City Council - Regular Meeting
City Council - Regular Meeting
Mon, January 13, 2025
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summary
Summary not yet available.
Agenda items (36)
Council Business
1Council BusinessPotential Property Acquisition (Stamps, approx. 3 min.)
2Council BusinessPotential Property Acquisition (Stamps, approx. 3 min.)
3Council BusinessLabor Relations: Review Contract Proposal for What-Comm Dispatcher’s Guild (Sullivan, approx. 5 min.)
4Council BusinessPotential Litigation (Chaplin, approx. 15 min.) - ITEM ADDED 1.9.25
6Council BusinessOld/New Business
24392Council BusinessAquatic Invasive Species Program - Revised Permit Fees
24393Council BusinessR.G. Haley Site Cleanup - Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Remedial Action Grant
24394Council BusinessInteragency Agreement Between City of Bellingham and Nooksack Indian Tribe to Fund Preliminary Design of High Priority Fish Passage Projects Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity 1:00 PM
24395Council BusinessPresentation on Mobile Medical Units
24396Council BusinessInterlocal Jail Facility Use Agreement for Correctional Services between Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham
24397Council BusinessAn Ordinance Regarding Temporary Right of Way Use Permits Amending Chapter 13.14 of the Bellingham Municipal Code
24398Council BusinessA Resolution Adopting a Revised Fee Schedule for Temporary Right of Way Use Permits Under Chapter 13.14 of the Bellingham Municipal Code
24399Council BusinessA Resolution Requesting the United States Congress and the President Pass and Sign Legislation Creating a National Infrastructure Bank
24400Council BusinessCity Council Regular Meeting Security Screening Measures
Adjournment
37AdjournmentTues. 12 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
38AdjournmentTues. 7 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
39AdjournmentWed. 8 AM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
40AdjournmentSat. 12 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
41AdjournmentSat. 7 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting Online Streaming: The meetings are streamed live at https://cob.org/btv. Online viewers will see exactly what cable customers would see. Video: Video recordings of each meeting are available on the Internet at https://cob.org/meetings within five business days following each meeting.
Ordinance
24375OrdinanceAn Ordinance of the City of Bellingham, WA Relating to Land Use and Zoning, Adopting Interim Zoning Regulations to Eliminate Minimum Automobile Parking Requirements and Establishing Consistent Bicycle Parking Standards Citywide
Public Hearing
24386Public HearingA Public Hearing To Consider An Ordinance Relating to Land Use and Zoning, Adopting Interim Zoning Regulations to Eliminate Automobile Parking Requirements and Establishing Consistent Bicycle Parking Standards
General Business
24387General BusinessMayor's Appointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (Information)
24388General BusinessMayor's Reappointments to the Bellingham-Whatcom County Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence (Information)
24389General BusinessMayor's Appointment to the Bellingham-Whatcom Public Facilities District (Approval)
24390General BusinessMayor's Appointment to the Bellingham Public Library Board of Trustees (Approval)
24391General BusinessMayor's Appointment of Robert Wright to the Design Review Board (Approval)
Procedural (2)
24401ProceduralApproval of the 12/9/2024 City Council Committee and Regular Meeting Minutes
24402ProceduralApproval of the 12/16/2024 City Council Committee and Regular Meeting Minutes
Consent Calendar
24403Consent CalendarAuthorization of Payroll Labor Cost Payments Dated December 1, 2024 to December 15, 2024
24404Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued December 06, 2024 through December 12, 2024
24405Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued December 13, 2024 through December 19, 2024
24406Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued December 20, 2024 through December 27, 2024
24407Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued December 28, 2024 through January 02, 2025
24408Consent CalendarInterlocal Agreement with Whatcom County for the Home Electrification Appliance
24409Consent CalendarInteragency Agreement between the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and the
24410Consent CalendarA Resolution Setting the Date and Time for a Public Hearing Before the Hearing Examiner for Consideration of a Street Vacation Petition for "Army Street" Located Between W. Holly Street and Roeder Avenue in the Old Town Urban Village
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Table motion to adopt ordinance edits until after public hearing
aye 1
voice voteaye
Appoint Mark Asbenson to Bellingham Whatcom Public Facilities District
aye 1
voice voteaye
Appoint Sharon Delami to Bellingham Public Library Board of Trustees
aye 1
voice voteaye
Appoint Robert Wright to Design Review Board
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to enter into RG Haley remedial action grant (Agenda Bill 24393)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interagency agreement with Nooksack Indian Tribe for fish passage design (Agenda Bill 24394)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal jail facility use agreement with Whatcom County (Agenda Bill 24396)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt ordinance amending BMC 13.14 regarding temporary right-of-way use permits / streeteries (Agenda Bill 24397)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt resolution revising fee schedule for temporary right-of-way permits (Agenda Bill 24397 fee schedule)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt resolution requesting Congress create a National Infrastructure Bank (Agenda Bill 24399)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to close Lake Whatcom Watershed property acquisition from Sand LLC ($500,000)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to close Lake Whatcom Watershed property acquisition from Stephanie and Gregory Coran ($57,500)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Ratify 2025-2026 collective bargaining agreement with Whatcom Dispatchers Guild
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve consent agenda
aye 1
voice voteaye
Amend interim parking ordinance to incorporate corrections (citations, ADA language, bike parking references)
aye 6 · abstain 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanabstain
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Amend interim parking ordinance to require pedestrian infrastructure and on-street parking conditions (Lilliquist amendment)
nay 7
Daniel Hammillnay
Edwin Williamsnay
Hannah Stonenay
Hollie Huthmannay
Jace Cottonnay
Lisa Andersonnay
Michael Lilliquistnay
Adopt Ordinance (Agenda Bill 24375) — Interim zoning regulations eliminating minimum automobile parking requirements and establishing bicycle parking standards (third and final)
aye 5 · nay 2
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonnay
Michael Lilliquistnay
Verbatim transcript available
114 transcript segments indexed
[Music] right we'll go ahead and get started um and I do recognize that there are some still some people in line and they if they are interested in signing up for public comment or the public hearing they'll still be able to do that um we're not going to cut it off right at time like we usually do uh go ahead and call this meeting to order the Bellingham city council meets all requirements of the state of Washington open public meetings act before we We Begin we acknowledge that we we are gathered on the tradition and unseated territory of the lumy nuac samish and seamu people who have cared for and tended to this land since time in Memorial truth and acknowledgement are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of Heritage and difference We Begin this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth we pay respect to their Elders past and present please take a moment to consider the many legacies of violence displacement migration and settlement that bring us together here today and please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events Bellingham city council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room remote viewers can log on to cob.org frcc zoom and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in Spanish and I'll go ahead and let our interpret or repeat that
language thank you on January 27th 2025 the council will hold a public hearing regarding the potential Surplus sale of real property owned by the city of Bellingham the property is a small Remnant parcel approximately 4792 Square ft in size located at the corner of Cornwall Avenue and Pine Street in Bellingham roll call please Hannah Stone here Daniel Hamill here skip Williams here Lisa Anderson here Michael liquis here jce cotton here Holly Huffman here all council members are present thank you and first up we have a public hearing uh public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to land use and Zoning adopting interim zoning regulations to eliminate automobile parking requirements and establishing consistent bicycle parking standards I will go ahead and pass on to director Blake Lon you council president Huffman uh council members uh mayor and Community again my name is Blake lion I have the honor and privilege of serving as the director for planning and Community Development um in my presentation tonight I'm going to keep it relatively short uh in context to what you've seen in the past couple presentations because I know that you're typically here to hear from uh the public and so we want to make sure there's time to do that um but Kurt and I uh Joel fun and others are here on staff to answer any questions that may come up and happy to deliberate on any of those particular things for those that may not be familiar we've had um kind of three different sessions that have
touched on this in some form or fashion uh we started back in May and we talked about the range of different parking reform options that Council might wish to consider and then the mayor uh issued her executive order in the end of November and we came back and talked with you a little bit about that in early December and then honed a little bit in on the uh in the middle of December about the elimination of parking minimums and I want to pause for a moment and just remind uh not only the council but the public that there are uh a suite of different ideas that are coming forward for your consideration and while this is a significant one it is the first of several that kind of work in concert with one another and I think it's important to um keep a little bit of that in your frame of reference that uh while there are significant requests as part of this it is a kind of a totality of effect that we're looking for in in trying to address these various different issues I'm going to talk to you a little bit about um kind of why we're doing this now and why we're considering it Citywide and and to do that I'm going to focus on kind of these five subtopics a little bit and try to dive into a little bit of that and really touch more specifically on the why um and and see if we can get into a few of those things and then I'll turn it over so the first of which we want to talk about is housing production and one of the things that be has become very evident as we've looked across a
range of the different communities throughout this country that have begun to implement these actions whether they're um making at fully eliminating the parking minimums or doing some version of that we see that this particular um policy approach as you can see kind of in that uh first one unlocks more opportunity than any of these others combined and so I think that's important when we start again looking at the various different actions that the counil uh that the mayor's executive order is is talking to is we're trying to unlock some of that housing production especially when you start to look at some of the National studies that are coming about and a variety of the different um Trends and troughs that we're starting to see uh in the marketplace and it becomes important to really start start to address that we see that locally um there was an article that came out recently talking about in Seattle and when they looked at the developments that have occurred in in Seattle 70% of those developments would not have occurred if they hadn't uh relax the parking and so again part of this conversation is really trying to stimulate and and uh push forward on the the overall housing production and bringing more units to the marketplace it's important that we also think about the equity of what we're trying to do you know we have a a situation where many of our community are being faced with cost burden situations and opening up and allowing for new housing units Citywide allowing it
to occur across all different neighborhoods so no one neighborhood hood or multiple neighborhoods bear the uh brunt or are gifted the opportunity of doing this and it is important to to um spend that Equity across the board and look at a range of different housing types it's really interesting there's some recent data out there that talks about how we're seeing a change in demographics in the household and that housing supply has not really been uh tracking that and affording that so giving an opportunity to provide a range of different housing types is a critical component of this and when we talk about looking at some of the zoning criteria there are some historic inequities uh that we're really trying to to address and adjust you know I was in a conversation a couple days ago with one of the community members and there's a lot of discussion about whether this should be tied to affordability or whether we're gifting away some things and one of the things that became really interesting in that conversation from my perspective was he said oh well you know you're looking at and you're giving it away to the developer of an apartment building and then the all the tenants that are residing in that parking building are going to uh just park out on the street and and we're you know we're using taxpayer dollars to do uh to do that and I said when you know kind of providing a Counterpoint to that conversation I said let's look at our single family residential there's countless number
of people in this community that do not use their garages for parking they use them for storage they use them for offices they use them for eeds or she sheds or a variety of other countless reasons and they may choose to park out on the street that same utilization of that public amenity is occurring in our existing neighborhoods as well so it's unfair in my opinion to apply a standard to just those that reside in apartment dwellings and not applied across the board so if that truly is The Stance we want to take then we need to be Equitable in in our view of that stance other thing that when we start looking at affordability and you start to look into and touching that it's really important to think about the various different numbers that come with this there's a recent book that was put out by Shane Phillips called the affordable City and you may recall because I've touched on this book a little bit in the past when we talked about affordable housing the three s's there's you know supply side um stability and subsidy and one one of the chapters in this book talks about in the supply side uh chapter 22s you see if they're eliminating parking requirements everywhere and the thing that that I think is really important and I did highlight this a little bit is that the results are always positive and so we start to see some of those things that come in I am not trying to mislead you Andor the public at all there is going to we we as humans are creatures of habit there is going
to be some change change is inevitably difficult for some and we've got to work through through some of those things there are people in the community that Park out on the street which is a public amenity and feel like they have ownership of that space that may change and that may shift a little bit and we we know that we as a city have the opportunity and maybe to some degree the obligation of looking at management but management can come in the form of the on street or Municipal parking Supply the on Street spaces the park the municipal parking lot the uh parking structure and so so there's an opportunity to really begin to look at those and build in that level of um accommodation and affordability you may recall when I was in front of you back in may we talked about this and I tried to localize some of these to uh watom County that's about as fine grained as I can get with this some of this data but when you start to think about the amount of money that it costs to to construct those parking spaces you can see there on the left a range of different price points depending on what type of parking you're providing and when you start to think about the construction costs associated with whether it's on the smaller scale of unit size like an Adu all the way up to a larger maybe home or apartment building you start to see that those uh dollar amounts start to add up and each one of those spaces becomes $20,000 now when you think about those construction costs and I'm happy to go
into I won't go into it in great depth right now but if you'd like me to come back at some point this evening I'm happy to do that but to put put a a point on it when we look at the construction costs associated we're seeing adus coming in at potentially uh 3 to $400 a square foot U depending on some of those amenities so you're talking about $300 to $400,000 uh at the end when you're talking about building an Adu you take that up to a single family home or even a duplex or um smaller scale you're talking about into the $500,000 range well when you start talking about what can be affordable at that 80% of area median income or below you're talking about maybe 300,000 or less so the Delta that you're trying to make up is roughly in that $150 to $200,000 range and a $20,000 parking stall doesn't make up for that Gap one of the things that often gets overlooked in this part of the conversation is that by eliminating those parking requirements the cost savings alone is not enough but what ultimately can help tip the scale in some regards is the additional capacity the additional ability to build more units on that particular property and then that starts to amortise some of those costs and gives you the ability to really drive that and make projects that wouldn't have otherwise pencil become of a reality in this community commun climate is also a very significant portion of why we look to uh erase that there's an article that was that came out that I have in here that lists these
eight different options and I won't take the time this evening to go through all of those but um we have heard repeatedly in this community housing for members of this community and environmental stewardship are some of the basic tenaments that we want so there's there's definitely a commitment to being able to of reduce our climate footprint and uh parking elimination of parking certainly speaks to that we also have the opportunity to create safer streets and I want to take a minute and touch on these so so uh the first one is a term an industry term that we call access management and essentially if you think about it from the um a basic point of view it's it's really how you how you get on to that property where is the driveway where's the point of entry to that particular property many of our communities are equipped with alleys and so one of the things that those alleys provides is the ability to provide services along there whether that's utilities or garbage pickup or access to uh rear Lots um it allows for the streets to be maintained in such a way that you can have on street parking you can have uninterrupted sidewalks you can red reduce the amount of curb cuts that are there and then ultimately reduce uh the amount of points of conflict where you might have uh with some you know maybe a a parent pushing a child in a stroll or somebody walking their dog every time you're crossing over those those are potential point of conflict so there's an opportunity to reduce
those on street parking also provides the ability to um Narrow Lane widths reduce speeds again provides some separation for those pedestrians provides them a safe haven behind uh the parking that happens to be on street and can protect uh both pedestrians and cyclists alike so there's a wide range of benefits that we can get to um safer streets in that regard as well placem is probably one of those things that planners uh spend quite a bit of time but you know when you start to think about um the Beloved parts of our community and how walkable and how livable they are how the buildings contribute to that how the spaces outside of those buildings maybe with expanded sidewalks and outdoor dining and um you know opportunities for spaces for you know festivals or um you know different activities and events and most of those are spaces where we can uh congregate together that don't require uh expansive parking lots to do some of that stuff uh and so I put up different examples in here and and many of them whether you're talking about downtown uh Fair Haven or even just within the um the existing communities where we have different uses that often times were built PR World War two uh before we had that kind of autod dominated approach to society and we have very lovable very walkable places as a result of that and there's an opportunity to get back to some of those in a more meaningful way we can see some of the challenges that exist when that's not the case you know we said uh
over 18% of our uh land Supply in downtown is structured by surface parking you know I had I was talking with a colleague of mine um Kurt here this evening and we were looking through some of the historic photos of the city uh you know having a nostalgic moment and seeing some of the street car lines and some of the buildings um that come through and it was really fascinating to see and it and it kind of supports some of the the data that we got um in some of the studies about on average today under current parking regulations amount of space dedicated to parking is typically greater than a one:1 ratio of the building and so when you look at some of those historic photos you can see building after building and unbelievable Street wall and a a lively Street Scene and all these things that come uh with that kind of urban form and yet when you think about where we are today and the amount of space that's dedicated to surface parking lots and what that does to break up that pedestrian experience and that overall kind of community is um challenging at best and so I think it's important to to look at this kind of stuff and say we've we've over supplied in this country we have different uh articles out there will tell you slightly different things but we have on average about six to seven parking spaces per person in this country so we have an overabundant Supply and we're looking to to address that a little bit so I'm going to leave it um at that point and and just mention to you
that um should you choose to proceed this evening really the the next step in the process uh if the third and final uh is in fact approved then we will go through and there's a 15-day adoption period before it becomes effective so effectively by the end of the month uh we would be in a position where the ordinance would would be in effect uh we're requesting that we have a one-year interim which will allow us to study and analyze uh the different applications that go along with that and then come back to you with a a final ordinance um there are a few pieces that I want to just a little bit of housekeeping uh I sent you between this afternoon session and this evening session I sent you an updated alternative um there was a couple errant references that I wanted to correct on the record for you uh the first of which when you look at the ordinance um on the second page it's the third whereas that's in the statement and it reads uh whereas pursuant to and it refers to wack 197 uh that particular reference is actually better suited if we replace that whack reference and instead include uh the revised code of Washington so RCW 43.
21 C is in Charles 450 and that allows for us to um adopt the interim ordinance and that it's exempt from from sea so that's a a more appropriate um citation then you'll see there on page three the um motion reflected uh in the where in the it says whenever parking is provided and there's a strike through on that particular page and then we also notice that through our pagination and kind of moving around of adjusting it through the um through the edit process that one of the references referenced uh it's on page five of the ordinance but it referenced it's under the long-term bike parking standards um standard a and standard C and it referenced uh in accurately subsection d as in David and that should have been f as in Frank um so the citations of 3 CV are still applicable but it but the initial language is there so those those are the things that I have for you tonight again I have a wealth of additional information that I'm happy to dive into but I certainly want to answer any questions that you might have and hear from the public and about their thoughts and concerns thank you for the time thank you director line uh any clarifying questions from Council council member cotton maybe a question for the City attorney but um while those amend or edits are fresh in our mind is it okay to dispense with those now and then proceed to the public hearing just get the housekeeping out of the way if that makes sense to folks um yeah you could do that now I I when you do third and
final as per our Charter you're going to need to go through those again uh upon third and final but you could do a motion now or after public testimony uh I move to adopt those uh changes second we have a motion by council member cotton and a second by council member Williams any further discussion council member Anderson excuse me I'm I'm not supporting that some of them is housekeeping one is a change in the ordinance that we discussed earlier and I'd like to hear from the public um in case people were paying attention to the issue of ADA parking um I think if we pass it in a way we're not hearing the Community voice on it um so I'd rather hear from the community before we make changes to what people have had access to comments on the motion do an amendment I'm friendly to that no I would rather wait until third and final and adopt the version which would include the changes if it's going to pass but I would like there may be other changes depending on public comment and I think for housekeeping it would be nice to just do everything at the end I'll move to table so I I was just saying I'm not supporting the motion but I think there's a first and second so it' have to be voted on and it could pass or fail point of order tabling requires to to specify when it would be brought back I move to table until after the public hearing second motion by council member cotton and a second by council member lillquist any further discussion on that motion to table seeing none all in
favor say I I I any opposed or extensions that passes further clarifying questions before we open the public hearing council member Stone um so it's unrelated to director Lion's presentation but I know we have full Chambers and I know it was addressed this afternoon that mayor lend is joining us remotely um but I didn't know if prior to the hearing you just wanted to provide an opportunity to address that since it feels weird that she's not in the room with us yes yeah yeah thank you she'll also be addressing us after the public hearing um for her marage report she'll give a little a little bit more detail then but thank you council member Stone any further discussion okay we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing um can we put the uh the guidelines back up as well can go over those for folks who may not have have spoken before in front of us each speaker is allowed three minutes unless interpretation is needed uh in case six minutes will be allotted and that's make sure to keep it fair for everybody um if comments are in Sp if comments are in Spanish please pause so that The Interpreter can say the comments in English uh sign up seats were available for 30 minutes before the start of the meeting and a little bit before that today and a little bit after we normally cut them off today due to the um the new security uh measures thank you for being patient by the way with those appreciate it um speakers can't donate their time to speak to another person uh speak in time to
another person all uh remarks should be addressed to the council as a whole so no singling folks out um you can talk to us as the city as as a whole um speakers refrain from comment or Behavior Uh to keep everything respectful to every everybody so uh that involves disorderly speech name calling personal attacks indecent remarks derogatory comments racist homophobic other hate speech advertising or promoting sale products uh promoting candidates for public office or upcoming ballot measures again keeping it nice and neutral and respectful for everybody that's in here and um keep it a welcoming place for anybody to speak it's pretty intimidating to stand up there if you haven't done it before um and all comments are to be given at the microphone or your time will end and also nobody can hear you uh other than the people in the room if you move away from the microphone so with that um we call three names and if those three people could please get up and move to either a microphone upstairs there or down here um line up and um and be ready it moves things along a little quick more quickly so we'll go ahead with the first three names all right first up we have uh Su Susan Kane ronning and John ronning followed by Ben bessley and Carrie Burnside good evening mayor lond council members and director Lon I'm Dr Susan Kane ronning I support parking reform for its ability to reduce Urban heat Islands reduce carbon emissions and positively impact climate change I have concerns however
that affordability is not included in the ordinance councelor liquis succinctly pointed out the faults of supply side economics and that it won't directly lead to affordability linking affordability afterward may make it hard to impact developments once you've streamlined per permitting and development is underway I'm a license psychologist specializing in children families and Trauma I have spent my career working with atrisk children and families and I'm one of the few psychologists in the county who take state health insurance and tri care the military Insurance I've always worked with children with housing insecurity the city's own website States one in four Working Families in Bellingham can't afford their basic needs one in four children in watom County experience homelessness or housing insecurity 779 students were enrolled in the Bellingham School District as homeless in the 2023 24 school year 56% of Bellingham renters are cost burdened and renters are three times more likely to be cost burden than homeowners nationally 77% of low-income renters need fed Federal rental assistance and don't receive it housing in security can negatively impact children for years a 23 a 20-year longitudinal study followed children from birth through age 15 and tracked kids who experienced housing and security at three different levels low moderate and High kids with any level of housing insecurity experienced worse physical effects such as higher rates of malnutrition vaccine
preventable infection infectious diseases asthma obesity Dental Envision problems emotional behavioral and developmental issues they had poor mental health including higher levels of depression and anxiety a lack of secure housing also creates Oppositional Defiant and conduct disordered behaviors and delinquency children may miss school while their parents find a new place to live or they're forced to change schools altogether children who change schools once or more during a school year are four times more likely to be chronically absent chronic absenteeism correlates with lower test scores and grades and higher rates of repeating grades and dropping out higher housing and security creates toxic stress for families it is chronic and unrelenting by lowering rental costs affordability enables people with low incomes to spend more on other basic needs such as food and medicine and goods and services that r their children's development according to the Journal of the American Medical Association of Pediatrics governments must create initiatives to implement and address the affordable housing crisis in this situation that government is you you have an opportunity to address affordability while you address parking reforms addressing it another time will cause delays imp pad developers pocketbooks without assuring housing security for the children in our community thank you thank you sus thank you for allowing me to speak this evening um I'm John Kan ronning live in Bellingham and
a retired teacher taught in Bellingham schools for 30 years and in education for 37 years I'm speaking actually tonight for the Mount Baker uh Sierra Club group and so I'll go ahead and just share a condensed version of a letter that they I think sent to the to the uh to the council um Mount Baker Sierra Club supports reforming the parking or ordinance in Bellingham is discussed at the December 16th 24 council meeting we appreciate the thoughtful consideration you're giving this important issue we like to particularly acknowledge and agree with council member liquis concerns that were raised during the committee of a whole meeting council member liloa correctly pointed out that while parking reform is is a necessary step towards creating a more sustainable and livable City it's imperative that such reforms be tied to strong affordability measures reforming or reducing parking requirements can help reduce construction costs and potentially lower rents however without explicit affordability measures there's no guarantee that the benefits we've passed on the customers who re who need them most are low-income cost burden families cities that have um affordability measures examples of cities that have affordability measures are New York City San dieg sgo Portland Oregon Boston and Cambridge these cities have all linked parking reductions to affordability requirements the Minneapolis example is also one that's brought up Minneapolis eliminated parking minimums Citywide without
tying the policy to specific affordability requirements the difference is though however this removal is part of a broader Minneapolis 2040 plan which includes a detailed Quantified goals for affordable housing throughout the city we urge the couny to Council to incorporate Provisions that ensure affordability as a key component of any parking reform this can include requirements for affordable housing units in new developments that benefit from reduced parking requirements or incentives for developers to include a higher percentage of affordable units in their projects if the ordinance is not amended to address affordability then we ask the city to quickly develop and Implement plans to increase affordability by using density bonuses height variances or other building incentives that can motivate development to include adequate affordable housing the Sierra Club is committed to promoting an environmental sustainability and so and social Equity tying parking reform to affordability measures will help Bellingham move closer to achieving both these goals we are eagles eager to support policies that balance the need for environmental responsibility with the need to protect our communities most vulnerable members thank you for your attention thank you John evening can you good evening council members my name is Ben bessley uh I'm here as a resident of Bellingham and I also serve as the CEO of the talet group talbet group is the owner and manager of majority of the property at
Barkley Village and I'm here to first of all express my strong support for this ordinance I think it's a great idea in its progress forward and I'd like to share two data points with you specific to Barkley Village first is as you may know if you've toured the property we have a number of Office Buildings and a lot of the conversations that we have and thinking about development because this is what's had been built over the last several decades is housing remember that as the economic Cycles happen more than housing happens new offices happen that's where businesses get started um new retail happens that's where businesses get started and people can you know find the things they need so we have four Office Buildings and On Any Given afternoon we have hundreds of empty parking spaces in the evening as I'm sure right now they are virtually all empty and these were designed based on older codes had theyve been designed today this is acres and acres of land that could be dedicated to another use specifically housing or perhaps other Economic Development so some of the details uh that um that Blake lion was uh trying to explain or kind of giving information on in terms of the amount of land that could be unlocked is a very practical example that the next time you're out there and you look you can see that's how much land is available if something like this were in place at the time second data point is that uh the taba group has been designing and entitling uh an apartment
building it's 142 unit apartment building we cannot start construction right now not only because of the parking requirement there are lots of headwinds in terms of cost and financing things like this but it would be a major major step forward to be able to at least evaluate that and and take a market based approach on how many parking spaces we're going to build into this building when it eventually gets built so um this ordinance on its own is not going to solve our housing supply problem but again as as Blake lion was explaining it is a major step forward and therefore I hope you'll support it um I know from having listened to you know some of the speakers and read the comments of everything that was submitted there are a lot of valid concerns about what would happen if there's no parking requirements um if in fact this passes and development happens there may well be you know conflicts in the future that are created but I think we need to keep in mind that those conflicts are taking place because so much growth has happened new people have found homes here in Bellingham new businesses have been able to start and grow here in Bellingham and so these are the costs of growth and opportunity for everybody and all business growth and all new neighbors is is good for all of us so thank you very much for your time thank you Ben all right and then after Carrie we'll have Chris hovard Adam Bellinger James uh font and David urbina good evening council members mayor staff and
Community my name is Carrie Burnside I'm an organizer with the Bellingham Tenants Union and I'm the Silver Beach neighborhood association president I do appreciate having public comment restored uh so thank you I do support the parking reform however I I wish that it included some measure of affordability there are many other cities we can look to that include affordability that we can either um copy or adapt in a way that fits for Bellingham given the uh level of Crisis and I wouldn't even call it a housing crisis anymore it's really become our Condition it's a chronic condition that's continuing to get worse uh Dr Susan Kane roning shared some great statistics earlier and also the impact that this has on our children so when I've heard people talk about planning for our future keep in mind you're planning for a future that's going to have a continued negative impact on our children our Future Leaders this is a decision you are taking and um accepting and so I hope you really consider that and affordability measures can be added in even just a small measure that would help bring us a step closer to building the um severe lack of affordable housing that we have I think uh Blake lion was saying 62% of the builds uh moving forward do need to be affordable so they need to be in that 80% or lower and removing parking minimums definitely will in increase that number but not in the numbers where we need that increase to occur um so I'm asking you to vote no this evening and include
at least some measure of affordability so that we can start to lessen the impacts of that people are experiencing and um particularly if we can include what Minnesota um excuse me Minneapolis has added into their comprehensive plan I know they've removed their parking minimums but they have a much more targeted approach to affordable housing within their comprehensive plan and I'd like to see preservation of naturally curing housing because as we see more and more tenants being displaced the eviction rates are are continuing to Skyrocket um more tenant protections and anti-displacement policies without those present it's we shouldn't be comparing our parking reform to min appes because we we lack tenant protections and the other affordability measures that they have in their comprehensive plan so again I urge you to vote now revise it to include at least tenant protections within it or some form of affordability thank you for your time thank you Carrie good evening um Council uh thank you for all your hard work that you do for city um I am opposed well I I support some sort of parking reform but I don't support this um it just um without some sort of um affordability with it it just seems like um kind of a corporate giveaway for um developers just to build more market rate um Apartments it's not going to address the um affordability issue so um I would hope that you can um add some kind of affordability aspect to it and um so thank you thank you evening Council my name is
Adam Bellinger um I uh find myself um a little bit divided on uh the parking uh uh plan here that's under consideration and um part of it is um you know I'm concerned about the unintended consequences that uh could occur but at the same time we have to recognize that we are in a very severe housing shortage we've underbuilt uh cons uh for a considerable period of time for housing units um from my life experience living nowhere else but Bellingham um I found that um parking is uh also a bit of an economic uh leg up if it's made readily available uh I've had to for every single job I've ever had I've had to have a car and uh having access to uh affordable parking uh was a an important part of my my ability to uh drive out of town to get work uh because I couldn't afford early on in my career uh to live and work here I had to do something had to give so uh the car ended up being a pretty significant economic uh leg up for me and I've as I've watched others in my um thinking about who I grew up with um the folks that didn't have access to uh adequate parking uh and didn't have a car actually had their economic um possibilities decrease so I'm concerned about a long-term impact of uh just removing parking minimums um that said I do think that you could look at um uh doing a removing the parking minimums for a period of say a few years say three years get our um a much more housing built and then re-evaluate it because I think that there is going to be some Downstream uh negative
impacts um and you know uh I don't think I've ever lived in an apartment here uh that didn't have uh a shortage of parking um so um I don't see it's uh that it's always uh an overabundance of par um that seems to be the narrative but um it it doesn't seem to quite track with the way I've uh experienced things thank you my name is Jim fonte I'm retired and primarily biked to get around Bellingham biking gives me the freedom to get around the city in a way that driving just can't this Freedom makes makes a more sustainable Transportation choice for myself and for my grandchildren the more people who drive the harder and more expensive becomes to build better bike infrastructure for our future this ordinance also improves the city's bike parking requirements and lack of safe and secure bike parking is one of the biggest barriers to getting more people like me to choose a bike over a car this summer I volunteered um running a bike Valley down at the farmers market and I had many many people comment that if they knew that bike Valley was there they would have rode their bike down to the bike Farmers Market instead of driving so um my experience there that this is a barrier to people using their bikes instead of cars so please vote Yes for this thank you thank you Jim all right and then after David we'll have Owen Begley caller Katie Chase hamina ghosty and Diane kitchen good evening council members and mayor lond uh my name is David urbina and I'm here as a board member of walk
androll Bellingham a local nonprofit organization advocating for safer healthier and more livable communities by improving and expanding our active transportation system Walk and Roll Bellingham is excited that city council has the opportunity tonight to prioritize our communities values affordable housing Transportation choice and climate Justice by eliminating in parking minimums and strengthening bike parking requirements this ordinance allows development to focus on people not just cars current mandates in the city in city code that require construction of an arbitrary and excessive amount of parking regardless of whether anyone wants it needs it or uses it are contrary to our community's values study after study has shown that these policies lead to an oversupply of parking reduce safety for people who walk and bike worse equity and accessibility outcomes and a less vibrant cityscape this is because these inflexible dated parking mandates require large swats of land to be dedicated to parking which pushes buildings further apart and leads to a less walkable and vibrant City in turn more people unsurprisingly choose to drive increasing congestion greenhouse gas emissions and injuries and deaths for our most vulnerable Road users we are glad to see that the proposed ordinance includes establishing city-wide bike parking standards for new development to ensure wide range of alternative transportation options are provided walk androll Bellingham is proud to add its voice to
countless community members and local advocacy organizations asking you to implement this reasonable reform without a delay a yes vote tonight is a yes vote for more Equitable sustainable vibrant Bellingham thank you thank you de um my name is Owen begy CER um and I'm here because I think it's clear that Bellingham has too many parking lots our downtown is 18.
61% parking lot and that doesn't even include on street parking I don't own a car but I live in an apartment complex that sits on top of a two-story pedestal of parking and is surrounded by street parking a lot of those spots are empty because of people like me who don't have a car excess parking results in less room for housing we are a growing City in a country that is in the midst of a housing crisis excess par parking eats up space spreading out our city covering the land with impervious surfaces which pollutes our waterways with toxic runoff when it rains perhaps even more significantly surface parking fuels our Reliance on Cars one of the main drivers of the climate crisis as someone who will grow up to see the long-term effects of climate change and ecological degradation I hope to see Bellingham become far less car-centric and grow up not out removing parking minimums is a key step in addressing these problems allowing us to build more housing make our city Less Car Centric and reduced sprawl I do how however wish that this ordinance incentivized the building of affordable housing that is the kind of change that is needed to truly combat the housing crisis I do however support the ordinance overall and hope to see it passed and parking minimums removed Citywide it makes some progress in combating the housing crisis and the climate crisis I hope to see Bellingham grow in a way that values people and the planet over cars thank you for your time thank you on hello my
name is Katie Chase and I have lived in Bellingham for about a year now um during my time here I have seen firsthand um the rise in housing costs and homelessness and it is clear that Bellingham has a significant housing crisis right now um it is essential that we take action uh as soon as possible uh with the ratio of housing cost to average income becoming increasingly higher parking is an expense that a lot of people can't afford there are other alternatives to driving that lots of people already use such as public TR Transportation ending parking minimums would provide these people with more affordable housing options that match their existing Transportation needs housing prices need to be decreased and ending parking minimums would help achieve this by making more space for housing as well as making housing more affordable this ordinance is an important step towards mitigating the housing crisis and efforts to build more afford affordable housing should also be taken both for short and long term I feel strongly that the well-being and housing stability of Bellingham residents would benefit greatly from the removal of parking minimums which is why this ordinance is so important thank you for your time thank you Katie good afternoon my name is Diane kitchen I'm a former PCO and also I'm a union leader for 775 um well seiu775 and um I've also been a caregiver and home caregiver for over 20 years serving wcom County and scad County I'm here to voice on their behalf of me
providing their service so in my contract by the state I get 110 hours to provide mileage for each client if I go to a client that now has these limited parking spots this is now doing a un uh whatever the term is but there's no parking for me so where do I park I have an example down in Mount Vernard I actually had to turn this client down because there was no parking so they have a complex that's on College way it's a fairly new so it's just like this where they were able to have very very little parking and so the clients that I have that I had there there was no parking I couldn't Park on College way cuz there's no City parking next door was private parking there had plaques signs if you park in our parking lot you're going to get towed where do I park how do I serve this client when there's no parking for me to park so that's one concern I have because I can see that happening in Bingham where we have roads because of one reason or another there is no parking on the road and then so then I can't park in the parking lot I can't park on the street where do I park to now serve this client that means I have to refuse to take care of them not just me other PE gers will be refusing the same thing because we can't take the bus we have multiple clients I serve wam County that means I have clients in Bellingham I have clients up in lynon I have clients in Sumas I'm bouncing from one to one I can't take the bus from one client to the other or how about when I have to go down to
sketa county I can't so with this we are hurting the most vulnerable adults and we're also hurting the seniors so we need some way we got to figure out how to get that resolved thank you thank you Diane all right and then after Jamon we'll have oh I'll I'll go ahead there's one rule that's not up there that we don't want to do any clapping or booing or any kind of response to our our speakers um because we want everybody to feel free to speak their opinion um whether we agree with it or not so I appreciate that thank you all right real quick before Jamon um after him we'll have uh Randall Stam Shaban hop R Perry ESD and Scott Pelton hi city council members and members of the public my name is Jam agasti um I live in Sunnyland Bellingham I am so excited we're here tonight talking about this really important issue for the city uh nowhere in Bellingham is there a parking stall that is more important than a job or a Home city council has the chance tonight to make an evidence-based decision eliminate parking man mandates uh slows the increase of housing costs and leads to a 40 to 70% increase in housing production we know that from data uh across the United States and we all know that also based on local data from Spokane who saw a material increase in housing production in the last 2 years based on similar reforms there's no data to show that tying parking reform to affordability requirements will lead a to a single new unit of affordable housing and we know this because we've
tried we implemented the 12-year multif family tax exemption 14 years ago and not a single affordable unit has been built in the city under that program in 14 years unfortunately um so people that are telling us that we can just ask for more affordable housing at a lower Ami and that developers will build it in exchange for parking are not telling us the whole story unfortunately on Ada parking I do want to urge the council not to add new parking mandates where they don't exist today requiring one off Street Ada stall where no parking would otherwise be required effectively bans an entire category of building type or adaptive reuse that would otherwise be permitted and buildable today in downtown Fair Haven or Oldtown and an example would be the JC Penney building in downtown or the Harris Street Cafe in Fair Haven where those buildings are not currently being utilized or need to be rebuilt and they were not built with any parking you could not add a single Ada stall to that to those lots today in a way that works on those lots and there's better outcomes better ways to address this problem that not only lead to more accessible parking but uh don't have some of the costs which is working with our public works department under our 30 40 Page Long accessibility Ada transition plan report that was put together by the city in 2021 that allows the city to expedite painting curbs blue to add Ada parking stalls on the street and doesn't lead to the costs like ex uh curb Cuts Cars
blocking the sidewalk and other things in the our most dense areas of town that negatively affect accessibility that's all I have to say today thank you thank you jam my name is Randall Stam I'm a resident of Bellingham I've been a professional in the parking and transportation industry for over 30 years including serving as co-founder of the Pacific Inter Mountain parking and transportation Association and on numerous occasions served as my agency's representative to the International parking Institute eliminating parking requirements would be a mistake elimination of parking so that it allows developers to decide for themselves allows them to increase their profits while pushing their new tenants out into the neighborhood to find parking where they can this has already occurred in Bellingham allowing the developers to add less than necessary parking in the Stateside residential complex on North State Street took an already overburdened parking Supply and further constrained it causing a very overcrowded area to end up with even more frequent parking at yellow curbs designated no parking zones loading zones fire Lanes in front of fire hydrants if environmental concern concerns are a major factor removing these requirements should be way down on your list housing developments of late that I have observed when they do put in any parking at all appear to put it under the building no additional Hardscape out in the world no additional land is being used and further if you want
people to get out of their cars and onto mass transit this is probably the worst way to do it people drive less when mass transit can compete with their car rather than Seattle compare Bellingham to a somewhat similar City Eugene OR people thought it couldn't be done and yet it has developed a highly successful bus rapid transit system that in conjunction with its regular bus system works exceedingly well achieving ridership that was predicted to take 3 years to actually build up in the first year people there are willing even eager to stop driving their cars when transit system can compete increased bus frequency allows them to get where they need to go easily faster trips gets the people to their destinations at a comparable speed to driving and often times even more rapidly this is accomplished at a workable infrastructure cost guideways dedicated bus lanes and joining traffic where necessary Hybrid fuel articulated buses with doors on both sides to address platform needs level floor boarding so no need for kneeling or deployment of wheelchair lift paying fars on the platform to speed up boarding onboard bicycle racks and of course priority signaling specifically designed traffic lights that allows Q jumping and your Transit vehicle always to get a head start at each intersection providing the Quick Fix of ceasing parking requirements is not your answer it won't provide affordable housing and it will not serve the developers new tenants and it will certainly not serve the
residents of the neighborhoods where these projects occur if you truly want to address environmental concerns new affordable housing and transportation and parking management don't just slap a Band-Aid on this one small cut while the developers are selling you new shoes for a leg that's falling off thank you thank you Rand hello I'm sioban hop I'm a local artist and historian I would like to stand before the council and voice my support of repealing parking minimums they are an inefficient space- wasting relic of a time when we were chained to the Mandate of accommodating the almighty car they prevent us from constructing humaniz spaces the most of parking between many businesses prevent me a disabled person from easily navigating between shops curb cuts are also dangerous both for me and also for wheelchair users because of the way that they tilt the sidewalk and can cause us to you know end up in traffic uh parking minimums also Force companies to buy oversized plots of land that they may be unable to afford compared to a smaller plot the parking spaces also bring extra maintenance as was addressed in the presentation earlier I think our downtown is good proof that we don't need parking attached to every business the parking garage has never been full even on free weekends when wonders is happening there's plenty of Street side parking and that's something that y all could monetize and you know bring more profit into the city to maybe make some more affordable housing and
also in contrast to an earlier commenter every apartment that I've lived in here has had more parking spots than Vehicles even my current spot which doesn't actually have parking spots we just make do with on street parking and there's still plenty of space I urge you all to repeal these unnecessary minimums we as a society really need to think about the world that we create around us personally I want to live in a world with dense easy to access business districts available to everyone and not just those of us with the wealth to buy and maintain a motor vehicle we should not be making human hostile spaces mandated by law I honestly already thought that the city had gotten rid of these mandates and so I'm really glad that y'all are getting around to getting rid of these regressive laws and modernizing things and thinking forward to the people who are going to have to inherit this planet thank Youk you evening council members for the record my name is Perry esri I'm representing the wam County Association of Realtors tonight um our address is 3323 Northwest Avenue here in Bellingham I'm here tonight to speak in favor of removing the parking requirements urging you to vote Yes on the ordinance that's in in front of you I did want to address one thing in particular though and that's the affordability argument I really thank the prior speaker that went through and reminded as all of the severe impacts that housing insecurity has on our community those cannot be denied but what's
in the balance of that is the actual fact that construction of housing that we all know this community needs desperately needs is suffering when you look at your um permitting activity and I'm very anxious to talk to director lion about this it's declining in 2023 you had 360 some multif family units scheduled to be or permitted and we know that those units as they are coming online I get a lot of this information from the the um property managers and landlords rents have stabilized some of them are even starting to make concessions you know you start seeing first and last month free those types of things but in 2022 or 2023 you only permitted 200 and something units and last year he only pred 126 multi family units now we know from our comp plan discussions you need almost 800 and some units a year and 60% of those to be affordable at 80% Ami so I'm telling you you're going the wrong direction when you're looking tonight and voting on this remember that this is just a tool it's not the answer to your affordability requirements it's not the answer to all your housing problems but it's a tool it's a tool we desperately need and you can't take that tool on one hand and give it and simultaneously require another barrier on the other hand that only adds to your cost so please move forward with the ordinance tonight and uh vote yes thank you thank you Perry all right after uh Scott we have oi tacy David stalheim uh Steve is it zeni and Kean Flint hi my name is Scott Pelton and
I've lived in Bellingham for 28 years I'm here to speak in support of a vote to remove parking minimums uh tonight we're not just debating parking we're deciding whether Bellingham Embraces the future or clings to policies that no longer serve us let's remember that the decision before you tonight is grounded in alignment a yes vote on tonight aligns with mayor Lund's executive order City staff recommendations independent research commissioned by the council itself Decades of overwhelming empirical evidence of success stories from cities across the United States and council's own vote in December parking minimums are the zoning equivalent of requiring every home to have a horse stable policies rooted in outdated assumptions by eliminating these mandates we have a thoughtful forward-looking forward-looking step toward addressing bellingham's housing crisis throughout these deliberations we have often heard that the true answer to this issue is complex but is it truly complex Decades of evidence say otherwise and again the city city of bellingham's own research commissioned by this Council concluded what has been clear for years yes parking reform is a tool to improve affordability that's it that's what we've been debating and the vote tonight is not complex the argument for keeping parking minimums rests on a foundation of convoluted logic that denies not just basic economics but also the overwhelming evidence from numerous studies and real world outcomes complexity in this
case is not a barrier it's an it's an excuse to avoid action the evidence tells a clear story removing parking minimums is more than a minor policy adjustment it's a practical shift toward a housing system that prioritizes people over outdated requirements by eliminating these mandates and focusing on investment in multimodal transportation in the neighborhoods that need the most we create a city that provides options for families workers and indiv indviduals across all income levels this is the council's opportunity to lead with evidence and vision the decision to remove parking minimums is a vote for growth affordability in the kind of City we can all be proud to call home thanks Scott evening council members Ali taii thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight uh I provided a detailed written comment which I hope you read I'm here to speak in support of the ordinance tonight um I'd like to commend the mayor and City staff and Council for moving this forward now and not waiting any longer uh as council member liist said at the last meeting on this topic we should not be sacrificing the good for the perfect and um there's surely a lot of good in this ordinance it will come from this Mr lion referred to the positive results that we see consistently with these types of changes uh Nationwide uh at its heart this uh ordinance is really about housing the city's own data makes it indisputably clear we are not building enough housing in our community not only not enough
affordable housing but not enough market rate housing as well uh Mr esar just spoke to that the numbers are staggeringly bad um a vote for this ordinance is a vote for more housing and a vote against this ordinance is a vote for Less housing it's that simple I know this because I participate in the design permitting and construction of housing in Bellingham for a living literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of units a year my office permits adus since single family homes missing Middle Town houses small apartments large Apartments every kind for every kind of developer and I will tell you developers are not a monolith a greedy monolith they are your neighbors they are homeowners they are small business owners they are people providing living we jobs in our community they are not a monolith and they are all suffering because of this um and I will tell you that overwhelmingly parking is a barrier for all of these projects to achieving zoned density overwhelmingly and I see it day in and day out um not only is this a vote for housing it is a vote for sustainability it is a vote for climate action it is a vote for urbanization and against urban sprawl and that means it is a vote for farms and for forests because we'll put more people in our city because of this it is a vote for multimodal transportation which is something that we collectively are spending an immense amount of public dollars on annually building bike lanes and supporting the WTA and other organizations and
it is a vote for vibrant walkable neighborhoods that's all of those things this is a vote for it's also a vote for Action which is the most exciting thing for me we've been talking about this for a really long time the data is indisputable as you've heard from a number of speakers so let's be bold let's take a chance on something Progressive something that could move the needle on housing Supply and as a result positively impact housing cost the environment and our community as a whole so please vote Yes tonight I do not think you will regret it thank you David Steve or is it Ken or Cayenne sure thanks thank you good evening mayor lend council member and community members my name is cayenne flint and I am here to ensure that the voice of the disability Community is heard as it has often not been throughout history up until about the 70s we were often not even allowed in the community and up until 1990 where per the Americans with Disabilities Act we weren't even allowed to ride public transportation so I am here to ensure that we are a part of the community and our voice are heard yes I am only one disabled individual and yes we've already heard that uh disabled individuals have different opinions so I am here to share also that anyone can become a part of the disabled community at any time that goes for anyone here and so I want to share that ensuring accessibility for the disabled Community is ensuring accessibility and equity for for everyone currently what is proposed
with parking minimums is not safe and certainly not Equitable for the entire disabled Community per the NIH well National Institute of Health and the Bureau of Transportation statistics uh about 2third of the disabled Community drives every single day and the 1/3 about half of those so about one six of people don't drive because they're physically not able to drive and then about 34s of disabled people throughout the US who have access to public transportation do not use public transportation per public transportation not being accessible to them and this could be because there are no sidewalks which is super common here in Bellingham there are communities including my neighborhood that do not have sidewalks and so as someone who's a wheelchair user and also low vision sidewalks are super necessary for my safety and every other person's safety when walking on the roads to get to the bus stop to use public transportation also riding a bike could be considered luxury I do not have that option about 12% of the US population is has a Mobility disability and about 2% of the population has blindness or low vision and that also eliminates them from the ability to ride a bike so that's about 14% of disabled people or 14% of the population that does not have even the choice of riding a bike and per no sidewalks no riding bikes and about 2third of disabled people driving every day removing working minimums will ostracize and discriminate against many disabled individuals so I encourage
you to please consider the disabled Community when making your vote making your vote but also thank you your time as okay thank you thank you Ken thank you David stalheim uh I'm here tonight representing the Wacom environmental Council and thanks for the time to uh talk about this um Wacom environmental Council was formed this last year uh in the fall where 10 board members uh were retired um first got together to drink beer and talk about uh local politics and environmental issues and decided that we had enough to offer that we should actually get uh formal and and create a nonprofit and and start getting uh as some people people say making some good trouble out here in the community so that's what we're up to uh we have 10 board members uh includes uh retired planners uh lawyers elected officials uh business owners uh different folks that bring a lot of perspective uh to the community and I want to make sure that uh there's been uh they've been tapping me for doing a lot of the writing uh because my background is a a retired planning director uh but I want to make sure that you understand that everything that we do goes through the board uh and it's a board decision uh so when we take policy positions we go to the board uh for that position and then we have a policy committee uh and if any of you uh know some of the folks that are involved on the policy level on our board uh you know that some are uh uh very attuned to policy issues and are big editors and so getting
anything through actually takes a little time so so our our decisions are not uh uh um come about easily so when we took up this issue we want wanted to uh we wanted to make sure that you know this is really environmental issue and so we really wanted to come to support this and so and I want to make sure that you understand that we support parking reform uh before I retired uh in 2020 I actually wrote uh the ordinance I repealed the entire development code for a major city in the pound area and replaced it including parking reform I can tell you that repealing the ordinance was the easy part kind of like tonight we're repealing ordinance is easy actually writing an ordinance with standards takes time takes Community discussion you have to go through issues to deal with it I just did a good quick comparison of the parking standards of what we did compared to here and this city needs parking reform parking standards are outdated too much parking for multif family no reductions for things like uh affordable housing no reductions when you're adjacent to Transit when you're in uh certain city centers Urban Villages uh all those things that are are beneficial that um should be uh in the standards so there's a different way to get to all the placemaking that director lion talked about by having parking standards and not necessarily just repealing that but what we want to get to um is that uh you know the the issue that got to us is that really is that that doing this approach
doesn't really get us the environmental benefits that we really think that might happen because first off there's no limits on maximum parking someone can come in and build as much parking as they want so any environmental benefits thank you your time is up all right thank you all right Steve is here I don't know uh after Steve we have Barbara plasket Alexander Ross Sierra von Harris and Daniel blemer good evening city council I'm Steve Zas here is the Bellingham resident father and a husband um this proposed parking ordinance uh affects our family uh significantly uh we live on a street without any sidewalks uh there is a proposed development uh in our single family neighborhood for an 18 unit development and uh there's a lot of fear in the neighborhood that this development will be maxed out be very little parking provided will push kids walking to Roosevelt Elementary School out on the street this is not acceptable some people call this a huge step forward I'm guessing that one to two years from now we will see no measurable rent impact from this measure so then my question is what are we doing we're putting families at risk we're abdicating the responsibility of the city to protect their neighborhoods this can be dealt with in different venues fact that this was proposed in December has been discussed at public meetings in December and people are already on vacation is very unhelpful the city takes a very significant thought and pause before this one-year temporary
moratorium on minimum parking spaces goes into place there are better ways of addressing rent there are better ways of addressing homelessness and there is very tenuous evidence that's been provided that the increase in market rate housing is going to have any impact on any of that so using Consultants data is not helpful it's not representative of what public servants do for their communities it's not in the best service of the community so my question is what are we doing moving forward to protect our families because I will tell you what there will be neighborhood associations looking at this and any incident that occurs in their neighborhoods where this development occurs be repercussions right it's just what's going to happen so let's be thoughtful about this because this is not in the long-term interest of the city it's a long-term interest of Developers for sure not the city and not the citizens thank Steve good evening everyone my name is Barbara plaset and I'm here as a private citizen eliminating parking minimums without attaching Workforce housing or affordable housing will cause an equity loss implementing this punishes the handicapped and the elderly and their caregivers not to mention kids people with kids who have are working multiple jobs and you know have to get those kids within the bus lines and get to their multiple jobs during a day the gig workers um if we talk about the typical worker that works downtown most are not able to afford Housing close to
where they work which means that they are going to have to drive in especially if they are working multiple jobs and they are um beyond the bus times the times that the bus will will deliver them back to their homes um this this additional driving makes these people the workers compete with the customers for the small businesses downtown and that also puts an extra cost burden both on the businesses the workers and everyone and the and the customer customers having to drive in circles trying to find parking when they're having to compete that in itself is an environmental negative it's not a positive not to mention that um using the lack of housing as an excuse to push through developer giveaways is a false equivalent when the vacancy rate is firmly based in market rate housing and not at any housing that is below market rate any housing that we have that is below maret rate that is in uh 3% or more vacancy rate they're they're not having problems leasing out anything that's below market rate they're having problems leasing out the market rate housing and this doesn't help us get the housing at the 80% of Ami that we need I would like you to consider the two kinds of people that you have that are coming here and talking to you tonight they are divided up between two kinds of people the people that have financial gain from this and the people whose lives will be dramatically affected by this as public servants I remind you that your job is to the residents all of the residents
they need affordable Workforce requirements and as far as the 10 12 and T and 20 tax credit 20-year tax credits that were not working if we added parking minimums as another tool to increase the the viability of of getting um anything that is below market rate we could add that into a toolbox and if we could add more things into one tool box and create more affordable housing we might actually be able to achieve it I urge you to find a half measure somewhere in this also consider what will become of the state e parking requirements hello my name is Sierra Bellingham has to face the realities of the house in crisis we see ourselves in one of the ways is to remove parking minimums the truth is that the land required for everyone to have a parking space is too significant and severely restricts the ability to build build more affordable housing removing parking minimums and allowing for units that have low or no parking will lead to a better Belling him for all of us I do have to say that I worry about street parking as it does decrease um sight lines which make it extremely dangerous for me to cross the street every day to get to the bus stop um as well as for cyclists who lives are in danger when people make right turns without looking and when they open their car doors without checking that there are cyclists um and on top of that um street parking has made it extremely difficult for me to get off the bus as a disabled person who has problems with every single joint in my
body it makes it so the bus cannot get close enough to the curb and I've gotten injured stepping off the bus because of that thank you thank you SAR good evening Council my name is Alex I am with strong towns Bellingham you'll hear a couple other of us tonight I am from downtown Spokane when I was 7 years old I watched as the apartment building across the street from mine was demolished and replaced with a surface parking lot one of many which to this day make up 30% of my hometown's downtown area Spokane has a great city council like I believe this one is too so in 2022 they created the parking to people act a tax incentive for developers in our downtown area to pave over and build over these downtown surface Lots it excited me then as this proposal excites me today however it also included a provision that in order to be eligible for these credits these new constructions had to meet a 25% affordability requirement since then would you like to know how many buildings have been constructed gaining the benefit of this tax incentive none there have been no groundbreakings no new permits no new plans even submitted to the city I came from Spokane to Bellingham from a City without enough housing to one that somehow has even less newcomers like me and my fiance move to this city every single day as new students and newcomers come to this city and our hospitals born every single day and we are not able to have enough housing for them right now we cannot meet that demand and it is
only the surface of the demand for years now Californians have come to our state fleeing an unfathomable housing affordability crisis and it will only get worse for them in light of the fact that many new ones will come to our state this year as the first American homegrown refugees of the climate crisis and the fires down there we need to have enough housing for them and so we need to be taking whatever measures we can as quickly as we can to make it cheaper faster and easier to get new houses in this city I support any and all actions that you take to help this problem those parking spaces they are choking our city now and if you think that the law that you're looking at tonight is good but could be better that's fine pass a good law tonight and then write a better one tomorrow that is in your power I believe it is in your power and I do not want to have to wait even another week of delay on taking actions about our affordability crisis thank you so much I hope you have a great evening thank you Alex all right after Daniel we'll have Robert Clifton uh Cameron Donovan Pete uh Jon and Leah wayer hi my name is Vincent Kelly glad to be here I really like those lights up there I never noticed them before um I have an unusual approach on this I used to own a parking lot in Brooklyn and uh I bought it it was kind of a Tumbl down car dealership multi level and um I put it back together again with my partners and we sold condo eyes the Lots themselves those lots are now selling for
200 to 250,000 the point I'm trying to make with that statement is that there's value in parking and I know um in a perfect world we wouldn't need it but um we do and the idea this gentleman who was just speaking talking about taking an empty lot and then building on top of it with a parking garage I think is a great idea you know there's a guy named Steve Ross nice boy away from Brooklyn married to a woman whose father had a funeral home and when the father went a step his father-in-law when that when he went home Steve would rent out the limousines to kids in proms you know when the father-in-law found out he fired him Steve thought he was on to something so he bought his own limousine and he found an empty lot that he uh paved over and that's where he would park the car and that business grew and people started asking can I Park here he ended up being it was called Kenny systems it was the second biggest landown owner in New York City behind the Catholic church that's a remarkable accomplishment this one guy with one car and one idea parlay that into the ownership of Time Warner this is a smart guy and it it's I'm I'm not talking about Steve Ross and I'm not talking about smart or not smart I'm talking about value that is necessary I mean I drove here in a car um I walk every day um but most of the people I know don't have time to commute by bike you know and I'm retired and I understand that there are people who are retired who um are Avid bike riders and I think that's
great but you know if you've trying to get kids to school and you're trying to get to work and that's um that's the car's territory my wife worked at WTA I'm a big fan of um public transportation you know when I was a kid we would ride the subway starting from the age of about seven or eight I could go anywhere go to city island I could go to Coney Island and it cost me 15 cents and that's a tremendous thing but we don't have that here know we have one road basically and we need to be able to accommodate everybody's needs my other problem is you look at the weather map you've got a nice green circle in the northwest that's us they're coming lots of people are coming thanks V it good evening all my name is Dan blemker I am a resident of the Birchwood neighborhood and I'm hoping this is the last time I have to speak on parking mandates I wanted to address some concerns I've heard from community members as well as council members regarding this change first does this change prevent people from building parking it does not it simply says the home or business owner can decide themselves if they want to build any and how much does this mean if I rent somewhere I won't have parking that hasn't changed if you need parking I recommend renting a place that has parking if you don't need parking rent a place without parking as it will probably be cheaper uh the big one that I have heard notably from Council and members of the audience tonight is that they been concerned that removing
these mandates will remove a tool they have to get affordable units out of out of home builders basically exchanging unneeded parking for deed restricted affordable units this is true in a vacuum projects that are less are less likely to go through some form of design review as there's no arbitrary parking requirement that they need removed for project viability however home builders aren't surprised that every time they want a parking variance that they need to do some back room dealing in order to get approval they simply Target higher rent projects knowing that they'd have to lose some money on the deed restricted units there's a whole body of research that when home builders are faced with these kinds of decisions they have to Target even higher cost units to cover those added costs uh by adding what would be an unnecessary cost we forced them to abandon other housing projects that could have added to the housing Supply research out of UC Berkeley on the city of La and its mandates on both parking and inclusionary Zoning found that every deed restri red unit comes at the cost of three to five other housing units that do not get built create a subset of housing for those that are lucky enough to get Leed restricted affordable housing while the housing market as a whole gets significantly more expensive that is what we have seen over the last 20 years uncertainty is not cheap with construction loans going through design review processes loans cost around 20% interest for a
construction loan this reform provides the certainty for Builders to see what's going to pencil out and lets them them get creative with parcel sizes and geometries and admittedly lastly some people especially after hearing that last poll were say this is a giveaway to developers and yeah developers are definitely going to benefit from this a local Bellingham business with local Bellingham employees paying local Bellingham taxes building homes for local Belling hamans will definitely benefit and if that sounds bad to you then there is one business group that won't benefit from reducing barriers to more local housing Supply local Bellingham landlord I thank you for this work and I hope you commit to make it permanent soon otherwise I will be back again speaking on parking mandates thank you Dan good evening uh my name is Robert Clifton I live in State Side Apartments and I'm here with the Bellingham strong towns to ask for the removal of parking mandates Citywide these mandates are damaging housing production throughout the city leading to higher rents and more Belling hamans becoming homeless just recently the council's delay on removing them directly led to the removal of 50 units from the plan development on samish way these units represent 50 families 50 Futures 50 hopeful possibilities that won't happen and it's a tragedy that we prioritize pavement over them with sweeps of homeless encampments happening more often the city must do more to care for these people pushing
them away does nothing but harm eliminating parking mandates will remove a huge barrier to building affordable housing which is a great step to ameliorating this situation I want to live in a city that cares for all its citizens there is more to do but this is something we can do now do not wait you have the evidence you need please vote Yes to remove these mandates Citywide thank you for your time thank you Robert thank you to Mayor lond the council and the staff for this opportunity to speak my name is Cameron and I would like to voice my support for the city-wide elimination of costly parking mandates to that end please enjoy this brief allegory about French fries suppose in another reality the city of Bellingham had required Boomer Drive-In to serve free French fries with every cheeseburger many citizens would rejoice it would be a political slam dunk however the citizens We Know Better off for one Boomer would Boomers would have to raise the price of the cheeseburger to cover the expense of the fries so anyone who does not want french fries would be wasting food and money other people like french fries but should not eat them for health reasons these people would have to resist the temptation of free French fries put in front of them every time they order food lastly the people who do love french fries are no better off because not only are they paying for their french fries with the raised price of the cheeseburger but they have to pay the marginal cost of all these
french fries being served to people who don't even want them aring mandates are no different if you want to walk you have to walk further to get past all the parking lots if you can afford to drive you might choose not you might choose to even if you don't have to because the parking will be free anyways and if you have to drive you're now stuck in traffic with a bunch of Walkers who switch to driving because of the costly parking mandates both situations are absurd but we have an opportunity to escape one of them tonight thank you you Cameron good evening uh Council and mayor lond I'm Pete Dawson local Builder and developer and um by the way had a heck of a time finding a parking spot tonight I don't walk several blocks but uh but I tell you um here in support of the ordinance to eliminate parking mandates uh the potential upside of housing for our community far outweighs any downside of uh parking shortages in some locations um I'm also reminding folks that it takes 3 to 5 years to get a project through um the planning design permitting and construction so the decisions that are being made today won't really take full effect for three to five years and with car sharing coming on auton autonomous vehicles ride sharing you know all these things are going to change our world and um the uh you know why restrict housing units now for parking spaces that hopefully won't be needed or um even very important in the future um so fully in support of uh removing the parking mandates
also wanted to speak to the affordability requirements um unfortunately I don't believe it'll work to uh tip the scale for more housing if we take out one obstacle if we take remove the parking obstacle and then add one back in the affordability um requirements um the 12-year multif family tax exemption I think uh speaks to that or proves that and affordable housing is really a specialty and it's a specialty Well Done by like Bellingham Housing Authority um opportunity Council Mercy Housing Catholic community services these people are very good at affordable housing private developers are not good at affordable housing and I you know really suggest the the long-term solution is to increase the supply of housing for everyone and that will increase the affordability for everyone so uh encourage Council to remove this one obstacle for more housing and uh truly appreciate all your work and all your time here thank you thank you thank you thank you for providing public comment it's super exciting to be a part of the democra democratic process and also I've learned so much from everyone I feel like I'm the last speaker but I've learned so much from everyone who's spoken before me and I think that's kind of the value of public Comet uh and so a fact that I'm going to change sort of my first statement which is I I now support some sort of reform in parking um I was going to support removing minimum parking requirements but hearing from folks today and hearing from individuals from
the disability community and from caregivers populations that we tend to uh forget and when we're making policy I will definitely say I think parking reform is a great tool like everyone has said and that perhaps how this ordinance is written right now is not the approach we want to go with to meet the needs of everyone in our community um that being said I an entire generation of folks of millennials like me who were entering the workforce who were entering the housing market Really Got Served um a bad deal I would say um by the housing bubble and the recession of the early 2000s and I know it's been a while but I just kind of want to bring that back to our memory um for me I think we learned a lot from that experience but I think one thing that we did learn is that real estate development and real estate speculation is really interested in profit um and I I don't begrudge them that they're a for-profit entity they should be looking for that but on checked sort of development and expansion and speculation um really does a disservice to the population in the entire Community um I think it's really naive of us to think that the market will will solve this problem for us um I think it's naive of us to think that those who seek to financially gain from the change will actually turn around and serve the community without some sort of contractual requirement to do so so I have to ask this ordinance as written what value are we getting from it really tangible value um and I mean so
many people have mentioned this already but how does this respond to the need for middle income housing as it's been identified in our comp plan so we're making an investment in our community by making this change and what guarantee do you have to us that we will get return on that investment I am for sure for development in the city in which I live in which I own a home in which I raise a family I think that we don't need to attract development to Bellingham we don't need to ask people to come to invest in this city people come from around the country as folks have spoken to to people come from around the state have spokes have spoken to because this is a desirable place to live thank you so much and happy New Year that concludes our sign up okay thinkk you with that we will close the public hearing uh Council oh yes and I we will have our our final vote on this at the uh at the end of our our regular meeting you'll you'll have to SL sit through a little bit more City business before then but um any questions or discussion from Council at this point okay moving on then next up we have the mayor's report the mayor is virtual today so I'll turn it over to her great can everyone hear he me okay we can hear you yes uh well it's incredibly hard not to be in the room tonight um especially when there's so many people who turned out from the community to share their thoughts on a topic that is personally important to me and staff so um I wish I was in the room I'm here in City Hall
but um getting over a bug and for the well-being of those that would have to be in close proximity to me uh I am uh keeping everyone safe by being uh in another room tonight so for mayor's report I have several uh appointments both for information and approval and the first one is that I'll be appointing Stella keading as the WW representative to the mayor's neighborhood advisory commission the second for information is an appointment to the Bellingham wam County Commission on sexual and domestic violence and that is that I'll be reappointing Annie Taylor to a first full term and Beth Boyd to a second term for council's approval tonight I'd like to ask that Mark asbenson be appointed to his first term to the Bellingham watom Public facilities District of approval second a motion by council member Anderson and a second by council member lillquist any further discussion all in favor say I I any opposed that passes 70 thank you uh next for council's approval I'm seeking to appoint Sharon delami to a first term to the Bellingham Public Library Board of Trustees move approval second a motion by council member Anders in a second by council member Williams any further discussion seeing none all in favor say I I any opposed or extensions that passes 70 thank you and lastly for your approval is I'm seeking to appoint Robert Wright to a first partial term to the design review board move approval second motion by council member Anderson second by council member Williams any further
discussion seeing none all in favor say I I any oppose or abstentions abstentions that passes 70 uh next moving on today marks the opening of the 2025 Washington State legislative session and making progress on community priorities often means seeking resources and policy tools at the state level and to better achieve this end the mayor's office especially through the deputy Keller's efforts led many months of work in tandem with other City staff and alongside council members Huffman Hamill and stone and together alongside all of council we are eager to advocate for the policy Direction and the funding that benefits our community and closes essential gaps and last week we presented to the Bellingham city council our 2025 legislative agenda that establishes key priorities we will be pursuing and monitoring during the 25th legislative session and I just wanted to take a moment to say that I'm incredibly proud of this team effort it's one of the promises I made to the community when I sought this office and it feels really good to see this hard work underway right now there will be information posted on the city website about our priorities and what we're monitoring and we look forward to providing everyone regular session updates in the months ahead I want want to thank everybody both staff um and the community um for their patience and they went through the new security screening tonight we have a number of new initiatives underway to foster a safe and welcoming City Hall
including tonight's new screening measures and security screenings are becoming more common everywhere we go we are taking this step with the intention that everyone attending Council meetings will have an added sense of safety and be able to better participate fully knowing that the security measures are in place we shared details about security screening during the committee of the whole discussion this afternoon so anyone who is interested I urge them to please watch the recording to learn more about these plans and where we're moving forward in the future we will be piloting and evaluating these measures and we will be adjusting based on what is learned throughout the process and lastly I wanted to share that there are many ways to celebrate the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King this month every January the city comes together with others to plan a day of reflection and service to honor the legacy of Dr King please join us at 10: a.m.
this Saturday January 18th at Bellingham High School for a free community event it will include a breakfast a pan presentation performances local and Community vendors art food and more and starting at noon you can participate in one of the many community service projects including our city-led annual volunteer work party you can find all the details plus links to more community events on the city's website and that's the end of mayor's report tonight thank you all thank you mayor so glad you could join us all right and next up we have have committee report out um not too long till we get to that big vote so uh we start with Public Works natural resources and that was chaired by council member Stone thank you very much president husman um so this morning the public works and natural resources committee met I was joined by council members Anderson and cotton on that committee we had three items before us the first of which was agenda bill 24392 regarding the aquatic invasive species program and revised permit fees the city of Bellingham operates an aquatic invasive species known as AIS program on behalf of the Lake watom management program the program requires that all vessels operating on Lake WAM and Lake samish have an inspection and current AIS program permit under ordinances adopted by the city of Bellingham and watom County the Bellingham Municipal Code authorizes the Public Works director to establish AIS permit and decontamination fees for all classes of watercraft the
cost structure of these permits has not been revised in six years yet the costs associated with running the program are increasing Additionally the level of risk from new aquatic invasive species has increased due to the detection of quag muscles on the mid Snake River which drains into the Columbia River system in here in Washington state so a revised permit fee structure is being implemented to help address increases in program costs and the level of risk um this morning we heard from in on Public Works co-director Joel fun also joined by Renee Lor assistant director for natural resources um and Michael perlin who's the natural resources field manager for this project um just noting that the Columbia River um River Basin and the detection of quag muscles has created a significant risk and increased that significant risk to us here at home so on Lake watcom um thinking about the watercraft and sort of three different tiers that go under inspection the first being vessels from here in watcom County the second tier being vessels um somewhere here in Washington state and then the third tier vessels that are visiting are um Lake guac from outside of Washington and acknowledging that in addition to the geographic risk um as well as the vessel complexity so think about vessels and whether they are closed hall or have a build with potential standing water and others um can significantly impact the amount of time required for inspection so that being to clean you know drain and
dried um those vessels as well as any decontamination that may be required prior to entering the lake so the free structure that has been proposed wanting to note that that has gone before the RAB the Water Resources Advisory Board here in Bellingham as well discussion and consideration happened before the committee today um and in addition this recommendation um will be in tandem with a proposed change um so here with the city's aisv structure but also a change to watcom County's uniform um un to the watcom county um unified fee structure so that will be considered by watcom County as well and then upon consideration um and Passage would go into effect here does not require a vote from Council um directly because as mentioned previously the code allows for the director um of Public Works to implement that change um that change uniformally so the details about those increases and the um cost related to annual passes as well as day passes and the different tiers can be um reviewed in the packet or through watching the presentation this afternoon so that was for information only also wanting to note that a couple of other items coming forward that are related to protection of the lake has to do with um consideration of boat trailer parking fees well which will be coming forward um potentially at the end of the year as well as looking at automated Gates that would help protect the entry points into Lake watcom um so those automated Gates would be closed so for instance at blell
Donovan right so when the um when Park well when the inspectors are not present the gates would be closed but inspection would still be possible during park hours so that's from dawn to dusk um but those Gates would be monitored um and if a remote inspection and Confirmation was not able to be completed then an inspector could be dispatched to the location to meet with the boat owner um prior to entry into the lake so looking at that for you know all the entry points on Lake watom again to help um manage the risk presented um by potentially invasive species um into our Watershed so again that was for information and discussion only there was no action required the the second item before the Public Works committee this morning was agenda bill 24393 so this is regarding RG Haley site cleanup and the model toxics Control Act known as mcka remedial action Grant acceptance so the city's been awarded a department of ecology um model toxics Control Act mocka remedial action grant for the RG Haley site Cleanup in the amount of 11,622 185 project components include Upland capping Nearshore capping and armoring with a soil cap inwater soil capping and Eel Grass mitigation at this site the remedial action Grant funds are administered by the Washington State Department of ecology and are a 50% match of eligible costs and so the total eligible costs are 23,24 4,170 the city will construct phase one of Salish Landing Park in conjunction with the cleanup so at this time just wanting to note
that the remedial action Grant and the environmental remediation fund 136 um would house those funds being received um as part of the MAA remedial action Grant but noting that with the cost increase for this project over time the total eligible cost that was noted at 23,24 4,170 leaves a gap between what the actual cost will be for this project at this time um and so looking at that Gap the um city has also subsequently applied for a $3 million Grant application to try and cover that shortage in fees um or costs and that would be um considered for the 2025 to 2027 um years which might think is out in the future but it's estimated that this project and the completion of all stages of the project at the RG Haley site will take approximately 3 years um so after review by the department of ecology this project would go out to bid we're expecting in about approximately April of this year so at this time the item was before the committee this morning to move to authorize the mayor to enter into the remedial action Grant and I so move second got a motion by the chair and a second by council member cotton any further discussion seeing none all in favor say I I I any opposed extensions passes 70 good thank you very much then the um third and final item before the committee was agenda bill 24394 so this is an inter agency agreement between the city of Bellingham and noac Indian tribe to fund preliminary design of high priority fish passage projects the noac Indian tribe is providing
$300,000 of National Oceanic and atmospheric agency grant funding to the city of Bellingham the grant funding will be used to complete preliminary design of high priority city-owned fish passage barrier removal projects this preliminary design project Builds on prior fish barrier inventory and prioritization work and is consistent with the voluntary fish barrier CT remediation project memorandum of agreement the total cost of preliminary design is expected to be approximately $390,000 therefore the city plans to contribute $90,000 in order to fully fund the project so again that would take into account um the NOA restoring tribal priority fish Passage through barrier removal program Grant provided Again by the noac Indian tribe in addition to storm and surface um Water Utility Fund to cover that $90,000 um shortcoming shortfall to ensure that the project could be completed so wanting to acknowledge that um just the partnership and collaboration with the nuac Indian tribe the ability to move this work forward here in our community um this morning there was a motion to move to approve the inter agency agreement and I so move second motion by the chair and a second by council member lillquist any further discussion seeing none all in favor say I I any opposed or abstentions passes 70 great thank you very much um with that that was end of committee and I'll turn it back to you president Huffman thank you council member Stone and up next we had public health safety Justice and
equity and that was chaired by council member Hamill thank you council president um I was shined this afternoon by council members Williams and liquis we had one item uh for presentation and this was a a presentation on Mobile Medical units so the swam Indian tribe opened the dich Wellness Center in 2017 to serve as an opioid Treatment Center serving both tribal members and the surrounding Community the center provides wraparound care for their clients and is now considered a national model for addiction treatment in February of 2024 uh sunish Tribal Council leaders approached elected leaders in wam County and offered to develop satellite treatment services including two Mobile Medical units through conversations with leaders from the tribe wam County in the city of Bellingham a location at 2028 Division Street in Bellingham was elected and plans for op uh operations have been developed mura Christensen who's the lead for the wam County Health and Community Services response division um brief the council this afternoon on these plans and timeline so I just want to be really clear with the Comm the community that this is a huge investment that that tribe is making in Bellingham and wam County these Mobile Medical units are 34t long RV that have been converted into um dispensing um vehicles that can treat between the two of them up to 400 patients per day so this is a significant investment right now the treatment capacity in in Bellingham uh from a private provider is in the
300s uh and my understanding is that they're not taking any new patients um 70% of the the patients from d gual e are not tribal members so the tribe um Works through multiple counties in Northwest Washington and provides um patient forward wraparound services not not just opiate use disorder but also U Medical Dental um Na AA um counseling child care so like a kind of a really wraparound response and that's what they're going to be bringing up to to Bellingham my understanding is that the lease um the County Council meets tomorrow and if they approve the lease then um operations could probably start within about a month or so out at uh Division Street um D or uh Eric ostergard who's one of their counselors joined us and then Dr Bryce's parent uh also joined us virtually and I just wanted to point out that um both Eric and and Bryce have been at um there were two opiate Summits here one was was at lumination about a year ago and then one was at the high school um shortly thereafter and they they were on panel discussions and have been very active in trying to um help treat people that are that are suffering suffering from uh opiate use disorder so um this afternoon this was a presentation only and uh no um action was required uh end of committee report thank you council member hell and then next up we had committee the whole that was chair by myself oh can I sorry cos Anderson just pointed out something that's very important there there's a no cost to um to Bellingham or
Walkin County the tribe is providing these two units and 25 FTE um probably at a value of a couple million dollars per year so I think it's just an incredible gift thanks for Council Mar Anderson for pointing that out sorry about that it's a good point all right next up Committee of the whole chair by myself and we had uh five agenda items first up was the agenda bill 24396 it's an interlocal jail facility use agreement for Correctional Services between watom County and the City of Bellingham this agreement is a 2-year interlocal agreement for Correctional Facilities use which is maintained and operated by watcom County just the re-upping of the contract that we have with the jail um not a lot to report so there was a recommended by the full Council uh to approve and ISO move second motion by the chair second by council member Williams any further discussion seeing none all in favor say I I any opposed or extensions that passes 70 and then up next are two agenda items that I'm going to have to recuse myself for because of a potential conflict of interest because I own a business that has a streetery uh and so I will hand it over to council president proam Williams to take it from here you'll have to excuse me for standing up for a moment I have to raise a chair so the desk doesn't hit me in the chin okay uh the first item on our oh actually the second item on our agenda is agenda Bill two 24397 which was addressing an ordinance regarding the temporary right of use permits
amending uh Bellingham Municipal Code uh 13.14 and the uh basically this code addresses the The Streeter that we see on the the in the um downtown area and they are structures within within on street parking areas that provide an outdoor dining space for restaurants um and an ongoing goinging assessment of the city's adopted streetery program resulted in several recommendations for administrative policy and code changes to improve the the programs fairness safety and function functionality um the proposed ordinance would amend Bellingham municipal code 13.14 to define the term streetery and establish an annual use fee as well as imposing a leasehold excise tax for uses of 30 or more continuous days in accordance with Washington state law affected uses include but are not limited to Street Aries and sidewalk cafes after a brief presentation made by Darby gallagan um and Matt stamps from our legal uh Department um the committee voted to pass the ordinance and I so move second it's been moved and seconded by uh council member Hamill to adopt this uh ordinance so all in favor say I I all opposed motion has carried the the second issue on our agenda is is the adoption of a resolution to adopt the ri the revised fee uh schedule for the temporary RightWay permits that that we just spoke to under chapter 13 uh 14 of the Bellingham Municipal Code if adopted this would then amend the fee schedule for temporary right of right of way permits to set the amount of the newly adopted annual
use fee for uses of 30 or more continual days the revised fee schedule also adopt a adopts a tiered administration fee structure to better align the fees with the market rates um it was moved and seconded to recommend passage and I so move okay moved by the chair and seconded by council member Hamill so all in favor uh say I I I all oppos the motion has carried and now we will turn turn it back over to uh president Huffman when she comes back thank you council member Williams for sitting in for me on those two okay next up we have agenda bill 24399 it's a resolution requesting the United States Congress and the president passed and sign legislation creating a national infrastructure Bank City infrastructure is critical to the health saf safety prosperity and prosperity of Bellingham community members maintaining and improving in infrastructure is costly and the city must seek financing for major projects the creation of a natural National infrastructure bank would provide long-term financing for infrastructure and affordable housing projects with no increase to national debt access to funding through a national infrastru infrastructure Bank could allow the city to have a greater climate impact faster and reap secondary benefits through the regional and State projects Additionally the city could see direct benefit through low interest interest funding for City projects such as Street Wastewater and energy improvements and increased affordable housing um and I'd like to thank
council member Anderson for bringing this to the council is there anything that you would like to add no I'll just be happy if uh DC agrees with us and along with um quite a few States and uh special interest when I say special interest unions uh contractors businesses have been supporting the concept so if it doesn't pass this time I'm sure much like Washington State it'll be brought back again until it does second she assumed I would move that so the motion made by the chair and a second by council member Anderson any further discussion all in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed or extensions passes 70 okay and then we have agenda Bill 24400 uh city council regular screening security city council regular meeting security screening measures uh providing security for everyone I need my glasses checked sorious this providing security screening for evening regular City Council meetings is an important element of creating a safe and welcoming environment for everyone who attends these meetings in person to promote a safe and secure environment at regular Council meetings the city has hired a security services provider to perform weapon screening of members of the public who wish to attend in person City staff provided an overview of the security screening process which uh was in place for the first time tonight uh this new pilot process uh is anticipated to be adjusted over the coming months as we learn what is most effective um a couple additional points there is a web
page that outlines some of the expectations um this is a pilot project so we are learning uh as you saw it took a little bit to get everybody in here tonight and um there will actually one of the the elements that will probably speed that up is a uh standing screener um uh metal detector so people can move through that a little bit more quickly um and you know we we are in a very old building it was not built at a time when there was um the the newer Technologies for security not to mention uh accessibility immobility within this building uh so we are you know we're doing the best that we can with what we've got but we did want to update our practices um to be somewhat in line or at least catching up with the practices that the the county has over their building across the street as well as the Municipal Court um so expect more improvements uh so uh that was for information and discussion only no action was taken um old and new council member list um I have just two kind of public service announcements uh in case you don't know it won County severe weather shelter is open again tonight as it has been recently um if you believe that uh helping out our onh housee neighbors is important please make sure to encourage Watkin County's Health Department to continue to work in this area again it's open tonight I think it's open for the next couple days I was looking for the announcement I can't find it but it's been open recently even though it hasn't hit officially freezing um and I
think that's been a good thing thank you council member liist anything further old and new all right and the final thing is for those of you are interested in Long Range planning for watom County um on Wednesday Thursday January 23rd 3 3 p.m.
in Ferndale the city hall Annex there'll be a countywide meeting of elected officials throughout the county to address a number of issues with regard to long range planning for the entire County so that'll be a notice meeting because several City Council Members attend that meeting potentially a quorum same with other elected officials if you want to know what we're really thinking I suggest you go to that because it's been a very candid uh series of meetings so again that's up in Ferndale City Hall Annex in the afternoon 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
on January 23rd further okay moving on to Executive session uh this afternoon we had uh four agenda items first up was a potential property acquisition with stamps staff provided information on a potential Lake wcom Watershed property acquisition totaling 8.75 Acres with one potential development unit I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to close the real estate trans transaction described in the city's executed purchase and sale agreement with the property owner sand LLC with a purchase price of $500,000 and with closing to occur on or around February 28th 2025 move approval second motion by council member Williams and a second by council member Hamill any further discussion seeing none all in favor say I I any opposed extensions that passes 70 next up uh another potential property acquisition from stamps staff provided information on a potential Lake wcom Watershed property acquisition totaling 7.97 Acres with one potential development unit now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to close the real estate transaction described in the city's executed purchase and sale agreement with the property owners Stephanie and Gregory Co no cor Coran um with purchase price of $57,500 and with a closing to occur honor around February 28th 20125 move approval second motion by council member Williams and a second by council member Anderson member lqu yeah just let the public know we're basically paying assessed value for these properties protector drinking water thank
you uh all in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed or extensions that passes s Z next up we had a labor relations with Sullivan staff provided information on the proposed 2025 to 2026 collective bargaining agreement between the city and the watcom dispatchers Guild I will now entertain a motion to ratify the agreement reached with the following general terms uh duration January 1st 2025 through December 31st 20126 wages and compensation effective January 1st 2025 of 4% Cola effective January 1st 2026 a 3% Cola effective following full ratification Implement longevity premiums for 5 10 15 and 20 years of service in conjunction with implementation of the longevity premiums eliminate the 3% Master dispatcher premium 2% service quality Step at 10 years and 2% service quality Step At 20 years effective following full ratification increased the employer match to deferred compensation to 2% effective following full ratification increased shift differential from 60 cents to 85 cents for the for the swing shift uh and for medical insurance increase the employer contribution to medical insurance by 6% each year move second motion by council member Hamill and a second by council member Williams further discussion all in favor say I I any opposed extensions that passes 70 and finally uh there was a potential litigation matter with chaplain staff provided information on a potential litigation matter for information and discussion no action was taken consent agenda move approval
second motion by council member Alquist and a second by council member Williams further discussion seeing none all in favor say I I I any opposed or extensions passes seven zero okay the big one you sat through it uh final consideration of ordinances agenda ball 24375 an ordinance of the city of Bellingham Washington relating to land use and Zoning adopting interim zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establishing consistent bicycle parking standards Citywide move third and final second motion by council member stone and a second by council member Williams further discussion council member cotton um so I'd like to uh move to amend to reflect the um edits uh provided by director lion and um uh yeah does that cover it Allan no we need to specifically each one and U like you can either do it or I can do it um but each one you need to specifically read out the change I'm happy to happy to give it a try um so the warehouse statements are not uh numbered but if you go through the ordinance and you pass page the first page and go on to the second page there's the third one down from the top which currently reads whereas pursuant to wack 88 the the requested change is to replace that citation with uh RCW 43.
21 c45 so the remaining portion of that would uh read as follows whereas pursuant to RCW 4321 c450 the adoption of this interim zoning ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act known as sepa and future per permanent zoning regulations will be reviewed in accordance with SE rules then we move on to uh page three which makes reference to the Ada parking stall and earlier today it was uh moved to remove the final portion of the sentence in the second paragraph um the portion that's removed is the portion that reads at least one accessible stall shall be installed for all new construction regardless of whether or not parking is provided so the statement will read um section e says Ada parking accessible parking shall be installed for all new construction except for the following one those projects built under the international residential code or two development with six or fewer units in a single building or three use changes or the creation of additional residential units on or for buildings construct Ed before January 31st 2025 whenever parking is provided on site accessible parking shall be provided inord according to the table 116.2 accessible parking spaces of the international building code and unless um as Exempted above and then you move on to um page five of the ordinance and there is a reference to the long-term bike parking standards uh subsection II refers to the standards themselves and there's a
reference in subsection a that currently reads provided uh provided in Rack or lockers that meet standards of subsection and it erroneously cited uh section D and it should read section F 3 C of this section and then below under sub section c It should read covered at least 50% of the required long-term bike parking shall be covered and meet the standards of subsection and again replace the letter d with the letter F so it will read F3 c v cover bike parking of this section those are the changes that are being requested and Ice move motion by council member cotton a second by council member list council member list yeah I want to ask sorry I want to asked by the section uh where the citation to The Wack was changed the citation to the RCW and my question has to do with the fact that it had to do with issues with regard to whether or not a sea review was required for this interim ordinance uh we received some Community feedback that suggested that a sea review was required and couldn't be delayed and I wanted to make sure that staff had a chance to address it I think the RCW change is directly on that point so if you would address that please then I ask Curt Abel who's the city's sea official uh to respond to that so good afternoon or good evening thank you um it's been a long day as you definitely know uh yeah I just wanted to elaborate that there was a incorrect reference there um originally we had carried over an emergency U whereas or the the reference to um the RCW the
whack the emergency um in this case it's it's actually um a relatively new change that has occurred um uh with all these housing rules that's happening at the state level there's been a lot of different changes um part of the state legislature's guidance to the Department of ecology was um to one remove parking as an element of the environment in uh January of 2023 um as well as removing on the sea checklist um how many additional parking spaces or any reference to parking was removed and then as part of House Bill 1110 actually one of the implementing components of that uh was the reference in the RCW 4321 c450 that exempts amendments removing parking for infill in the urban growth areas great and thanks um sorry I know this is a long meeting everybody but um I just want to provide a little context um for the those of you who weren't able to listen to the afternoon session um I brought forward an amendment for consideration to do um two things one would be to increase the number of accessible parking that had to um would be required to be built as a portion of the parking that's provided um I think Council indicated an interest in continuing that conversation as we move forward through the um type 6 um legislative process for permanent code changes um the other piece of that Amendment which um council did indicate support for um was uh clarifying our intent with regards to um the rare development um uh where uh no parking is provided generally right these are ones where the
building takes up the entire portion of its um Block in downtown or Fair Haven and that um requirement as written um just didn't make sense with um you know U the impacts to the requiring a curb cut or um just might be completely infeasible in a lot of cases and so um for the purpose of this interim ordinance um I think that that is uh simpler and also we have our other um on street parking management strategies to make sure we continue to have Equitable access um and so um that's just a little extra context and I think we'll continue that conversation around accessible parking as we move forward for um permanent code changes but um and encourage you all to listen to the afternoon session council member thank you I'm I'm not supporting this I'm well on the record for a lot of reasons why um but if you haven't watch the previous uh meetings um all neighborhoods are not created equal um we're a conglomerate of multiple small towns that became a city and so we do not have the infrastructure in some of our areas to create bikable walkable um neighborhoods and so if you go out to um Happy Valley there's Big Blocks that do not have sidewalks and so if we don't require a larger development to have some off street parking um people will be parking in the swells or you know along the street and that um and we had a gentleman today speak about his area where he lives where you know the children basically walk in the streets because there's not sidewalks for them so I would have liked
things to be a little bit more strategic that in our high Transportation corridors our Urban Villages our downtown Fair Haven Barkley that we could slice that in but it I felt it shouldn't be Citywide and I also was a proponent for some level of affordability um in Oldtown we have a new development that because we did Park a uh we did pass a No Parking mandate um or a no parking option or lower parking that this one development will have somewhere around 30 additional units and you know perhaps bokan wasn't successful because they were looking at 25% of the development but if we were looking at the net increase because of the limited parking being available being somewhere around 30 if we took a small slice like three to five units where the developer was still increasing overall their profit margin but for 10 years we got Workforce housing at 80% that gives the community something back which we most need which is the development of over 15,000 housing units that are below 100% Ami and that is not our nonprofit section so when people talk about um Catholic community services um you know the Bellingham Housing Authority those are all subsidized by your taxes and so we're paying for those or areas of the federal government are paying for those we don't have enough money to generate enough housing for the community that are the Working Poor or the workforce housing so we need these Partnerships to create it and so I saw that there would be an opportunity for us at this point to
create a win-win that development would be able to maximize development of land but we would get something in exchange as part of that toolbox and um I know it's kind of a symbolic vote I'm hoping that my voice and all of the community that has reached out over the last week that they continue to reach out so that over the next year year when we look at creating something permanent some of these ideas can be um baked into that more permanent ordinance I also have concern about the timing um we it was brought up in May to look at direct staff to look at the possibility of no parking there was not a long discussion then it comes back in December and people are right the holidays are here school is out people are busy and without the public comment period the information really wasn't out and now over the last week the people who are realizing this change is getting the information and I just worry about the actual process of making sure that we have good dialogue that is thorough to be informed so that the community wish um so in a way I wish we would have had another month to be able to engage more with the community before this decision is made discussion on the amendment seeing none all in favor say I I I I any opposed no abstentions that passes 601 abstention okay council member liist um I'm passing this out um Miss Anderson you might want to look at it because it addresses one of the concerns you just mentioned it also addresses Steve's concerns you heard this this evening
with regard to his children and ka's concerned uh the young uh woman in a wheelchair it has to do with the fact that it's all well and good to wave parking but what about in places where there are no safe pedestrian infrastructures uh this would be an amendment to the applicability section if there's a second for this motion I would move that we amend the applicability section to read that this section applies to all land uses in all areas of the city that is the parking waiver provided that any proposed development project in a residential area located on Rob butting is street that one is has a continuous pedestrian path such as a sidewalk on at least one side of the street at the time of project completion and two that is uh that is located on a street with available on street parking on both sides of the street at the time of the project completion second I provided a copy of this earlier in the evening to the planning director um I was wondering if you would comment on that before uh we also hear from from the council about whether my idea has any Merit I appreciate the opportunity to comment I do think it uh has Merit and is worthy of consideration um I don't share the same opinion if as you and I'll explain why um one of the critical pieces that we have as part of the uh development criteria that goes along with projects is a requirement for when you get into additional unit to do Street improvements so those opportunities to place sidewalks where sidewalks don't exist
exist when you allow for new residential units to be constructed or new commercial to be constructed and so effectively by prohibiting this where those don't already exist you're incentivizing the units to go in places where it exists and decentivize it in areas where it doesn't and you're not fixing the overall problem I think we have the opportunity to leverage that under our current development standards and require additional sidewalks it does take time it's incremental development I appreciate that I've had discussions with um our public works department about how to prioritize and strategize that overall effort but my concern is that by doing this and only saying we're allowing it where sidewalks exist we're not going to be getting that additional requirement you clarify I say time of project completion which means that any sidewalks put in that are already required by the project in front of their own property would be included in you know assumed to be included and therefore it would not be a barrier how so maybe I'm missing missing something if it's required by the project and they're to build it as a result of that project then why so let's say there's a block and there's five properties and two of them don't have a sidewalk and one of them is being developed and they'll need to put in the sidewalk but there's still still one other lot that doesn't have a sidewalk so you have a lack of contiguous pedestrian infrastructure in a place where you have a lack of
contiguous pum in infrastructure maybe in that place we shouldn't Wave parking requirements just yet unless by time of project completion we can fill in that missing Gap and then the barrier to waving parking minimums would would be gone and and part of to give some context to the discussion that we're having with Public Works is looking at the management of those uh assets across the city and one of the points that came up for point of discussion is to try to minimize that potential for sidewalks to Nowhere or a patchwork quilt that kind of exists there are ways you can approach that very subject and say okay do we have a logical buildout where we have an existing infrastructure in place and connecting it maybe prioritizing safe routes to schools or accessibility to you know public amenties like grocery stores and so on and so forth so you don't necessarily have to require the Improvement directly in front of the project that is being built you can actually require it in key strategic areas and build out the network in a logical way and my concern is that that there's a potential for taking some of that off the table if we don't do this in an appropriate council member Anderson so um could you clarify if I was going to be putting in a building and for a couple of blocks there are no City improvements there's no sidewalk there's no curb um isn't there a pathway that I can petition and get approved that I don't do a full um Improvement in that area because it could be one
considered cost prohibitive or two um it it's not matching everything else like if if I'm in the center of a lot having I remember these discussions during the comp plan it didn't make sense that somebody does a full Street Improvement for just the center of the lot so that they could ask for a variance and often it would have been given in that situation so I think in some ways this is a way of codifying that they would have to put in that sidewalk regardless of whether or not it made sense based on the topography and the buildout of the other surrounding properties adjacent and what I'm proposing and what we're discussing right now is the management of those that public infrastructure in a in a way that we don't currently do it which is okay for example if I have a project uh that has the frontage of we'll just pick a number 100 feet you have a linear uh foot cost associated with those improvements now ideally if it's a Gap missing they have the ability to build it right there in front of that project but if that's not logical because you're get you have a gap in the system maybe what makes more sense for the broader Community is connecting it to I guess again a school so now you can take that requirement to build that linear 100 feet and you can say okay I'm going to take that and build it over here and connect this portion of that segment the question then becomes if there are compon compents of that sidewalk as an example where uh it's more appropriate for the city to
have a public infrastructure project maybe it's uh a bridge going over a creek or something along those lines then they can step in and do those pieces but the opportunity to allow for that to occur and not uh provide a disincentive for building that housing unit is the portion that we're really trying to drive some of those pieces how do we codify that that money is spent in that neighborhood that's impacted and would benefit by that versus we have a project across town where that we know it's shovel ready and it could use the money there's different ways you can pursue it some of which you can address it through um trying to have it within a sub area so that it goes into that particular neighborhood or Geographic defined boundary that you're determining uh others you do it with a a kind of a for lack of a better analogy like a a trading deficit where you're saying okay this particular project is building that component but the most logical place is over here and so you do a a credit and you attribute it back to that um Kurt wants to elaborate a little further too yeah I think maybe just a little bit of clarification or um background on it is currently our code requires development of um like curb gutter sidewalk on many developments so if you're in uh uh the downtown core or any of our Urban Villages any sort of development in those areas requires Street improvements to happen we don't require full you know sidewalks bike Lanes um for those for um lower scaled development
requirements we are considering actually with the um the middle housing bill that we're we're looking at drafting right now we're actually considering bringing forward changes to those codes as well so most of the development that we see on this larger scale already has that requirement to install infrastructure um if the if you've got a a project that's mid block the in some areas the directors of Public Works and planning have the ability to reduce or wave or modify those requirements um and we don't necessarily always want those you know sidewalks to Nowhere right so I I think some of the things that are in our existing code that already require infrastructure improvements some of the things that we're contemplating with the interim ordinance for the infil toolkit and then some of those additional items that director Blake or director lion is is referencing here are all part of that toolkit to make sure that we are getting complete streets to make sure that we are getting appropriate infrastructure throughout our entire city mayor you had your hand up did you still want to speak well I just I'm curious about the level of impacts and how much of our neighborhoods um would be impacted by this uh potential amendment I know in particular my neighborhood which is predominantly single family homes on the south side of Bellingham we have miles and miles of streets with not a sidewalk to be found so this would essentially exempt my neighborhood from being held to this standard and
the idea is is we're trying to equitably increase um the you know the way that we treat neighborhoods I don't want my neighborhood to be privileged and Exempted any longer um I want to move my neighborhood forward and so I have concerns about what this would do you mayor council member cotton I think the thing that worries me most about this amendment is the impact on the more incremental Dental infill right are our granny Flats uh you know duplexes Etc I mean I live on a uh a street uh where there's only one parking on on one side of the street I'm in the lighter streets it's like the perfect neighborhood for infill like I'm it's going to take me a five minute walk home right um and uh I think that the yeah there's some uh serious consequences here for our ability to um meet um our goals that we've articulated is um yeah for for missing mdle and um so I will not be supporting this amendment council member Willams one of the things that I am observing is that and um director Lions correct me if I'm wrong this is an interim ordinance with the underlying idea that that we're going to take the time to evaluate things and and uh and come up with a permanent ordinance that's going to be dealing with this is that correct yes that's that's an accurate statement and everything I have heard from emails to public testimony even among my colleagues tells me that their attitude is once this passes it's going to stay this way for the rest rest of our lives and I don't believe that I
believe that what you what you said initially was inim ordinance we're going to study the issue over the course of a year and figure out a way to come to an agreement on what the permanent ordinance is going to be in sync with our comp plan development and in sync with the state requirements in the process and everything I've heard indicates to me that people see this as this is going to be the permanent answer I think there's two things I'll offer uh in context if you will so you're absolutely right that it's not it's not set in stone there you know um the example that comes to mind is the work that you all did that that the staff did with respect to adus where you know we adopted some regulations there was some concern in the community about how the adus were going to be received uh we put some thresholds in there we've addressed those um we've continued to expand the nature of that and accommodate more of those so these ordinances um as they're being contemplated and as we develop them have that opportunity to go through a refinement process the other part that I think you touched on that I I would want to um also elaborate is that and I tried to allude to it earlier this evening in my presentation is that that there's a that there's a knitting together of this uh these efforts um the mayor's executive order and we won't go through the the details of all of that but not only does it have the three pieces that are um the legislative that we're going to be in front of you
again the parking which is the first the middle housing and the and the design review streamline but there's a substantial number of administrative and executive pieces to that that also support that we heard a little bit about the mfte program tonight the multif family tax exemption um there's a variety of different pieces in there that we are continuing to work on and the overall uh summation of that is that these will be interwoven together and we'll try to of the benefits of those speak to that and it it will work towards some of the existing development regulations as council member Anderson's brought up and all of that stuff works together there will be opportunities to refine it further there's absolutely opportunities to bringing in that public uh context and understand where people's concerns might be helps inform that make a more educated decision uh but we'll continue to work at that that's what I thought council member lqu I'm not about to contradict myself um but you'll think I am one of my criticisms that you may hear later about this overall ordinance is I think we hadn't thought through all the consequences um I'm now uh open to that same criticism to my Amendment um my logic is that if we're going to move away from cars and parking and we want a car-free development then shouldn't we have infrastructure for people to walk if we're not going to require on-site parking shouldn't we check to make sure there's off-site parking and so that's basically the the
logic behind this if we're going to go in this direction for goodness sakes we better make sure that there's places to park on the street and or places to walk and or places to bike that those really need to go together however given some of the examples that the mayor mentioned and and Jace mentioned I can see peculiar cases where this this language would actually have unintended consequences and so um having heard that feedback um although I I of course still believe in my intent and that goal I'm not going to be supporting my own Amendment legislation and action any further discussion council member Anderson and that's why you second so that we can further discussion instead of letting it die all right all in favor say I all oppose no no no extensions that fails spectacularly okay all right further discussion council member list yeah I want to begin by saying that youall know what a vent diagram is right two circles that represent sets and is there an overlap between the people here tonight and the letters we've received uh either uh embracing this ordinance or criticizing it I actually see a very large ven diagram of overlap that most people very much share the idea of moving away from cars they understand the wastefulness and the harmfulness of what we have done with parking requirements they understand the importance of the environment the importance of uh housing availability housing production housing affordability there's a very large overlap here um I'm going to
find myself over in this portion but I'm going to overlap with most of you and most of you are going to overlap with most of us a very large amount and I want to focus on that positive part first and this public discussion has been Lively and welcome and um I'd actually like to have heard more because I learned more tonight you see what I do I think out loud I Chang my mind what I need to and I think there are ways we could have improved this this is an interm ordinance um but the motion to move this forward was made months ago and it sat and was brought forward as an interim action very quickly um I regret the fact that we didn't have time to go through the legislative process in the normal Manner and figure out all these things and work on these details and for me to float my amendments and have them die in committee the regular way which is how it would normally happen um let me be clear parking reform is needed because we've acquired way more than is wise we deated way too much money and way too much land to parking and it's competing against their other values like housing and like the environment and like Open Spaces in nature um so definitely let's reduce Andor eliminate parking requirements uh let's encourage um uh housing production where we want housing production and for that matter all kinds of building production where we want production and let's encourage affordability wherever we can find it let's sweep away this barrier to those needs so I made a motion at
the previous meeting to do exactly that to basically wipe out you saw the map earlier to wipe out parking requirements in most of the city and for all affordable housing um because that's what people talk about that's what they want that's the vend diagram that's the overlap of shared interest um that Amendment failed um and so I can't bring it up again and my concern is that a broad and sweeping approach maybe be good but an cross thee board approach might be a missed opportunity to focus the public benefit where we need it the most and what I mean by that in part is this is a table of our housing needs for the next 20 years it's a draft set of numbers this is what I'm talking when we talk about when I say the meeting on Thursday uh it says over the next 20 years the city of Bellingham needs over 18,000 new housing units but now I want to tell you where we need them okay divide a line down the middle income average median income which is around $54,000 all the households below that we need 13,000 housing units for those folks and only 5,000 for all the rest we're above that okay right now we have over 18,000 households that are below the meting income and are currently cost burdened and we need 13,000 more and I don't want them to be cost burdened too so when you talk generally about housing affordability I'm actually fing very specifically on where in the price uh you know where in the income bands we need it and so my amendments and my focus are working on tools to drive
affordability there what we have with an across the uh a a blanket approach is that we may have more production but we can have more production without necessarily affordability or affordability where we most need it I also am concerned that what if um parking becomes kind of a pay play situation where those who can afford parking and who can afford to rent or buy or own or build buildings with parking and then those who cannot so one of the things we've heard anecdotally there's no strong evidence for it yet but anecdotally in Seattle with been news for a while higher end apartment buildings are all putting in plenty of parking almost as much as they always put in where you're not seeing parking put in is sort of the lower income units so we might get an equity problem in the future where many of us can find and buy and afford parking and others of us cannot and not all of us can work at home from a computer and telecommute to a job in Cincinnati or wherever some of us like the the caregiver have to drive around to do their work I'm worried about the equity impacts of this so again the overlap is great here folks but I'm concerned and I have reservations on these smaller aspects also if you read the stated purpose of this ordinance it is not affordability it's not in the ordinance the purpose of this ordinance is to allow for the better use of limited space available to allow for design choices and to lower the cost for development and increase the number of units being
built those are all good things they're not the same thing as affordability they're not the same thing as affordability where I know we need it the most so by decreasing development decreasing the cost for development and increasing number of units again it's not the same as affordability they're related they're not totally unrelated there will be some benefit but there's no promise that developers will make the units available for anything less than the market price matter of fact when has that ever happened developers do not charge below the market price if they tried someone would just bid the market price and they'd get it anyway so there's no mechanism currently in this across theboard approach that gets us affordability where I need it because of my reservations kind of about this about the process about the inability to work all these things about the inability of myself to satisfy whether or not this is a Miss opportunity that there's ways that we could have directed the benefits of production in a way which more genuinely or more preferentially leveraged affordability where we need it so I think we have an affordability problem which is asymmetrical but we have a production mechanism here which is symmetrical so it will benefit us broadly and I'm not going to say that's a bad thing I'm going to say that's a good thing but it leaves on the table something we didn't address which is the asymmetry of our need so I just would like people to know um and please remember
that we have a very large vend diagram and we're going to get a very large benefit throughout most of the city exactly where we need it all those stories you heard about Urban Villages Barkley Village all the areas you've talked about they're going to get the benefit they would have got the benefit under any proposal that i' I've supported um and the sky will not fall and I will be dissenting from the majority this evening council member Williams everything that I've heard from you over this last period of uh time speaks to what I just brought up this is an interim ordinance and it's going to give us the time to research look at deal with all of these issues over the long run and once again that's what the whole purpose of this project is and everything that you have brought up could be brought up in discussion as we go down the path but does all of that need to go into an interim ordinance for a year I would say no I would say bring up all those things that you just discussed council member Anderson same thing for you as we progress down the path because those are things that perhaps perhaps have some uh Merit to be entered into the final permanent ordinance dealing with this and um and on that note I can move to vote immediately on this you D you need a super majority to close the discussion then I'll I will make that motion to close the discussion and vote we have a it's it's non debated take up or down I had a really good monologue you can still see all these notes okay
so go ahead just for clarification from legal so it requires a super majority so that would be five to close the discussion correct I I would defer uh council member a little request on that that that issue has never come up in my long career with the city under robertt rules of orders newly revised I believe that it's a preemptive motion that does require a super majority vote the reason it's requires super majority is it's seen as curtailing the rights of the members to do their ordinary business which is to speak to a motion because of that extraordinary constraint on members rights it requires the super majority to constrain those rights could we just look to our office manager yeah am I like not even allowed to take questions is this or no I agree with council member list call I think that council member Williams meant to call a question which ceases all discussion okay and requires a two-thirds vote sorry council member Anderson okay all in favor say I I I any oppose no no okay so that does not pass correct keep talking council member cotton then council member Anderson you were almost spared but now you have to know um I just want to Echo council member Alquist and saying that I I really do sense a lot of shared value in the room and I feel strongly in the context of our housing crisis we need to take in all of the above approach to this work and um while it is true that um in the short term um increasing Supply alone does not solve all of our problems it's a necessary
precondition to get to a place of affordability for working families and uh when we see the really profound impacts of um lifting arbitrary outdated parking minimums you know 40% increase in home building this is um a big step forward and will work well in concert with these other reforms that we're thinking about um and uh there are certainly changes I'd like to see to our accessible parking portion of this chapter I think we there opportunities to strengthen our bicycle parking standards and requirements um but I think this represents a big step forward and that's I'll be um looking forward to voting yes I think shortly member Anderson and then I'll go thank you um I want to speak to the previous motion um I hope that motion doesn't ever happen again there are members of council who did not have an opportunity to speak and to make such a motion in a way is a disregard for equal voice of equal council members at this dis to shut down convers about something whether people think it's trivial or important I think is inappropriate um I was done speaking to it I said my piece but we didn't hear from three other council members about why they would vote for it or not vote for it and I think to just call the question of the vote is a way of disproportionate voice of power and I hope to not see that again we're all equal we should all have whatever amount of time we need to say our opinion about what we're going to be voting on I want to hear from other council members and I want
it to be a matter of record and if somebody wants to respond to that I think there's just a courtesy to me it's equal to saying we're done with public comment um I've heard enough I don't want to hear from any more of you I would never do that because everybody's voice in this room should be given an opportunity when there is an ordinance in front of them and they've showed up I don't care if it's one o'clock in the morning and we're still discussing it um everybody should have an opportunity to say their peace before the final vote so please consider if you're feeling exhausted by this um while you're sitting here we're all important to and I want to hear everybody's word and thoughts on this if they care to speak towards it and they might not but sorry if I sound a little upset but um I'm I'm really kind of taken back and surprised to try to silence council's opinion at this St I'll take a go and then uh council member Stone uh so uh really appreciate everybody coming and speaking and sitting through all of this um you know this is a public hearing um but we also have like a third of this packet is is emails and um there's a lot of the same messages within those emails a lot of uh what was said tonight is reflected in those emails as well um but I think that one of the things that really struck me similar to council member Lilo Quist tonight was realizing just how much in common uh all of the speakers really had there was not if I recall I was paying pretty close attention
there was not anybody that said we should not reform parking um I think it's just this little section where we have a little bit of a disagreement about which exact path to take to do this um everybody is clearly concerned about affordability and how to get there so um you know I've said it before on this di but we are in a housing crisis we are not in a parking space crisis and in a time of Crisis it calls for Urgent and drastic measures um there are people suffering and there are people who can't afford their rents that they keep seeing Skyrocket we uh you know we stopped we stopped building in the Great Recession um and that had some really detrimental effects we are not the only city to be experiencing this um we stopped building but the people didn't stop coming and um you know I think it's something like 12 1300 people a year come to Bellingham we can't keep them out nor do we want to keep them out um but that's going to continue and and seeing situations like are happening in is happening in and La uh we are a nice green Place full of lots of water and um and speaking of La I was listening to the radio just before this meeting and it was a story about how rents are already increasing in LA because of the lack of Supply there are lots of people there that need housing and there is not enough housing for everybody and so landlords are already increasing their rents um I think that is just a a snapshot of of how we got here so um we need to catch up we need to catch up
with building we need to we need to then keep up with the people that will be moving here um there there is no keeping people out if we if we even attempt to try to limit the growth um the people the only people that can afford to live here will be the the rich people um and we definitely don't want to see that in our community so um this well I said that that you know a crisis situation calls for Urgent and drastic measures I don't see this as a drastic measure this is this is a reform that has been tested and researched and while we cannot say for sure what effect this is going to have we can have we have some pretty good guesses from uh other cities that have implemented these kinds of reforms as well as as research done by Consultants like Eco Northwest who has done Consulting for us um a very recent study of Colorado it was a a modeling study to see how different housing reforms affect uh production uh when allowing for fully flexible parking it could result in 40 to 70% more homes than if they were to keep current requirements it's very significant um this this is one tool to help us reach those numbers of keeping up uh with the population growth of our city and and again this is one part of a suite of reforms that the mayor has outlined in her executive order this does not stand alone this is certainly not a silver bullet um and when it comes to tying tying removing parking minimums to um affordability I think the the thing there for me is that big question mark of
exactly what effect will that have I don't think that we have the evidence to show that that is going to produce the effect that we are hoping for on the other hand there is quite a bit of evidence to show that blanket removing parking minimum requirements is likely to give us an effect that we're hoping for um and again I think to to council member Williams Point uh we we can change things we can amend um that is what this job is about cons constantly amending things to change with the times and new information and the new challenges that our community faces so is that longer than yours or shorter same all right no was shorter uh with that I'll move to uh council member Stone um thank you president Huffman so just a couple things that I think are have you know been mentioned but maybe in a different different light so thinking about this Ordinance one of the things that appeals to me is the equal application right Citywide and one of the concerns that I have is about equity and I know that that's come up before and some of the proposed amendments and questions about Equity is concerned that um potential you know changes that would not apply this Citywide um and maybe restrict or limit application in certain parts of the city my concern is the reinforcement of systemic right and historical inequities that we've seen that have really you know developed certain neighborhoods to look or function you know certain ways versus versus others and that the level of you know crisis and
need for additional Supply in our community has reached that Tipping Point that really is um EX extrem and and detrimental um across the board and acknowledging as many have said this is one tool that the city can use that will not and should not happen in function in isolation and so a lot of the concerns that have been raised about affordability and infrastructure whether that's sidewalks and bike lanes and Ada accessibility as well as you know public transit and I mean definitely that overarching piece of affordability I think this is the wrong place to try and bake all of those in right this is one tool all of those other um components still need to be addressed I mean that's why we've said this is a yes and to multiple other things that will have to happen as part of our comp plan and our individual plans thinking about um different infrastructure and accessibility pieces and making sure that those pieces as well are done in a thoughtful way that will then be applied right as policy in my opinion should you know Citywide and um strategically and intentionally to accomplish the underlying right goal and so I think as council member list um alluded to right this ordinance is not trying to mask as a solution to our affordability problems um although it will be one lever that we can pull on um to hopefully have you know a a broad um positive impact here in in our community and so just wanting to recognize that the comments that have been submitted in writing as well as here
in person um and that we've continued to you know receive in large numbers um over the matter of you know weeks and I think about back when we had this discussion right as a council back earlier this year right there was dialogue and um comment provided at that time as well I don't um you I mean I think there's always an opportunity for additional right engagement and you could say that that is a marathon that is never complete right um but that's why the decisions we make are living decisions as council member um and council president huthman you know was mentioning these are living decisions that we make and adapt to and amend um you know as as necessary and so although I recognize that it's you know not perfect and that not everyone will be satisfied I think this is an important decision to um to move the work of the of the city forward um looking out for for the entire community so thank you council member Hamil yeah I just wanted to respond to council member um Anderson I feel it's important to add my voice to this um as someone who's worked on housing for uh since 2008 um in particular the Bellingham Home fund and um the affordable housing Levy both of which I was a leader on bringing those forward to this Council well actually different iterations of this council with the exception of uh Council marquist I think it's important to understand that um we do have tools in place here they are not perfect when it comes to providing for affordable housing um the and I think
we need to be really clear on the affordable housing at what level 60% area meting income that would be uh largely through Community uh development housing uh organizations chos um or is it 80% um area median income that would be like culion Community Land Trust um I had our um policy analyst Iris not thank you for looking up some of this data we've got a couple thousand um households that are on um housing vouchers at this point some of it's in the county 80% of it's in the city um and then we also have what's called tbra tenant based rental assistance uh programs those are largely administered through opportunity Council other providers like uh Lydia place and so I think it's important for us to when we talk about affordable housing and would Define it and what exactly are we looking for um I I just simply don't believe that trying to to tie affordability in with this ordinance is something that developers would would move forward with there's no what's the incentive why would they just develop somewhere else not in Bellingham they can go out on the county or to scet or somewhere somewhere else there's no guarantee that by saying you you must have affordable housing unless we unless there was some legislative fix on inclusionary res zoning which we've we've tried and we've talked about um at length and it's just never really gotten much in the way of ground um I think that the 12-year multif family tax exemption model is kind of a good indicator species when it comes to
something that was put out there for incentives um for developers they not a no one picked it up it just it was not there um the the comments that council president made about and I think one of the speakers U mentioned a 40 to 70% increase in and housing production uh when there's relaxation of parking minimums to me it's about volume it's like and I and I've definitely eded my thinking uh on this over the years if you someone brought up I think cons Stone uh during the um during the recession that housing dipped and we we had a slide that uh director lion brought up and it wasn't just during it wasn't a valley that happened just in 2007 or eight it was actually the long tale of the recession that happened for for years and when housing when Supply goes down where do we put the community housing development folks where do we put the people that are making 60% of area median income or 80 for that matter um if there's not a place for folks to go as council president um hman brought up people keep moving here and so we we need to have an adequate Supply and then I think using other tools like tbra like housing vouchers for folks in that like 30 to 60% I think that's got to get expanded and then the the real adom to split is what happens to Workforce families that are you know they're they people that work in the service industry or they're not making they're probably at 80% maybe 100% of area median income that's the one that we really need to address and that's what house bill
1110 can help us get towards and then the advocacy that's happening with several of the members of council up here with our legislative representatives and our and our legislative lobbyist to really work towards broader Solutions in Olympia we are at 105 day session this year which means this is the budget year and so we have opportunities to support housing um bills basically that can can help get us out of this um predicament that we're in I think some things can happen locally but I think the majority of it probably going to happen at a at a state level or even a federal level State I think is what what we have a decent shot at uh so I just wanted to provide you um that uh opportunity to and the and the community as a whole from you know where I sit and what I think is going to work and what I think might be challenging that's really it so thanks okay any further discussion all in favor signify by saying I I oh sorry NOP roll call thank you all right Hannah Stone hi Dan Hamill hi Skip Williams hi Lisa Anderson no Michael lillquist no Jace cotton hi olly Huffman I motion carries 52 thank you okay and with that thank you all for being here uh really appreciate you hanging in there and contributing and listening uh this is a long one so we're not done though um we are going to adjourn the regular meeting and come back for public comment but we're going to take a 10-minute break so get up stretch come back if you would like to speak for public comment or uh listen thank you so