Outdoor Dining Structures - Streateries/Parklets

I agree with most of these ideas, however, why not do something like Anacortes where all the eateries are based on a similar design and fabrication standard if these things are going to become part of the cityscape in Downtown Bellingham...we have design standards for every other structure, why do these get a shack pass??? Glad to see they are also going to pay for the public space they are using for thier private businesses.

"Streateries" were justified during the Covid-19 closures. Those closures are now over, and so should be the streateries.

They are generally ugly, inconvenient for people using the sidewalks and streets, wasteful of parking spaces, and outright gifts to special interests (the restaurants).

The city should require their removal.

I am very pro pedestrianizing the city core and so are many of the voters in my area. Sonja writes good points below. Removing cars should be a top priority, both in terms of safety to residents and their poor use of space in a city center. Making all of Railroad a pedestrian avenue with a bus loop & bike path would make the entire city center pop. Reducing minimums to zero would allow for pedestrian only buildings in adjacent areas. The city should install paid street bathrooms like they have in Europe and Asia.

Time and time again, studies show that more pedestrian friendly areas and reducing cars increases patrons to business and causes increase in tax revenue and standard of living.

I agree wholeheartedly with continuing the streateries and like the idea of minimal additional regulations to make sure they are structurally safe and durable. But the design requirements should be very loose, to allow a restaurant's streatery to reflect its (potentially offbeat) personality. The availability of streateries to patrons is a big positive - germ-conscious customers can feel safer in an outdoor environment, and tourists can enjoy the pleasant outdoor ambiance that Bellingham offers (year round!).

I agree wholeheartedly with continuing the streateries and like the idea of minimal additional regulations to make sure they are structurally safe and durable. But the design requirements should be very loose, to allow a restaurant's streatery to reflect its (potentially offbeat) personality. The availability of streateries to patrons is a big positive - germ-conscious customers can feel safer in an outdoor environment, and tourists can enjoy the pleasant outdoor ambiance that Bellingham offers (year round!).

The report seems comprehensive and well executed.

I encourage the city to make the downtown area more pedestrian-oriented, and move parking to the periphery of downtown - make downtown a destination for multiple purposes per visit.

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of what the annual permit fees should be based on using public space and lost parking revenue. I am supportive of this fee but also feel that if it was prohibitive to business it could be reduced. They provide an asset to the community, not a burden. Perhaps there could be a first year offered free given the initial set up and permit fees, encouraging businesses to "give it a shot" and see if they can make it profitable. With 1 or two extra tables per stall- I cannot imagine that the space does not pay for itself.

Love the move to keep streateries alive and accessible, and to make the process safe and fair and not overly difficult for businesses. Streateries enhance community, IMO. Bigger picture, making towns more walkable and bikeable is a good thing in so many ways. Important components of that are outer parking and public transit. Would love to see Bham keep moving in that direction.

I have been a resident of downtown Bellingham since 2017, initially living on the 1000 block of state street and currently living in York. This program is by far one of the best decisions I have seen made in regard to downtown’s pedestrian infrastructure, it provides options for those who seek safer options as the Covid-19 pandemic still can have major consequences for elderly and immunocompromised individuals regardless of vaccine status, and additionally allows businesses to accommodate larger patron capacities in a way that is safe (both from a public health standpoint and a fire safety standpoint) and aesthetically pleasing.

Bellingham is an old city and therefore has never had much in regard to parking capacity, something that continues to be a pressure point as more buildings are being built with admittedly abysmal parking spot per unit ratios, which continue to drive up demand for more parking spots, however, I think that the pros outweigh the cons and that this program should be expanded significantly, and that to compensate for the reduced parking capacity in the city proper, more should be allocated to public transportation options. The city looks and feels better when the streets are not clogged with cars, and downtown cannot accommodate large vehicles regardless, so why not discourage them entirely and grow both small businesses and public transportation options/small vehicle and bicycle usage which keeps are local environment clean and our air quality healthy.

Please keep this program and grow it. It is great for business, and it keeps the city beautiful.

As for the points described above:

1. ADA accessibility should always be priority #1. There’s no argument otherwise.

2. Fee based on TAV may not be equitable as property values have spiked significantly in the area, and may have the unintended consequence of pricing out businesses that could benefit from the program. I am unsure as to what the solution is here, but a middle ground should be found that both makes up for lost parking revenue for the city as well as ensures the program is affordable and beneficial to a small business’ operation.

3. Safety measures should definitely be closely followed especially with the local fire Marshall and the proximity to traffic. Totally agree here. These structures do increase overall safety as they reduce traffic inside the businesses themselves, but ensuring they are sound in nature and at low risk of incident is imperative to ensure the success of the program.

1. Agree with standardizing design and ADA guidelines

2. I’m just fine with the businesses not paying $840 per stall - I really want to see downtown businesses thrive and prefer having a vibrant streetscape with streateries and other activities that aren’t private car storage. It’s a much better use of public space than parking cars. We have an entire parkade downtown for parking. That said, businesses could be consulted on an amount they think is fair to impose for using this space.

3. Safety is a good idea - especially bollards to protect customers from passing cars.

4. Consider pedestrianizing more streets downtown, like Railroad Ave. also consider limiting through traffic or designing streets for lower speeds to be safer for pedestrians. Many cities are now limiting through traffic in their downtown cores. Turns out, it is much better for small businesses.

I am a lifelong Bellingham resident and have worked downtown for many years. Here is my feedback:

If the city is interested in incentivizing green commutes and promoting better quality of life for residents, it should not charge restaurants $840/year for lost revenue from a single parking space if the restaurant/bar/cafe is taking that space up with an existing “streatery” construction.

Instead, the City should look into promoting alternative transportation to the many folks who commute downtown in their car, or look into finding City revenue in different arenas than charging local restaurants a yearly fee to take up individual parking spaces. Downtown restaurant industry businesses who might construct “streateries” are too financially stressed to take on this burden while also continuing to break even, if they care to pay their workers a decent wage. There are plenty of other ways to make money for the City.

That said, I am fully in support of ADA compliance and safety compliance applying to Bellingham “streateries”. However, during the existence of Bellingham “streateries”, I have personally not seen any enforcement for these rules in the past several years. My grandmother, who was blind, continually complained about the outdoor structure that was built around Makeworth Market on State Street and the fact that it drastically altered her path on the State Street sidewalk and was not ADA compliant. I do not believe that anything has been addressed for that particular structure. Being an able bodied person myself, I have tried to be aware of other “streatery” structures and how they inhibit the use of sidewalks for those who require mobility aids, and am wondering if the City has anyone on hand addressing those concerns and other safety concerns.

Thanks for taking public comment into account!

Please turn Railroad Ave pedestrian only

Agree with feedback received about more pedestrian streets and/or car-free areas (e.g. streets around village Green in Fairhaven, section of railroad Ave, etc)