Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I call the 05/06/2026 planning commission meeting to order. The main purposes of tonight's meeting are to elect the commission chair and vice chair and hold a study session on the bike parking code update. Before we move on to agenda items, I'd like to acknowledge our hybrid meeting format. City of Bothell is providing the option to attend this meeting either in person or remotely via Zoom. For those participating via Zoom, the chat and question function is not available for use to ensure compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. We have a public comment agenda item at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit all comments to three minutes. Please note that the city of Bohol does not tolerate verbal harassment. Remember this during your comments.

Public comment will be allowed both in person and via Zoom. Those wishing to comment via Zoom were asked to submit an online form by 3PM today. People wishing to submit written comments were also asked to submit those comments by 3PM. Email was encouraged as well and will be acknowledged. Those in attendance may may may also make comments and have been asked to indicate their desire to comment on the sign in sheets.

The Imagine Bothell notice, city website, and tonight's agenda all provided information to the public for providing comments. The video of this meeting will be streamed live as well as recorded and available for later viewing on the city's YouTube channel. Call in number was provided on the meeting agenda for members of the public who wish to call in by phone to listen live to their meetings. For our phone in callers, during staff presentations, staff will make every effort to specify which materials they are referencing so that everyone can follow along. At this point, we'll take a moment to acknowledge the attendance of commissioners. Attending his first meeting, commissioner Jonathan Morales. Welcome.

Thank you.

Commissioner Westerbeck? Here. Commissioner Lever?

Here.

Commissioner Robson? Here. K. Commissioner Sills? Here. And commissioner Gustafson?

Here.

And in addition, community development staff in attendance include deputy director Gates and Eric Jaszewski. Hope I did tolerably. Planner. Lastly, before we begin, I'd like to reiterate some meeting guidelines. For all meeting attendees, please speak clearly and pause frequently. State your name each time before speaking. Mute your microphone when not speaking. And if there is a if you are also streaming the live video feed, please turn the sound off as there is a delay. For commissioners at specific breaks in the presentation, I'll be calling on members who wish to speak or ask a question. If you want to speak, please indicate this by raising your hand.

I will call on you as they see you. This will help avoid the problem of having two people speaking at the same time. Identify yourself before you ask a question, make a motion or second a motion, or participate in debate. Please mute your microphone when not speaking. First item on the agenda is public comment. The city has accepted visitor comment in writing as well as accepted sign up treats for those who wish to speak at tonight's meeting. Seeing as we have no one in attendance, there'll be no live comment. Is there anyone in the Zoom space who wishes to comment?

Chair, there are no members of the public in the Zoom, waiting room. We did receive one written comment from David Levitan

Yes. That I

forwarded to the planning commissioners about an hour ago.

That was the only comment received.

Yes. We did receive that via email, and I think we had the opportunity. I see some nodding heads to review that. We we thank the commenter for his participation. And moving on, is there a motion to approve the April 15 minutes?

Commissioner Sills.

Commissioner Sills, I move to approve.

K. We move that we approve the April 16 minutes. Is there a second? Commissioner Westman. Oh. Oh, commissioner, Robson. Oh, please. Commissioner Robson.

I second.

Alright. It's been moved and seconded that we approve tonight's meeting or April 15 meeting minutes. Any discussion around those minutes? Looking around the table, seeing none. All in favor therefore, all in favor of approving the minutes as submitted, in favor of saying aye. Aye. Minutes are approved. Next item on the agenda is election of the officers pursuant to the Planning Commission bylaws, officers shall be nominated at the first regular meeting of the commission in May and even number of years that is this meeting. An election shall be by a majority vote of the members of the commission. I'm gonna turn it over to deputy director Gates to conduct the election.

Thank you, chair. I'm gonna follow through the the rules that that I was able to obtain from the city clerk's office. I hope this goes smoothly. So the recommended action, yes, is to elect a chair and vice chair for a two year term, which will be through 04/30/2028. What I'll do is I will call for nominations. Each member of the planning commission is permitted to nominate one person, and nominations do not require a second. One once all nominations have been made, I will close the nominations. A nominee who wishes to decline should do so at this time at that time. If there is only one nominee, the election will be conducted by voice vote. If there are more than one nominees, election will be by written ballot.

Each ballot will contain the name of the commissioner who cast it. I will publicly announce the results of the election by reading the each ballot into the record. To be elected, the nominee must receive a majority of the votes of the members present. Should there be a tie, voting will continue until a commissioner receives a majority vote of the commissioners present. It could be very competitive here tonight. We'll see. So at this point, I will call for nominations for chair. And and and once again, once once this is completed, the chair will actually I will give the script to elect the vice chair, which will follow the same same rules. So I'll call for nominations now for the chair. Commissioner Sills.

Commissioner Sills, I nominate Commissioner Robson.

I was going to nominate Vice Chair Robson as well, so done.

I'd like to nominate commissioner Lever.

Any other nominations? Alright. I will I will pass around some papers. Please indicate your name on the on the sheet as far as who is voting and then who you are selecting. So name on top, who you're who you're selecting below.

For commissioners Robson and Gustafson, if you would like to just send me a quick email, I will use that as your vote for for this. I'm just waiting on commissioner Gustafson's email. Okay. Tallying the votes, I have one abstention, one vote for commissioner Lever, and then five for commissioner Robson. And I'll turn it to commissioner to chair Robson now to conduct the vice chair election.

So you just call for nominations for vice chair, and we'll take it from there.

Okay. I'm calling for by nominations for vice chair.

Well, I'll nominate commissioner Lever.

Are there any other nominations? I'm not seeing any. Okay. We have one nomination for commissioner Lever. I don't have a script. So what do we do from here?

You can do this as a voice vote, so you can just call for a vote in favor of commissioner Lever for vice chair.

And do the should I call one by one, or do we say aye or nay?

You'd call each member.

Each member? Yep. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's call for a we'll do a voice vote then beginning with commissioner Westerbuck.

Aye. Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Sills?

Aye.

Commissioner Kunin?

Aye.

Commissioner Gustafson?

Aye.

Commissioner Levar? Aye. And forgive me. The new commissioner, I don't know your name.

Commissioner Morales. Aye. Sounds

like the ayes have it then. Congratulations, vice chair commissioner Lever. Okay. So I think we need to move on to the next item agenda? Agenda item? What's the next step here?

Yeah. The next the next item is a study session on the bike parking code updates.

Okay. As previously said, the next item item will be bike parking updates.

All right. Thank you, madam chair. My name is Eric Chazewski. I'm the a long range planner with the community development department, and I appreciate you and the planning commission for having me today. I'll be presenting on rightsizing bike parking standards.

This is a study session for the planning commission. Coincidentally, May is also bike month, so that's fun. No action is required of the commission today. Mainly, this is a discussion on what updates the city should make in the Planning Commission's view on its bike parking standards. The goal, I think, for the department at least is to provide optimal bike parking standards for new development.

My presentation is laid out in four sections. The first two are for setting the context and providing you background information, and the second two are to share staff's initial concepts and to prompt discussion among commissioners. So for that background, we have, first of all, the Bothell Bike Plan adopted in 2023 by the City Council. It envisioned a state of the art bike network throughout Bothell for all ages, abilities, races, ethnicities, and economic backgrounds. The next year, the City Council updated the comprehensive plan that was in 2024.

The plan emphasizes travel by non auto modes, including biking, walking, and transit. There's also a policy in the plan to require new development, where applicable, to incorporate appropriate design features such as bicyclemicro mobility parking. The comprehensive plan also involved an extensive implementation process in 2025 and onward. Part of that implementation was repealing vehicle parking minimums, which the Planning Commission heard and City Council adopted. As part of the repeal of vehicle parking minimums, initial bike parking standards were adopted into the Bothell Municipal Code.

The bike parking standards in the code today apply in cases of any occupancy permit of a new or enlarged building or a change of use in any existing building. Certain minimums for short term and long term bicycle parking spaces are required for multifamily housing, commercial, office, and attended off street parking uses. For other uses, bicycle parking is not required. Further, any site with less than 2,500 square feet of gross building area is exempt from the requirements. There are many more standards in the code.

What do we mean by bicycle parking? There's generally two types, at least as it concerns the zoning code. There's long term bicycle parking, which is typically provided in a secure covered facility. And there's short term bicycle parking, which is typically on or adjacent to the street, and it's for short term use by patrons, guests, customers, and the like. Prior to this meeting, staff conducted extensive research on bike bicycle parking and bike parking standards.

For best practices, looking at Washington and Western U. S. Cities, they typically follow prescriptive standards based on the size of use, for example, square feet or number of dwelling units. Units. There's a very wide variation in amounts and secondary amenities required.

These standards in surveyed cities typically cover all land uses and project types. Some cities use performance based requirements instead of size based requirements, such as percentage of building occupancy or number of patrons. Research on the demand for long term parking is limited, unfortunately. What staff did find is that demand for this type of bicycle parking is highly variable. In general, though, residential long term park bike parking is typically well utilized, although anecdotally, we understand Bothell long term bike parking is underutilized.

As for office in general, we don't have the information on Bothell, but in general, it's an underutilized resource. The difficulty also here is, of course, the demand for long term bike parking can vary so significantly not only by city but by neighborhood and by property, even when industry standard ratios are followed. Another way of looking at bike parking is its incentive effect and its effect on equity. A variety of surveys have found that secure bike parking would make people ride more often in the following population groups, 38% of office workers for commuting, 58% of people of color and other individuals, minority individuals and then 45% of low income earners. So you can see there's a significant equity consideration here.

Also, income families tend to low income families comprise almost 40% of bike commuters. You can see the graph on the right showing that amount. Finally, another topic that is connected to bicycle use and bicycle parking is the public health benefits. Bike commuters have 41 lower risk of premature death, and increases in bicyclists lowers the rate of serious injuries on the roads by sixty four percent. So this is sort of for the discussion section for the Planning Commission.

The department has put together an initial strategy on updating the bike parking code for your consideration. Our approach is to allow for creativity, flexibility in meeting the bike parking regulations, recognize the diversity of potential land uses and intensities and how bike parking needs may vary, and try to keep it simple as reasonably as possible. Do we have any thoughts from Commission on this? I know they're very high level, seem agreeable, disagreeable. Seeing some head nods.

Okay.

Commissioner it looks like you have a comment.

Yeah. Sarah Gustafson here. Welcome to the new faces here. They haven't had a chance to meet yet. Really excited about this topic.

Just as a general overarching idea, I think we are all on the same page that the measure of good bike parking infrastructure isn't how many bikes fit. It's how many riders it enables. And thinking about quantity is second to thinking about quality because if you just have a rack of dusty long abandoned bikes, it might meet the code, but it doesn't help people move the bikes in and out easily. So, the bike management is really important, and it creates a virtuous cycle. The easier it is to get your bikes out of a rack and into a rack, the less bikes are just going to be sitting there in a residential area or in an apartment, which will encourage more people to bike.

And I have more ideas on the technicalities of this. I want to throw that out there as a framing for what we're gonna see next, and I'm excited.

Brother chair.

Thank you, commissioner Grafteson. I apologize. I can't see the table to see if any of the other commissioners have any comments.

Okay. I'll be happy to to relay the who's got their hand up? Commissioner Lever has a question.

Thank you. So when I when I read the materials, the first thing that came to mind was safety. I am disclosure, I'm not a biker, so I feel like I will kill myself if I try, but I maybe one day, I will try again. But needless to say, is the safety component and then the ebikes piece. So when I think about the parking, and this might be outside the scope, but how do we is there any way that we can also memorialize the fact that we want to continue to promote safety within our community?

And then I did see the Promote E Bike Access. So how do we regulate the safety of the bikes and that is tied to the parking, but it's not within the parking, regulations? But I just wanna make sure, stay for the record, that as I see more and more ebikes, it's really scary. And and I don't know where does that go, but I wanna make sure that I do voice that concern of regulating, like I mean, I'm just many kids without helmets, they're just going so fast, and I see more and more in our community. So

I do know that the the public works department is it they're they've they're nearly completed developing the micromobility plan. And within that, they're they do get into the details around what types of devices are okay on a sidewalk, which one should be in a street, even into, you know, things like speed limit from what I'm from what I recall, but identifying, you know, obviously, helmets and and but really getting into the nitty gritty of mobility and all the different methods that people can use to move around, whether it's a line scooter, a line bike, their own bike, their own scooter, a skateboard, where and when those are okay to operate and how to operate them to make sure that we can create the that that mobility for for various means, maybe addressing kind of that topic around e bikes moving quickly in and around town in certain spaces.

Thank you. That actually has prompted me to think about questions. So when it comes to the parking standards, are we looking at the hybrid model for regular bikes and the e bikes? And are e bikes part of this umbrella? Because again, as a non biker, I'm assuming that storing an e bike might be slightly different than a regular bike? If so, how do we incorporate that? And with the different modes of transportation, which I also see the scooters as well, is that part of the, I guess, the scope of the parking regulations?

It very much could be. Yeah, we can there's a slide where we have a question about that, in fact. So yeah, we can look at ways different ways that we can have parking for different types of devices, for sure. So if there's anything else? I think Commissioner Westerbeck had

it.

Commissioner Westerbeck, here. I'm going to bounce around a little bit. But first, on the staff concepts, these are really good. Few things I wanna touch on. The performance based kinda like what commissioner talked about versus, you know, just pure number based, I think, is really smart.

And I'll get to that in a second because I've got some examples to bring up. As as people know, you know, I often apply in the codes in my work. So I've been working on and off on a small infill project here trying to apply the new we have I really got to quantities yet, but I did notice right away that for a small infill building, it was gonna be pretty much impossible to supply the the short term parking, especially within fifty feet of the front entrance. When you're filling most of an infill site, there's just aren't many places for bikes. And full full disclosure, I do bike.

I've commuted to jobs for years. I was a bicycle mechanic for ten years before I was an architect. So I've definitely done done the dance and still ride my bike around and use it for transportation as well. So I know what it's like to not have a rack or need a place to put it. Any bikes, of course, super popular now.

I do think it's an issue that we we like the the commenter David Levittan said, having space for locking them up, moving around them, maybe plugging them in, that's probably gonna be part of a longer discussion, think, because it gets a more complicated, but just kind of higher level like others have talked about. I'll go back to these points, the staff points. Aligning the director to determine quantities for less common line uses, I think that's the discussion we definitely need to have because some like housing and stuff and places restaurants and things, places close to downtowns, maybe you're going to need more short term. So that's definitely a discussion point. And then reductions for like nursing homes and things like that, that makes a lot of sense.

The exemptions, I think those should be carefully considered small businesses, small scales, etcetera, kind of like I just brought up. It's really hard to to figure out to do some of those. Like, we expect to, for example, the a small infill housing project. We, for sure, we're we know we're gonna put build in a good bike room or something like that. We're gonna dedicate some space to that, especially without parking requirements now for cars.

We can we can go a little more robust on resident bike parking, and I would expect that that would be I mean, my modus operandi with the building now is people have to be able to roll in, you know, 7,500 pound cargo bike, maybe even one, you know, the urban arrow type with the with the kitty, you know, box on it, everything like they use in Copenhagen. And they're not gonna bring that up and down the stairs or anything, obviously. So I'm thinking, like, a couple people might have those. So, yeah, that's really important for us to be thinking about. And I did work at a place, a couple different places that had the the shower and locker facilities.

I And gotta say that was really nice. As long as I get there early, I could clean up before work. I had a check because I knew this was coming. I've been working on and off with the architects that are designing the the Lot P project. Couple 100 units over on Lot P South, and I was I know that they've been talking to staff about some of the requirements.

And I thought those were really interesting comments. I mean, first of all, they were they were very supportive of the goal of increasing bike ridership. It's a big part of the work they do and everything, the developer and the the architect. They're just to cut the chase, they're they're saying the the multifamily long term spaces could even be could even provide more, you know, to encourage people to cycle much like what the comments say here. But then the short term spaces, they're really having a challenge with, and and that was what I was having a challenge with my infill building as well.

They were saying that, for example, they end up with 41 short term bike parking spaces, and they had to be within 50 feet of the front door. So, anyway, this is getting into policy, but I think we're definitely definitely gonna need to to revisit some of those those quantities because it might be better to have 10 or 20 really good spots where people can park e bikes or whatever and and know that they can also, there's there's a lot of opinion in the bike community about what makes a good bike rack and what doesn't and how easy they are to to lock your bike. There's a lot of lot of memes about bad bike racks. So we don't we don't want to do that as a city. And part of that is is not only the shape, but how many they are, how much space there is around them once again and things like that.

And then so the as I thought, you know, they're planning they're planning for with with our code for bikes, and they're just noticing that those short term spaces, they use the word unreasonable. So anyway, I just wanted to kind of stream consciousness, but these are some of the things I've been thinking about as I've read through this. And then they actually thought that the commercial office requirements may be a little low because that's where they see a lot of and I myself as as well, as someone who commuted our own office, you get a lot of people who are committed to by commuting. They said in their office, for example, it's an architecture office of 30 people, they use eight long term bike stalls every day. So that's almost a third of the staff.

So anyway, I've got more, but I know we're not getting into policy yet, but there's a rich discussion here to be had. And I think your staff concepts are really strong to begin with.

We have many more slides or not too many more, but some more slides. Y'all yeah, y'all are getting into some good feedback that we were trying to bring out. So that's really helpful. Sorry, sort of high level here. Some of the things that we're keeping in mind when updating the bike parking standards are the relationships or the effects on transportation options and mode share, economic vitality, meaning costs and benefits to businesses, housing affordability, costs and benefits to residents, the relationship with bike parking, bike use, environmental stewardship, climate change, sustainability, and then, as mentioned in the earlier slide, that equity component of bicycling and bike parking.

And I heard Commissioner Lever talk about having a safety consideration as well potentially, so that's helpful information. We can work with that. Do we have any other things that staff should be considering here and looking through the code and coming up with updates? Or we can dive into the details if you all like.

Alright. Looks like commissioner Gustafson has a question. Yes.

Sarah Gustafson here. Thank you. I was actually not aware of the 50 feet rule for the bike parking to be that close to the entrance, And I'm would like to hear a little bit more about how that rule is developed, whether we're still considering having that in the code because just speaking from my own experience, which is not applied to everybody, an extra 50 feet is not the barrier for me that it might be for a driver because I'm already on the bike, but a bad rack or a tangle of dusty bikes or having to lift the bike onto the rack definitely is. Thank you.

So my understanding, as I mentioned in in the slide deck, council repealed the vehicle parking minimums last year, and there was a desire to establish some slightly more detailed bicycle parking standards. So, again, my understanding staff looked at some Western Washington cities and followed Bellingham's example. Since then and sort of why we're here today are the is because those have been getting applied and implemented through development applications. And exactly like Commissioner Gustafson mentioned, some of the standards may necessitate a relook by the commission and the city council. So

Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. I would definitely put that on the table as a thing maybe to give up in return for better quality elsewhere if other people see that working with their lived experience? Thank you.

Okay. So high level, we're gonna go down into some of the policy level like commissioners have already gotten into so far, so that's great. I'm going to stop at each of these slides. And again, any discussion or anything you want to add, feel free to. So the first kind of tranche here, staff concept is to essentially set the bike parking quantities at a minimum level.

In determining those using people based ratios instead of size based ratios is a little more respect more respectful of the vast diversity of land uses that there might be since a 5,000 square foot retail is much different from a 5,000 square foot warehouse, for example, in terms of how many bike parking stalls there should be. So our question on this is, again, should we set minimal requirements based on sort of the current bike use or higher standards for future bike mode share aspirations. And I think, again, we've heard some feedback already on this. So, stop there.

Got to Commissioner Kiernan.

Disclosure, I was a long term bicycle commuter, so I've got some experience there. I would be okay with minimal based on current use. And if you need to change, I could certainly see converting parking spaces to bicycles. I think you wanna get people started. And then if you see a greater need, I think it's easier to accommodate more bicycle parking than more vehicle parking.

The other thing I'd say about bicycle parking is I think we've all seen bicycles blocking sidewalks. So having having some accessible, not in the terms of we usually use accessibility, but parking it and get to is really important. And if it's, as commissioner Soule said, an extra 50 feet away, I I think that's okay. If we're riding, we could walk too.

If I can ask just a few questions here. I wonder if you could go more into detail about what you exactly mean by performance based and how that's calculated? And when you're talking about current levels of parking, how is that calculated as well? Could you give us just a few more details on that?

Yeah. Performance So based means, in this context, a certain number of bike spaces per users that are per potential users. So again, in the case of a retail space, we could potentially set a standard that says instead of two spaces per 5,000 square feet, we could say one or two spaces per or I'm sorry, 5% of the building occupancy. And maybe that building occupancy is 30 people, so that could be four or five spaces. That's a performance based, again, sort of based on the people it's people based, right, instead of just the size of the building or the size of the use.

On your second question, based on current bike use, I think the implication is that the current bike mode share in Bothell is pretty low. I don't know the exact percentage. So we could set the ratios based on that bike mode share in the city today. Or depending on policymakers' preference, we can set a goal of a higher mode share of bicyclists and established bike parking standards in preparation for that goal, for example.

Thank you. How are those numbers calculated for performance calculations? So for example, an office building versus a shopping center, are there, like, nationwide standards for those? Do you look at others what other cities are doing? How do you how do you find those ratios?

That's a good question. I mean, there's a variety of ways to apply something like this. I've seen cities apply it based on maximum occupancy, which I think is typically determined by the fire building codes. There's others where it's been set to a percentage of, let's say, for a movie theater, the percentage of the number of seats. So that number is self evident, typically, in a building project application. So it depends. It can be a variety of things, and we can Planning Commission can help us determine what that might be.

Can I also ask, on your slide, you mentioned that the residential spaces were well utilized but also underutilized anecdotally? Could you just explain a little bit more of what you meant about that?

Yeah. Definitely. So residential, this is sort of looking at national data. So in the limited data that staff found that I found for national bike parking usage, residential, say, multifamily was typically well utilized. So underutilized is only in the context of the city of Bothell. And again, this is anecdotal based on some staff observations of various apartment complexes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lever has a question.

Yeah. Thank you. It's an answer to your question around the first can we go back to the

question? So

I really struggle with not having data and really understanding what is happening in terms of the baseline so that we can start benchmarking. And then I also know that we have to start somewhere. So I definitely I'm in support of anything that will increase the diversity of mobility tools that we have here to move around. And at the same time, it's really hard for me as, again, a non biker to think about how I would, like, even move around with all the heels. Like, I just for me, it's just I can't, like, even begin to imagine.

Having said that, I definitely would like to do that, but I just I don't know how many people are like me. And and through the other planning efforts that we're doing, like, is there any way that we'll be able to get the data to see whether or not whatever is decided was actually right for our city, or is this all gonna be sort of, like, scenarios based on national benchmarks that may or may not really apply to both of?

I think that I we can I can look more into what data is available? Again, it's challenging, especially if I think the question is in the context of just the city itself. We'd have to conduct some sort of survey of multifamily buildings and office you know, property owners and things like that. So it's just not a readily available Yeah. Data point, I

think. And and I do I do want to add to that. It is definitely a difficult you know, we have to start somewhere. Where do we start? Yeah.

I think to chair Kiernan's point of it's a lot easier to add more bike parking than it is to add more vehicle parking or add, you know, a structure aspect. So that may be somewhere that we look at with, you know, what are what are some opportunities. So if we it's gonna be we don't have the crystal ball, so we can't hit that number on the on right on the mark. But we could look to create opportunities with with flexibility in how to respond in a future setting to make sure that we've at least kind of given ourselves as good of a as good of a belt and as good of suspenders that we we could possibly create without really knowing what the utilization will be based on data from, yes, many different places around the the country that makes it difficult to just pick a number. So many spaces per square foot or so many spaces per employee or or occupant.

So

And and sort of, I think, one of the reasons that this is a a compelling concept to staff here is because it sort of clears some of that those unknowns, right? So if we were to, say, set ratios and this Planning Commission wanted to make sure that there was bike parking available to 10% of residents or 5% of residents or 30% of residents, that's like would be something that's easy to implement. Again, you don't have to have a data basis for that necessarily. It's just a policy basis. So

Commissioner I see if have a question.

Sarah Gustafson here. When we talk about minimums, has Bothell, Bellingham, or any other comparable city considered setting the parking ratios based on the proximity to good bike infrastructure so that you might have three tiers, and the requirements in each tier scale up as the surrounding network improves. Because if somebody is going to be building apartments close to Burke Gilman Trail, close to Sammamish River Trail, you would have greater expectations of them for bike parking than you might for a place where there unfortunately, there are not that many trails. And, of course, we wouldn't want to leave those places bereft of bike parking forever, but if we need to start somewhere, putting more responsibility to provide better parking in tiers could be a model here. Have we seen anything like that?

I have not found any examples like that, but I think that is definitely something we can look into as part of this process.

Great. Thank you.

And commissioner Lever has a question.

Yeah. So the other thing that came to mind around, really setting requirements, I don't know whether this is even doable, but I would definitely like to see if this could be explored around maybe doing sort of, like, random sampling. Like, I do see I mean, I really the the concept of underutilized racks, and I do see a lot of biking more recreational. And, again, this is just my experience with my car. I mean, of course, it's different, you know, how you experience it.

But I am thinking of identifying some of the places where we do have the bike rides and then doing a random sampling and saying, like, wait, what's happening in those spaces so that any of recommendations are really made on facts. I because we do have the city. We do have some parking spaces. We have buildings with bike racks, and I don't know if it's doable within time frame or if there's even budget for that. But I certainly I, like, feel always more comfortable when we do base it on, like, data. I mean, and I I don't know.

We can definitely discuss that internally and see what we can do. So thank you.

And commissioner Kiernan. I do know that there are bicycle surveys done. I think the Cascade Bicycle Group on bike to work day. There is some surveying. Have you looked to see if you could access that data?

I have not, but I definitely can.

Yeah. I do know that they're out, and they've got a table, and they do, you know I'm retired ten years now. So it's been a while since I've ridden by in the morning when they've done it. But I know they were out there collecting data and it would be useful, I think, if if you got a hold of it.

That also prompted another thought sort of again in response to Commissioner Lever. I have started looking into Strava data, which, again, grain of salt there because it's typically people that use it for fitness and also tech connected peoples. But there are, I think, useful insights we can gain from the Strava data. So I'll start looking into that and see what we can how we can apply that to this. Okay, next kind of concept question.

Potentially, the code update could add more uses to the current bike parking standards, where there's currently about four or five listed. And also, while adding more uses exempt situations where bike parking perhaps doesn't make So the question for the commission, should bike parking requirements apply to all possible uses or only specific types?

And Commissioner Westenbrack.

Just to be a contrary a little bit. Excuse me. I was mostly in agreement with this, but then I realized like years ago I worked in warehouses and around heavy equipment and then construction, all kinds of things for the years. These all have employees. And frequently, especially for entry level jobs or whatever, some might ride to work.

So maybe we wouldn't do the ratio. We'd say, hey, you gotta have at least one bike rack for one or two bikes or something like that, or incentivize it or or just make some sort of I don't know. I don't wanna be too heavy handed about it, but I think we'd probably be leaving off some people who might need a bike rack. It it could just be an employee. That's what I'm thinking of, if not the customer.

Commissioner Kiernan. And in your staff report, one of the examples you gave for reducing or exempting is sites near high capacity transits. And I would urge against that. And the reason is, as a former bicycle commuter, I did the combined commute. I took the bus, put my bike on the bus, when light rail was there, put my bike on the light rail, took it off and rode.

You know, that final mile is what you're looking for. And, you know, I I would not exempt near transit because I not for anything. I think transit users may ride a little more than non transit users. That's just pulling that out of nowhere except what I saw. Because there are a lot of bikes on those racks when you commute.

I I just wanna say that's a really good point because that's where I see the fullest racks. And, like Mhmm. If people have been to Europe, you go to, the train stations and stuff, and they've got these massive bike racks, and then there's, like, bikes on top of bikes, locked to bikes and stacked, it's just like like a clown car. We're gonna get there someday here. And, like, I worked at the UW for a while, and those racks were in high demand, especially ones you could reserve, but also ones near transit and near certain high volume places, and they were always just packed. It was kinda hard to find a place to park your bike.

Excellent feedback. Yep. Thought that might prompt some commentary, so appreciate that. Okay. So again, sort of looking at land uses situations where we would apply bike parking standards.

Yep, there's that example which we heard from you on. Again, staff concept is thinking about special cases, unusual situations, just allowing director discretion for those looking at a reasonable application. Also, one of the other issues that staff have discussed are sort of larger mixed use developments and how to situate bike parking and the amounts of bike parking when you sort of have a mixture of uses and maybe like a more walkable site. So again, allowing some director discretion there. And then the other concept is reductions for some special housing types, meaning, for example, nursing homes, housing for people with disabilities, transitional housing.

So for the commission, are there other special cases where requirements may be reduced?

And Commissioner Kiernan?

Yeah. As I sit here, I it didn't strike me earlier, but the senior housing, it's based on personal observation, so it's not good data. But ebikes have brought more seniors onto the bike trails. I think it's easier, you know, certainly less effort to to move an ebike than a regular bike. So I I use caution there. I wouldn't go to zero. I I do think, you know, if you just I walk my dog on the trail a lot more now than it rode, and you do see a lot more seniors out on ebikes.

Commissioner Westbrook. I don't wanna jump in front of anyone. This sort of gets back to the the comment I made earlier about, for example, this plug mostly applied at downtown where where you're allowed a lot of structural coverage, you know, eighty, ninety percent. We're gonna for infill buildings, we're gonna have a really hard time doing you putting bike, especially short term bike parking at ground at the ground plane because it's gonna be in such high demand. That's where I run into a lot because we're trying to squeeze in enough program, housing or commercial or whatever to make the project viable.

So if you have to carve out equivalent of a parking spot or something like that to to do the short term parking. So I just hope that there would be a relatively easy conversation and and easy I don't what you call it, variance, whatever to get from the director. If it was like, okay. You got in the d n zone or the the d c zone or something like that, and it's a relatively small site. Again, I don't think we'd exempt maybe long term parking, especially if it's apartments or something.

And I think we you know, again, a good bike room or something is really applicable and and something we should be enforcing. But the short term, especially if you're around a lot of other infrastructure, you know, city might have racks out. There's other things that we traditionally would lock to, like, like, lampposts and stuff like that. Not that we necessarily wanna go back to that model, but just being really sensitive to how much a ground plant takes up if you've got a really small site.

And I do think, just to touch on that, one of the concepts we're considering, but it it takes working with public works on this, is what are the street standards? What are they what are they going to look like for areas like the downtown that have zero setbacks? So, you know, sort of our our initial thought bubble is where there are zero setbacks, maybe there's that opportunity to say, if there's a standard to have a a bike a a standardized bike rack, whether it's the single loop or the the post with the little circle on top every so many feet, that could potentially cover

I like that a lot.

The short term parking because there there would be more of them. They might be more than 50 feet away from the front door. But Sure. And and that would be the obligation of that development to install that with their project as part of their frontage improvements.

I'll check a bench or a light or something.

Yep.

So that that's at least the the the the concept in its infant infancy.

I I'm very very happy to hear that because I was greedily looking at the the very wide sidewalk in front of the the project I'm doing very early research on linking thinking, I'd happily put a a public bike rack right there for those, you know, five bikes that might be using it the public way as long as there was accessibility access and things like that, like between lampposts or something. Thank you.

So on this sort of conceptual ideas, am I hearing that first, the short term, right, the sort of the street front bike parking, having that based on the frontage length more or less? Or is that my misunderstanding?

I think that would factor into it for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Because I'm often worth looking at these sites that are fifty, sixty, 70 feet. And then whether it's myself or someone else, the client, you know, they're looking to max it out and it's like, gosh, you can do 90%, you know, use of the site again, zero lot line or something like that, then, yeah, it's gonna impact the the viability of the project, which we're seeing. As we've talked about in other meetings, this really a challenge right now. So anything that that we can do to ease that and make it maybe part of the public realm as long as it's there's space for that, it's a great idea.

Any other commissioners on this one? Okay. Just a couple more slides. Thanks for all the great feedback, everyone. Another thought concept here from staff is, what about for this case of a very large residential project? Should there be some cap or limit or diminishing requirements? Or should it just sort of scale linearly with the number of dwelling units in that project?

I'm going to hog the mic again, if that's Okay. You guys have probably been talking to this person, so it's going to be something you've already heard. But she wrote the multifamily long term spaces. She thinks their requirements are little high. I know you're going through this already, so it's just more education probably for everyone who's not on that project.

She said a developer might disagree with me, but I'm not sure the number of long term multifamily residential spaces. She did said said they might be unreasonably high. It might make sense to have an upper limit, though, or something that scales with size. She says, like, point five per bedroom and studio for the first 100 units, but reduce the quantity per bedroom as the number of units, bedrooms, and building goes up. She said since we're providing family housing, the projects she's working on, we have a higher than average bedroom per unit ratio.

The bike parking number got quite high. She said a 187 187 stalls for 200 units. And she says, let me see, with compact hanging bike racks, a quantity of bike parking requires about 2,000 square feet, which is pretty significant in a space that can't be used for housing. She said, I'm not sure what the right number would be here, but I feel like 100 bike parking stalls would probably be enough for building like this. So for that 200 units instead of the one eighty seven.

And then, yeah, that was it. The I think you guys have the information, but I thought it was interesting to hear from someone who's who's planning those spaces right now.

Commissioner Kiernan. Might be semantic, but, I would certainly agree with reducing the requirement. I would be reluctant to cap the quantity. If if they decided to go higher, go for it. You know, if a certain building was catering to people who are the bicycle community and they choose to do it.

I I wouldn't when I say cap, I to me, that means you're limiting them from going above. So I would certainly be supportive of kind of a downward curve. I don't see linear going up because I don't think it would work that way. So reducing the requirement, yes. But if they choose to go for it, more power to them.

Yes. This may have been an inelegantly worded by staff, but the meaning is the meaning the concept meant here is to cap the requirement or cap the minimum required. So not intending to tell them not to put more bike parking if they wanted to do that. So thanks for clarifying. Okay.

I think this is the last sort of discussion slide. So other additional standards One of the ones that staff has pulled out is potentially requiring shower and locker facilities for large employers. We also heard earlier in the presentation from commissioners on nonstandard bikes and devices and figuring out how to accommodate those. So, yeah, what other sort of non quantity or land use or number requirements do you think are appropriate for the bike parking code of the city?

Commissioner Kiernan. I'm gonna talk more since I'm not here. During my time riding, the thing that I used most was a pump. I mean, I I always had a hand pump and you can get a certain amount of pressure, but I'm not getting my 100 pounds in my tire with my little hand hand pump. So if you're looking at thing if you're gonna require one thing, that'd be it. And quite frankly, I'm not even sure it should be required. I think it's a great amenity, but that's the thing I needed the most. And a question. I I recall early on in the introduction of e bikes, fires were concerned and batteries caught. Is that still an issue?

You don't see it as much. And I know you know, you hear about battery fires a lot. Is that something that needs to be considered in this parking?

I think we can connect with the building division and the fire fire department just to make sure we we close that loop.

Yeah. I would think building codes would probably be catching up on that. But Yeah. You know, even charging your batteries for I've got electronic on my lawn equipment, and they tell you don't leave it on overnight. Right? Right.

And I think, again, recognizing hearing from Planning Commission on the nature of the bicycle parking spaces and how they're stacked and arranged and things like that is an important thing to consider in the code. And I do want to also note that the current standards require a certain number of plug ins for e bikes. A it's relatively low number, but just that that exists. So, again, I know we're talking about additional sort of amenities standards.

Commissioner Govsherson?

You're muted.

Sarah Gustafson here. Thanks for helping us think about the priorities. I would be curious to know what is the demographic that uses showers. My personal inclination might be to think that the people who use showers might be more males, people who ride the bike really hard and then take a quick shower afterwards. And I'm getting a little bit into some stereotypes perhaps, but there is more pressure on women the and people who who present as women to have, like, fancier hair and makeup and clothes at work.

So they are not going to necessarily use a shower because they don't wanna bring the clothes and the makeup and all the hair things with them. They would rather do that at home and take a slower bike to work. And I don't want to stay in the stereotypes that I am in, but I'm thinking that showers might not be the number one amenity for the broadest amount of people.

Hear that. Thank you. Any other discussion on this one from commissioners?

I already mentioned it, but I I've just seen more and more projects. And I think this is already accounted for. In fact, I don't have the code to come to mind. But just that, again, the the heavy nature of e bikes, they're not very liftable. And so making sure that there's a fair amount of emphasis on even for very able-bodied people to be able to roll the e bike around. I've even seen people designing homes with for cyclists with ramps and things like that. So you guys might have seen that. But I just got I think it's gonna be more and more of a an issue over time.

Commission lever.

I don't know how expensive it is to really add that requirement for a large develop or for a developer that's really working on a project like this one of a large employer. So if it is going to deter them from actually, like, doing it, then I don't know about having a shower. However, I keep on thinking of this ebike concept, and I don't think the ebikes are gonna go away. And as someone who does not have an ebike, I don't know what you will need to make to use it really more, and that will be something that I would rather explore than showers and lockers.

Commissioner Sills?

Yeah. Commissioner Sills, I tend to agree with commissioner Lever, and I I think to require it is just kinda going a step too far. I mean, there might be other reasons a business wouldn't want showers that in their facility just for liability reasons or discrimination re I I don't know. There could be a number. So I would say, like, maybe this is an opportunity to reach out to the large employers in our area and get an idea of, like, how many provide that or what it would take.

Maybe there's more of a carrot approach there to incentivize it or really, you know, offer it as get them to offer it as an amenity to their employees. I I have been at a workforce that had them, and people did use them and in bike. So it was, you know, in both both genders. So I think I think it is something that people would use, but, I'd hate to require it and then have unintended consequences or have reasons that large employers choose other cities or just kind of or unforeseen consequences. So I think we'd probably wanna have more information there before we make that a requirement.

Commissioner Wiesenbeck. I'll just concur with the commissioner Sills and Lever that I've I've worked at several places that had the the provided showers, which I I mentioned earlier I did use. But I I I also agree it would leave it up to the employer. One place I worked, we had about 30 employees, and we got to do our own new office. And so it was an architecture office. So we get to participate in designing what would be there. And a lot of us rode bikes. So and rode both to work. So we actually said, oh, this is important to us. And so it was a small space, and it was, you know, there was one, so it was non gendered, whatever you call that.

But, again, a lot of people used it, but it's because we asked for it. So I think it's up to the businesses. You know? Like and I know people, you know, will actually weigh job offers. Like, well, they have these amenities. You know? So, hopefully, they would be doing that on their own.

Commissioner Kiernan? I I'd agree with commissioner Westbeck on that. Let the market drive it. You know, as it is now, some of the larger employers provide exercise facilities, which have showers associated with them. So I you know, and it is an amenity, and I think it would be a draw when people making choices. So I let the market go on that one. Personal opinion.

I just wanted to say that I work in a place where people wish that there were showers and talk about it with some frequency that they would use their bikes if there were showers, but there aren't, and so they don't. So I do wanna just put a note there that I do think that having a shower that for large employers encourages people to use their bikes. So it's something that we might wanna reflect on for something that builder people who are building their facilities might be overlooking if it's not the business itself, designing it with their employees and having that real nuance or granular understanding of the population. If it's just a builder, a shower might be beneficial.

Commissioner Lever and then commissioner Kiernan.

So I I do wanna say on that one that I have been with employers that have both the shower and the not shower. As a non biker, I wish we had a shower for those who are biking, especially in, you know, summer in Chicago. Was like, dear lord.

I was waiting for that.

However, they were still biking, and they happen to be female. So I really I mean, I I just go back again, and I know, like, really understanding planning for a future that we wanna see and then really basing on what the community needs and wants is a very differ difficult thing to balance. But I think we have enough examples, and I really, really would like or I would recommend that we look at what's happening now and where we see the market trending to then identify maybe the incentive or, like, find that sweet spot of, like, what is it that we're trying to accomplish here. So I just wanna second that.

Commissioner Kiernan and then commissioner Morales.

So it it almost might be a question for commissioner Westbeck as much as any. I'm a little removed from looking at green building codes, but aren't there credits for that sort of thing in green building where you're encouraging? And perhaps even just making that more known. You know, there there is an interest in some employers and some builders having green building certified, and there I think there's more than one process. Again, little removed. But if you let people know, hey, if you do this, that helps you achieve that standard, a higher standard in the green building.

I can't speak to that. It's probably part of lead. I can't recall.

Yeah. I think it was part of lead. But again, it's been

I actually remember that, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

There's also a connection here too in terms of incentivizing, encouraging the large employers who were kind of applying those that have to prepare CTR, commute trip production program. And again showers, loggers, bike amenities are part of that. So yes, I hear that where's that sweet spot between amenities and requiring it.

Yeah. Commissioner Morales, I was just about to ask that about commute trip reduction programs and, like, what is the city, I guess, encouraging for, like, bicycle use. So I guess before I can get on board with the requirement, like, sort of building, sort of encouraging the use of bikes and yeah. So it's more of a like a public health standpoint.

I think I can speak from the perspective of the city's bike plan, the comprehensive plan. Again, it's quite encouraging towards higher bike mode share. In terms of the CTR programs that employers provide, I can't speak to that. That's administered by our transit agency, I believe. But, yeah, city's plans and and policies, at least in my reading, seem to to encourage more bike use than than today. So

Commissioner Sills.

Yeah. Commissioner Sills, I think that's a really good point. And, like, you know, this all goes with the infrastructure, like, building it so the bikes come and you know, we've talked about this. Like, do we do a shared path? Do we go all out and, you know, are weighing the costs of it all?

And I think I I just get really envious when I see other cities with, like, really awesome bike lanes, and I'm not I'm not a biker. I just, like it's so nice. And so, you know, to to commissioner Morales' point, like, you know, it's it all fits together, and I almost feel like it's hard to talk about the parking until you really have that in a strong place. So, you know, chicken or egg.

Okay. Well, that's the only questions I have today. I appreciate all the feedback. That was the goal. So I think next steps is for staff to go back and look through all your feedback and requests and questions and come up with some responses and potentially some draft code items and continue working with Planning Commission, at least for another study session or another meeting or two on this or more, depending on the desire.

And then I think we're hoping to have some actual code amendments towards the end of summer and maybe early fall for the final review adoption process. So that's all I have today. Thanks again.

Just want to say thanks for bringing it to us. I was really glad we put in a robust bike parking code when we reduced our parking or we limited our parking requirements and stuff. But, obviously, it needs some tweaks. I'm glad you guys are just you're right on it, so I appreciate that.

Thank you for that, planner. If there are no other further comments on bike parking, we will move on to reports from members.

We have commissioner Lever here with the

Thank you. I can't remember which meeting it was. I don't know if it's about housing or there were gonna be some focus groups on maybe it was housing. Right? We're gonna have some focus groups around I think it was the affordable housing meeting.

The the the housing action plan has had the focus groups completed. Oh, that's fine. Okay. I'll I'll get into kind of upcoming engagement opportunities here in a minute.

Okay. And the reason why I was bringing that up is around, like, the engagement piece and really kind of hearing from the community. So I don't know as part of this process when and if there's gonna be an engagement piece to really not only maybe looking at what we have, but really kind of hearing from what's needed from people who are biking within the city or employers. And I don't know if there are other avenues where, like, an equestrian can be added, but it sounds like those focus groups are over. So never mind. Thank you.

Are there any other comments before we close this agenda item? Okay. Thank you so much, planner forgive me, And we will move on to reports from members.

Yeah. So commissioner Kiernan. Hey. Just thought I'd let

you all know. I got a phishing email on my Bothell account, and it was good. I mean, it was so good that I didn't I forwarded to IT because I wasn't sure. And they said, yep. That's what it is. So watch out. They are hitting these accounts.

You you just reminded me. I got one. I got a really convincing one that planner Nick Schmack knows about. You guys probably got a site. I've I've actually I've got projects in with the city, and they tried to get me to pay, what, 6,000 something dollars in in a wire. And it was like commissioner Kiernan said, very convincing. But I've permitted here a lot, and I know that they never asked for wires. It was very odd, but it was extremely convincing. So I forwarded it on and said, this doesn't look right. Of course, it wasn't. So but, boy, that's the that's the most sophisticated one I'd seen yet.

Wow. Thank you. That's valuable information.

I'm sorry.

We're all gonna be

I've

got commissioner Morales here. Yeah.

Commissioner Morales, I just wanted to formally, take the time to, say thank you, for the opportunity to serve on this planning commission. I'm looking forward to the the term, the next four years, and thanks to city council for selecting me. And, yeah, I'm excited.

Okay. Well, thank you, and welcome so much. We're happy to have you here. Are there any other comments? Not that I could see you if there were.

Okay. Then we will move on to reports from staff.

I put two items on here. One is upcoming engagement events. There are forthcoming opportunities for the downtown sub area work. Currently, the tree code update, there is an opportunity to sign up to to participate and to participate in a future focus group. So we're we're building that group.

We're building that list right now. We do we are we are attempting to to get the word out more and more about projects that we are working on, tabling at events that are coming up. Staff will be at a few of them, including the the Husky Run this weekend, the upcoming art walk, I believe. Then there's the Bothell Block Party, Pride in the Park, and the July 4 will will attempt to to get someone there. If not, there may just be an a board out there with the QR code with information on the projects that we're working on.

But, staff are definitely working through new opportunities to to engage and and draw in as much as much interest as possible with projects that we're we're working on. The other thing on the that I put up here, just upcoming agenda. So next meeting on the twentieth, we have four items coming before you. Study session and updates on the procedures work that's within chapters titles eleven and twelve. A map cleanup public hearing.

So it'll be chair Robson's first public hearing to administer, which would be a a great one. Eric will be here for that one, and we'll provide the draft findings, conclusions, and recommendation, for your consideration as well. There'll be a study session on the housing action plan, the the first draft that, we're we're putting together. First draft, looking for comments, move through the summer for final draft, and comments again. So kinda going through a a cycle there. And then we'll get an update from the parks department on the park recreation open space, the pros plan, update that they gave to city council a couple weeks ago and, provide you, with where they're at on that.

I see your hand there, Commissioner Yavor. Why don't you go ahead?

Yeah, no, thank you. Is the way you say thank you officially? Like, thank you so much for cheering? Or is there something like that?

You can.

Well, thank you. Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure learning from you for, like, what, two years or so. And if I'm not mistaken, you have been the chair for how many years?

Six years.

That is remarkable. Thank you so much. So thank you. Thank you.

It's been a pleasure. I've really enjoyed it, but I do feel it's time to pass the baton. So commission or chair Robson, go for it.

And thank you, chair You want proposal? Yeah.

I'll come get it next time. Yeah.

My

coup has finally been executed. There being no further business, is there a motion to adjourn? Former commissioner Kiernan, would you like to

Former chair, current commissioner. I move we adjourn.

Is there a second?

Chair chair. See, I'm doing it now. Commissioner Westerbeck, second motion.

Okay. A motion has been seconded. What do I do now? It's all in favor to say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. The meeting is adjourned at 07:20. Thank you so much for all coming today.