City of Bellingham Planning Commission

The transportation impact fee (TIF) update dominated discussion time, with Chris Comeau from Transpo Group presenting a comprehensive overhaul that shifts the program to support the 2025 Bellingham Plan. The new methodology maintains multimodal person-trip calculations while incorporating recent changes to state law and updated Institute of Transportation Engineers standards. Notably, the update results in slightly lower fees for most development types — single-family homes will see rates drop from $3,857 to $3,239 per unit. Planning Director Blake Lyon provided an extensive briefing on the interim landmark tree ordinance, which has been in effect since May 2024 through multiple six-month extensions. The ordinance protects trees 36 inches or larger in diameter at breast height, requiring permits for removal except in specific circumstances. Lyon acknowledged the ordinance has created significant upfront costs for developers — potentially $10,000-$20,000 in soft costs before determining project feasibility — while successfully preventing preemptive tree removal. The meeting concluded with a brief introduction to accessing the newly adopted Bellingham Plan online, with staff promising a full demonstration at the upcoming City Council presentation.

**Chair and Vice Chair Elections:** Commissioners unanimously elected Jed Ballew as chair (6-0 vote) and Rose Le as vice chair (6-0 vote), replacing Mike Estes who had served as chair. **Transportation Impact Fee Program Update:** Informational presentation only, no formal action taken. The update establishes a new rate of $1,770.13 per person trip, resulting in lower fees for most development types compared to current 2025 rates. **Landmark Tree Ordinance Review:** Informational discussion only. Staff indicated they will return to Planning Commission later in 2026 with a formal Type VI legislative process to consider permanent adoption of the interim ordinance. **Bellingham Plan Access:** Brief orientation provided, with full demonstration scheduled for City Council on February 24, 2026.

"One of the things that I've witnessed is that there's very little that the chair has done over the years. Um, and also Mike, uh, if I can take this moment to thank you for, um, displaying such great example of how to hold these meetings." **Chris Comeau, on impact fee legal requirements:** "The burden of proof would al often fall on the appellant. In other words, they would have to show that the city was in the wrong and and bring forward their rationale for that. That essentially has been flipped. Now the city has to justify uh how it's been done and um has to show their work essentially." **Blake Lyon, on landmark tree ordinance impacts:** "If you're talking about doing preliminary civil design work and trying to think about where water lines and sewer lines and other things go, that's probably in the tens of thousands of dollars to do that. So, it's it's not inconceivable that you may have, you know, 10, 15, $20,000 of upfront soft costs before you've even determined if the project is feasible." **Commissioner on transportation impact fees:** "It just seems like there's so much time and effort put into this whole thing. And if somebody finds out, well, it's only going to cost me 2,400 bucks, that's barely more than going through the process or hiring an arborist." **Blake Lyon, on finding balance:** "It's about finding trade-offs. It's about finding balance. It's about finding that rhythm. And so, one of the things that we're really trying to do, um, you know, is is kind of balance those competing priorities and competing needs." **Chris Comeau, on TIF rate comparisons:** "Bellingham has always been in about the 25th percentile area of this chart. This chart's been published for a number of years. It's available on the MRSC web page."

## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Planning Commission convened on February 19, 2026, in City Council Chambers for a hybrid meeting that marked several significant transitions. The evening began with the election of new leadership as outgoing chair Mike Estes passed the gavel to Jed Ballew, who was elected chair with Rose Lathrop named vice-chair. The meeting featured three substantial presentations on transportation impact fees, the landmark tree ordinance, and the newly adopted Bellingham Plan. What unfolded over nearly three hours was a comprehensive examination of some of the most complex policy issues facing the city's development future. All six commissioners were present for the meeting, which was structured as a work session with informational presentations rather than formal decision-making. The hybrid format allowed both in-person and virtual participation, reflecting the commission's continued adaptation to post-pandemic meeting practices. ## Leadership Transition and New Elections The meeting opened with a respectful changing of the guard as commissioners nominated and elected their 2026 leadership. Rose Lathrop nominated Jed Ballew for chair, noting his qualifications and readiness to take on the role. When offered the chair position herself, Lathrop declined and instead nominated Ballew. Mike Estes, completing his term as chair, offered words of encouragement to his successor. "Well, I appreciate the nomination. Um, I know it is definitely extra work and I've seen what uh we've had to do here to keep the thing on the rails every once in a while," Ballew acknowledged, accepting the nomination with characteristic modesty. "So, I will try to do do my best to uh keep an organized and well structured meeting and uh keep the agenda moving." The vote was unanimous, 6-0, with Estes abstaining as he was no longer serving as chair. Lathrop was then nominated and unanimously elected as vice-chair after expressing her gratitude to Estes for his exemplary leadership. Staff member Chris Comeau echoed the appreciation, thanking Estes for his chairmanship and noting that staff had appreciated working with him in that role. The transition also brought news that commissioner Russ Whidbee had chosen not to seek reappointment for a second term, citing family obligations. Staff indicated that candidates for his replacement were being reviewed by the mayor's office. ## Transportation Impact Fee Program Update The heart of the evening's technical discussion came with Chris Comeau of the Transpo Group presenting a comprehensive update to Bellingham's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. The presentation revealed both the complexity of modern transportation planning and significant changes that would reduce costs for most development types. Comeau began by establishing the legal framework that has evolved significantly with recent court decisions, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court's Sheets decision. "Whereas in the past uh if there was a a challenge to transportation impact fees, the burden of proof would al often fall on the appellant," Comeau explained. "That essentially has been flipped. Now the city has to justify uh how it's been done and um has to show their work essentially." This shift toward greater scrutiny has required cities to build more robust analytical foundations for their impact fee programs. Bellingham's response includes detailed documentation of how growth projections, project costs, and fee calculations connect to support the comprehensive plan. ### Evolution of Bellingham's System Comeau traced the evolution of Bellingham's impact fee system from its origins in 1995. The original system established 18 different zones with varying rates - an approach that proved "administratively burdensome and very inequitable from zone to zone." The 2007 update consolidated to a single citywide zone, a structure upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in Drebik v. City of Olympia. The most significant philosophical shift came in 2018 when Bellingham moved from vehicle-based to person-based trip calculations. "What it's recognizing is that it's really looking at how many people are able to experience the mobility benefits of all the infrastructure that an agency provides, not just vehicle trips," Comeau said. This multimodal approach better reflects the city's complete streets policies and transit-supportive development goals. ### New Rate Structure and Reductions The 2026 update brings welcome news for developers: despite inflation and new projects, most impact fees will actually decrease. For single-family homes, the fee drops from $3,857 to $3,239 per unit, a reduction of about 16%. This reduction stems from several factors: updated methodology based on the 12th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, refined person-trip conversion factors, and a new project list that reflects current planning priorities. The fee structure continues to incentivize development in urban villages through automatic reductions. Projects in these areas receive a 25% reduction, with potential additional reductions up to 50% for meeting specific criteria related to pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle facilities, and transit proximity. Commissioner Jerry Richmond raised detailed questions about the convenience store category, which carries one of the highest impact fees at $176,000 per thousand square feet. The discussion revealed the importance of understanding ITE definitions, as Assistant Public Works Director Tim Holman noted: "I think when you hear it, you might actually realize we don't want one of those downtown." When Dylan Casper, city transportation staff, read the ITE definition aloud, it described convenience stores as "typically located along major thoroughfares to optimize motorist convenience" with extended hours and high vehicle trip generation. This differs significantly from neighborhood-serving retail that might be appropriate in urban cores. ### Policy Integration and Urban Villages The updated system better integrates with the city's land use strategy, recognizing the transportation benefits of concentrating development in urban villages connected by high-frequency transit. About 30% of future growth is planned for these areas, which have superior pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. "The idea is if you can take advantage of where some of these arterial corridors are that are served by transit, you load up the density, it's much more likely that people will choose to use transit or at least take less vehicle trips," Comeau explained. Commissioner questions probed the practical implications for missing middle housing development. With interest rates and construction costs creating challenging development economics, commissioners wanted assurance that the impact fee system wouldn't become another barrier to needed housing production. The discussion revealed the complexity of balancing growth accommodation with infrastructure funding. While impact fees provide crucial revenue for transportation improvements - about $2 million annually for Bellingham - they cannot fund the entire $104 million in identified transportation needs. The shortfall reflects both existing deficiencies and the policy choice to offer credits that incentivize desired development patterns. ## Landmark Tree Ordinance: Balancing Preservation and Development Blake Lyon, Director of Planning and Community Development, presented an extensive briefing on Bellingham's interim landmark tree ordinance, revealing both the successes and challenges of regulating tree preservation in an urban development context. ### Emergency Response to Tree Loss The ordinance emerged from urgent concerns during the Urban Forestry Plan development process. "As we were going through some of those conversations and as some uh members in our community were anticipating development regulations, we saw a really high influx of people um going out and preemptively removing trees," Lyon explained. This pre-emptive clearing prompted the City Council to adopt emergency regulations in May 2024, effective immediately. The ordinance defines landmark trees as those 36 inches or greater in diameter at breast height - a substantial threshold that captures the city's most significant specimens. ### Regulatory Structure and Committee Process The ordinance establishes a preservation-first approach: "no person may remove, damage or harm any landmark tree" unless specific conditions are met. These exceptions include dead, diseased, or dangerous trees as assessed by certified arborists using standardized tree risk assessment protocols. A landmark tree committee comprising staff from planning, parks, and public works departments reviews applications for tree removal. The committee includes professional arborists who conduct field visits to verify assessments. "We have both uh we have professional arborists both on parks and public works staff. And so they'll often go out to the property, look at it, see if they agree with the professional assessment that's been provided," Lyon noted. The ordinance includes provisions for emergency removal with retroactive notification requirements, reflecting the reality that dangerous trees cannot wait for committee meetings during windstorms or other urgent situations. ### Implementation Challenges Lyon candidly discussed the significant challenges the ordinance has created for development projects. The regulations require extensive upfront due diligence that was not previously necessary. Developers must now hire certified arborists, conduct tree health assessments, and demonstrate reasonable efforts to preserve landmark trees before considering removal. "You're talking thousands of dollars to do that," Lyon said of arborist costs. "If you're talking about doing preliminary civil design work and trying to think about where water lines and sewer lines and other things go, that's probably in the tens of thousands of dollars to do that." These costs create particular challenges for smaller infill development projects. If a project proves infeasible due to tree constraints, those soft costs must be recovered through other projects, potentially affecting housing affordability. ### Reasonableness and Property Rights One of the most complex aspects of the ordinance involves the concept of "reasonable use" of property. The current language allows tree removal if "necessary to enable construction on or reasonable use of a property" but requires applicants to demonstrate "all reasonable efforts have been made" to avoid removal. "That term reasonable gives us a certain degree of flexibility, but one of the challenges it has presented is there's not enough clarity or certainty of what is considered to be reasonable," Lyon acknowledged. He is developing a "reasonableness memo" to provide clearer guidance on what constitutes reasonable development expectations and reasonable alternative analysis. Commissioner Mike Estes shared his personal experience with this ambiguity, describing a situation where city staff suggested locating a house in a less desirable area to preserve a landmark tree. "Was that an overreach to to have the city dictate to somebody, you know, where they should be put their house?" he asked. The example highlighted tensions between preservation goals and property owner expectations. ### Tree-Property Conflicts Lyon presented a compelling example of regulatory gaps in addressing conflicts where trees impact property rather than the reverse. He described a homeowner with a 50-inch tree that has cracked the foundation and lifted the house so severely that windows on one side cannot close. "That's not a pleasant situation to be in in the winter months, right?" Lyon observed. The tree is healthy and doesn't meet removal criteria, yet it's causing substantial property damage. The homeowner faces potential refinancing costs just to afford the estimated $40,000 tree removal expense. This scenario illustrates the need for provisions addressing tree impacts on existing structures. ### Policy Refinements Under Consideration Lyon outlined several areas where the ordinance may be refined through the upcoming Type VI legislative process: **Species Exclusions**: The current ordinance exempts cottonwoods but includes debate about whether other species might be more appropriate candidates for exclusion, such as Lombardi poplars with their aggressive roots and shorter lifespans. **Tree Banking and In-Lieu Fees**: Some jurisdictions allow off-site tree planting or fee payments when on-site replacement isn't feasible. With dense infill development, space constraints often make the required 3-to-1 replacement ratios impossible to accommodate. **Integration with Other Ordinances**: The landmark tree regulations need better coordination with clearing and grading ordinances for larger subdivision projects. **Enforcement Capacity**: Current enforcement relies on limited code enforcement staff - one officer in planning and one in police for the entire city. Effective implementation may require additional resources. ### Early Results and Community Response Despite implementation challenges, Lyon reported success in achieving the ordinance's primary goal: stopping preemptive tree removal. "We haven't seen people coming in uh and cutting trees down and then asking for permission later," he said. The ordinance has also increased interdepartmental coordination and created a more comprehensive approach to evaluating tree preservation decisions. The landmark tree committee reviews not just individual tree health but considers broader ecological benefits, such as preserving younger trees with growth potential over older declining specimens. Commissioner questions revealed ongoing concerns about enforcement teeth. The maximum penalty for illegal tree removal is $2,400 - barely more than the cost of going through the application process. "If somebody finds out, well, it's only going to cost me 2,400 bucks, that's barely more than going through the process or hiring an arborist," Estes observed. Lyon acknowledged the limitation but explained it stems from legal constraints on misdemeanor versus gross misdemeanor classifications and court jurisdiction issues. ## Accessing the Bellingham Plan The evening concluded with Planning Staff member Chris Behee demonstrating the digital resources available for the newly adopted Bellingham Plan. His presentation highlighted the city's investment in making the comprehensive plan accessible and user-friendly through interactive tools and comprehensive linking. Behee walked commissioners through the plan's digital architecture, showing how chapters, policies, and referenced documents are interconnected through hyperlinks. The presentation emphasized practical features like the goal and policy search tool and interactive land use maps that allow users to explore zoning and development regulations spatially. The digital format represents a significant advancement from traditional printed comprehensive plans, allowing real-time updates and easier navigation. However, Behee noted that sections can be printed for those who prefer hard copies or need accessible formats. ## Public Comment The meeting opened with public comment from Miles from the Cordana neighborhood, who advocated for adaptive zoning that would allow incremental density increases based on existing neighborhood context. His proposal would permit development "slightly more than the current context on a lot or a neighborhood" outside the Lake Whatcom watershed. Miles also commented specifically on Fairhaven, arguing that density limitations should be less restrictive since "a lot of people like the traditional character and urban density of Fair Haven." He advocated for stricter design standards rather than height limits, suggesting that architectural character matters more than building mass in maintaining neighborhood appeal. ## Closing and Next Steps The meeting demonstrated the Planning Commission's continued engagement with complex policy issues affecting Bellingham's development future. The transportation impact fee update offers some financial relief for developers while maintaining infrastructure funding mechanisms. The landmark tree ordinance discussion revealed the ongoing challenge of balancing environmental protection with development feasibility. Both topics will likely return to the commission in coming months as the landmark tree ordinance moves through the formal legislative process and transportation impact fees are implemented. The evening's discussions provided valuable input for staff refinements and highlighted areas where additional policy development may be needed. The transition to new leadership positions the commission well for addressing these ongoing challenges, with incoming Chair Ballew and Vice-Chair Lathrop bringing fresh perspectives to familiar issues. The collaborative tone of the evening suggested continued productive working relationships between commissioners and staff as they navigate Bellingham's evolving planning landscape.