready. So, sort
[2:19:22] of different approaches, but getting at
[2:19:26] uh what we're presenting here as far as
[2:19:29] targeting these zones where chargers are
[2:19:31] really needed
[2:19:35] and
[2:19:37] to address concerns that these
[2:19:39] developments may have as far as taking
[2:19:41] up too many of their parking spaces with
[2:19:44] EV charging,
[2:19:46] this is a proposed solution to that. So
[2:19:50] instead of having
[2:19:53] multiple level two chargers,
[2:19:56] allowing developers to install a level
[2:19:59] three charger instead. So f the faster
[2:20:02] charging will serve more people, more
[2:20:05] vehicles throughout the day. Uh and so
[2:20:08] you're still getting high utilization,
[2:20:10] high amount of charge sessions, but
[2:20:13] you're not taking up as many spaces. So,
[2:20:17] the amount of level two chargers that
[2:20:20] could be replaced by a level three
[2:20:22] charger, there needs to be more research
[2:20:24] done on that uh to decide how much that
[2:20:28] ratio would be, but this is a potential
[2:20:31] solution for developers as far as a
[2:20:33] concern of taking up too many parking
[2:20:35] spaces.
[2:20:38] Next slide.
[2:20:41] Okay. So,
[2:20:43] incentives. This would be not regulation
[2:20:47] necessarily by the city. This would be a
[2:20:49] way to encourage people to take the
[2:20:51] actions we want to see and install more
[2:20:54] EV charging or EV ready. Uh the city of
[2:20:58] Redmond has an affordable housing and
[2:21:00] green building incentive program that we
[2:21:04] appreciate here at city of Balfl and
[2:21:06] like the the setup of. And so this could
[2:21:10] be a recommendation that we make as far
[2:21:12] as how we could organize
[2:21:14] uh an electric vehicle incentive
[2:21:17] program. And I would stress that it
[2:21:20] would probably make the most sense to
[2:21:22] have it be an incentive that could work
[2:21:25] for a lot of different sustainable um uh
[2:21:29] initiatives that we have like solar or
[2:21:33] uh green buildings, energy efficiency
[2:21:35] upgrades and things like that. We would
[2:21:37] try to use this same point system so
[2:21:40] that it's very universal across all of
[2:21:43] our code. And that's something we've
[2:21:45] discussed as a team and think would work
[2:21:47] pretty well. We would need to talk about
[2:21:51] how many points things would be, what
[2:21:54] types of incentives we would use. I put
[2:21:56] a few ideas on the side and they're
[2:22:00] controversial. I understand. [laughter]
[2:22:02] So, we would need to decide, you know,
[2:22:05] um expedited permit review and and what
[2:22:09] would
[2:22:10] kind of meet that uh balance that out.
[2:22:14] So,
[2:22:17] that's one idea that we have as far as
[2:22:19] incentives. I think if we do incentives,
[2:22:23] it would be our recommendation that it
[2:22:25] would work alongside some sort of code
[2:22:29] as well. So it would be sort of a
[2:22:31] dual-fold approach at helping encourage
[2:22:34] people and require people to
[2:22:38] install electric vehicle charging.
[2:22:42] Next slide, please.
[2:22:45] So in review, we have some gaps that we
[2:22:50] see. There's growing demand without
[2:22:53] necessarily any network growth. uh
[2:22:57] there's some but we need more chargers
[2:23:00] and then the state code minimums that
[2:23:02] exist now are unl unlikely to keep up
[2:23:05] with the projected charging demand. So
[2:23:09] this presentation is our first attempt
[2:23:12] at making some suggestions some ideas
[2:23:15] based on researching what other
[2:23:17] jurisdictions are doing to try to
[2:23:19] address these gaps.
[2:23:22] Next slide.
[2:23:25] And these are the same questions as
[2:23:27] before.
[2:23:29] Um, and I'd love to hear your feedback.
[2:23:41] Commissioner Westerbeck here. Great
[2:23:43] presentation. Really glad we're tackling
[2:23:45] this. Um, I can't help but think about
[2:23:47] my experiences. I do occasional small
[2:23:50] development projects like four unit
[2:23:52] size. For the last seven years or so, I
[2:23:56] just consider EV ready the minimum for
[2:24:00] all the granted we're only doing four,
[2:24:01] five, six, seven parking spots, but it
[2:24:04] doesn't I remember talking to my
[2:24:05] electrician about it back in 2018 or 17.
[2:24:09] They said it doesn't really cost us
[2:24:11] much. It's not going to cost us as the
[2:24:13] buyer much to do it at construction to
[2:24:16] have the the conduit placed and wire it
[2:24:20] to each of the if it's assigned. For
[2:24:22] example, one building we have, well,
[2:24:23] actually the last two buildings, they
[2:24:25] were assigned parking and um so they're
[2:24:28] paying for the energy they use if they
[2:24:31] use their, you know, assigned spot. And
[2:24:34] it's easy and it doesn't actually, you
[2:24:36] know, we're we're working with pretty
[2:24:38] tight budgets. Um and it didn't have a
[2:24:41] ton of cost. To me, it's just a
[2:24:42] no-brainer. We just do it period. And um
[2:24:45] yeah, so I'm pro add more. Um, I think
[2:24:50] the higher numbers are good. Um,
[2:24:54] that 45 I was thinking like we had 10
[2:24:56] 20% and some I'm thinking let's d let's
[2:24:58] at least double those. Um, so um and
[2:25:02] I've talked to people around downtown
[2:25:03] both here, some other cities, Redmond
[2:25:06] because I've actually got a project in
[2:25:08] Redmond so I recognize some of that
[2:25:09] code. Um and um yeah, people live in
[2:25:12] apartments frequently, you know, they're
[2:25:15] um they're comfortably financially
[2:25:18] comfortable, but they're like, "Well, I,
[2:25:20] you know, I don't want to get an EV. I
[2:25:23] want one, but I I don't know that I'm
[2:25:25] going to be able to charge it
[2:25:26] consistently." It's like some people
[2:25:28] have range anxiety, some people have
[2:25:30] charger anxiety. So any everything you
[2:25:32] said has has resonated with with with my
[2:25:34] experience both both building housing as
[2:25:36] well as talking to people who want to
[2:25:38] have have an EV and and are not sure if
[2:25:41] they can um especially in some of the
[2:25:43] big buildings like we were talking about
[2:25:44] with the bike parking. So just a few
[2:25:46] comments there. So like yes yes on those
[2:25:49] first couple questions. Um and then that
[2:25:52] was really compelling that you that you
[2:25:53] wrote up about learned about the the
[2:25:56] grocery stores and the strip malls and
[2:25:57] things like that. Um, so that seems imperative. The affordable
[2:26:02] housing, um, I don't know that we should
[2:26:05] do exceptions. I I tend to feel that,
[2:26:08] um, I've worked with with Habitat for
[2:26:10] Humanity a bit on some projects and they
[2:26:12] always feel like those their their
[2:26:15] clients should have the same benefits
[2:26:17] that, like you said a minute ago, people
[2:26:19] with more money have. And so knowing
[2:26:21] that if it's done at construction, it's
[2:26:22] not terribly expensive. They should be
[2:26:23] at least EV ready, a pretty high
[2:26:25] percentage of those units so that they,
[2:26:27] you know, we want everyone to be
[2:26:29] eventually adopting, you know, um,
[2:26:32] electric technology for their cars, I
[2:26:34] think, as a society and it fits into our environmental goals in the city. So,
[2:26:40] uh, the direction of all this and the
[2:26:42] really thorough research here is
[2:26:43] fantastic. I'm, you know, pro increasing
[2:26:46] these and I'm super sensitive to how it
[2:26:49] increases project costs. Something I
[2:26:51] talk about with the planning staff and public works and everything all the
[2:26:54] time. But that's why I'm really saying
[2:26:56] like the if we can minimize the retrofit
[2:26:59] and really emphasize and then in do like
[2:27:02] I think we're gonna we'll have to be
[2:27:03] probably creative about the I think
[2:27:05] you've got a good list of kind of
[2:27:06] allocart maybe green point uh green you
[2:27:09] know points almost like the energy code
[2:27:11] does um to incentivize those so that
[2:27:15] it's not a huge increase cost um because
[2:27:18] they're going to get um you know a
[2:27:20] reduction in cost elsewhere uh on the
[2:27:22] project uh and that's I think especially
[2:27:25] in and at a time when I think and we've
[2:27:26] discussed this planning commission
[2:27:28] multiple times the last couple years
[2:27:30] even market rate housing isn't penciling
[2:27:32] out very well. So affordable is going to
[2:27:33] be really a hard sell. So we might have
[2:27:35] to get kind of aggressive with um okay
[2:27:38] we want you to do the the EV ready and
[2:27:41] we're going to be you know really
[2:27:43] willing to work with you on our allocart
[2:27:45] list of incentives to get these things
[2:27:47] installed and done. Um, so sort of some
[2:27:50] random thoughts there, but I really like
[2:27:52] the direction here and I'm pro
[2:27:54] increasing because I think you said,
[2:27:55] like you said, it's it's here to stay. I
[2:27:57] mean, everybody I know is trying to, you
[2:28:00] know, move away from ICE cars and get to
[2:28:02] EVs.
[2:28:05] >> Thank you for your comments,
[2:28:11] » Commissioner Kieran.
[2:28:14] >> Well, I I'll second everything
[2:28:15] Commissioner West said. Uh I I think
[2:28:18] having them be EV ready is really
[2:28:20] important. Um again, initial
[2:28:23] installation versus retrofit is just a
[2:28:25] huge difference. So should definitely go
[2:28:27] that way. And I really like the idea of
[2:28:30] it being part of a green building
[2:28:32] application package, you know, and and
[2:28:36] looking at the incentives for that
[2:28:38] building to be green with this being an
[2:28:40] important component of it. So I'd be
[2:28:42] interested in seeing how you go down
[2:28:44] that path. Um, I wonder if how much of a
[2:28:48] problem there is with turnover. Do
[2:28:49] people just use them as parking spaces?
[2:28:52] Get there, plug it in, and stay. Uh,
[2:28:54] kind of like the bicycle uh question.
[2:28:56] They take a space, but don't use it.
[2:28:58] >> That was one of my notes I forgot to
[2:28:59] bring up. Thank you.
[2:29:00] >> Yeah. Um, so I I don't have a suggestion
[2:29:05] or solution, but it's a question I have
[2:29:07] that I think you should consider and see
[2:29:09] what other people are doing. And
[2:29:11] finally, you did mention business uh
[2:29:13] benefit. I think restaurants could
[2:29:16] really benefit from this. People, you
[2:29:18] know, who are driving, they look for a
[2:29:19] place to charge and if they can stop and
[2:29:22] charge, they're going to go in and have,
[2:29:24] you know, something to eat or, you know,
[2:29:27] cup of coffee or whatever. So, I do
[2:29:29] think it it's a benefit to the business
[2:29:32] that they could really take advantage of
[2:29:34] and I think that should be highlighted.
[2:29:37] You know, I know my son lives in
[2:29:38] Portland. He has an EV. he comes here,
[2:29:40] he doesn't always make it, but he's got
[2:29:42] a restaurant he knows has a charger and
[2:29:46] they make a stop there. So, um, you
[2:29:49] know, that should be really recognized
[2:29:51] and highlighted. So, thank you for your
[2:29:53] work on this.
[2:29:55] >> Yeah, thank you. And I can speak to a
[2:29:57] little bit as far as uh dwell time. Here
[2:30:00] at city hall, it's around 3 and a half
[2:30:02] hours and then people tend to stay an
[2:30:04] additional hour after their car is done
[2:30:06] charging. So, a lot of fee structures,
[2:30:09] one similar to what we actually just
[2:30:11] passed last night in city council has a
[2:30:15] overtime fee so that if you continue to
[2:30:17] stay there, you start getting charged
[2:30:18] more money. So, that can help turnover
[2:30:20] continue so people move along. Um, and
[2:30:23] then to speak to restaurants, fast food
[2:30:26] chains was very high on the list after
[2:30:29] grocery stores. People really like to go
[2:30:31] to fast food places to charge and then
[2:30:34] eat. Um, and that's another reason why I
[2:30:38] think potentially encouraging level
[2:30:40] three chargers in like downtown general
[2:30:43] commercial could be great because it
[2:30:45] would have a high turnover and would
[2:30:47] bring more customers to those downtown
[2:30:50] areas.
[2:30:56] » Um, I'm not an EV expert at this point.
[2:30:58] Um, I I remember that not all cars could
[2:31:01] use the level three originally. Are more
[2:31:03] cars able to um so that the viable the
[2:31:07] viability of trading one for two L2s is worth it?
[2:31:11] >> Yeah, that's a really great question
[2:31:13] actually and something that I've been
[2:31:14] considering. I think looking at that
[2:31:17] sort of exponential growth of battery
[2:31:20] electric vehicles. Those are the ones
[2:31:22] that can use L3 chargers, the faster
[2:31:24] chargers. And then there actually some
[2:31:27] newer uh technology coming out now where
[2:31:30] you can have a hybrid that can use a
[2:31:32] fast charger. They're more rare and
[2:31:34] they're definitely still very expensive,
[2:31:36] but over time I imagine they'll they'll
[2:31:38] get cheaper. So, uh, in Washington state
[2:31:42] and city of both, there are more and
[2:31:45] more cars that can use level three
[2:31:47] chargers, but that being said, we still
[2:31:49] need to have plenty of level two
[2:31:51] chargers because there are plenty of
[2:31:52] people that have uh cars that only work
[2:31:55] with those types of chargers. So, we
[2:31:57] want to make sure we don't leave them
[2:31:59] behind.
[2:32:01] >> Commissioner Lver, did you
[2:32:04] >> uh Yes, I echo everything that I just
[2:32:07] heard. I really like it. I have a
[2:32:09] question about the scenario of not
[2:32:12] making these changes with the demand
[2:32:14] growing. Is it that then the market will
[2:32:18] crash because we just don't have enough
[2:32:20] places to plug it or like how
[2:32:24] dark it looks if we don't do this
[2:32:26] actually because it's almost like okay
[2:32:28] it sounds like we have to do it and we
[2:32:29] have to do it now and there's just no
[2:32:33] other
[2:32:35] path right and yes to do it but
[2:32:39] >> yeah I mean that's a great question I
[2:32:41] haven't done a whole lot of research
[2:32:43] into dystopian options, but um I think
[2:32:48] that likely it would just mean less
[2:32:50] people want to be here in both. They
[2:32:52] aren't going to want to come here as
[2:32:54] much. And I think that's not what we
[2:32:56] want. Um people are going to be less
[2:32:59] likely to live here. I think with the
[2:33:01] way that the housing market, the housing
[2:33:03] market is going and the way that gas
[2:33:06] prices are going, there's going to be a
[2:33:07] huge amount of people that are living in
[2:33:09] multifamily housing who own electric
[2:33:12] vehicles. And so if City of Buffalo
[2:33:13] doesn't have that, they're just not
[2:33:15] going to live here because other places
[2:33:17] nearby are are doing this. Yeah.
[2:33:20] >> And and just to to add to that, the the
[2:33:24] growth projections that we we know that
[2:33:26] we talked about around this table uh and
[2:33:29] the work that was completed in 2024, we
[2:33:32] anticipate that growth of multifamily
[2:33:35] and then all of the things that will go
[2:33:36] with it, mixeduse, commercial, uh to be
[2:33:40] coming along as well. So, we'd miss out
[2:33:42] on on that opportunity if we delay this uh this idea at least and kind of
[2:33:49] figure it out and identify what the best
[2:33:52] uh threshold is.
[2:33:56] >> Yeah. I would also just add that
[2:33:59] likely if we don't do this now, people
[2:34:01] are going to try to do it later and
[2:34:03] that's when the retrofit costs come in
[2:34:05] and the complicated utility plans and
[2:34:08] difficult permitting scenarios. So
[2:34:10] that's kind of why we're trying to think
[2:34:12] about it early.
[2:34:14] >> Um just one thing that I do want to um
[2:34:16] echo on the affordability piece. I
[2:34:19] actually do believe that we shouldn't
[2:34:20] have the exception precisely for that
[2:34:22] because then it will be something that
[2:34:24] may create even more of a disadvantage.
[2:34:27] So um yeah, that's my other strong
[2:34:30] comment. And and the good thing about
[2:34:33] that because we got rid of parking
[2:34:34] minimums,
[2:34:36] it's it's the park the percentage of EV
[2:34:40] stalls is based on the the number of
[2:34:42] stalls proposed. So we don't identify
[2:34:46] market rate versus affordable have to
[2:34:48] provide X number of stalls for those
[2:34:51] different uses. So um some cities do
[2:34:54] have that and they do need to they are
[2:34:56] grappling with what to do. We're just
[2:34:58] saying
[2:35:00] development decides how many parking
[2:35:02] stalls total they want to construct and
[2:35:05] then these percentages would just look
[2:35:07] at okay you you put in 50 stalls for
[2:35:09] however many units you wanted here's the
[2:35:12] percentage that you need to follow. So
[2:35:15] it wouldn't it wouldn't have an impact
[2:35:17] without doing anything.
[2:35:25] Okay, seeing no further questions or
[2:35:28] comments from commissioners.
[2:35:31] Uh yeah, did you get enough feedback
[2:35:35] from us?
[2:35:40] » Yeah, I think that's a really good
[2:35:42] start. I appreciate your comments on
[2:35:45] affordable housing. That feels clear. We
[2:35:47] can move forward that way. Discuss with
[2:35:50] my team. Um
[2:35:53] yeah, I really appreciate your time
[2:35:55] tonight. I think that's great.
[2:35:57] >> Well, thank you for your very
[2:35:59] wellressearched presentation for us
[2:36:01] today. Um it's an exciting avenue for us
[2:36:04] to begin considering um the green
[2:36:07] building codes as some of the
[2:36:09] commissioners. I think you can see some
[2:36:11] interest there. So, thank you. Thank you
[2:36:13] for that presentation.
[2:36:15] >> Great information.
[2:36:17] >> Yeah,
[2:36:19] >> it was great. We look forward to
[2:36:21] discussing it further in the future.
[2:36:24] >> Thank you. Um the final study session
[2:36:26] tonight is an update on the tree code
[2:36:28] from senior planner Cameron Coleman.
[2:36:31] >> Finally, you guys get to go.
[2:36:33] >> And as I want to take the opportunity as
[2:36:36] they as they take their seats, you all
[2:36:37] know Cameron, I want to introduce
[2:36:39] Gabriella Gozarian who is our new urban
[2:36:41] forester, both's first urban forester.
[2:36:44] Very excited to have her join the team.
[2:36:47] uh as they as they kick off the intro,
[2:36:49] I'm gonna I'm gonna pull up the slides
[2:36:50] and drive from from over here. So
[2:38:09] Um, while Christian is uh finishing
[2:38:12] getting the slides pulled up, I can give
[2:38:14] just a brief intro um for this item. Um,
[2:38:19] I know we're getting late here, so this
[2:38:20] will be a pretty brief update. Um,
[2:38:23] mostly just want to provide you all with
[2:38:25] an update on the engagement work
[2:38:27] associated with the tree code updates
[2:38:29] and how we'll be taking that feedback um
[2:38:33] to inform the draft code that we'll be
[2:38:36] working on over the August recess and
[2:38:39] then bringing back to you all uh later
[2:38:42] this year.
[2:38:46] And next slide.
[2:38:50] [snorts and laughter]
[2:38:54] Um okay. So just in terms of status
[2:38:56] update um as I mentioned we have
[2:38:59] finished the first round of uh
[2:39:02] engagement which involved a uh internal
[2:39:05] workshop with city staff and subject
[2:39:08] matter experts across various
[2:39:09] departments. Uh we also hosted um a
[2:39:13] series of focus group meetings uh with
[2:39:16] members of the public um and we'll be
[2:39:19] utilizing that information to help
[2:39:21] inform um the initial uh code drafting.
[2:39:26] Next slide please.
[2:39:29] Um so our internal workshop we held in
[2:39:32] May. Um we had about 25 participants in
[2:39:35] total um covering staff from community
[2:39:38] development, public works, parks and
[2:39:40] recreation, uh fire and emergency
[2:39:42] management.
[2:39:44] Next slide.
[2:39:46] And then for the uh focus group
[2:39:49] meetings, we held two sessions in June.
[2:39:52] Uh an afternoon session and an evening
[2:39:54] one to accommodate um different
[2:39:56] schedules. And um in order to recruit
[2:40:00] participants for these focus groups, um
[2:40:03] we uh did promotion in April and May uh
[2:40:07] leading up to those through our various
[2:40:09] city channels and had signups on through
[2:40:13] engage both for that. and we ended up
[2:40:15] having 50 signups in total. Not all of
[2:40:19] those uh ended up showing up at our
[2:40:21] first focus groups, but we had 21
[2:40:24] participants in total across the two
[2:40:26] sessions. Um and we do have uh those 50
[2:40:30] signups contacts that we'll be keeping
[2:40:32] in touch with throughout this process.
[2:40:34] And so once we have draft code um
[2:40:37] developed, we'll be reaching out to them
[2:40:39] to schedule that second round of focus
[2:40:42] group with all of those participants.
[2:40:47] Um so I wanted to just kind of run
[2:40:49] through how we went about these uh
[2:40:53] workshops and focus groups. Um so uh
[2:40:56] what we did was kind of create a
[2:40:58] hypothetical development scenario that
[2:41:01] is fairly uh typical of what we are
[2:41:04] seeing here in both. Um, and then had
[2:41:08] participants kind of review uh a
[2:41:11] proposed tree retention and uh site plan
[2:41:15] for a proposed development uh using our
[2:41:19] existing code and seeing how that plays
[2:41:22] out in this particular scenario to help
[2:41:24] identify where um things are working
[2:41:27] well, where there are existing
[2:41:30] challenges and how we could improve our
[2:41:32] existing code. So for the uh development
[2:41:36] exercise, the example we used was a
[2:41:39] single family lot about an acre in size
[2:41:42] um that is proposing to be redeveloped
[2:41:45] for town homes. Um this particular
[2:41:48] example could accommodate up to uh 25
[2:41:53] units per acre. That would be their max
[2:41:56] density limit and they're proposing 20
[2:41:58] town homes. So slightly below that. Um
[2:42:02] and then up on your screen here is the
[2:42:06] uh hypothetical tree retention plan. So
[2:42:09] this is typically what we would see
[2:42:11] during the review process where um as
[2:42:14] part of the plan set they're identifying
[2:42:16] existing trees on site, those that are
[2:42:19] proposed to be uh retained on site um
[2:42:23] and those that would be removed to
[2:42:25] accommodate uh the new development.
[2:42:28] Um we shared with participants our
[2:42:33] existing code requirements, definitions
[2:42:35] for significant trees and the percentage
[2:42:38] requirements.
[2:42:40] Um and then asked them to kind of work
[2:42:43] through the table in the bottom right
[2:42:45] looking at number of trees retained. Uh
[2:42:48] our particular code looks at the total
[2:42:52] DBH of the site. So tallying up all of
[2:42:55] the trees and their sizes.
[2:42:58] um it's 20% of that that has to be
[2:43:01] retained. Um so you'll see in this
[2:43:03] example they did meet that requirement
[2:43:06] with 22% uh that third column there of
[2:43:10] uh uh total DBH retained on site. And
[2:43:14] then if you go to the next slide um
[2:43:17] it'll show kind of how that proposed
[2:43:20] layout would potentially work out. Um,
[2:43:24] and again, this is hypothetical and made
[2:43:26] in Canva and not an engineered design.
[2:43:29] So, some of this um is not exactly what
[2:43:33] we would see in a typical plan set, but
[2:43:36] at least gives people kind of an rough
[2:43:38] idea of uh the types of things that
[2:43:42] might be going through an engineer or
[2:43:45] architect's mind as they are working on
[2:43:48] um how they could potentially lay out a
[2:43:51] site. while meeting these requirements.
[2:43:56] Um,
[2:43:57] couple other things uh that we talked
[2:44:00] about were our existing landscaping
[2:44:03] requirements. And so, uh, we do have,
[2:44:07] uh, buffer requirements, particularly
[2:44:10] for multif family developments, uh, when
[2:44:13] adjacent to certain zones. And so um
[2:44:16] that also impacts the number of
[2:44:19] potential trees that get planted on site
[2:44:22] as well.
[2:44:24] Next slide.
[2:44:27] Um so uh as part of the exercise I also
[2:44:32] include the section of our code uh that
[2:44:34] talks about what criteria um should be
[2:44:39] prioritized as part of that tree
[2:44:41] retention process. So, how do we decide
[2:44:44] which trees to keep other than just, you
[2:44:47] know, what uh we can accommodate as part
[2:44:49] of the proposed development? And so,
[2:44:51] currently that includes things like uh
[2:44:54] continuous overstory, uh trees located
[2:44:57] next to streams and other critical
[2:44:58] areas, uh trees that maintain or enhance
[2:45:02] the feathered edge or ridgetops,
[2:45:05] um trees that are in good health and
[2:45:07] have the highest likelihood of survival.
[2:45:11] um those that are incorporated as part
[2:45:13] of low impact development. Uh and then
[2:45:16] finally trees located uh within
[2:45:18] designated open spaces. Um and so if you
[2:45:23] could go back two slides
[2:45:27] um you will see in this particular uh
[2:45:31] scenario that although they met the 20%
[2:45:35] retention requirement they did not
[2:45:38] follow our criteria for the selection of
[2:45:42] those trees particularly areas adjacent
[2:45:45] to uh critical areas that could provide
[2:45:48] additional ecological benefit. it um
[2:45:51] rather than some of the more isolated
[2:45:53] trees uh on the northern or eastern
[2:45:56] sides of the property. Um and then if
[2:46:00] you go back forward uh two or three
[2:46:04] slides
[2:46:06] um so uh we asked participants kind of
[2:46:09] following the exercise to uh identify
[2:46:13] what areas of the code they felt were
[2:46:15] working well. um what challenges uh are
[2:46:19] present and what they think should
[2:46:22] change. And then on the next couple
[2:46:24] slides, I'll just run through what kind
[2:46:26] of common things we heard, which I think
[2:46:29] a lot of these do kind of reflect some
[2:46:32] of the topics that came up during our
[2:46:34] prior discussion a few months ago. So in
[2:46:36] terms of what's working well, um people
[2:46:39] really like the our critical area
[2:46:41] protections and that those ensure that
[2:46:44] trees located in those areas are
[2:46:46] retained. Um they like that we have at
[2:46:50] least a minimum currently that protects
[2:46:53] some trees on site and it does create a
[2:46:56] process for the identification and
[2:46:58] protection of significant trees. Um they
[2:47:03] like existing open space requirements,
[2:47:06] impervious surface limits and
[2:47:07] landscaping requirements which all kind
[2:47:09] of work together uh in addition to our
[2:47:12] tree retention requirements to increase
[2:47:15] the amount of green space and and trees
[2:47:18] on site. Next slide.
[2:47:22] um in terms of uh things that they felt
[2:47:25] were not working. Uh retention
[2:47:27] priorities criteria particularly in this
[2:47:30] example. Um
[2:47:33] and so that may be one of the areas of
[2:47:36] the code that we could strengthen. Um
[2:47:39] exemption thresholds. Currently our code
[2:47:42] exempts uh developments that are less
[2:47:44] than 20,000 square feet. And so just as
[2:47:48] we see development trends and lots
[2:47:51] getting smaller um and more dense, that
[2:47:54] might be something worth looking into
[2:47:56] and refining that. Um lack of
[2:48:00] flexibility. Um in this particular
[2:48:02] example, uh there was uh frontage
[2:48:05] improvements and rightaway dedication
[2:48:07] with existing trees there. And so some
[2:48:11] flexibility in terms of the sidewalk uh
[2:48:14] layout or design could have helped
[2:48:15] retain some of those additional trees.
[2:48:18] Potentially flexing uh some of the
[2:48:20] setback or landscaping requirements on
[2:48:23] the edges of the property uh could have
[2:48:25] shifted some of the buildings and also
[2:48:28] um created additional benefits there. Um
[2:48:32] protection during construction and then
[2:48:35] long-term maintenance. Uh one of the
[2:48:38] things discussed um with the group was
[2:48:40] just what happens when uh after the
[2:48:43] development's complete and that turns
[2:48:45] over to individual homeowners. Um you
[2:48:48] know after a certain period of time we
[2:48:50] get individual requests to come in uh
[2:48:53] and remove trees. So we need a clear
[2:48:55] process for that as we move forward.
[2:48:58] Next slide.
[2:49:00] So in response to that, what should
[2:49:02] change? Uh updating uh retention
[2:49:05] criteria to prioritize viable native
[2:49:08] contiguous canopy that provides the most
[2:49:10] ecological value. Revising our exemption
[2:49:14] thresholds uh to reflect recent
[2:49:16] development patterns. Establishing or
[2:49:19] providing more flexibility uh in terms
[2:49:21] of other design standards where it would
[2:49:25] result in additional trees preserved.
[2:49:28] um strengthening our existing
[2:49:30] construction protections and then
[2:49:32] clarifying a long-term maintenance
[2:49:34] requirements and um a permit process for
[2:49:37] tree removals not associated with new
[2:49:39] development.
[2:49:43] Um, and then just in terms of next
[2:49:46] steps, as I mentioned, um, we'll be
[2:49:48] working taking this feedback, working on
[2:49:51] an initial draft code to bring back to
[2:49:54] you all, um, later, uh, in the fall. And
[2:49:58] we'll also be following up with our
[2:50:01] focus group participants and, uh, city
[2:50:04] staff uh, with that draft as well to get
[2:50:07] their feedback on it.
[2:50:11] And I think that is all I had. Um so
[2:50:15] with that I will uh entertain any
[2:50:17] questions that you all have.
[2:50:24] » Commissioner Kunan.
[2:50:26] >> So uh I really like your what should
[2:50:29] change slide. I think you hit a number
[2:50:31] of really important points. So want to
[2:50:33] thank you for that and recognize that.
[2:50:36] uh flexibility is also you know is is a
[2:50:39] tricky thing. It can be used and it can
[2:50:41] be abused but in the example you gave I
[2:50:45] could see a lot of value in granting
[2:50:47] flexibility for preserving those trees
[2:50:50] close to that buffer and letting some of
[2:50:52] the other ones go. You know from
[2:50:54] ecological standpoint having a more
[2:50:56] concentrated growth is much better than
[2:50:58] a tree here a tree there and you know
[2:51:00] one over there. So properly applied
[2:51:04] flexibility I think would be really
[2:51:06] useful to get in there. So thank you
[2:51:16] » Commissioner Lever.
[2:51:17] >> Um thank you so much. This was
[2:51:18] wonderful. I have a question around the
[2:51:22] implementation of the plan. So it's
[2:51:24] wonderful to have you here now but what
[2:51:26] are some of the capacity needs that you
[2:51:28] foresee with the different requirements
[2:51:30] because um as the enforcement component
[2:51:33] will probably add a lot of uh work for
[2:51:36] you like what does that implementation
[2:51:38] look like in terms of the phases of like
[2:51:41] year one when because this this is a lot
[2:51:44] and this is wonderful and I and I think
[2:51:46] it's it's great but I wonder how how
[2:51:48] ready the city is to enforce it and
[2:51:52] really be able to implement.
[2:51:55] >> Do you want to take that one, Gabriella?
[2:51:57] So, hiring Gabriella has vastly
[2:52:01] increased our uh capacity uh to start uh
[2:52:06] building and fleshing out what an urban
[2:52:08] forestry program really looks like. Um,
[2:52:11] but in addition, we'll be partnering
[2:52:14] with staff in public works and parks as
[2:52:18] well um to really, you know, have a
[2:52:22] comprehensive program and and help
[2:52:25] implement this stuff. So, if anything to
[2:52:27] add?
[2:52:30] >> Yes, there's also going to be an element
[2:52:31] of using code compliance and uh
[2:52:34] construction inspectors as well as I
[2:52:37] hope to have a very physical presence on
[2:52:39] the ground. I have a lot of experience
[2:52:41] in operations, so I will be overseeing a
[2:52:44] lot of the sites myself.
[2:52:50] » Commissioner Westerbeck.
[2:52:51] >> Hey, Commissioner Westb. I have
[2:52:52] complicated feelings around trees
[2:52:54] because um of course I'm building stuff
[2:52:56] and I have clients who sometimes want to
[2:52:59] chop down more trees than I personally
[2:53:00] do. Um yeah. Um
[2:53:05] sometimes I so I for example I want to
[2:53:07] uh agree with Commissioner Kieran on the
[2:53:10] um the ecological you know function
[2:53:13] being primary uh when when you u can
[2:53:16] prioritize that and let some other trees
[2:53:18] go that aren't you know um as important.
[2:53:22] I've got um e even my in my early
[2:53:25] architectural career, I had a um I
[2:53:29] worked for a firm where they would
[2:53:31] identify a significant tree and build a
[2:53:33] project around it. There's actually a
[2:53:34] really cool project we did in Seattle, years ago, um that was built
[2:53:38] around this huge fur tree. So, I try and
[2:53:40] think about that in my work. And so that
[2:53:42] flexibility to me is really important
[2:53:44] because um I've even got a current one
[2:53:47] right now and I and and a big company's
[2:53:50] gonna probably buy the the the lot and
[2:53:53] take over. There's this massive tree
[2:53:54] that the current seller is called
[2:53:56] grandfather tree. And I've been trying
[2:53:58] my damnedest to excuse my language, but
[2:54:01] to make sure that they know that tree is
[2:54:03] off limits, but I can't, you know, once
[2:54:04] they once the propertyy's theirs, they
[2:54:06] can do the DBH thing, whatever. So there
[2:54:08] are shortcomings obviously in our our
[2:54:10] code the like like I saw in the example
[2:54:12] there they could cluster a whole bunch
[2:54:14] of 8 10 12 16inch trees whatever and
[2:54:16] then um for to to be retained and then
[2:54:19] and take out the big beautiful tree. Um
[2:54:22] so I'm not an arborist so I don't know
[2:54:24] you know the the pros and cons of
[2:54:26] keeping you know eight 16inch trees
[2:54:29] versus one 48 inch tree or something
[2:54:32] like that but um people get really
[2:54:34] attached to those and and I can see why
[2:54:36] they want to keep them. Um, so I'm kind
[2:54:38] of all all over the board here, but I
[2:54:40] like that we're really looking at it. I
[2:54:42] like that they've hired you, that we're
[2:54:43] taking a fresh look at it. I'm always
[2:54:45] concerned that um prioritizing keeping
[2:54:50] trees as much as I I love trees as much
[2:54:52] as the next person will impact how much
[2:54:55] housing we get built because that's our
[2:54:56] other crisis. I think ultimately housing
[2:54:58] is probably more important than keeping
[2:54:59] trees, but I don't really want them to
[2:55:01] fight with each other either. So, so
[2:55:03] again, like I said, I've got complicated
[2:55:04] feelings, but the what should change, I
[2:55:07] can't really disagree with any of those.
[2:55:09] Um, and um, I've said this many times
[2:55:13] before as someone who does work in the design and development space, being
[2:55:17] able to be flexible on sidewalks,
[2:55:20] um, the um, setbacks
[2:55:23] um, and really, you know, do a whole new
[2:55:27] kind of re-evaluation of of how we allow
[2:55:31] people to lay out buildings on sites. If
[2:55:34] we decide that it's more important to
[2:55:36] keep, you know, a 48 inch di, you know,
[2:55:38] diameter tree or something like that is
[2:55:40] going to be critical to us, balancing,
[2:55:43] keeping trees, building, you know, um
[2:55:46] keeping
[2:55:47] building the number of trees and forests
[2:55:49] we have in both while also increasing
[2:55:51] the number of homes, which is an acute issue. So, that's what I always
[2:55:56] think about when I'm when I'm looking at
[2:55:57] the tree code is can we can we keep
[2:55:58] balancing them? um and prioritize I I
[2:56:02] would tend to prioritize the significant
[2:56:04] trees um but again not such that um
[2:56:09] we're not going to get you know 20 30 40
[2:56:11] 50 um homes that we may desperately
[2:56:15] need. Um, but I, you know, to get in the
[2:56:18] weeds here, it may be, well, maybe we,
[2:56:22] um, we let you cut the trees if you're
[2:56:24] going to do, um, a minimum density of 20
[2:56:27] homes or something like that, or we'll
[2:56:30] we our code allows some flexibility
[2:56:32] there, but not for um, three single
[2:56:35] family homes that aren't going to
[2:56:37] contribute as much to the our affordable
[2:56:39] housing goals. So, sorry I I don't have
[2:56:41] like code written out for this, but I
[2:56:43] think about that too as well, like what
[2:56:44] are we getting for that sacrifice? So,
[2:56:47] kind of random random thoughts there,
[2:56:49] but those are the things I think about
[2:56:51] with the tree code is um we've got to
[2:56:54] keep them, but we also have to balance
[2:56:56] that with the long-term needs of of
[2:56:58] residents and homes.
[2:57:05] I also like that idea that um
[2:57:08] Commissioner Westerbeck mentioned that
[2:57:09] if you are going to be cutting down
[2:57:11] these trees, you'd better be building
[2:57:13] enough um
[2:57:16] homes to accommodate um the loss. Um
[2:57:21] along those lines, I'm a little wonder
[2:57:23] I'm wondering how this ties into
[2:57:24] something we had talked about earlier in
[2:57:25] the year regarding heritage trees and
[2:57:28] those kinds of things. I didn't see a
[2:57:31] mention of it, but maybe like obliquely
[2:57:33] mentioned to it. Can you just touch tie
[2:57:35] that in?
[2:57:36] >> Yeah, that is a a probably a bullet
[2:57:38] point I should have uh included as well.
[2:57:41] That is still a a priority and something
[2:57:44] that we'll look at as part of this code
[2:57:46] update. Um is uh establishing a a
[2:57:51] definition for like you were mentioning
[2:57:54] grandfather trees or you know very
[2:57:56] significant trees.
[2:57:59] along those lines. Do you guys have
[2:58:00] ideas about where you're headed with
[2:58:03] that? Like what would it what would that
[2:58:04] mean then if once we get that heritage
[2:58:07] tree and kind of thing incorporated into
[2:58:10] code? How would it affect the the
[2:58:14] >> uh do you want to take that?
[2:58:17] >> I have a few ideas that I'm uh
[2:58:20] brainstorming right now. Right now, I
[2:58:23] have three different types, three
[2:58:27] different classifications that we can go
[2:58:28] with. And I'm currently still
[2:58:30] researching what is optimal and what is
[2:58:34] used by the surrounding areas both in
[2:58:36] Snomish and King County. So, I'm not
[2:58:38] quite ready to unveil my but it's
[2:58:42] definitely going to be coming. We wait
[2:58:44] with baited breath
[2:58:46] [laughter] for the [snorts] big reveal.
[2:58:52] Okay.
[2:58:54] >> Couple things if I may. I do think um
[2:58:57] the 20,000 square foot um a minimum
[2:59:02] could be reduced now given how many
[2:59:03] small lots we're we're seeing developed.
[2:59:06] And uh and that's somebody who, you
[2:59:07] know, that would probably make my job a
[2:59:09] little more challenging, but I think
[2:59:11] that's from to me back in the days when
[2:59:14] lots were just much larger and they were
[2:59:16] going to have a single house on them.
[2:59:17] And I just don't, you know, I could see
[2:59:19] why people get upset when we just come
[2:59:21] in and take down every single tree. And,
[2:59:23] you know, developers didn't work that
[2:59:25] way back in the 60s, 70s, whatever. Um,
[2:59:28] that's why there's these neighborhoods
[2:59:30] with all these mature second growth
[2:59:32] trees. You probably know more about this
[2:59:33] than me, but now it's cheaper for them
[2:59:35] to come in and just take every single
[2:59:37] tree out um and then rebuild from
[2:59:40] scratch. It's faster and easier and more
[2:59:42] predictable, whatever. And um I know I'm
[2:59:45] sure storms and stuff are probably an
[2:59:46] issue, but um
[2:59:49] just the way the way um development
[2:59:53] occurs now is so so different than it
[2:59:55] was. So um we it seems like we used to
[2:59:58] preserve more trees because it was just
[3:00:00] easier, but now it's easier to take them
[3:00:01] all out. So it's a whole different
[3:00:03] paradigm, too.
[3:00:11] » Okay. Well, thank you so much and it was
[3:00:14] lovely to meet you. We look forward to
[3:00:15] further meetings with you. Um,
[3:00:19] do you have everything you need from us
[3:00:21] for today? Well, thank you so much again
[3:00:22] for this really great presentation.
[3:00:24] Yeah, thank you and welcome. Um, that
[3:00:28] concludes our four study sessions
[3:00:32] for the evening. [laughter]
[3:00:35] Um, are there reports from commission
[3:00:39] members? If you have a report, you can
[3:00:41] raise your hand.
[3:00:44] Okay.
[3:00:46] Uh seeing none, uh how about staff? Are
[3:00:51] there any reports from staff?
[3:00:53] >> Only only item from staff. Uh our next
[3:00:55] meeting will be Wednesday, September
[3:00:57] 2nd. We'll have a few items to discuss.
[3:01:00] Uh looking forward to seeing you again
[3:01:02] and enjoy the the recess.
[3:01:04] >> Okay.
[3:01:05] Fantastic. Yes, we are. Uh there will be
[3:01:09] an August recess. We um just as a
[3:01:12] reminder, so our next session will be
[3:01:15] September 2nd as stated by um Mr. Gates
[3:01:20] there. Uh if there is no further
[3:01:23] business,
[3:01:25] um I will entertain a motion to adjurnn.
[3:01:30] Is there a motion? Yes.
[3:01:32] >> I move we adjurnn.
[3:01:33] >> Thank you. Is there a second?
[3:01:35] >> Commissioner Westerbeck, I second the
[3:01:36] motion to adjurnn. Uh, thank you,
[3:01:38] Commissioner Westerbeck.
[3:01:40] Um,
[3:01:43] wow. The motion has been uh seconded.
[3:01:47] All in favor say I.
[3:01:50] >> I.
[3:01:51] >> Okay. Looks like a an universal
[3:01:55] I. Thank you so much. I'll see you in
[3:01:57] September.