City of Bellingham Design Review Board

The Bellingham Design Review Board held a work session to receive an overview of the Bellingham Plan, the city's 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update, with specific focus on how new state legislation will fundamentally reshape the board's role and potentially its continued existence. Project Planner Anya Gedrath presented the comprehensive plan update process, which is required by the Growth Management Act and must be adopted by the end of 2025 to accommodate projected growth of 60,000 new residents by 2045. The most significant development discussed was House Bill 1293, which mandates "clear and objective design standards" and limits design review to just one public meeting. This legislation directly challenges the Design Review Board's current function, which Chair Ryan Van Straten acknowledged is fundamentally about "interpreting subjective standards." Staff indicated they don't yet know what role the board will play under the new requirements, if any. The discussion revealed broader tensions about development timelines in Bellingham, with Van Straten describing the permitting process as "wild" compared to his experience in Wisconsin, where projects can be approved in 3-5 months versus years in Bellingham. However, both board members praised the quality of projects ultimately produced through the current system, with staff attributing "immense value" to the board's input in recent years.

No formal votes were taken during this informational work session. The meeting was structured as a presentation followed by discussion about the comprehensive plan update and its implications for design review processes.

**Ryan Van Straten, on the board's current role:** "I mean my first reaction in hearing that is, that literally, our Board's job is to interpret subjective standards. And so, if clear and objectives required. It seems that our board is not necessary or not allowed really in its current form." **Kathy Bell, on the board's value:** "I would say, from a staff's perspective. It's an immense value, and we, in the course of the last couple of years, have come away with these meetings as well as the developers with nothing but praise for the attention to detail and the ability to just have those constructive conversations with good recommendations." **Ryan Van Straten, on development timelines:** "Coming from Wisconsin. It is wild. How long it takes to get anything done in Bellingham wild to me. I think Wisconsin is too far the other direction. I can go from getting an accepted offer on a piece of land to getting an approved project in 2 meetings, and in some cases, 3 months of total time." **Robert Wright, on the current process:** "I do kind of see this process as the guardrails for for avoiding some, some pitfalls. So it would be a shame to to see it. It go away in its entirety." **Anya Gedrath, on community feedback:** "We heard a lot about the importance of design, but also attention and sensitivity to design requirements. Impacting housing cost. We heard a lot of emphasis about the importance of outdoor and public spaces." **Ryan Van Straten, on the city's development approach:** "I guess one last comment I would just like to make to, as over the years watching the types of projects that have come through. And then the way the prioritized prioritized density and the transportation corridors. I'm super supportive of that. I think you guys are doing it the right way."

# Bellingham Design Review Board Grapples With Uncertain Future Amid State Housing Mandates ## Meeting Overview On a rainy February afternoon, the Bellingham Design Review Board convened with just two members present — Chair Ryan Van Straten and Robert Wright — for what would prove to be a sobering discussion about the board's uncertain future. With only two members, they lacked a quorum to conduct official business, but staff had scheduled a crucial briefing on the city's comprehensive plan update and new state legislation that could fundamentally alter how design review works in Bellingham. The meeting, held February 18, 2025, was more conversation than formal proceeding. Planning staff presented updates on the Bellingham Plan 2025 and House Bill 1293, which requires "clear and objective" design standards — a mandate that could eliminate the subjective design review process that has been the Design Review Board's core function. What emerged was a frank discussion about the value the board provides, the timeline challenges facing developers, and how the city might preserve meaningful design oversight in a new regulatory environment that prioritizes housing production over discretionary review. ## The State's New Housing Reality Planner Anya Gedraft walked the board through the comprehensive plan update process, but the most significant discussion centered on House Bill 1293 and its requirement for clear and objective design standards. Under this legislation, cities can no longer use subjective design standards and are limited to one public meeting for design review. "We don't know the answer yet what the role of the Drb will be," Gedraft acknowledged. "And so I think that will be part of this process over the next year, really figuring out what the role will be and how it can still meet... how to make sure we're still in compliance with 1293." The implications are stark for a board whose entire purpose has been interpreting subjective design standards. As Chair Van Straten put it: "I mean my first reaction in hearing that is, that literally, our Board's job is to interpret subjective standards. And so, if clear and objectives required, it seems that our board is not necessary or not allowed really in its current form." Staff acknowledged they're still figuring out what compliance looks like. Chris Cook from the planning department noted they haven't started work on the interim design review ordinance mandated by Mayor Lund's housing executive order: "We haven't started that yet we don't know what that's gonna look like yet." ## A Frank Assessment of Value and Cost Perhaps the most illuminating part of the meeting was Van Straten's candid assessment of the board's role in the development process. As someone who works in development, he offered a perspective rarely heard in public meetings about the real costs of the current system. "If I was a developer coming in, I think they make a lot more sense than how things were set up before in practice," he said of recent changes to design standards. "Given that we have one to 2 hours to look at a project depending on whether or not there's 1 or 2 agenda items, I don't know how much of a role we actually play. We end up, you know, recommending a little more landscape and maybe moving a window here or there. I don't know if we provide a lot of value for the amount of disruption to the development process that we create." This wasn't criticism born of frustration — Van Straten praised the quality of projects that come through the process. But he highlighted a fundamental tension in Bellingham's development timeline that extends far beyond design review. "Coming from Wisconsin, it is wild how long it takes to get anything done in Bellingham," he said, describing a process back home where projects can go from land acquisition to approval in three months versus the multi-year timelines common in Bellingham. "I looked at a piece of land down in Fairhaven couple years ago, and it needed a rezone... It was like 3 years to go from the process of buying the land to getting it rezoned to getting a project approved." ## Staff Defends the Board's Contribution Planning Manager Kathy Bell pushed back on the suggestion that the board adds limited value, emphasizing the qualitative improvements staff sees in projects after board review. "I'll just speak to the question of how much value do you think the Design Review Board is adding? And I would say, from a staff's perspective, it's an immense value," Bell said. "We, in the course of the last couple of years, have come away with these meetings as well as the developers with nothing but praise for the attention to detail and the ability to just have those constructive conversations with good recommendations." She noted that staff hopes to use the board's experience to help develop new clear and objective standards: "We're hoping to take some of those experiences and just to see where we go from here... My hope is that we would come back, and to use the board if at anything, to help us and guide us through developing those clear and objective standards." ## Exploring Alternative Approaches The conversation turned to how design review might work in the future. Staff floated the possibility of creating alternative tracks — one that meets clear and objective standards automatically, and another voluntary process for developers seeking bonuses or wanting to exceed base requirements. "We will be looking at, you know, is it possible to create an option where developer or either meets the clear and objective standards, or if they want to do something above and beyond that they could go through an alternative process, and that could, you know, hopefully involve the Design Review Board," Cook explained. Van Straten found this appealing: "If our board could participate in the process in a way that doesn't affect a developer's development timeline and is more of a voluntary approach... I think that's a really valuable part of or role we could play." But board member Wright raised concerns about voluntary processes: "I'd be a bit concerned with that approach as to what sort of repercussions a project would have if they didn't hear what they liked... if they're not getting the answers, or the direction that they feel like that they... the outcome that they wanted at the end of that process, you know what would what would be the ramifications of backing out of it?" ## The Challenge of Objective Standards Wright, an architect, articulated perhaps the core tension in the new state requirements. After hearing about the comprehensive plan's goals of preserving Bellingham's community character and sense of place, he noted the contradiction with HB 1293's mandate. "One of the things that kind of struck me here was how HP 1293 was kind of seemingly contradictory to the... we talked about, you know, the community and culture of Bellingham, and how... the purpose of this plan is to kind of... continue to grow Bellingham, with a culture community in place, that we all sort of love, and drew us here." The challenge, as Wright saw it: "Boiling 1293 down, it seems like, okay, well, if you, if you can provide, you know 6 standards that that they have to meet, then, you know, that's reflective of of our community culture and in place. And I I don't know that it's that simple." Van Straten agreed: "You can see how you would get to a product that nobody wants, even if you've met all the objective standards, because it's very, very difficult to envision every possible scenario with a bunch of objective standards that all address one specific component of the whole." ## Housing Policy Spillover Effects The discussion also touched on House Bill 1110, which requires parity between single-family and middle housing design standards — meaning single-family homes can't have more restrictive design requirements than duplexes or fourplexes. "The implication is that we might have design requirements moving forward for single family development," Gedraft explained, noting the oddity this creates: "You're gonna end up throwing some rules on there for single family that don't really make any sense for single family, just so you can have them in middle housing, because, you know, it's a hundred unit building versus a single family home." ## Praise for Bellingham's Growth Strategy Despite concerns about process and timelines, Van Straten offered strong praise for Bellingham's overall development approach, particularly the focus on density along transit corridors. "Over the years watching the types of projects that have come through and then the way the prioritized density and the transportation corridors, I'm super supportive of that. I think you guys are doing it the right way. That is not a common thing where I work, but it is in my mind the right way to develop a city for the long haul." This wasn't empty praise from someone trying to be polite. Van Straten was specific: "You're developing a great city the way you're doing a big picture... so I very much appreciate being part of the community that sees that and is doing that." Bell noted how rare such feedback is: "We don't always get compliments. So I think we're all sitting here going, what are you saying? Because it's not something we typically get." ## An Uncertain Future The meeting concluded with acknowledgment that major changes are coming, but uncertainty about what they'll look like. Bell explained that interim measures might differ from final implementation: "Interim ordinances are just that they're interim. That doesn't mean that's actually how, when code changes, how it will actually be... there could be a situation where we go, yeah, we still want to keep the board through the interim, and then once we start to get into code, we're like, no, we don't need them." The final word belonged to Bell: "This is a really interesting time to be a planner, a very interesting time. It is so dynamic and things are changing so fast that it's... kind of hard to keep up. But it's also an exciting time." ## Closing & What's Ahead The Design Review Board will continue operating as usual until directed otherwise, even as staff works on interim ordinances to comply with Mayor Lund's housing executive order. The Planning Commission will discuss the community design chapter on March 6, incorporating feedback from this and other board discussions. The broader comprehensive plan adoption process continues through the spring and summer, with final adoption expected by year-end. Within six months of that adoption, the city must implement House Bill 1293's clear and objective standards — a deadline that will determine whether Bellingham's Design Review Board continues in its current form or evolves into something entirely different. For now, the board exists in limbo, continuing to review projects while knowing their fundamental role may soon disappear. It's a microcosm of the broader transformation happening in Washington cities as state housing mandates collide with local design aspirations — a tension between the urgent need for more housing and communities' desire to shape how that housing looks and feels.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-DRB-2025-02-18 ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Design Review Board met on February 18, 2025, with only two board members present (insufficient for a quorum), to receive a presentation on the Bellingham Plan 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update. City staff presented key changes to the community design chapter and sought feedback on how new state legislation will affect design review processes. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Comprehensive Plan:** A state-required 20-year planning document updated every 10 years that contains goals and policies directing city development, investment, and programs. Bellingham's plan must be adopted by the end of 2025. **Growth Management Act:** A 1990 Washington state law requiring cities to plan for and accommodate projected population growth through comprehensive planning, with about 15 statewide goals covering land use, housing, transportation, and more. **House Bill 1293 (Streamlining Design Review):** New state legislation requiring design standards to be "clear and objective" rather than subjective, and limiting design review to only one public meeting. This directly threatens the current role of design review boards. **House Bill 1110 (Middle Housing):** State legislation requiring cities to allow at least 4 units per residential lot, with the restriction that single-family housing standards cannot be more strict than middle housing standards. **Middle Housing:** Housing types between single-family homes and large apartment buildings, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters. **Clear and Objective Standards:** Measurable, specific design requirements that eliminate subjective interpretation. Contrasts with current design guidelines that allow board discretion and interpretation. **Urban Villages:** Designated areas in Bellingham planned for higher density development with distinct character and identity, connected by transit corridors. **Design Review Board (DRB):** A volunteer board that reviews development projects for design quality and compliance with community design goals. Their future role is uncertain under new state legislation. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Ryan Van Straten | Chair, Design Review Board | | Robert Wright | Design Review Board Member | | Anya Gedrath | Project Planner, City Long Range Planning Team | | Fiona Starr | Administrative Staff | | Chris Cook | Planning Department Staff | | Kathy Bell | Planning Department Staff | ### Background Context Washington State has passed several housing-related bills requiring cities to streamline development processes and increase housing production. The most significant for design review is HB 1293, which mandates that design standards must be "clear and objective" rather than subjective, and limits design review to one public meeting. This represents a fundamental shift from the current system where design review boards exercise discretion in interpreting design guidelines. Bellingham is updating its comprehensive plan for 2025-2045, projecting Whatcom County will grow by about 60,000 people to 293,000 by 2045. The city has been working on this update since July 2023 through extensive community engagement. Mayor Lund issued a housing executive order directing immediate action to increase housing opportunities, including removing parking requirements citywide and streamlining design review processes. The tension between maintaining community design quality and meeting state requirements for faster, more objective development approval processes creates significant uncertainty for the future of design review in Bellingham. ### What Happened — The Short Version City planners presented the Bellingham Plan update to the Design Review Board, focusing on changes to the community design chapter. The biggest change involves new state rules requiring design standards to be "clear and objective" rather than subjective, which could eliminate the need for design review boards entirely. The presentation covered how the comprehensive plan works, the community engagement process, and the five new design goals: community identity, streets as places, site and building design, natural features and open space, and historic preservation. Staff explained they're still figuring out what the new state rules mean for design review processes. Board members expressed concern about potentially losing their role while acknowledging the value of faster, more predictable development timelines. They discussed whether design review could become voluntary or incentive-based rather than required. The conversation highlighted tension between maintaining design quality and speeding up housing production. ### What to Watch Next • Planning Commission will discuss the community design chapter on March 6, 2025 • City must implement streamlined design review within 6 months of comprehensive plan adoption (expected by end of 2025) • Interim design review ordinance may be developed before final comprehensive plan adoption ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-DRB-2025-02-18 **Q:** What is the meeting deadline for Bellingham's comprehensive plan adoption? **A:** End of 2025, as required by the Growth Management Act's 10-year update cycle. **Q:** How much is Whatcom County expected to grow by 2045? **A:** About 60,000 more people, reaching approximately 293,000 total population. **Q:** What does House Bill 1293 require for design standards? **A:** Design standards must be "clear and objective" rather than subjective, and design review can only have one public meeting. **Q:** What is House Bill 1110's requirement for residential lots? **A:** Cities must allow at least 4 units per residential lot, with up to 6 if two are designated as affordable. **Q:** Who is Anya Gedrath? **A:** A project planner with the city's long range planning team who has worked on the comprehensive plan update for about a year and a half. **Q:** What are the five new community design goals in the plan? **A:** Community identity and sense of place, streets as places, site and building design, natural features and open space, and historic and cultural resources. **Q:** When will the Planning Commission discuss the community design chapter? **A:** March 6, 2025. **Q:** What did Mayor Lund's executive order direct? **A:** Immediate action to increase housing opportunities, including removing parking minimums citywide and streamlining design review. **Q:** How long has the comprehensive plan update process been underway? **A:** Since July 2023, conducted in four phases with extensive community engagement. **Q:** What is Ryan Van Straten's main concern about development timelines? **A:** That Bellingham's development approval process takes too long compared to other places, potentially discouraging smaller developers. **Q:** What is the Growth Management Act? **A:** A 1990 Washington state law requiring cities to plan for growth through 20-year comprehensive plans updated every 10 years. **Q:** What challenge does HB 1110 create for single-family design standards? **A:** Single-family housing standards cannot be more strict than middle housing standards, creating parity requirements. **Q:** How many community engagement events were held during the plan update? **A:** Multiple phases included 3 open houses in phase 1, 8 in phase 2, and 3 in phase 3, plus surveys and online engagement. **Q:** What is the concern about clear and objective standards? **A:** They might not capture community design goals that require subjective judgment about overall project quality. **Q:** What timeline does the state give cities to implement HB 1293? **A:** Within 6 months of comprehensive plan adoption. **Q:** What role might the Design Review Board play in the future? **A:** Uncertain - possibly voluntary review, incentive-based review, or handling variance requests rather than standard projects. **Q:** What is Bellingham's "infill housing toolkit"? **A:** Existing regulations that the city developed for middle housing that can be expanded to meet HB 1110 requirements. **Q:** What does Robert Wright see as the Design Review Board's value? **A:** Providing "guardrails" to help projects avoid design pitfalls and ensuring better end results than initial proposals. **Q:** What is the comprehensive plan's relationship to implementation documents? **A:** The plan contains high-level goals and policies, while implementation happens through separate documents like master plans and development codes. **Q:** What happens if cities don't meet new regulatory timelines? **A:** They must start paying application fees back to developers as a penalty for delays. ---