[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.

Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2026

Transcript