Correspondence

Planning Commission Meeting

Thu, 10 May 2012 18:00:54 -0700

Fairhaven Neighbors
May 10, 2012
Dear Fairhaven Neighbors and Friends,

Tonight, the Planning Commission will again wrestle with important
and complicated planning issues for Fairhaven at their meeting on the Fairhaven Neighborhood and Urban Village Plan, the infamous FNUVP.
Meeting starts at 7 pm and will likely go past 10 pm.

If you would like to know what's really going on, then you should
come and witness tonight. The Planners will likely be promoting
taller buildings in the commercial core , while many of the
Commissioners will possibly be sensitive to our desires for a more
pedestrian-friendly village and more moderate heights. And businesses
need customers, including those from out of the immediate area. How this gets balanced with parking solutions and view preservation is worthy of our respect and attendance to the deliberations.

You can read all background documents on cob.org, looking at the
Planning Department pages, both on the Planning Commission Agendas, and on the Urban Village Plans in progress, for Fairhaven.

The written comment period is still open, though spoken comments
period is closed for now. You can email Heather Aven at:
haven@cob.org if there's something more you need to say.

Wishing wisdom for us all,
Vince Biciunas

May 2nd Neighborhood Meeting

Wed, 2 May 2012 17:58:23 -0700

Good Morning Fairhaven Neighbors!

This is a reminder for tonight's neighborhood meeting at 7 pm at
Chuckanut Square. There has been a scheduling mishap, and we will be
meeting in the second floor (or ground level floor from the 12th
street entrance) tv room rather than in our usual Community Room.
We'll have signage to direct you upstairs.

Our Agenda will include a presentation on the proposal to create a
Municipal Park District for Chuckanut Ridge or newly named Chuckanut
Community Forest. Come and learn more about this new idea.

Our neighborhood plan-FNUVP-is continuing apace, in the hands of the
Planning Commission. They will meet in work session again tomorrow
night, Thursday, May 3rd at 7 pm at City Council Chambers. You are
most welcome to attend and witness the deliberations. The written
comment period is still open if there's something you'd like to add.
Email: haven@cob.org and Heather will forward your comments to the
Commissioners and Planners. The parking plans, and lack thereof, as
well as infill, views and heights, are still under discussion and you
might be interested in learning more about the ramifications of all
that.

Also tomorrow, May 3rd, in the early afternoon, there will be a joint
public meeting from noon to 1:30 pm at Council Chambers and will air
live on BTV10. The City and Port represented by Mayor Linville and
Port Interim Executive Director Rob Fix and Staff will make
presentations on the downtown waterfront master planning, cleanup
status and changes to the 2010 Draft Sub-Area Plan.

Two more calendar items:
Wednesday, May 9th, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm, at Council Chambers, there
will be a Public Meeting regarding Boulevard Park Shoreline
Improvements.

Tuesday, May 15th, from 4:00 to 7:00 pm, come to the Pedestrian
Master Plan Open House with detailed information about the new plan.

More information including background documents are always available
at cob.org. You can also visit our website, fairhavenneighbors.org
for info about Fairhaven issues.

See you tonight!
Vince Biciunas, President

Planning Commission's Work Session on FNUVP, 7 pm City Council Chambers

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:58:03 -0700

Dear Fairhaven Neighbors and Friends,

That was a pretty darn good Planning Commission meeting last
Thursday. I think a lot was accomplished, just by the process of many
of us getting a chance to speak to the Commissioners and Planners and
each other about the current draft FNUVP-Fairhaven Neighborhood and
Urban Village Plan. What do you think?

So the verbal comment period is over for now (next time will be in
front of City Council, when we get to that point) and the written
comment period is still open. If you want to add to your comments to
date, or haven't yet sent in your two-cents worth, you can still send
an email to Heather Aven: haven@cob.org. To get an idea of what's
already out there, go to:
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?FairhavenNeighbors/5e87922439/332caf0502/0e6922688b
the city's website with all documents and comments Fairhaven, and
check it out.

Most importantly, if you can make it tomorrow night, attend the
Planning Commission's Work Session on FNUVP, 7 pm City Council
Chambers. You will not be able to comment, but you will be able to
hear the questions from the Commissioners and the Planner's
responses, and see how the next edits will develop. (Family needs
will take me to Portland for the rest of the week, so I'm hoping many
from the neighborhood can attend and let me know how it goes.)

In other news, I hear that we have had reinstated Statewide
Stormwater Funding Grants, so that may be really good news for Padden
Estuary.

The Haggen/Briar rezone request Public Hearing before the City
Council will be on Monday, May 7th, 7 pm, City Council meeting. This
concerns us all.

The new Pedestrian Master Plan Open House is scheduled for Tuesday,
May 15th, 4-7 pm at Bellingham Library Lecture Room. Mark your
calendars for that one.

And Fairhaven Neighbors regular May meeting will be next Wednesday,
May 2nd at 7 pm at Chuckanut Square Community Room on McKenzie
between 11th and 12th Streets. Everyone is welcome to attend. We'll
debrief on the FNUVP, and hear a presentation on the proposed
Chuckanut Community Forest Municipal Park District, and plan our
summer picnic. Because there's always something!

Happy Spring!
Vince Biciunas

Fairhaven Neighbors Comment on FNUVP

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:14:52 -0700

Greg Aucutt, Senior Planner, Project Manager April 16, 2012
Department of Planning and Community Development
Bellingham City Hall
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225

RE: FNUVP & Threshold Determination, dated March 20, 2012

Comment of Fairhaven Neighbors

Dear Mr. Aucutt,

The Fairhaven Neighborhood and Urban Village Plan (FNUVP) update process has been underway for many years, and the community has invested considerable time and effort on the production. Fairhaven Neighbors initiated the effort in 2007, beginning with a survey questionnaire mailed out to one thousand households and businesses in Fairhaven. The overwhelming response was 1) keep building heights low to protect and preserve the historic and pedestrian oriented atmosphere of the ‘village’ and 2) provide adequate parking. The FNUVP draft now under consideration fails to ameliorate these issues, instead promising their exacerbation.

In 2007 there was a project in the permitting stages intending to build up to ten stories on a 200’ x 220’ site along Harris Avenue. The issue of appropriate building height was as relevant then, during an economic boom time, as it is now, during an economic downturn.

Since that time, and consistently, staff connected to the Planning Department have heard many, many voices calling for limiting heights in Fairhaven to three and four stories, and economically viable projects have been built in the meantime, most at three stories or less. What can Fairhaven Neighbors possibly add now to convince Planning Department staff to listen to reason and implement regulations that make this vision a reality for the future? Maybe a review of some facts concerning infill and infrastructure will help establish the obvious, that increased building heights invite not beneficial increased density, but harmful excess density that will permanently eliminate the village atmosphere and pedestrian orientation that has attracted so many to Fairhaven.

The proposed FNUVP reaches far beyond the development envelope anticipated for Fairhaven in the existing Neighborhood Plan, the existing Comprehensive Plan and the existing Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Essentially, an existing “Tier 1” type Urban Village, platted and in service continuously since the mid 19th century, will be reformatted to exhibit the density usually associated with a Central Business District and grafted onto the existing substandard neighborhood infrastructure. Described in the DNS notice as “ . . . Minor changes to underlying zoning designations; and drafting new development regulations . . , ” these changes will actually modify the development trajectory for the area to such a substantial extent as to require a new and detailed Environmental Impact Statement.

INFILL CAPACITY

The FNUVP calls for increased infill capacity. Infill parameters result from State growth projections, the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan.

The existing Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has a much- reduced characterization of Fairhaven’s overall suitability for infill than the scope realized by the project documents. 2004 EIS (Chapter 4, pages 37 and 38, Alternative 2: “Infill,” italics added):

Future growth under Alternative 2 would primarily be encouraged in or near "urban development centers" and “town centers” identified in the 1995 Bellingham
Comprehensive Plan. The centers include areas where public infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, schools, parks, police and fire protection) are already in place, and where a range of employment and service opportunities are available. The designated urban development centers would be expected to receive much of the higher density development:

• Downtown Bellingham, especially the multifamily tax exemption district;
• The Bellingham Central Waterfront, including Old Town, Port, Georgia-Pacific
properties;
• Bellis Fair/Cordata, including West Bakerview area; and
• The Barkley Village /Sunset Mall area.

Town center areas identified in the 1995 comprehensive plan are defined by the
presence of adequate public infrastructure, but a narrower range of employment and service opportunities. They include:

• WWU/Sehome Village area;
• Lakeway Center area;
• Northwest/Birchwood commercial area; and
• Fairhaven commercial area.

While the Comprehensive Plan EIS plainly distinguishes Fairhaven, with its two-lane streets and its adjacency to Puget Sound, to exhibit infill capacity of a lesser magnitude than Bellis Fair/Cordata or Barkley Village/Sunset Mall, with their four to six-lane roadways and adjacency to Interstate 5, the Staff Report that facilitates the FNUVP makes no distinction. Staff Report (p.3, italics added):

“The Comprehensive Plan designates Fairhaven as a “District Urban Center”, defined as an area designed and intended to serve the entire community while remaining accessible to those living or working nearby. In addition to Fairhaven, other examples of District Urban Centers include the Sunset Square and Barkley Village areas.”

It is an unfortunate and misleading mistake that Fairhaven, a functioning town center area established in the mid 19th century and retaining the patterns of the period, is compared to an “urban development center” established in the late 20th century and exhibiting the patterns of the period.

BUILDING HEIGHT

The Checklist fosters the myth that areas permitting unlimited building height exist in Fairhaven. This is contrary to objective fact. These areas are presently subject to Fairhaven Design Review, which limits building heights both by the discretion of the Planning Director and the requirement that they be “consistent” and “harmonious” with existing historic buildings in Fairhaven. To set heights at 42’ – 66’ merely implements existing limits.

The Checklist also conceals actual harm resulting from proposed increased heights north and northwest of the commercial area. “The Fairhaven Urban Village and Neighborhood Plan review process included extensive view modeling studies that determined that development at the current height limits would permanently block most views over private property. For instance: The view west of Bellingham Bay from the Fairhaven Gardens development on the northeast corner of 11th Street and Mill Avenue could be blocked by a currently allowed 35’ tall building.” (Checklist p. 14, item 10.c.)

Fairhaven Gardens features a rooftop plaza available for common use of all residents. That plaza would retain its view after construction of a 35’ tall building. Fairhaven Gardens also includes many residential units on the Finnegan Street side that enjoy elevation above 35’ from 11th and would retain their views after construction of a 35’ tall building at Mill and 11th. The proposed FNUVP would permit heights of 66’ in that location on 11th Street, sacrificing views from all Fairhaven Gardens units, despite elevation, and eliminating views from the common plaza, a valuable amenity available to all building residents. Concealing harm such as this in the Environmental Checklist is regrettable.

PROJECTED GROWTH AND LAND SUPPLY

The Environmental Checklist and Staff Report water-down the recent infill accomplishments achieved in Fairhaven, diluting growth projections that inform the DNS determination. The Environmental Checklist discloses that “The existing developed commercial square footage and residential units were ‘backed-out’ of the new figures to derive a new-net figure” (p.12). The new-net figure appears to be an estimated “308
new housing units . . . and 263,000 square feet of both commercial and industrial space” (p.12).

Not counted are several large projects, all completed since drafting the 2004 Comprehensive Plan EIS and many developed since the 2006 Comprehensive Plan approval. “To establish a metric for future growth, the most-recent 500,000 square feet of mixed use construction was analyzed. Included in this total are Fairhaven Gardens, the Waldron/Young block, Harris Square, and the 1440 McKenzie block. These projects averaged 64 housing units and 21,000 square feet of commercial space per acre” (Staff Report, p.11). These projects, by themselves, have already provided approximately 240 new housing units in Fairhaven since 2004. Add to that a minimum of 40 new housing units built since 2005 between the Creekside at Fairhaven development and the 13th and Mill Building, and Comp Plan infill allocations for Fairhaven can be considered spectacularly successful, especially if the parking and traffic impacts are ignored.

The 2004 Comprehensive Plan EIS produced a wide variety of infill strategies to accommodate housing units to provide for increased population in the Bellingham UGA through 2023. All Alternatives require Fairhaven to build 334 new housing units beginning in 2004 (without any rezoning) to achieve projected infill requirements (EIS page 4-40). The Net Total New Units possible with existing zoning and development regulations were set at 367 (Table 4.2.1.7.B). Since 2004, at least 280 new housing units have been built in Fairhaven. That leaves only 54 units to be built in the eleven years until 2023.

The Fairhaven Urban Center area considered in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Land Supply Summary (Chapter 2, Table 14, LU16c) includes 25 acres of vacant land and projects 137 units possible (195 less 15% land availability factor and 15% safety factor), prior to construction of McKenzie Square and Waldron/Young. The FUVNP contemplates 288 new, additional units, occurring on approximately 6 acres in the central commercial area.

A vast strategic infill reserve remains adjacent to the central commercial area, yet is excluded from infill projections. For example, no additional housing units are projected for the approximately 4 acre I-3 industrial zoned property west of Padden Creek and south of Harris Avenue. This area also is proposed to have height increased from 40’ to 66’ for non-industrial development and there has been much interest to apply for conversion to mixed use zoning in recent history. Fairhaven Neighbors have embraced this possibility, reasonably scaled, meeting with owners on several occasions to discuss acceptable development ideas. Considering the density and infill possibilities already existing in Fairhaven, there is no reason to offer increased heights for non-industrial development in this and similar areas.

It is challenging to consider, after completing nearly all of the infill contemplated by the existing Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS, that this infill quotient could be blithely increased again, by more than 100% of the original, nearly fulfilled 2006 allocation, without a new EIS to determine probability of adverse environmental impact. It is also challenging to contemplate why these substantial increases would be promoted during a period when the State of Washington is drastically reducing its projections for growth. (see State of Washington Office of Financial Management, Forecast of the State Population, November 2011, p.3 [Link:http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/stfc/stfc2011/stfc_2011.pdf].

Indeed, are Bellingham Comprehensive Plan projections still valid?

PARKING

The Environmental Checklist is not reasonably responsive and/or evades items addressing parking supply and demand (see Checklist pp. 16 & 17). Item 14 c.: “How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?” is not answered. The response given incorrectly declares that a Parking District “eliminates” parking requirements for non-residential developments “for many properties in the center of commercial Fairhaven.” The total parking supply for the entire commercial area, including all areas inside and outside the Parking District boundary, is then summarized as “approximately 1,000 spaces on-street (public) parking and approximately 730 off-street (almost all private).” The response next addresses demand: “The Fairhaven Parking Study by Transpo calculated that required parking would total approximately 2,300 to 2,800 spaces for Fairhaven’s commercial area, depending on parking code revisions and developer decisions.” That the FNUVP provides no location or regulatory structure to facilitate this necessary parking supply is not disclosed, instead it is affirmed that “little public parking is anticipated to be eliminated, mostly to construct driveways from a public street onto private parking. Much private parking will be eliminated as lots develop.” The source of the parking supply required for commercial development (2300 – 2800 spaces) is not addressed.

Parking policies also are not adequately explained in their connection to the rationale given for other development elements of the FNUVP. Arbitrarily increased building heights provide one example. “Height limits in the north and northwest of the commercial area will increase from 35’ to 56’ in the Historic District and 66’ outside of the Historic District” (Checklist p.13). The Staff Report rationalizes the increase, explaining “the current maximum allowable height is 35’, with an optional 54’ maximum (with City Council approval). Four buildings have been constructed that are taller than 35’ using this option. No building has been denied the optional height increase. However, the approval process for these developments was difficult, and time consuming for the applicant, the public and the Council. This uncertainty added costs to these projects, and left some people concerned about the perceived fairness of the process. Staff’s proposes to revise the current height limit to a standard 56-feet.”

A reasonable rationalization, until recognizing that none of the four buildings requested an increase amounting to much more than 44 feet, or remembering that the request also required “implementation of an area-wide District Parking Plan, which demonstrates capacity for the increased parking demand generated by the increase in floor area” (BMC 20.00.070 p.6). No approval for height increase has been granted by the City Council in perhaps more than 10 years, and the 2011 Transpo Parking Study clearly showed zero capacity for increased parking demand for any new commercial floor area within the Parking District boundary.

It also is noteworthy that the underlying proposed new land use regulations that will implement the FNUVP do nothing to enable the somewhat tightened (“zero sum”) parking policies suggested in the latest FNUVP draft (3-20-12).

HAGGEN REZONE

In light of the pending Neighborhood Plan Amendment and Rezone Request by Briar Development Company LLP, aka Haggen, and the possible denial of that request, we believe that the FNUVP should acknowledge the value of a neighborhood grocery store as a major anchor in the commercial district and include the goal of facilitating future enhancement of that property as economic conditions improve.

ENVIRONMENT

There is also much to suggest concern about the FNUVP impacts to the natural environment. The theme of the Environmental Checklist seems to be that the increased air pollution, noise, runoff and threat to endangered marine species that will result in Fairhaven if this FNUVP is adopted is acceptable because it will result in less contamination elsewhere in Whatcom County. This is not acceptable. The issue considered with the threshold determination should be whether the project will have an adverse impact on the environment within and adjacent to Fairhaven.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the DNS determination should be reconsidered because:
(1) The FNUVP development regulations fail to address existing and future deficient parking supply, and increased building heights are not supported by existing parking supply.
(2) The FNUVP reduces the area for residential infill consideration from 25 acres (2006 Comprehensive Plan, Table 14) to 6 acres, creating an excluded 19 acre strategic infill reserve, while simultaneously increasing the unit allocation from 334 (2004) to 588 (334 + 308 – 54 not yet built since 2004 allocation). This increase brings the Fairhaven allocation to greater than double the suggested low range (250) for “district urban centers” that are “town centers,” not “urban development centers.”
(3) Aesthetic impacts from the increased building heights are ignored, increasing likelihood other impacts are also not accounted for, while no new growth projections are provided to show the rationale or purpose for the substantially increased development envelope proposed by this FNUVP.

For these reasons and many more our suggestion would be to revisit zoning changes and promote development regulations to conform more closely with the town center capabilities and proximate sensitive environments unique to Fairhaven.
• Restore the existing 35’ height limits to the Historic District and commercial areas north of Mill Avenue and also areas east of 12th and north of Harris Avenue.
• Restore the 40’ height limit to non-industrial uses in industrial zones.
• Establish development regulations that will increase commercial public parking supply to levels close to required standards and projected demand.

The result will be increased density and infill, reduced auto dependence and increased walkability in Fairhaven.

Unless these changes are made, a new and detailed EIS should be required prior to approval of the FNUVP as written.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and participate.

Sincerely,

Vince Biciunas, President

cc: Mayor Kelli Linville
Planning Commission
City Council
Old Fairhaven Association-Jody Finnegan
Fairhaven Village Association-Brad Imus

Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2012

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:22:26 -0700

Dear Fairhaven Neighbors and Friends,

It's the beginning of crunch time: I mean, it's time for the public,
legislative process where you can have a real voice, should you
choose to use it.

This Thursday, April 19th, 7 PM at City Council Chambers, the
Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on our long-awaited
Fairhaven Neighborhood and Urban Village Plan (FNUVP). This is your
opportunity to speak up about the extensive work done on the plan
thus far. And if you are unable to attend on Thursday evening, you
may send your comments in via email or letter to Senior Planner Greg
Aucutt, gaucutt@cob.org for the record.

Your voice is very important right now, especially if you like our
current 35 foot height limits in the commercial core and influence
areas of our neighborhood, and don't want more tall buildings than we
already have. The new regulations recommend increasing those heights
to 56 feet in the Historic District/commercial core and 66 feet in
the Historic Influence Area, with a 42 foot height limit in a few
buffer areas. See the code document 20.37 page 9 and page 11.

Much about the new plan and design standards and development
regulations is commendable and an improvement over current outdated
planning. We can be thankful for that, and thank our City officials
for making it so. However, pretty pictures and commendable goals and
visions don't add up when you put in regulations that allow the
visions to be literally overshadowed.

Please speak up and help the planners and decision makers know YOUR
thoughts. Go to cob.org and planning commission meeting materials to
see the original documents under review.

Vince Biciunas
President, Fairhaven Neighbors