City Council - Committee Of The Whole

Mon, July 27, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Bellingham City Council — Committee of the Whole — July 27, 2026

This was an afternoon committee session covering four substantive items: a ballot-referral resolution, a work session on movable dwelling units (MDUs), a parking reform ordinance, and a council communications work plan. Council Member Hollie Huthman (Ward 2) was absent and excused. The meeting ran long due to extended discussion on the MDU and parking items.

Agenda Item 1: Deferring Initiative 2026-01 (Algorithmic Rent Price-Fixing Ban) to Voters

The council reviewed a resolution to place Initiative 2026-01 — which would prohibit algorithmic price-fixing in the rental housing market — on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The Whatcom County Auditor had verified that petition sponsors gathered a sufficient number of signatures to qualify the measure. Under state law, the council's options were to adopt the initiative outright, refer it to voters as written, or place an amended competing version on the ballot alongside it; because the council could not modify the initiative's language, referring it to voters as drafted was the chosen path.

Council Member Anderson moved approval with one correction: a typo on page 86 ("renal market" instead of "rental market"). Council Member Lilliquist seconded. That amendment passed 6–0 with one excused. The resolution as amended then passed 6–0 with one excused. The final resolution must be submitted to the Auditor's office by August 4, the date of the primary, for inclusion in the November ballot. Deputy City Administrator Janice Keller noted that community members wishing to submit pro or con statements for the voter pamphlet should contact her at City Hall by close of business that day.

Vote (amendment): 6–0, one excused | Vote (resolution as amended): 6–0, one excused

Agenda Item 2: Work Session — Movable Dwelling Units (MDUs) and Proposed Interim Ordinance

Council Member Jace Cotton presented a proposal to allow movable dwelling units — including standard RVs, park-model cottages, and tiny homes on wheels — in all residential zones citywide, not just in the city's ten manufactured home communities where they are currently permitted. Cotton framed MDUs as an unsubsidized, near-term affordable housing tool, noting that high-quality park models can be purchased for roughly $115,000–$200,000 from local builders in Whatcom County. He pointed to Portland, Oregon, as a model where hundreds (likely thousands) of MDUs have been placed on private lots without major code-enforcement problems.

The proposed interim ordinance would allow one MDU per residential lot (up to two on lots over 10,000 square feet), require electrical connections and sewer/water hookups, prohibit short-term rentals, and allow up to four units on nonprofit-controlled lots for lower-acuity housing needs. Cotton acknowledged an interim approach — rather than a full Type 6 permanent code process — could allow faster implementation and a learning period before codification.

Discussion highlights:

Council Member Anderson expressed safety concerns about pre-2000 RVs that may not meet modern fire, egress, or wiring standards, and worried that DIY construction and inadequate inspection capacity could create liability. She preferred a permanent ordinance developed with full staff vetting rather than an interim, and was concerned about adding to an already full staff workload.

Council Member Lilliquist said he was broadly supportive but wanted a work session to explore technical standards (RVIA, ANSI, IRC codes) and feasibility before committing staff resources.

Council Member Hammill raised a potential conflict with the regional fire authority's (RFA) fee formula, which currently has a floor of 2,000 square feet — MDUs at 400 square feet would fall outside that framework.

Planning Director Blake Lion confirmed that planning staff is currently fully committed to state-mandated code updates and the new Unified Development Code through at least mid-2026, and that adding this work would require removing something else from the queue. He also noted the important policy distinction between purpose-built residential MDUs and recreational RVs.

Mayor Kim Lund encouraged council to give clear direction, cautioning against informal side conversations that pull staff into technical details before a formal commitment.

Cotton moved to schedule a Committee of the Whole work session on the topic. Lilliquist seconded.

Vote: 5–1 (Anderson opposed), one excused. The item will return at a future Committee of the Whole work session, with Council President Stone indicating the first order of business at that session should be a frank staff presentation on what would need to be deprioritized to move this forward.

Agenda Item 3: Work Session — Eliminating Minimum Automobile Parking Requirements and Establishing Bicycle Parking Standards (Permanent Ordinance)

This item has been in process for over 18 months. The council previously held a public hearing on July 13, 2026, and the Planning Commission recommended approval at a public hearing on June 4, 2026. The proposed permanent ordinance would eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements citywide and establish consistent bicycle parking standards, replacing an interim parking ordinance first adopted in January 2025.

Mayor Lund opened with context: parking mandates add an estimated 12.5% to statewide rents on average, 59% of Bellingham renter households own one or no car, and current requirements are significant barriers to small business renovation, historic building reuse, and housing production. She showed a stark visual comparison between historic downtown density and car-dominated modern neighborhoods like Barkley Village.

Director Lion summarized state law constraints: Senate Bill 5184 (effective January 2027) sets maximum parking ratios that cities may require — and exempts many uses entirely, including affordable housing, senior housing, ADUs, and most small commercial uses — meaning the council has limited discretion regardless of local action. Commerce's guidance strongly recommends cities eliminate parking minimums entirely.

Key discussion points:

Institutional Master Plans (IMPs): The ordinance would preserve existing parking requirements for Western Washington University, Bellingham Technical College, and PeaceHealth under their current IMPs, updating those requirements only when each IMP is renewed through its own process. Council Member Cotton suggested simply removing the IMP exemption (a three-word change), but the city attorney clarified this would effectively amend all three IMPs without the required Type 6 process or stakeholder engagement. The council ultimately left the IMP exemption in place.

Fair Haven Parking District: Council Member Lilliquist asked about the 1994 Fair Haven Parking District; the city attorney confirmed council can dissolve it through this ordinance, as council reserved that authority when establishing it.

Parking complaints and enforcement: Council Member Anderson raised concerns from Ward 5 residents — particularly in older neighborhoods without driveways, curb cuts, or full sidewalk infrastructure — about blocked gates, mailboxes, and ADA access. Public Works Director Joel Font explained existing enforcement mechanisms (parking enforcement staff during business hours, police non-emergency line after hours, Click-Fix for non-urgent issues) and noted these tools remain unchanged. He also described a forthcoming in-lieu fee program where infill projects could pay into a fund to build sidewalks where they make most sense network-wide, rather than requiring disconnected frontage improvements.

Lilliquist Amendment (failed): Council Member Lilliquist moved to require 0.5 parking spaces per unit (the state law minimum) for any residential project larger than 1,200 square feet located on a street lacking a continuous pedestrian pathway on at least one side *and* lacking available on-street parking capacity within 200 feet — matching the edge cases he felt posed real safety risks. Cotton opposed, saying the amendment was complex, hard to administer, and addressed an issue (McMansions without parking) he did not believe actually existed in practice. Director Lion warned such a provision could be seen as a tool for fighting infill in under-served neighborhoods. The amendment failed 2–4, one excused (Anderson and Lilliquist in favor).

Bicycle parking amendment (passed): Cotton moved to amend the ordinance per Exhibit C — staff-recommended changes including a typographical correction and increased cargo/e-bike parking ratios following Planning and Transportation Commission input. Lilliquist seconded. Passed 6–0, one excused.

Council Member Hammill moved to approve the ordinance (as amended by Exhibit C) for first and second reading. Cotton seconded.

Vote: 5–0–1 (Lilliquist abstained, stating he was still considering his position and would vote at the evening session), one excused.

*Note: This approves the ordinance for first and second reading; third and final reading will occur at a subsequent council meeting.*

Agenda Item 4: Work Session — City Council Communications and Community Engagement 2026 Work Plan

Communications Manager David Braun presented a revised work plan incorporating feedback from the July 13 meeting. Key changes since the last draft included: language in the introduction acknowledging council members' individual board/committee commitments; a new section on recording, live-streaming, and remote participation; refined public comment procedures; and a separation of "listening sessions" (informal, off-site, topic-specific) from "discretionary public hearings" (formal, in chambers) as distinct community engagement tools.

Public comment time limit: The work plan proposed reducing per-speaker public comment time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes, with a hard 30-minute cap and random speaker order when more people sign up than time allows.

Council Member Lilliquist moved to amend the work plan to retain 3 minutes per speaker (yielding roughly 9–10 speakers under the 30-minute cap rather than 15). Anderson seconded. Anderson made an extended and emotional case that reducing time to 2 minutes would effectively silence community members with disabilities — including speech impediments, neurodivergence, and anxiety — who cannot reasonably be expected to self-disclose a disability to request an accommodation, and for whom the 3-minute format already represents a significant personal achievement. Lilliquist agreed, saying he favors quality and quantity of input. Cotton and Williams supported 2 minutes, arguing that people adapt to established rules and that the broader work plan — including listening sessions, block parties, and other engagement formats — provides better avenues for people who struggle with the formal comment format. Council President Stone expressed openness to both views but emphasized that the broader plan was designed to reach people in more accessible settings.

Amendment vote (keep 3 minutes): Failed 2–4, one excured.

The full work plan as presented (with 2-minute comment periods) then passed.

Vote: 6–0, one excused.

New Business: Transportation Safety Presentation Request

Council Member Lilliquist moved to request a future council discussion on transportation safety, specifically regarding bicyclists and pedestrians, covering current and future city programs and policies. Anderson seconded. Both noted a coalition of residents had been pressing the city for faster action on pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, and felt a public staff presentation would help the community understand what is already in the pipeline versus what might be newly requested. Cotton expressed interest in quick-build protected infrastructure and integration with the community streets program. Public Works Director Font (present) had indicated to Lilliquist that such a presentation would need to be scheduled at a future date given current workload.

Vote: 6–0, one excused.

Key Takeaways

Algorithmic rent pricing initiative goes to November ballot. The council unanimously referred Initiative 2026-01, which would ban algorithmic rent price-fixing, to Bellingham voters on November 3, 2026. Pro/con statements were due to the Deputy City Administrator by close of business July 27.

Movable Dwelling Units advance to further work session, but with significant caveats. The council voted 5–1 to schedule a future work session on allowing MDUs (RVs, tiny homes, park models) in all residential zones as an affordable housing tool, but staff confirmed the work would require deprioritizing other items from an already full planning workload. That trade-off will be the first topic at the next session.

Parking minimums effectively eliminated citywide. The council passed (5–0–1) a permanent ordinance removing minimum automobile parking requirements across Bellingham and standardizing bicycle parking, consistent with new state law requirements taking effect January 2027. Institutional master plan exemptions for WWU, BTC, and PeaceHealth remain in place pending their own update processes.

Communications work plan adopted with 2-minute public comment limit. The council approved a new structured community engagement work plan 6–0, including reducing per-speaker public comment from 3 to 2 minutes with a 30-minute session cap — a change that generated significant debate over accessibility for community members with disabilities.

Transportation safety discussion requested. Council unanimously asked staff to bring forward a future presentation on pedestrian and bicycle safety programs and policies, responding to ongoing public advocacy on the topic.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

A work session on an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple chapters in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide

# Summary

During a work session on a land use and zoning ordinance, staff presented a comprehensive unified development code process with state-mandated timelines, while Council Member Anderson expressed preference to defer discussion to the second quarter for more thorough review. The ordinance establishes permanent zoning regulations eliminating mandatory automobile parking requirements and establishing consistent bicycle parking standards citywide, following an interim ordinance originally adopted in January 2025; Mayor Lend emphasized that parking flexibility is critical for housing production and climate goals, noting current requirements artificially increase housing costs by approximately 12.5% statewide despite Census data showing 59% of Bellingham renters own one or no cars. Staff clarified that state law (Senate Bill 5184) requires implementation by January 2027 but exempts affordable housing, senior housing, and certain commercial/childcare uses, leaving only three categories where Bellingham retains discretion. Council Member Lilloquist proposed an amendment requiring 0.5 on-site parking spaces per dwelling unit in residential areas lacking adequate on-street capacity (defined as 85% occupancy threshold), while Council Member Anderson and Director Lion expressed concerns about potential impacts on infill development and equity goals. The Council amended the ordinance to increase e-bike and cargo bike parking ratios and deferred decisions on institutional master plan parking requirements and frontage improvement standards to future consideration.

A work session on the City Council Communications and Community Engagement 2026 Work Plan

# Summary

Staff presented the City Council Communications and Community Engagement 2026 Work Plan, the third guiding document following the strategic communications plan and communications charter, which outlines tactics to increase community engagement based on priorities from the April 20th retreat. David Braun, city council communications and community relations manager, highlighted key changes including reducing public comment from 3 minutes to 2 minutes per speaker with a 30-minute total cap and random speaker order assignment. Council Member Hamill moved to approve the plan as presented, but Council Member Liloquist moved to amend it to retain the 3-minute comment limit, citing concerns raised by Council Member Anderson about accessibility barriers for neurodivergent individuals, people with disabilities, speech impediments, and language barriers—particularly the problem of requiring self-disclosure to receive accommodations. After the amendment to restore 3-minute comments failed 4-1, the overall work plan passed 6-1, and Council leadership agreed to explore alternative engagement opportunities such as small group sessions with appropriate accommodations to create a more welcoming space for all community members.

A resolution deferring initiative no. 2026-01, which prohibits algorithmic price fixing in the rental market, to the voters

Staff presented a resolution deferring Initiative 2026-01, which prohibits algorithmic price fixing in the rental market, to voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election after the Watcom County Auditor confirmed sufficient signatures were gathered. Interim City Attorney James Herb explained the limited options available when a community initiative qualifies: direct council approval, deferral to voters, or sending multiple amended versions to voters. Council Member Anderson moved approval with a correction to fix a typo on page 86 (changing "renal market" to "rental market"), which was seconded by Council Member Liiloquist and passed 6-0 with one excused absence. The administration will move forward with identifying individuals to write pro and con ballot statements, with interested parties directed to contact Deputy City Administrator Janice Keller by close of business that day.

A work session on movable dwelling units and discussion of proposed interim ordinance

# Summary: Work Session on Movable Dwelling Units and Proposed Interim Ordinance

Staff presented a work session on movable dwelling units (MDUs)—including standard RVs, cottage-style park models, and tiny homes on wheels—as an affordable housing infill strategy to address Bellingham's need to build 10,000 affordable homes for residents earning below 50% area median income over 20 years. Council Member Cotton presented the proposed interim ordinance, which would allow one MDU per residential lot (or up to two on lots over 10,000 sq ft) with setbacks and fire separation requirements, and up to four MDUs on nonprofit-controlled lots for supportive housing; currently, MDUs are legal for full-time living only in manufactured home communities. The ordinance would include placement and utility requirements, prohibit short-term rentals, and establish a self-sustaining registration and inspection fee program, while staff noted implementation would require coordination across multiple city departments and represent a significant workload, with the earliest opportunity being the second half of next year given state-mandated code changes already in progress. Council members expressed divided perspectives: some supported MDUs as a housing solution and moved to schedule a Committee of the Whole work session, while Council Member Anderson raised substantial concerns about DIY construction permitting, inspection protocols, fire safety standards for older units, rental compliance monitoring, and staff capacity, advocating for a full code revision rather than an interim ordinance approach. The Council voted 5-1 to proceed with scheduling a work session, with staff to present a list of outstanding questions and issues for Council consideration.

Agenda items (4)

Procedural (4)

24970ProceduralA work session on an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple chapters in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide

Council will work through a permanent zoning ordinance that removes minimum parking requirements for new development and sets consistent bicycle parking standards across Bellingham.

What happened

24973ProceduralA work session on the City Council Communications and Community Engagement 2026 Work Plan

Council will review and discuss its 2026 plan for how it communicates with residents and engages the community on city issues.

What happened

24990ProceduralA resolution deferring initiative no. 2026-01, which prohibits algorithmic price fixing in the rental market, to the voters

The city council will decide whether to let voters decide on Initiative 2026-01, which would ban companies from using algorithms to artificially raise rental prices in Bellingham.

What happened

24992ProceduralA work session on movable dwelling units and discussion of proposed interim ordinance

Council members will discuss movable dwelling units (like tiny homes or RVs) and review a proposed temporary ordinance regulating where and how they can be placed in the city.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Approve resolution deferring initiative 2026-01 to voters (amendment to correct typo)

aye 1

voice voteaye

Schedule committee of the whole work session on movable dwelling units (MDUs)

aye 5 · absent 1 · nay 1

Daniel Hammillaye

Edwin Williamsaye

Hannah Stoneaye

Hollie Huthmanabsent

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonnay

Michael Lilliquistaye

Amend parking ordinance pursuant to Exhibit C (bicycle parking standards)

aye 1

voice voteaye

Amendment to parking ordinance - parking requirements where pedestrian infrastructure is deficient

nay 4 · absent 1 · aye 2

Daniel Hammillnay

Edwin Williamsnay

Hannah Stonenay

Hollie Huthmanabsent

Jace Cottonnay

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Adopt parking ordinance eliminating minimum automobile parking requirements (as amended by Exhibit C)

aye 5 · absent 1 · abstain 1

Daniel Hammillaye

Edwin Williamsaye

Hannah Stoneaye

Hollie Huthmanabsent

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistabstain

Amendment to communications work plan - keep public comment at 3 minutes per speaker

nay 4 · absent 1 · aye 2

Daniel Hammillnay

Edwin Williamsnay

Hannah Stonenay

Hollie Huthmanabsent

Jace Cottonnay

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Adopt city council communications and community engagement 2026 work plan

aye 1

voice voteaye

Request future agenda item on transportation safety for bicycles and pedestrians

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

553 transcript segments indexed

Good afternoon. Welcome to Bellingham City Council afternoon committee meetings. Um, we have one committee meeting this afternoon. I'm going to wait for council members Cotton and Liiloquist to finish their conversation just because it's distracting to me.

Um, okay. So, welcome to the committee of the whole. We have one council member absent. So, council member Huffman is not with us today. That absence is excused. But the rest of council members are all present.

So we have a number of items before the committee this afternoon. The first is agenda bill 24990. This is a resolution deferring initiative number 2026-01 which prohibits algorithmic price fixing in the rental market to the voters.

So the city council discussed initiative bill number 2026-01 which again prohibits algorithmic price fixing in the rental market. After receiving notice from the Watcom County Auditor that the initiative sponsors had gathered a sufficient number of signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, council directed staff to bring forward a resolution deferring the initiative to the voters at the election to be held on November 3rd, 2026.

So staff has drafted a resolution for council's review and approval. That resolution is included in the packet. Um, and for this item, I am going to turn to interim city attorney James Herb. >> Good afternoon, council.

Uh, you'll find in the packet the draft resolution that defers this item to the ballot for the voters, and I don't have anything additional to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them.

>> Thank you very much. I'll open it up to the council. Any questions? Okay, I know that we discussed this at the um last meeting and the decision was to again request that a resolution be drawn up. So in these cases there are sort of limited options just to recap for the the council consideration.

So when there's a community is initiative that comes forward and sufficient number of signatures have been um reviewed by the auditor and deemed to qualify then that item can either be directly approved by the council um and put into effect immediately.

It can be deferred as in this case to the voters for a vote of the people here in Bellingham. um or in some cases there's an amended version right in two um two different drafts sent to the voters for consideration because at this time the council would not be able to make any changes to what was presented by the community members who brought forward the initiative.

So it must go before the voters as drafted. Um council member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um thank you for writing this. I am going to move uh approval with the correction of one typo on page 86 the first whereas line three um rental is missing a t and it's uh listed as renal market.

So if we can make that correction before it uh moves on. Thank you. And that was the third whereas >> the first whereas >> the first third line >> okay it was third line I looked at the first line of the third whereas and it looked okay perfect so we have a motion for that amendment a first by council member Anderson and a second by council member Liiloquist.

All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 6 with one excused. Okay. Any other amendments? Um otherwise, the resolution is before us for consideration and possible adoption.

The um the final resolution would need to be sent to the auditor's office by August 4th, which is the date of the primary for inclusion in the November ballot. >> Point of order. >> Yes. I understood the council Anderson's motion to be an amendment with with that.

Yes. >> Okay. >> Perfect. Any objections that everyone's understanding? Okay. Perfect. Then that has passed. 601. Miss gets did you get that? Yep. Okay. Anything further needed from legal? Okay. >> No, thank you.

>> Okay. And my understanding is that as part of that work um the administration is moving forward with identifying individuals to speak um or to not speak but to write pro and con um statements. So whenever there's a ballot item that goes forward there's usually inclusion of a pro and con statement.

So just wanting to make sure that those listening or in attendance know that that work will be going forward as well. Um, do we have any direction about if people were interested in participating in that process, where they would be directed or who they would contact?

Janice Keller, deputy city administrator. People are welcome to contact me by close of business today um in the mayor's office at Bellingham City Hall or jke keller co.org. >> Great. >> And we we distributed that week before last, I believe.

>> Great. Okay. So, just to confirm that is by the close of business today. Um, so that work will be moving forward. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Um, so the next item before the council then is agenda bill 24992.

This is a work session on movable dwelling units and discussion of proposed interim ordinance. So, backyard movable dwelling units known as MDUs, such as certain RVs and tiny homes on wheels, are currently legal for full-time residents within the city, but are restricted to manufacture home communities.

The proposed interim ordinance would expand opportunities to benefit from this affordable housing option to all residential zones, excluding critical areas and the Lake Walom wershed. This would allow implementation during the interim period to inform policy design prior to cotification.

Council member Cotton will give a presentation on the proposal to allow MDUs as an affordable housing infill strategy if council wishes to move forward with the project. The proposed interim ordinance would come back for potential first and second reading at a subsequent meeting.

So for this item, I will turn to Council Member Cotton. Uh good afternoon all. Um I also see um directors um uh from planning and public works. Um and so I would welcome as we move through this like quick clarifying questions and I'll just try and move quickly for leave time for substantive discussion at the end.

Um okay, there we go. Um so we should probably start with what are movable dwelling units? Um, this includes standard RVs, cottage style park models, and tiny homes on wheels. Um, each are each of those are uh certified to a different standard.

Um, I'm on a one-man crusade to um popularize the term movable dwelling units instead of mobile dwelling units, which um just to avoid confusion with mobile manufactured homes, which um are regulated by HUD and are already legal in all residential zones in Bellingham.

Um and uh all of these MDUs um from uh standard RVs, park models, um tiny homes of wheels are already legal for full-time living in Bellingham and and across the state, but are generally in most communities, including ours, um limited to manufactured home um communities.

And so, um, and the other piece that's unique to Washington state is every MDU that's, um, sold in Washington state is inspected by labor and industries for basic life safety. Um, and you you can't build and sell these without going through that uh, one of those regulatory pathways.

Um, so why should you care? Um, besides that, they're cute and fun. um they are um they come at a significant um savings relative to a foundation built um uh accessory dwelling units. Um and also kind of creating a new pathway for these creates the opportunity for us to really focus on affordability and um you know we you can get a really actually pretty high quality cottage style park model for you know 120 plus um site prep.

Um and um so this isn't a scientific survey. I just went online and like looked at highends and lowends for some of these different categories. Um, and just to note, just by looking at an MDU, you probably can't tell which standard it was built to and then which regulatory pathway it went through to get certified.

Um, and um, so consumer education is is important here um, to understand what those differences might mean. Um, but as you can see, this represents an opportunity for um, affordable infill um, relative to our existing options.

Uh, and again, we're [snorts] have this really tough problem as a city of needing to build many more affordable homes than the sum of all of our existing strategies are likely to deliver. We're talking, right, 10,000 homes affordable to those earning below 50% of the area median income in the next 20 years.

Um, and right, we spend 15 million a year on building affordable homes. we'd need 133 million, right, to to be able to um yeah, subsidize um that affordability that we need. Um and so NDUs represent an unsubsidized um affordable infill strategy.

Um there's a couple different models for allowing MDUs that we can look to to gain some lessons. Um two nearby ones are Portland, Oregon, and they allowed all MDUs. um uh they allowed one per lot and if the MDU had internal plumbing, they required a sanitary sewer and portable water um service connections and then uh an electrical connection for all MDUs.

And then they really didn't regulate like fire separation or setbacks or um [clears throat] really much in terms of like placement on the site. Um, Port Townsend basically allowed MDUs as a uh through their ADU pathway.

Um, they allowed two perl lot. So, you know, they're requiring hard piping. So, they're basically only allowing tiny homes on wheels and then cottage style park models with like, you know, certain roof pitches.

They're like a long list of kind of criteria. Um, and then the outcomes kind of vary um or diverge based on those policy designs. Portland's had hundreds. Um, if you like extrapolate just based on one neighborhood, there's probably thousands across the city.

They have not done a good job of tracking them. So, it's a little tough to give you an exact number. Um, but uh, in contrast, Port Towns and has had one. I actually heard recently they might have two.

So, we're very excited about that. Um, and I think what explains this is that MDU allowance in Portland is in addition to additional residential density allowances. Like the lowest cost MDUs are allowed and encouraged and there's some greater flexibility and lower like kind of regulatory costs.

Um, so uh we're not Portland. We got to think about what the approach um that's right for Bellingham. And so, um, in the packet is a discussion draft, um, that is a little bit more prescriptive than Portland's ordinance.

It [clears throat] includes, you know, setbacks, fire separation. Um, it's kind of a long list of considerations, but it is primarily a zoning ordinance, right? And this these MDUs are already allowed for full-time living in Bellingham, just in a very small um portion of our our area.

And so, um, the ordinance contemplates allowing one MDU per residential lot, um, or perhaps up to two if the lot is greater than 10,000 square ft. And that would have to be associated with a primary, um, dwelling.

Um, and, you know, provided you could live in one for up to 24 months if you're building your your home. Um, and then, uh, uh, there is some interest from nonprofits to think about nonprofit deployment.

Um, and so there's also a provision that would allow up to four MDUs if it's the lots controlled or owned by a qualified nonprofit. Really thinking about we have these chapters for large kind of congregate um uh safe parking or you know kind of detached um shelter um that for kind of higher acuity folks.

But there's actually probably a lot of opportunity in our community to provide um uh housing for folks who really just need a roof over their head and don't need a lot of like 24-hour on-site support.

And so some interested u you know churches and others who um aren't ready to submit a proposal tomorrow or anything, but if we were to move forward with this would see that as a signal to to think about that more seriously.

Um so the biggest um question you might have is like where do these go? Um the ordinance right now would require compliance with the uh front yard setback in the underlying zoning and it would only allow an exterior uh placement and like a flanking sideyard.

Think about a corner lot. Blake might have to res rescue me at some point here with my descriptions, but um but if there's screening provided um so generally we're kind of think we're mostly thinking about kind of a backyard placement.

Um and that also works well with in terms of connection to um usually sewer lines as well. So um and then we're looking at also requiring um fire separation from any other structure um and making sure that there's good fire access.

So consistent with how we um regulate any other residential structure. Um so what might this look like? Here's some examples from the Culver neighborhood in Portland, courtesy of Katie Gold at Sighteline.

Um, you can see in the top uh corner there's actually two MDUs on either side of that shed, so they might need to be a little farther back under our ordinance. Um, but uh yeah, just to say I think these can can be pretty inconspicuous.

Um, we'd also I just need to really think about the utilities aspects. That's I think when I've met with folks, the biggest questions they've had. Um, the ordinance requires an electrical connection. Been a lot of good conversation about what the minimum ampage for, um, [clears throat] a connection that should be.

Um, we might consider bumping that up. The current draft has 20 amps. Most MDUs are going to require more than that. um if you want to run your haird dryer at the same time you make some popcorn. Um but uh or also previous versions of the draft would have allowed MDUs without internal plumbing if you had 24 access to the main house.

That was generally pretty popular but some concerns about that. So, kind of as we're thinking of this as an interim ordinance um requiring a lateral sewer cleanout connection to um uh sewer service um and then requiring portable water service and that could even be through an you know an anti-ciphon hose bib on the side of the house.

Um, uh, okay. So, like here's a example of a site. Um, this is courtesy of Tiny Home Hookups in Portland, which has been doing a lot of this work. Um, isn't that cute? Okay. Um, and now tendencies. Um, uh, most MDUs in Portland and and other places they've been adopted are like our housing for family members like by and large.

Um but there we should think about this the kind of less common scenario in which an MDU might be occupied by a tenant. Um so I guess there's two two kind of categories here. One is you don't own the MDU but you're renting it out just like a traditional residential teny.

Um in order for that to be permitted it would have to meet building code under the current draft. So, um, like basically only tiny homes on wheels built to the IRC. Um, and I think that makes sense, right?

Like there's kind of a commercial element like maintenance is really important for these housing types just like any other. And so kind of avoiding that split incentive I think makes sense at least on this interim basis.

Um and then the other u pathway is like if I owned an MDU um and I wanted to find a place to lease it. Um and um in any of the cases the ordinance requires a written lease agreement that includes uh you know the requirement to comply with all the provisions of this ordinance for both parties.

And then you know just the basics of you know who's responsible for what shared area maintenance um what the lease terms are renewal etc. Um and just to say so this this ordinance doesn't change any um rental protections.

Um and so if it is not owner occupied right all of our other um state and local uh uh protections apply and I will say if you are renting your uh or you own your MDU and you're renting a space that's not really a tenency that's contemplated by either the residential landlord tenant act and manufactured home landlord tenant act.

So people would just really need to make sure those lease leases are kind of designed to protect both parties. Um um and then um yeah, I think whenever you talk about housing that's more affordable for people who um have lower incomes, a lot of concerns come up about stereotypes about um folks.

And so I think returning also to that this is really a solution first and foremost for families. But um we do have existing code protections against things like inoperable vehicles and non-wathertight structures and unhygienic yards etc.

And that's uh also codified in the ordinance again. Um and um just a couple other provisions. We're really thinking about this as a housing solution. So, and that's the interim basis, these wouldn't be allowed as short-term rentals.

Um, and we're considering issuing these permits to just a type one um kind of ministerial process um for that MDU pad. Um so, I think it's always good to just like end and I this is actually the end of the presentation so sorry.

[laughter] Um but to come back to um folks that this helps um these are a couple folks who are profiled um in a sighteline article. Mari was a Seattle resident who was a homeowner but was being priced out because of you know just increased maintenance costs and rising utilities.

Um, and so was able to um finance uh the construction of a um MDU for a little over $100,000. And um it's just been a great um opportunity to um age kind of securely and in a home that they love. Um Teresa is an example of a MDU beneficiary from Portland.

They had a really massive lovely tree in their backyard. And when they went to go get a a quote for an MD for an ADU, an attached um uh or detached accessory dwelling unit, uh one, it was $400,000. It's not a number um she could afford.

And then second, um it would have intruded in the critical root zone of um this legacy tree. Um and so an MDU ended up being an option to um by foregoing that inground foundation, preserving this this tree and also allowing um their household to grow.

Um this one more example, Laura in who's from rural Washington somewhere um uh had a um a parent pass away and um had then some caregiving responsibilities for their parents spouse. um they looked at an ADU, they couldn't afford it.

Um and so um instead bought this um RV, which has been a great um housing solution for for um that relative and allowed for some on-site care and integration into into Laura's household. Um we're also very blessed to have some great local MDU builders in Wakom County.

um Big Freedom Tiny Homes. Um uh Director Lion and uh Senator Schumank and others um got a chance to go out and tour one of their park models um that comes in at a base price right now of about 115K. Um uh we have West Coast Homes in Lynen, which does both park models and tiny homes on wheels and those are, you know, price points of under 20 to to 200,000.

Um, and Mount Baker Tiny Homes, which is a very small operation, but is doing some great park models. Um, right now at around 120. Um, and just a couple local stories. Um, Jesse, who is featured on a Tiny Home Nation, um, I got that uh, title wrong uh, episode recently.

um uh you know it's just really clear like living tiny isn't for everyone but it's like for him a sustainable um low impact way to afford to to live in Bellingham. Um and just one more example for some an MDU isn't a permanent housing solution but is a it's a good transitional option.

Um, uh, Amelia and Josh, uh, former res Bellingham residents just just bought a home elsewhere, um, lived in an MDU and that savings allowed them to, um, save up for the down payment of their first home on the West Coast.

Um, so, um, excited to talk through this with you. if we get direction to proceed. My understanding is that the administration would work with us to determine where this ranks and the priority um and determine timing.

We definitely want final department staff review to look at the ordinance again. And then because it's a land use decision, we also need like a sea determination as well as legal review as we would for any ordinance.

Um, and it's because it's an interim ordinance, right? Kind of a trial period, we also get the benefit of a public hearing. Um, which I think will be great. And then, um, prior to the effective date, we just need to nail down how we're going to permit this through our our permitting system and what an applicant would need to provide.

So, a checklist and maybe a place to sketch out where where it goes on the lot. Um, and then during the interim period, I think it would just be really important to talk to people and learn um, yeah, what's working well, what can be improved um, prior to consideration of like codification on a permanent ordinance.

So, um, hopefully that wasn't too longwinded, but um, welcome questions and discussion and and staff to chime in um, or the mayor as well. >> Thank you very much, Council Member Cotton. Um I appreciate the next step slide and just wanted to focus on just briefly.

So this is an item that council member Cotton has been working on individually. Um and so this is the first time that this idea has been formally presented to the council as a whole and recognizing that next steps would incur a fair amount of you know staff time, legal time, next steps with SEPA and public hearings as well as implementation like very heavy lift.

um and just wanting to you know be candid about that. And so thinking back to our council retreat and the little exercise about you know the different types of hats that we all can wear at different times and the types of questions that you would ask just encouraging that this work session my request is that really to focus on that very first part about council direction.

What I was encouraging council member Cotton to do was to bring the idea before council and then there needs to be right for this to go forward next steps council buyin because an individual council member can't provide right direction to staff or um move something forward on their own.

So we act as a body and needing that that buyin, but recognizing and maybe there are questions for staff too about what right what that lift would entail and what other items might be in the queue that would be impacted if this did go forward or not.

So I'm just asking for some right high level discussion today. That's my request versus sort of the nuts and bolts and finer details about the proposed interim ordinance itself because I think that's a work session for another day if the council was in support of moving that forward.

So with that I will open it up for discussion. Council member Lilloquist. >> I was hoping to talk about Amperage requirements but okay I understand your your your point is a good one. Um I'm wondering if there's an interim step between putting it on the administration's plate to say tell us where the slots in the priorities in the work plan and just as high level discussion.

I I actually would like a uh an agenda item for a work session to interact more with council member Cotton, go through some of these questions, to go over the thinking he's had, ask a few a few more basic questions, and that wouldn't have to be a staff intensive one.

That would be more like an education session. Um I personally uh see the value and opportunity in mobile dwelling units. Um, uh, I had some concerns in way previous ways been done. Many of those have been addressed.

I still have other questions. I just don't know. I'd kind of like to have my questions answered, but I do imagine in the long run I will want to move it onto a work plan or ask the administration where it would go, but I'm not ready to do that quite yet.

What I'm saying is I'll probably vote yes on that second motion. But prior to that, I kind of like to to create a little more time for a discussion where I can say, "Hey, Jace, on this, can you why that?" You know, those are the sort of questions I have right now.

>> I guess I would see I mean, I can appreciate the council talking about those points that you're bringing forward. I also feel like things that are at that level and sort of in the weeds. I don't know that the council is the best body to be weighing in on, I mean, those types of decisions.

I think we would want input from other right experts in the field and people who have additional um you know data and perspective to to offer to that. But yes, I I understand where you're coming from.

Council member Anderson, >> thank you um and thanks for bringing this forward. I I did follow the state um when they were doing their work and it didn't pass bipartisan which um there was a lot of support but there was a lot of concerns um and I see some of those concerns in here and I get very apprehensive at the idea of an interim ordinance because anybody who steps forward um they're vested and so to study something that may well I don't say may what I feel has definitely issues and safety issues makes me really uncomfortable.

I don't want it to be on my watch as a council member to permit something going forward that potentially um has a lot of issues. I support MDUs as a one of the many tools for a housing solution. Um, I've known people who have had them on lots in Birch Bay.

Those are ones that were purchased that had the um the RC or the IRC codes and they were built in facilities like the ones that you showed. They weren't DYI and this looks like DYI might be allowed. And that opens up the whole plethora of questions about what kind of permits, what kind of inspection, and if that's not nailed in as part of the code.

Somebody can just go build something and make it a rental and it's a oneoff and it might not be inspected and something happens and that concerns me. Um I I want to see something like this going forward, but I want it to go forward in a way that's going to be successful.

Um, so I feel that, you know, we can definitely discuss it in a session and I probably have like 32 points here that might be more technical that I think maybe staff would be in a better position to answer.

But I also worry that if we start going down that pathway, we are starting to monopolize staff time that maybe they don't have. And so it should go in a a working queue. And I feel instead of an interim, we should eventually work towards a full um code revision and ordinance that allows it outright and we have the support structure ready to go.

Um that's where my thoughts are. So I I agree we can discuss some of these things and what the concerns are where we see the opportunity. Um, but I I feel ultimately it goes back to the staff and then again I'm concerned about we have projects that and I I'm sorry to bring this up but the the junk fee ordinance was supposed to be a few months and it turned into about a year and a half and there were projects that some of us have initiated four or five years ago that we're in the queue waiting for those to come forward and they're getting closer.

I don't want to sideline those because those are important too for the community. Um, and we've asked staff for like what is their workload, how close are things to being completed so that we know when we're going to request something new um where we can slide that in um to ensure that um we're not diverting nearly completed work.

So I I have a lot of trepidation. Um definitely safety concerns. Um and liability and legal about the way the some of the content of how this is worded. Um I don't want to give that whole list. I can give it during a work session.

Um, but I'm not comfortable with an interim because unless we get some of those very difficult things answered and written by people who write the codes, I think we can put something out into the community that is going to be a big issue if it's not done right.

And I I just don't want to be responsible for the outcome um for some of those safety concerns. Um, and happy to share those because I've been doing research all weekend. Um, I'd like more time to do the research um on the good and the bad.

Um, I know I'm rambling at this point, but I'll let somebody else speak. Council >> Williams. Now you can hear me. Uh [laughter] was was your thinking more along the lines of this is a direction we should put in a lot more research about or was your approach to really look at the draft ordinance you put in here as the jumping off point?

or was it just this is an option we need to do some research on and and so forth? What was your thinking on that? >> Thanks, Council Member Williams. Um yes, so discussion um especially with direct director Lion about some of the advantages of an interim approach type six process takes a lot of time codification and this kind of implicates multiple chapters, right?

So a much bigger lift. Um so an interim approach doesn't mean that we are just you know kind of carelessly proposing something like I think we want to ensure the best outcomes through um you know really thoughtful policy design.

Um, and I'll also say, um, like learning from the implementation in other jurisdictions, right? Um, like Portland code enforcement hasn't had to tow a single RV from a private lot, right? And so I think a lot of the concerns that, um, you reasonably might might think about, I think it is helpful to look at what's actually happened on the ground.

Um and um but I I will say I would certainly welcome a work session. Um and I do think the um dozens and dozens of folks with deep expertise have had a lot of input on this draft and so I do think it's a helpful starting point but open to opportunities to improve it further.

Um certainly council member Hamilton. >> Yeah. So, this is a a process or a timing question uh that would not be decided by this body. I serve on another um board of the uh regional fire authority board along with the mayor and council member um Miloquist and so I would want to understand how decisions on the formula that's being talked about with the [clears throat] RFA group um would affect what we're talking about here.

their timeline is completely completely different than what we have. Um, and that's to go to voters uh in February of next year. So, I would just want to understand like how would fees be assessed and how what the formula would would look like and I don't know if the timing would work uh with this um going into a work plan.

I'm just I'm trying to understand that part of it. >> So, Council Member Hamill, can you just clarify the inter um the interplay that you see between the RF RFA and this [clears throat] work? The RFA uh group is trying to under is trying to create a formula based on square footage and right [clears throat] now the um the bottom threshold is 2,000 square feet.

These are can be 400 ft. So how does that work? How does that charge how would that charge be assessed? Is this is this considered multifamily or standalone housing? Um would there be any exemptions? That kind of thing.

>> Very helpful. Thank you. Other questions from council members? Um, Council Member Anderson, >> just a couple of things. Um, to be specific about my concerns, um, it looks like there's the opportunity for a DYI.

So, someone who's not electrician, a plumber, or carpenter can build something. Um, I would want to know how is it permitted, how is it inspected, what would those fees be? Um, if it is to become a rental, um, if it is only one, um, can rental inspection still be, um, completed through that?

I know it says that you could do rental inspection, but I have concerns that our rental inspection based on staffing and their ability to deal with uh, our current rental market is not, in my opinion, meeting our current needs.

and now we're going to be adding something that may not be permitted, may not be um done by journeymen, uh trades people building it. Um so that's a huge concern. The fiscal concern I'd like to know more from staff about what is this going to cost adding to it.

So there's work in the permit center. There's I mean even if it's an interim, there's still work to be done. I think the public should have a weighin because potentially you could have a motor home in front of a house if you have the right setback.

Um, and so I think the public needs to be aware of that. Um, I worry about the year of something built. Um, there are areas that they don't allow, and this is something the state wrestled with, anything that is older than a particular year because the wiring is not up to the same standard to be able to handle the 50 amp.

if somebody put their own hot water heater in in a refrigerator when it used to have a ice box. Um there's some of these standards were cited were from um you know mid 2020 that has things about alarms and uh smoke detectors and placement of fire extinguishers and proper egress.

But that doesn't that's for things being built. That doesn't necessarily mean things that are older. And if you've ever seen a trailer go on fire that is pre980, it's horrendous. You can't get out of it.

And that's my biggest concern is that some of these things are not addressed. There's not date limits like you can't, you know, uh, habitate fulltime because, you know, RVs and trailers from, you know, before, uh, 2000 were not designed to be year- round living.

And so, we are going to be permitting that as an interim and learning from it. And I don't want to learn a bad lesson. So, I just see a lot of staff time to get this right because I'm going to be if this goes forward to a work session and then we want to move forward.

I'm going to be asking probably 40 different questions of multiple departments to come back with information and we're going down that rabbit hole of spending a lot of staff time at that point. So, I mean, I'd like to get this on a work plan.

I just don't want to slowly eb into a work plan by getting into a meeting and I will be asking a lot of questions and I'll put it on record and everybody will be responsible for that information and if we move something like this forward without the proper due diligence and the worst case scenario happens it is on our back as legislators.

It's not on the city administration staff and I don't want to be part of that. I want to be part of a good housing solution and I think MDUs can be part of that and we should put the effort into it but we should put the effort into it to do it right.

>> Well, I just want to clarify for the record. We already allow all MDUs for full-time living in Bellingham. So, it's um we can, you know, get into whether or not we should go lobby the state legislature to kick those people out of their um MDUs.

I would say that that wouldn't be a good good for us to do. And I think to be consistent, we should consider opening up opportunities for this housing type to more people. And again, I think we can we can look at other jurisdictions that have taken a lot more permissive approach than this ordinance and just like a lot of those worst case scenarios uh just haven't materialized even once.

And so um uh again I think I welcome conversations about thoughtful policy design, but I'll remind us we are in a housing crisis, right? We are for better or worse like charged with navigating the reality of of decades of decision-m at the local and state and federal level that have led us to this point.

And um I think uh you know instead of just despairing at the looming housing shortage and preventable homelessness like MDUs represent a very real solution to make a big difference in the near term. And I think the reward for that work probably outweighs a lot of other, you know, important important work that that we want to do as a city.

And so I um I I think strongly this is worth prioritizing. Um and I'm I'm considering making a motion for committee the whole work session, but um I'll defer to Council President Stone on that. >> Okay.

Just one second. So, I would like to hear from, you know, Mayor London and, um, Director Lion and Director Font if there's any, you know, feedback. I think the broader council is not aware of what level of involvement you've had or, you know, what your perspective is on, you know, when and how this um could or should move forward.

So, to any or all of you, I'd welcome your feedback. >> Thank you. And, uh, Blake Lion, director of planning, community development. Um, I offer my comments today. Uh I've worked with Council Member Cotton uh largely independently over the last several months in reviewing and discussing and and debating uh different aspects of this topic.

We have engaged our prior building official and our fire marshall um preliminarily. I'll say at this point um certainly have had an initial opportunity to review this. Um I have probably equally as many questions as I do direction uh at this point and oftentimes we are taking I I agree 100% with the fact that this is a policy discussion and that needs to be informed by the housing crisis that we are in and there's opportunity to talk about the range of those different ways.

Um, but we also look at it. I know Joel Joel and I have had some just very brief conversations about trying to think through the implementation and what it takes to make that effective as well. Um, so I'll offer a few comments kind of in that same vein to give you an order of magnitude when we look at our and I'm gonna I'm gonna make the assumption, but please correct me if I'm wrong, Council Ocottton, that we're looking at predominantly um those properties that were zoned single family residential and not multif family.

So with that premise in mind, we have a little over 21,000 lots uh in the city. And you if you look at the breakdown of those that are 10,000 square feet le or less versus those that are greater than 10,000 about 33% of them are greater than 10,000.

So just to kind of give you an order of magnitude as the ordinance is currently drafted those are the ones that would accommodate up to two uh on the lot. So you have um 14,000ish that would be in that range realm of being able to accommodate one of these or not.

Um, in my mind, and this is something I've shared with Council Member Cotton, there's a pretty uh broad distinction between those MDUs that are built as recreational uh purpose and intent, so truck campers, RVs, travel trailers, fifth wheelers, um, have a very different kind of origin, if you will, versus those that are intentionally purpose-built as residential units.

And so from a policy consideration, I think it's worth just acknowledging the difference between that and what that may mean going forward in terms of how they get inspected, how they get uh how they're maintained over the course of time.

Um there are no considerations at least at this point for kind of aesthetic and kind of there's there's limited discussion about property maintenance and how those things work and so we would just want to understand kind of the distinction when it comes to those.

I very much appreciate uh and a lot of our early conversations were around placement on the lot were around connecting to utilities um because that becomes a concern. Nobody wants the uh hesitate to use the example of kind of the uh Griswalds where Uncle Eddie's parked in the street, you know, [laughter] and doing that kind of uh scenario, but um you know, certainly those are the kind of things that we work through and I think the ordinance can certainly get there and there are some nods to doing that.

um the prior jurisdiction where I worked, we had um 88,000 mobile homes in that jurisdiction. And your comment about fire safety is very uh noted and very important, especially when you're talking about older units because they have a tendency to go up very quickly.

And so we've worked with the fire marshall, we've discussed u at least preliminarily some of those issues and kind of working through that. So I think the conversation is very ripe with needing to uh vet out a variety of these things especially from uh preliminary conversations with public works staff.

The concern is and many of you lived through the RVs on Cornwall and the whole conversation is what happens if the rental agreement breaks down on site and they end up in public rideway and how are we transitioning and kind of working through a range uh of those particular issues.

So, um little note on the amperage as a former travel trailer owner um 30 amps was generally the default. uh for um somebody that had that travel trailer in order to run kind of multiple appliances within that unit.

If you happen to have an air conditioning unit or or more than one, uh then you needed to go to a 50 amp if you're going to an RV park. So, just to kind of give you some context and reference um in that regard, I think there's value in in doing that.

Um from a timing and implication, we are just as a brief reminder, we are in the throws right now from a planning staff on implementing the code changes that were required through state law and as a implementation of the Bellingham plan.

So, we've got a pretty robust work plan uh through essentially the next year from this point forward. So, if this was adding something without taking something else off, then the the earliest possible uh opportunity would be uh second half of next year.

If we're talking about taking something off, then we would have to go through and understand what that is and whether or not that there's some state implications. So, um, that's what I can tell you in terms of timing.

I I think there's an opportunity to go through a wide range of conversations about the the details, uh, and what that might work or look like. Mayor, >> I would just add as council's considering all of this um appreciation to get clarity because um on where council would like to go because I'm hearing so many questions from different council members um and I don't want to receive no direction today and then have those sideline conversations where we're going deep in understanding technical weeds before we've really committed to to adding this and understanding where it is in the work plan.

So getting that kind of clarity is helpful. I also want to say I appreciate Council Member Cotton's comments about the urgency and the affordability challenges we have around housing in this community and my belief it's we don't have to have perfect policy to try and make a difference.

And so yeah, a little >> um we've kind of come around in a circle and I appreciate the mayor's comments because it brings us kind of back around and as you say at the beginning um the discussion here isn't on the details of the draft but whether or not we should go forward with the idea with the draft potentially as the jumping off point.

Um so there's kind of two threshold questions. Is this an idea worth exploring? I think everybody has said yes even when they've expressed skepticism they've supported support for the idea. So we do need to go forward.

I think we've already decided we're going forward. The question is what is the next step? Um, I suggested we should have a council discussion to do more of this with minimal but still we will need some staff involvement because I have I have questions about the the ANIE standards or the IRC, you know, and they're going to be a little bit technical, but there still to me they're threshold feasibility questions that I'd like to understand and be comfortable with.

Um, things like amperage I think is we can work that out easy. I we could just defer to an expert and they'll come up with the right number hopefully. Um so I but I do think there's some policy discussions I want to have at the council level first.

Um but I also have a question about the next level which is okay let's say it really does pass the feasibility and the interest test. we already know the purpose and it's already good and it aligns with uh other efforts where like you know if we if there's a rule or two in the way of good housing let's get rid of the rule and if this is good housing then this is one of those cases so we're already kind of committed to going forward what I'm trying to understand is kind of the next step u Mr.

Align is there any less work involved in getting an interim ready ordinance versus a type six final ready ordinance because what Mr. Cotton is hoping for is that we can get a good enough ordinance that covers all the major bases and then worry about perfect later.

But how much work is it to even get to the interim ready? Not quite perfect but good enough. >> So it would require a public hearing in front of you all for consideration u and uh and then it would be effective upon the council's determination as opposed to the type six which would require a public hearing through the planning commission and then come back to council and do the public hearing.

So the SEIPA analysis that you're talking about is still necessary regardless of which direction you go. It's whether or not you have the planning commission as a leadin to the public hearing. >> I think you didn't ask my question quite right.

I understand there's a difference between the interim and and and the final and I see a difference there. I'm talking about what it would take to get Jayce's draft ready for a public hearing. Right? because I even Jayce admits there's a few things that need to be changed and we would need to be comfortable enough with the interim to even get to that step.

>> It's hard for me to answer because I don't know entirely how far you want to go with good versus perfect. Um so yes, there is staff involvement. There would need to be clarity. I think that's really where if if interim ordinances have taught us anything in the last couple years with uh landmark trees and others, it's having enough clarity, enough certainty um in those early things so that when staff's implementing it, it's not you're not trying to come up with all the answers the first time through.

And so the more lead time you get into providing that clarity and that certainty, the easier it is on the implementation side. If the urgency is there and we need to address this and this is the council's direction on this kind of stuff, then we'll work with whatever is this the decision and we'll and we'll bring back suggestions for refinement.

We did that with the landmark tree ordinance as an example where we did an emergency ordinance that then went to an interim ordinance. We tweaked it along the way. We've kind of gotten to the point where we feel substantially confident, but that's a that's a several year effort making changes as we go along.

>> I'm I'm just thinking that you mentioned like middle of next year as as a time frame to work on if we went straight to a type six process, which doesn't sound like urgency at all. So what >> that's what I'm saying is that >> what does the interim step to interim ordinance look like?

That's more than nothing. >> If we're looking at the work load and the work plan that we have in place, we we would have to take something off the table in order in order to do the work that you're asking us to do because we've got a series of statemandated timelines.

I mean there are state timelines to those and if we are going to adhere to those state timelines we need to be able to do that work and do the implementation of now we're also going through the process of shifting into a unified development code that takes a lot of thought process and a lot of reorganization on how we do that level of work but having said that that's all for permanent development if the if if the policy direction is this is an urgent issue then we will look to identify ways to set something aside and see what can be done but it doesn't come I just want to be clear it doesn't come at the cost of just adding it in there's something else that's going to going to slip >> just for clarification because I what I was hearing council member Liquist [clears throat] sort of ask initially was the difference between right an interim versus a full type six process and what I've seen from the emergency right landmark tree ordinance to you know other things that we've considered that even if there's something that's you know temporary or an interim ordinance the lift to have that finalized like you say even if we don't want it to be perfect and we say oh it's okay well going forward with something that maybe hasn't been as fully vetted because we do have the urgency in some cases yes you I mean it's a costbenefit analysis and you're like yes it's that important that we're going to go forward and we're going to navigate it as it goes But if you're talking about constraints

with respect to the workload within your department who then is also going to be carrying it forward and dealing with implementation in real time to me that lift is almost heavier on staff the interim than you know the type six process.

I feel like yes, you have to navigate it through but it's happening in other places and it's slow and cumbersome but when you're talking about the actual right building permitting implementation I mean through an interim that might be able to be passed more quickly but there's going to be a lot of fallout from that I feel like good and bad but >> yeah I mean interims it it can be issue specific but interims can be a heavier lift on the implementation side because there isn't that high degree of certainty associated with it.

It's also can be a challenge in some respects to our community that doesn't know how things are going to land and and where things are going to be. But it can be used to great benefit if you're trying if you're not familiar.

We did this with uh it wasn't really an interim but we put in levers with respect to the ADUs where you may recall there was uh triggers in place where any one particular neighborhood got a certain amount or we had a total amount and it was a way to kind of make sure that we went back in and re-evaluated those things on a certain time frame.

And so it gives us the ability to uh move forward and take action on a particular topic especially if it's like this where there's high value to that and not feel like you have to have it perfect day one.

I had one more question about the council member Cotton was mentioning right that currently MDUs are permissible and we have people living in right mobile units and RVs within our community. Can you just clarify where that's currently right?

>> Memory serves me correctly. We have 10 mobile home parks throughout the city. So that's what the reference was towards is if you happen to have a MDU and in many cases those are the kind of manufactured type homes although that's not what's contemplated in this ordinance but you can do RVs and other things like that in those particular parks.

Where this differs my understanding of it is where this differs substantially is you wouldn't be required to be in one of those 10 parks. you could be in any one of the 21,000, you know, lots uh throughout the state.

>> But under our current code and operations, I mean, there are individuals who are able to live in their car or in an RV on the street so long as they comply with moving them. >> No, not on the street.

So, these are these are privatelyowned pieces of property. So, if you think about the 10 different and I won't try to recite all 10 of them, but probably the most the largest and most notable one is the is the mobile home manufactured home park off of um Lincoln Street uh across from Fred Meyers there.

And so, typically you have uh you have individual owners of the units themselves. They rent out a lot and they can place that unit on that lot. There are some parks that have either vacant lots or specific spaces that are accommodating for travel trailers, RVs, parks, you know, things of that nature that can come in on a interim basis.

When I moved to town after accepting this job, my family and I lived in our travel trailer for the first several months while we went around and were looking for housing. That's an example where we came to town house in tow essentially and set up shop.

Uh and so that was an option for us and we're grateful we had it. But um you know that that's the example where you'd have to be in an RV park or in a mobile home community and be allowed to do that. We couldn't have just set up shop on the street or in somebody's driveway or in their backyard at that time.

So currently because I think some of the concern in some parts of town right with RVs [clears throat] and thinking well there are members of our community who are currently living in RVs right that are on the street but if they are moving every two two hours right I mean technically that's permissible >> and and that is permissible under the premise that that is a an RV and they are simply parking in that location.

We're not going in from an enforcement and a police department may correct me, but it's not an established dwelling per se. I mean, it's they're really using it in the capacity as a recreational vehicle and moving it around the city.

>> Council member Cotton, >> I'll say I I started this really thinking about this as a homelessness intervention. I think learning more from other jurisdictions, my my thinking shifted. This is really, I think, about homelessness prevention, right?

And empowering families to provide um an affordable option for those um who might not have a lot of other good options. Um so um yeah, I do think uh you know, a lot of folks have had negative experiences with occupied residential vehicles on the streets of Bellingham.

I do think that is really a completely separate issue. And um and uh one of the benefits I think of u legalization is it does right create that framework for compliance with health and safety and certainly we've had issues in the past with unpermitted RV um uh parks and residential areas and but they they would not be complying they would did not comply with this ordinance and and so I think uh yeah creating a framework for um for this to be a a a safe um and affordable housing option is is you know good uh a good prevent prevention as well for some of those issues.

Um yeah, I think I just like come back to um uh it sounds like we want to have more conversation about this. Um, and I would go ahead and um make [clears throat] a motion to refer this to uh committee the whole at the discretion of the council president.

>> Second. >> Motion's been made by council member Cotton and a second by council member Lilloquist to move this to a work session before committee the whole council member Williams. >> Um, yeah. Council member Cotton, what's your sense of the urgency of getting this done?

And and what I'm asking is um we could give direction to proceed and it might take a year and a half. Um or we could give a direction to proceed and we want it done in two months. What's your sense of if we gave that direction, what's your sense of how long it would take to get to something based on the workload, based on everything else?

Cuz when I read the first sentence up there where it says direction to proceed and the next one said says collaborate with council to determine the timing. So what's your sense of the timing for if we move in this direction?

>> Yeah, and I'd invite Director Lion to chime in too. I I would say um there are a lot of folks who would need to get eyes on it for you know so like a a number of folks who would not a huge amount of work for any one of those individuals but just a number of internal stakeholders in the city.

Um and then some probably concentrated work within the planning department. And I would look to director line to like who's whose particular work plans might be impacted to to really work on that that permitting and application process.

I think and correct me if I'm wrong. >> Yeah, I'm happy to elaborate a little bit from the um staff perspective. I would say um let me try to organize my thoughts in terms of kind of the uh least amount required by staff and then I'll kind of go up from there.

So, um I don't mean to imply that any of those are not important by any means, but uh certainly would want to make sure that the fire marshall is well aware of and very comfortable with what's being anticipated.

Um their focus is fairly acute and so um we certainly would want to make sure that they're aware of what's going on. Um public works is actively going to be participating in that also. uh I think from two vantage points.

One is utility connections and making sure that those are done adequately and the ordinance does contemplate that to a large degree, but wanting to make sure we're comfort comfortable and confident in that respect.

um potentially impacts to the ride ofway if we're talking about um you know uh new um access to proper to private properties or what happens if as I mentioned earlier if the units end up out on the on the street um police department as well uh in terms of helping to do and provide enforcement mechanisms that are there and then I think uh planning staff to a large degree Now if there are and we haven't really contemplated it uh to a large degree but if we're taking it from the frame of reference like they're similar to ADUs then the impact fees then the you know the other you know kind of components with them are are basically 50% of what the primary unit is and whether or not they're eligible for traffic impact fees and park impact fees.

We' we'd have to vet that piece out. Um and so we would kind of go through and make sure and then as part of the planning effort. So there's the planning side about um kind of bringing in the applications, tracking them, making them through, but then there's the inspection side of things.

Now, as written and as I understand it, most of these are deferring to labor and industries or HUD or other jurisdictions, but one of the things we would want to be very intentional, and I think this speaks a little bit to council member Anderson's comments about oftent times when these uh types of units are, and I'm going off of experience outside of this jurisdiction, but if they come in, often times you can have decks and patio covers ers and other things built on or around them.

Uh and then that starts to become permitting issues, inspection issues, what is the implications on if they're eligible for rental registration for registering them and for inspecting those. And so that's where the planning department lift gets a little more substantial as we think through not just the actual writing of the ordinance, but the implementation and tracking of that kind of stuff that comes So, so, so in other words, what I'm hearing you say is the devil is in the details of some of that.

Well, I think when we set out to do that, the question is whether or not we want to as a as a council whether or not you all want to have that stuff in place from the start or again if the urgency is there, if the need is there to move this faster, then we'll just adjust as we go through and implement it and we'll bring back uh you know changes and iterations as necessary.

So, so what's your sense of urgency? >> What [clears throat] I think is unique about this is every hour of staff time on this is potentially a tremendous yield in terms of housing opportunities for people in our community with few other options.

So, um I would say there is a great deal of urgency. I know we all feel a great deal of urgency around the housing crisis. Um and uh I think maybe when we return to this work session it, you know, if we do feel like there are trade-offs in terms of delaying another project to just yeah have a frank conversation about that and we're used to making hard tradeoffs and I have a feeling that this this one will be um yeah seem like we get a pretty big bang for our our buck in terms of our limited resources um And I'll also just um uh note that um uh you know we've done intern ordinances for trees um and uh yeah that did take a lot of staff time um I I think there are few very few things that are more important than preventing homelessness in our community.

So not to make it trees versus people because this is actually also great for trees. Um but uh anyway, I just in terms of where our priority is at, I think preventing homelessness should should be pretty much our core decision-making criteria.

>> If I may, and you council member Cotton brought up the difference between Portland and Port Townsen, I think we would have a very significantly missed opportunity if we took on this lift that you're talking about and we got one per year.

I think that would be that would be sad. I would I would want to see more of an a higher adoption. I know we can't guarantee it, but as we're going through this, as you all are contemplating the policy, as we're thinking through the implementation side of things, I think we would have a very significant missed opportunity if we got just one.

>> Great. Council member Anderson, >> thank you. Um, and thank you, uh, Director Lines for covering some of the different, uh, touchston zones for staff. Um could you also share your thought and staffing um needs just as much as you could assess after the fact.

So uh short-term rentals would not be allowed. um a while ago, I think a couple times I've kind of talked to you about bringing back to council um a report because we passed the uh short-term rental ordinance a long time ago and I believe there's a company that's supposed to be monitoring and you know I have uh anecdotal information of various places being rented out that are not necessarily registered.

So, um the ability for us to be able to track that they don't become short-term rentals and they actually contribute to housing solution. Also, um rental inspections. So, how would or if it would be required for someone to if they're going to rent out the unit itself, like how does that will they be able to if my husband builds in his backyard uh a box and wires it and puts it in place and we decide to rent it without permits and all of that and we don't I mean, our ability to be able to really track those kind of things, monitor what kind of staffing time for inspection and monitoring of these units.

Do you think if we were fortunate enough that we had more than one and we hit something like Portland, let's say if we had a hundred a year come on, do you have any idea of how much additional staffing time?

>> I think I think there's it's important to draw some distinction between a few things that you mentioned and please correct me if I misheard. short-term vacation rentals is under one set of provisions within the code and as I understand the draft ordinance this these would not be for that purpose.

Uh and so there to your point we do have post compliance which monitors those which tracks them which we then have to go through and enforce them. for your distinction and for the public's distinction, that's very different than for rental registration and safety inspection.

So, we do require registration of those. We do require inspection of those that are being rented out, long-term rental purposes. Um, and under state law and under our local ordinance provisions, we cannot inspect those more frequently than once every three years.

And so we go through kind of quadrants of the city and go go around the city and do those inspections. So that will be fed into the process. Now you're required to do the registration on an annual basis, but the inspection doesn't happen but once every 3 years in that cycle.

Um both state law and our ordinance allow for both cityled inspections and private inspectors. And so the staffing implications of that can be augmented because of the third-party private inspectors. We'll be coming back to you next month to kind of walk you through some revisions.

One of which is uh council member Lilquist has been asking for an audit program and so we'll be giving you some clear indication about that. It's hard for me to tell you entirely because I don't know what the adoption rate is going to be at this point.

Um, but we can tell you kind of generally speaking, uh, we run the city in that three-year process, which is about 22,000 units in total with a program manager, a clerk, and two inspectors. So, essentially four people that run the current volume of things.

And we're doing, you know, those inspectors augmented by the private staff. and it takes us about three and a half years to kind of make it through the entire city in that respect. So if the adoption rate is high and we see that the nice thing is is that program basically feeds itself with the registration and inspection fees.

And so if those units are registering, if they're paying those inspection fees, we will see the revenues correspond with that. And if we need to to supplement that with staff, we've got a dedicated funding source that feeds that particular program.

So it wouldn't be an implication to the general fund. It wouldn't be something that's beyond the means of that program to sustain itself. So yep, and we're close to we're over time for this item. Want to take a break for the next item, which I think will also have some discussion.

But yes, follow >> I just wanted to clarify that without knowing the rate of non-compliance for the short-term rental um because we haven't been informed. I don't know if we have like only five a year or if we have 50 like the amount of staff time once there is a non-compliance.

Just wondering where that falls if it elevates. I mean, if we have absolutely I can't imagine we have no non-compliance in that area. >> You're fair. And and so when we talk about non-compliance, whether that's short-term rentals, rental registration, or code enforcement on variety of issues, those issues are very much a loss leader.

They take an inordinate amount of time to pursue. We go through an effort of voluntary compliance and we do that uh significantly. But then there are a handful of them that require us to go through and pursue a violation and potentially prosecution of those.

And so we can certainly elaborate on those. Those are much fewer and further between because we are making a concerted effort to gain voluntary compliance, but you have to have the full spectrum of options available.

Otherwise, if there's no nothing at the end of the the road, then people start take stop taking you seriously. So, we have a motion before us. Council member Lquis, >> I am in support of of the motion.

As I've said before, um the question about urgency, um I've spoken repeatedly about a sense of urgency for uh affordability for modest income households. If you're trying to live on 40 or $60,000, you're never going to get a home and you're going to spend most of your money on rent.

This could be, as Council Cotton said, a nonsubsidized solution. But my comfort requires that this be safe housing, not swear word housing, right? And much of what I see in this ordinance takes care of that.

When we come back to the work session for committee the whole if we do that, I would really want to get into the standards. I don't know how international property maintenance code would apply. I don't know the RVIA or ANC codes compared to the IRC.

I think the IRC is probably overkill. Go ahead and overkill. It's it's safe. It's good. But maybe not. I don't understand how the say um issues like your window needs to open for fire code reasons for egress in RVs.

The windows may not open or they may be this big. How does it apply? If we have residential inspectors who go to an RV, they're going to hold their sheet up and look at the structure and go, I don't know.

So, I would want to work those out. And if if it feels like there's a path to get there, then I want to green light it for the longer process. So those are some of the key issues that I want to talk about in our work session to make sure that it really makes sense that there's a that there's a path to feasibility.

That's what I'm we're looking for. >> So I want to vote on the motion and then some brief followup after that as far as clarity on direction what that that means. So, um, so the motion is to schedule a work session for committee the whole.

Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? >> Okay. Um, so that passes 51 with one excused. So I think as far as the direction question to me is still lingering and I think with just speaking candidly council members Liquist and Anderson alone I think the questions right I mean could ensue there's lots of questions and uncertainty so I would be requesting that the questions wait until the work session and really my request of staff coming back to that work session would what is that list and what's going to have to wait if we move forward because I want that to be the first thing on the table that is considered at that work session so that there's first agreement by a majority of council to say yes we're willing to put these things aside and move forward with this because I feel like moving forward whether it's an interim or permanent I'm supportive I mean I think it's very exciting I'm hopeful as well that it would be you know something um that would take off and that would help ease right the housing shortage and provide affordability and all of those things.

But I'm also very realistic about what that entails on the staff side and all of the other things on the workload. So, um, one question for, and I don't know if Mayor or Jackie or others know, um, since this would just be the same item going over, could be the 10th, but I believe the 10th is fairly full at this point, right?

The 10th is not full. >> No, >> yeah. No, I'm thinking the 10th has a lot going. I won't be here on the 10th, but it's going to be a very, very busy day. Um, okay. So, just recognizing that it would need to be the meeting after that.

>> Yes. >> Um, >> well, is this about the >> It's just about what you just said. >> Did you have >> Okay, Council Member Anderson and then Williams. >> I just wanted to state the reason why I voted no again is not because I'm against MDUs.

I would have been much more comfortable asking staff to bring this back at the second quarter because I don't see where we're not going to be utilizing staff time with the questions that I know I have.

I feel much more comfortable and courteous towards staff if this would have been brought back where perhaps some of the work that is pending was completed and then we could have a more thorough discussion because I can't some of the stuff that council member Lilquist says he wants to know more about that's going to fall to staff because I'm not an expert.

I don't think anybody at this panel is an expert and those are going to be questions that staff are going to have to formulate those answers for us to be comfortable with and I would have been much more comfortable bringing this back at the second quarter.

I hope that will be a future consideration at the meeting. Um I really want staff to have the support to get the work done and I want to make sure we get this right and I just don't want to chew away their time with a lot of questions >> and we I appreciate that we don't have a final timing at this point.

those are questions that you feel comfortable sharing, we can make sure that we get you the answers that you need or at least have the people in the room that can answer those questions. But if you're not, then we can we can work otherwise.

>> Council Williams. >> Well, uh yeah, my uh question was basically the timing of it all. >> Yep. >> And um which is why I asked you earlier about what your sense of the timing was. Is it two months? Is it a year?

Is it two weeks? So, um I guess the fundamental question is how long do you not you but how long would be a reasonable time to get back to this discussion? Well, just to give you an order of um kind of operations as we think through our unified development code, which is the big push for what we're talking about now.

Um Elizabeth's here and she could probably elaborate on this much greater detail because she's our project manager, but we have a draft outline that we've worked through. Much of this stuff is taking it from our existing code context and moving it into kind of this new organizing structure.

But as you may recall with the uh work that we did in the Bellingham plan, we have to rewrite the residential code. That's a major lift. And so there's a lot that goes along with this. So if we're looking at our just our draft schedule, we're talking about having kind of the early look of that by the end of this calendar year.

That gets us to the planning commission in the spring and to you all in the summer for basically a a brand new land development code. So I know you all don't live in the code the way we do, but that that's a major lift.

It will be a major benefit um to to our development community and just community as a whole. It involves a fair amount of time with public works staff to get to that point. So there's a fairly healthy Gant chart and other things like that that we're doing to track all of this.

And so I just I'm I'm trying to be realistic about if we if we take a bite out of that in the middle of it, it's going to have implications. And so, you know, it's not to say that we can't do it. We're here to to try to make make things uh work.

But, you know, we're we're designing it and building it all out as we speak. So >> um just also if there are other questions please feel free to send them to me as well. Um just to say uh there's been a lot of great experts in the community, people who've implemented um uh the MDU ordinance in Portland, the Wakom County Health and Human Services Department submitted a letter of support and has been a great partner.

um and you know builders, contractors, folks with some of that technical expertise as well. So um I probably won't know the answer to your question, but I might know some folks who do as well. So um uh yeah, and so happy to to to meet um off offline as well to be prepared for that work session with anyone who is interested.

So um and thank you all for your time today. So, just to be clear, the I mean to address Council Member Anderson's concern, what I'm anticipating is that when this item comes back before the council, it's that to receive additional information from staff and the administration's team about if the council were to vote, yes, we want to move forward with this, what does that look like as far as timing?

And if the push from council is to move forward more quickly, then what are those options of things that council would have to move off or hit pause on and potential implications? So that may require, you know, coordination with legal as well.

I don't know what all would be involved in that, but um [snorts] I think it's important that that's part of right that the beginning of that work session. And so I would defer as far as the timing of is that last meeting in August sufficient time to have that information available as far as sort of what's the what's the balance point there or if there's additional time needed.

The motion was not for a particular date and so um I would say to to work with um yeah Jackie on the scheduling of that. Okay. Okay. Thank you all very much. Um, we're going to take a brief break because I think the next couple items are are doing as well.

I know we're behind schedule. We will try and take a brief fivem minute break >> on the Yeah. >> Oh, >> you voted yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> [music] [music] >> Okay, welcome back. Um, putting a little bit behind schedule, but we are moving on nonetheless.

>> Our next agenda item Our next agenda item is agenda bill 24970. This is a work session on an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending multiple chapters of the Bellingham Municipal Code to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide.

So, this draft ordinance proposes again permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide. This parking reform reflects the city's current priorities, removes obstacles to housing production, reduces environmental impacts, and supports our climate goals.

A type six public review process is required for permanent amendments to the parking regulations in the Bellingham Municipal Code. Following two extensions of an interim parking ordinance originally adopted in January of 2025, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed code changes at a public hearing on June 4th of this year, 2026.

The council held a public hearing at our last meeting on July 13, 2026, after which council members discussed and voted to refer this item to committee the whole for a work session, which is where we are now.

So, I'm first going to turn to Mayor Lend. >> Thank you, Council President Stone, and we'll see if we can't make up for a little bit of time. Uh, it's a pleasure to be presenting alongside Director Lion and Elizabeth, part of our senior planning staff here today.

And um, this is just a chance for us to finalize what has been a long and ongoing conversation in our community. And as the previous conversation um and topic in the committee the whole um reflected underbuilding housing affects all of us.

It affects the people that Bellingham really depends on. Our teachers, our child care workers, our maintenance technicians, um the people who make Bellingham work are struggling to find homes and afford the rents in the community that they serve.

And certainly we acknowledge as well that the children who grow up here, including my own, have very limited options to stay in the place that they've grown up in and that they love. So, the reason why this is a conversation at the state level and the national level and certainly here in Bellingham is that uh historically local laws have locked communities across the state into more pavements sprawl, barriers to businesses, home building, and indeed even higher rents.

And parking flexibility for new projects is one of the most impactful tools that cities have. And for me personally, um, this became readily apparent. I worked for the last six months on a housing finance mastery certificate.

So, I went deep in the weeds on um the tools and policies and what is needed to create more supply of housing and spending time in project performas, understanding the impact of a six-month delay in a issuing a permit, understanding how um parking flexibility plays into a proforma, changes in interest rates, uh tax incentives like the changes that we made to MFTTE, I got to see firsthand how that influences project viability and I can say with confidence that parking flexibility is one of the most important tools that we have.

Bellingham's parking regulations can be without changes significant hurdles for small businesses, beloved historic sites, and urban devel um urban development. And this is a picture of the former Tony's coughing uh the terminal building, a beloved historic building that was a gathering spot and a beating heart in Fair Haven for decades.

and without enacting parking flexibility. If we applied our previous code requirements, um our code requirements call for eight parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of restaurant space and um slightly less for retail and service.

And so just a 1,000 square foot footprint um with two stories without parks and flexibility would require 11 spaces. If that were to be rebuilt at 2,000 in a 2,000 square foot footprint, which is closer to what it would actually be, that would be 22 parking spaces without flexibility in mind.

And so that is why certain communities with many historic buildings are leading on this because beloved sites can't be recreated today. So parking flexibility helps protect what is unique and inviting about many of our historic neighborhoods, our shopping districts, and the historic downtown.

And by allowing updates for new uses in older buildings, we are making it possible to invite new businesses, investments, and renovations. And we know that parking can drift into a lot of hypothetical what-ifs when the conversation is unfolding.

But what I wanted to take the chance to really bring home is the reality is that the current code is causing real harm today. And in the state of Washington, what that looks like is about 12 and a half% statewide to additional rent.

So, for a single parent with a two-bedroom unit and just one car, um that's about $2,500 an additional rent for the second parking space for which they do not have a vehicle and a need for that they are paying for under the statewide average for um two bedroom units and Bellingham Falls in the statewide average.

We had a conversation previously that perhaps we're over um that was underestimating car ownership when reality is our parking ratios overestimate car ownership. So we took a look at the US Census Bureau information and we know that 59% of Bellingham renter households own one or no car.

So that is the majority of renter households in Bellingham and one in four home owners in Washington and Bellingham included have one or no cars. But almost all jurisdictions require two or more off- streetet parking spaces for every home.

So, we've also touched on and this council has voted to invest in changes to the locally preferred alternative for um multimmodal transportation alongside WTA. We'll continue to make investments um in how we can create a more walkable, ridable community.

And we know that the future of car ownership and generations yet to come will continue to change in this community. Parking mandates also alter our local environment for the worse. I know this is something that is a shared value with this administration and this council, but more asphalt raises temperatures in neighborhoods.

It impacts storm water runoff. It makes it harder to endeavor to preserve our important legacy trees. contributes to sprawl, degrades air quality, and works our vehicle emission goals, which we know are the largest contributor to greenhouse gases locally.

And we also know that voters like more choices, particularly on this topic. So, we know that it might not have fared well in a local um online poll where people were asked um what do they think about eliminating parking in Bellingham.

But when voters are asked, and this comes from a convergence of three statistically valid polls from three different groups that include typically underrepresented populations that um when asked, 75% of voters want parking to be flexible to suit a specific site, use, and location.

87% of voters in those samples prefer more homes that working people can afford over more parking spaces. And 85% prefer more locallyowned businesses, shops, and restaurants over more parking spaces. So when it's just should we eliminate parking, that sounds scary.

But when we put the very real choice of do we want more local businesses versus more parking, do we want homes that people who live here today can afford versus parking? The results are quite striking.

And ultimately, this is an invitation for council. It's an invitation for us to rethink the rules that are holding us back today. And I thought this was a great picture that um illustrates a historical neighborhood, our downtown looking towards Oldtown and what that looks like in terms of density um for that neighborhood versus um modern neighborhood like Barkley Village that was constructed without parking flexibility in mind.

And you can see the abundant asphalt and the difference um that parking regulation has meant for that neighborhood. >> This is the part that I want to chime in on a little bit in response to some of the direct questions uh that were asked in our last session.

This is a snapshot on the left of Senate Bill 5184, which is known as the parking reform and modernization act. And what you'll see in the upper portion of that is these are the caps or the highest amount of parking that jurisdictions would be allowed uh to provide should they choose to do so.

Uh where you see the word exempts where those these everything listed below that are dur are the uses that are not allowed to to require any parking spaces associated with that. So um just to give you guys a bit of a context, this adoption requirement is by January of 2027.

So we must implement this uh in about six months time in order to do that. Uh and then as Elizabeth had alluded to last time we spoke, you cannot require ADA or EV parking spaces beyond the state ratio.

So we went through just to give a visual reference to this. This is the um accessible parking space requirements out of our current code that's consistent with those uh those laws as well. You heard me mention before kind of the one to 125 which is that top row where there's one space.

So this is based on the amount of parking that somebody chooses to provide. So, if we go back to that previous conversation again, you're not mandated to provide those parking spaces, but should you choose to provide those parking spaces, then this would be the applicable uh ADA space associated with that effort.

Um, and that's consistent with what guidance we're getting out of. Now, the state uh department of commerce has is working on and will soon to release these two different documents. The one on the left is guidance for local jurisdictions uh about parking requirements at a whole.

And I will note they're suggesting and their strong recommendation is to do exactly what we're talking about doing which is to eliminate uh parking requirements to provide that flexibility and allow development to it.

So boiled down to a single statement that's it. But there's a lot of additional information in there if people can't get to that point. And then the other portion that you see there on the right is the parking management guide for local governments which is understanding that there are needs to kind of manage the curb side and to go through a wide range of of topics in terms of how that's done.

And so there's there's a lot of work that's uh put forth in that particular document as well. We are prepared to go through I know council member Anderson asked a number of questions. Elizabeth and I can go through a wide range of different topics around particular projects or around parking management.

Um the balance of the slides that are available are really to help inform the conversations. I don't think we need to present them all to you this afternoon, but we can certainly if there's a line of questioning that goes forward, we can uh certainly bring some up.

You might have to deal with a little bit of scrolling that will uh jump to some of those, but it'll help inform those topics. So happy to go through again and get into any of the specifics in response to questions that you might have.

>> Thank you very much. Um any questions initially from council me council Anderson out of curiosity will you be answering some of those questions or do we need to repose them? No, I'm happy to jump into them if you want to go into.

So, uh, let me jump ahead a little bit. So, projects under the interim ordinance. I think this is one of the ones that you talked about very specifically. Um, so we have, you see the top bullet up there, we've got about a dozen large residential projects that have similar parking to what was previously required minus the waiver.

So, if you recall, we were offering waivers that were about 20 to 30% reductions in those. So those 12 projects that we're talking about are effectively coming in uh with that 20 to 30% reduction provided there.

There's about 40 different uh small infill projects and those run the full gamut to not providing any to some providing multiple spaces. Uh I've got a couple uh slides that have illustrative examples.

So if you want to see a few examples of how those work through, we can certainly pull those up and show you those. uh a couple different outliers. We heard some public testimony at the last meeting about Happy Valley, for example, with the six different duplexes.

That's true. They didn't provide any parking for those. One notable element of that project that's uh four out of those units is it's um across the street from H Happy Valley Elementary School. It's within distance proximity to um to the university.

um sandwich infill again wide range of different things and the bottom uh dash line there was the example that I showed you uh with the concentric circles where it's 200 feet from uh the blue line WTA blue line it's within 500 feet of uh grocery stores andarmacies and a dozen restaurants within a thousand feet so on and so forth so we can jump into those Anderson >> just want to point out the reason why I've been hearing so much is because those three sites are in my ward.

So the three without parking. So no wonder um I've been getting calls. >> You happen to live in a very walkable ward. >> No, we don't have a lot of infrastructure, but that's what their complaint is. But thank you.

I'm happy to continue to show some of these. I don't want to um actually let me just jump one slide ahead so you can see a little bit of those to kind of give you an idea. These are the these are commercial applications um that are you can see there in the column proposed vehicle parking.

Again, the majority of these are providing some level of parking associated with it. And just to kind of by way of reference and example, we have, this is kind of a plug for our permit activity. This goes in kind of it's updated every week.

Um, you'll see there in the map in the middle. Anything that is uh the yellow is the detached single family home. Green is uh the multifamily, excuse me, the middle housing. Orange is the multif family.

The size of the the dot is correspondent with the size of the project and the number of units associated with it. And then the blue is the commercial. And so we go through and we track all of these um and we can give indications of like parking associated with those different projects, but by and large um many of them are providing again some degree of parking associated with them.

>> I keep going. Well, I guess I'll ask. Were there particular areas of questioning that council members had last time that they're wanting to have highlighted? Council member Hamill. >> I'm trying to fully understand.

Um SP in terms of preeemption language. Um I asked about that at the last meeting. Wanted [clears throat] to just understand that more fully. If the state if state law will preempt whatever we do locally, then and I don't mean to be crass here.

Why why are we continuing this discussion? >> Well, uh you're absolutely right with everything below the word exempt. So, we will not have the opportunity to provide or require any parking for anything that's listed on it.

So, no affordable housing, no senior housing, no child care homes that are under 1,200 square feet. So, that would be most of your multifamily ADUs. The exception to that would be detached single family.

Um your kind of uh anything under commercial that's under 3,000 square feet wouldn't. So really there are the three that you have indicated there at the top where you have some discretion. If you wanted to require parking for those you could but that would be the limit to what we by no means are we under any obligation to do that.

We can let the market decide those as well. Uh Blake just answered my question. >> Yeah, the this is what the state sets as the thresh local jurisdictions, not just Bellingham, but local jurisdictions cannot require more than those top three.

We have the ability within our own home rule and discretion to not even require those home three. So what we are proposing to you from a staff and from the administration perspective is that we basically consider all of Bellingham below the line that that the market will decide the flexibility that the mayor talked about earlier is important >> and just to be clear that that is commerce's implementation guidance.

>> Yes. >> Council member Anderson. Um, a little bit to dovtail on what council member Hamill has stated there and I and I'm by no means suggesting we go down this pathway until if we identify that there are large hardships.

Um but there is a mechanism though that with a study conducted a viable study showing the negative impacts of this we could petition for an exemption. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So there is the ability to override but there is a process and that is one of the things um to my question as far as you know we say that we're going to be monitoring the impacts and so one of my questions and you I'm assuming you'll be getting to it was um how are we monitoring what is the tipping point what would we consider being truly a hardship then we might decide to fund the study and then my biggest question and one of the reasons why I wanted to have this conversation is yes, this is going to happen, but we're going to get complaints from the public.

The the blocked um you know entrance gate to their property, the blocked mailbox, which is not your typical mailbox that you have 10, but the one that's next to someone's gate. Um like how do they make the complaint?

is the ability to request no parking signs in front of a place so that when there's no parking, there's no sidewalks and their front gate is getting blocked and they have mobility issues and they can't shimmy between a vehicle and a fence to get to their gate that might actually open out and is blocked by that vehicle.

What are those options? Which I'm assuming is public works, but I'm hoping we'll know how to direct people and where. Is there going to be something online for a complaint? Is there a phone number because I've already had these questions and I don't know how to direct them appropriately and I don't want to send them down the wrong path.

It's not good for staff and it's not good for the community member. So, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to be able to have this discussion is hopefully get those answers. Well, I think Cclick Fix is uh largely one of our best tools that we have available for the you know the general community member that has a concern and raises an issue.

Many of those things that you're describing exist already today where people may choose to do that. Um and so is it possible that we'll get additional of those? Absolutely. Uh and so oftentimes again, cclick fix is a great opportunity for somebody to report that if it is um if it is somebody blocking a driveway or something of that nature, there is the opportunity to use a you know a private towing service.

I mean, I know, for example, where I live, uh, there's, uh, Elizabeth Park has has the concerts in the park on Thursday nights for a couple hours and the community comes to our neighborhood and parks around and so as a resident of the area, you kind of start to understand the implications of that and start to work through that.

But I'll defer to Joel as well. >> So, great question. Those are um those are all things that we deal with as um director Lion was just saying those are all things that we deal with today. And when it comes to parking violations, they are a little different than say a potholes or or something like that where cclick fix is, you know, the the best the best way to go forward when it comes to things like blocking a driveway or some violation like that.

We have worked very closely with our police department to set up a a system that uh people it's better if people actually um call and um and they can call the the police non-emergency number. They can call public works um and during the day those uh issues are routed to our parking enforcement folks because they um can respond more quickly to those types of things.

and that's, you know, specifically their job. But we have an operation and kind of a procedure in place that during uh um nonparking enforcement hours, those things get routed to the police department and they address them more on a hierarchy of need.

Obviously, if somebody is, you know, blocking a driveway or blocking an intersection or something like that, that is addressed differently than um than something that is more of a say typical parking violation that we might address like a following workday or that type of thing.

But, um, you know, I would say that, uh, all of the all of those concerns, um, you know, parking near mailboxes, parking within 5t of a driveway, parking within 30 ft of a stop sign. Those are all things that we've all kind of addressed on um the city uh, parking website.

It's a little hard to find, but, you know, those things are all things that we deal with today. And under this this type of um these types of changes, we would continue to address those things um in in the same way, you know, consistently and diligently um with the parking staff that we have.

So, and I understand the um the aspect of the driveway and stop sign, but in some of our older neighborhoods, it's very unique because we have late 1800 housing that don't have driveways, they don't have curb cuts.

Um, some will have alleys, but they don't have garages. So, they are dependent on the street parking. And some of them because they don't have the sidewalks where their fence line is is closer to the edge.

And so they park kind of on the gravel edge. And so it's not a driveway. It's a gate into their property and people park right in front of it. So it's I would assume it's not the same rules as a driveway.

And I've already had two people ask, can they get no parking signs posted in a perimeter that would allow that area to stay open so that their neighbors aren't parking there? And in the older neighborhoods, um it is very difficult um when school is in session and there's no available parking for all the residents.

it gets pretty crowded and so there are people who can't access their you know off the street onto their um onto their sidewalk to get into their property. And then the other concern in the past I worked really hard to get um ADA like the curb an area that did have a curb painted blue for somebody who didn't have a driveway didn't have a garage and they had a disability permit.

And I really had to fight the previous administration um director to try to get an area designated for accessible parking because there wasn't anywhere for them to park. So I guess I just kind of wanted to know how best when these situations come up um because they come up currently but in some of the neighborhoods that are showing right now that infill and additional housing is going in with no parking.

it will exasperate already a difficult area. So, I'm just kind of wondering um on those specific two situations because they have come up. How should I be addressing them? Because there isn't a specific code I could find for blocking a gate into a residence.

So, I think one thing that we uh frequently find is that in all of those instances um when we're addressing one person's parking access concern from the vehicle that's not parked there, there's a person who is, you know, a person who is equally, you know, parking their their vehicle in, you know, in the ride of way, whether that's a neighbor or those type of types of things.

and um and so we're always trying to balance you know what we're adding taking away and what we're adding in those types of situations it always ends up being very unique I think over the last you know four or five year I guess four years as we've transitioned to the way we currently have our parking um you know program enforcement and administration set up within public works we're much more integrated you enforcement and then how we, you know, deal with that program.

You know, we've brought on a a transportation engineer to help address those situations. Many of those situations are incredibly unique. And so, I would encourage, you know, people who have those questions.

We're not always going to be able to answer them the way they would like us to. Um, because once again, there's always different perspectives. Um, but I would encourage them to reach out to public works and we would be happy to work with them.

And when it comes to ADA and accessibility, we have tried to be much more responsive and um collaborative working with folks who have those access issues and making sure that we are providing those um appropriately.

Uh sometimes it can be a slow process um because you know we need to look at adding infrastructure and making sure that if we're marking an ADA space that it's actually accessible. We're not just you know doing it you know putting down some paint and making ourselves feel better.

We have to provide the necessary um you know infrastructure to do that and sometimes that's more challenging the than others. But I would certainly um encourage anybody to reach out to public works and we'll be happy to work with them on on their issues.

>> Thank you. And that would be just a general uh email, not on Cclick Fix. >> Um yeah, or with those kinds of access issues that are more long-standing. You know, I think Cclick Fix is a is a great way to go if it's not more of that emergent.

I have somebody, you know, parked near a stop sign or some sort of access or safety concern. Okay. >> And we actually I I wish, you know, sometimes we struggle trying to find the best way to convey this information, but like on the parking website, it actually tries to describe those two different situations and how one might might want to respond.

So, if you look up the parking services website, we try to explain kind of those different nuances. >> Thank you. I appreciate knowing how to direct people correctly to try not to create more issue. >> Council member Hamill.

>> Yeah, there was something that the mayor said last session um in addition to the comments that were provided today which I greatly appreciate that and that was um that we we will see these changes implemented over the course of many years.

Um and [clears throat] concurrently we have the preferred um uh local alternative that we're seeing with WTA improvements with transit. Director Lion mentioned [clears throat] the um that ebikes weren't a thing 10 years ago.

That's that's absolutely true. Now they're everywhere. Um and so changes in how people get around will um we we will experience that in our community. Um, and [clears throat] my understanding, if unless I'm getting this completely wrong, is that the changes that we would see with parking would largely happen in non-established older neighborhoods with the exception of some of the the ones that were mentioned here today and and may and others perhaps, but when I think of [clears throat] um the changes um h happening over the course of years, I think of Cordata neighborhood, which I just rode through with my wife uh this weekend on our ebikes.

and noticed um new development happening throughout that neighborhood. Um urban villages, we'll see some changes there as well. Um someone asked me, so my I live in Sunnyland and [clears throat] someone asked me um who was concerned about neighborhood character and such.

Uh my my neighborhood was the the first one to hit the ADU threshold, which you brought up earlier [clears throat] today. And someone asked me, "What what do you see now? what what are the impacts? And to be quite honest, I live we live across the street from the trail that connects our neighborhood with downtown.

What I see are more people on their bikes. That's what I [clears throat] see. I don't see a lot in the way of the streets being flooded with parked cars. I just don't see that. That's not happening. Um so I I don't think the sky is falling in this.

We've talked [clears throat] about this for a while. It's been in front of us for over I think it's 18 months now. And while we don't talk about it all the time, there's been um significant public process, including the planning commission's recommendation of approval.

So, at this point, [clears throat] I might as my mind's been made up and I'm and I I appreciate you wanting to uh my colleague wanting to have further questions and I and I I definitely appreciate that, but I'm ready to move for move approval on this.

Second. >> Motion's been made by Council Member Hamill and a second by Council Member Cotton. And again that is to move to approve the ordinance for first and second reading. Council member Loquist. >> Well two things I I thought director Lion had an extensive presentation.

I don't know what there was some other questions with regard to I remember asking a question about the Fair Parking District which was a me way to not require parking and why would you eliminate something that didn't require there's just some questions.

So I this seems a bit premature. If we're going to go this route, then I've got motions to make. But I I'm just wondering if there's a little bit more time for discussion and to answer a few questions that are still outlying.

>> Yeah. >> Well, um, with respect to the Fair Haven Parking District, and we can certainly get into some of that as you are well aware of. Um that was one of kind of the flexibilities that uh the mayor had kind of alluded to when referring to the Fair Haven Terminal building where had we not instituted that parking management district which effectively allowed for all the commercial uses to be um assumed kind of in the aggregate for the whole district but then required additional parking requirements for um you know for that.

So bear with me for a second. I'm going to scroll back a little bit um and hit um so this is the the district. So established in 1994 u it enabled upfront allowed waving some of the site parking requirements that I was alluding to.

Uh and so you can kind of see the the starred boundaries around that particular area. If we were to move forward in this current provision, that would no longer be the requirement of the area. Any development agreements which are binding would still be in effect.

So if you recall the um David Evanol project that was formerly known as the pit um that would be a lasting agreement that would still remain in place. So the district itself would not uh there would that would be a waiver of those but any development agreements uh would be still maintained.

>> So I have a slightly different understanding of the parking district. My understanding is that if you're with an eligible district then you could enter into a contractual relationship with the city wherein you made a payment into a fund and as regard of that payment you then had an entitlement to not have to provide your parking.

that it isn't actually something which runs with each parcel in the district through a legislative act, but it was more like in the way of a development agreement. And it doesn't apply to every property.

It applies to most, which is why I think it couldn't be eliminated because it wasn't a legislative act. It was a weird thing. >> And when council established the Fair Haven Parking District back in 1994, it reserved to itself the ability to modify it if needed by future legislative action.

So, >> it's the opinion of our office that you absolutely can eliminate the Fair Haven Parking District through this ordinance. >> That's recommendation. >> Cotton. >> Um, well, thank you for the presentation and for reminding us about how parking reform is essential to our affordability goals and our climate goals.

Um, uh, there was an interesting public comment at the hearing. He said, um, I think we should do this for Western, but but nowhere else. And I said, well, I don't really agree with that public comment, but I thought they might be surprised to know that we are in fact um doing the opposite and that Western and our other institutional master plans will be the only places, one of the only places with parking minimums.

Um, and I'm wondering maybe just for council's edification if we could just kind of define uh, you know, institutional master plan, a plan unit development, and a development agreement. Um, maybe maybe everybody already knows this, but and then what some of those parking minimums look like.

>> So, for the institutional master plans, um, they are essentially larger campus-like environments. Um, so we have three of them that we currently use. uh University of Western Washington, Botcom Community College and the Peace Health campus.

So essentially they are these larger institutions that have uh you know kind of greater demand that's created because of the the services and the opportunities they provide. And so in the course of doing that as they build out these campuses uh we have adopted these institutional master plans and and all of them have kind of parking management strategies associated with those IMPPS uh associated.

Many of those were done with the intention behind them that they understood that they had adjacent neighborhoods. Uh we saw that particular play out in Western as an example where we created two residential parking zones, one in Seome and you know the surrounding environments where that spillover was likely to occur.

Um and so we didn't you know we were trying to manage that and go through the parking management efforts. And so our recommendation with respect to this ordinance is because each one of those IMPPS is kind of unique to the um institution in which it was designed that we would defer kind of those revisions to those updates to the IMPPS and many of those will those updates will be forthcoming and so we would look at that in particular.

>> Is it related? >> Um yeah I guess my um thank you for that um director line. Um, you know, some of these are certainly places where we've been invested a great deal in multimodal access, including transit.

Um, and I mean, I would prefer these institutions, right, move at the pace of attainable mode shift, not at the pace of institutional master plan updates. Um and um furthermore, I mean I I don't see any indication that these institutions are eager to uh underbuild parking.

I mean, Peace Health just put in a 600 stall parking garage, right? Um so I don't think it makes sense to treat these institutions any differently than any other use in the city. Um so um I'm curious to hear other council members reactions to that, but um that's just my two cents.

>> Williams. >> Yeah. A question I had was um along the same lines. If I'll I'll use Western as an example. if if they've got a a master plan that is in place now and basically we're going to honor that.

Um if that master plan expires and they develop a new one, would they fall under the under the new regulations or would we >> stay with the the exemption? But my perception is that if they develop a new master plan and it has parking at a certain level, they're choosing to make that um to make that their priority as opposed to someone telling them they've got to have so many.

I I mean for us telling them they got to have it. Well uh to to uh pro provide a little clarity on this. So the the city has those institutions the three that we have the IMPPS are thought to have a basically a higher concentration and therefore that's why we had the IM the institutional master plan.

If we're going to amend those we would have a choice at the time we were amending those. We can do that now where we can say whether this applies to them or not. That's a that's a policy choice you all have to make.

We can then or we can defer the IMPS to say, "Okay, we're going to have that conversation specific to that institution, specific to that area, and we can make a decision on whether or not we're going to move forward with additional parking recommendations different than the city.

We're Fair Haven District, we're downtown, where some of these others, we've already instituted a lot of flexibility when it comes to downtown, when it comes to Fair Haven." And so the thought wasn't to to treat those differently.

Let's just eliminate the or provide flexibility for those particular areas and then with these particular three institutions we would defer and let us do the amendments to those IMPPS and address that issue.

>> Okay. Uh just just as a followup. So, the way that I'm seeing it is that we are removing mandatory parking designations citywide. And if the institution is saying, let's say in five years, they say we're going to do this project and we're we're going to put in 200 parking spaces.

And they're choosing to do that. We're not telling them they have to do that. Then why would they need an exemption from this from the ordinance? >> The exemption is only for uh any mandate that we would have.

So if we provide if we provide the exemption citywide and include the IMP, then they would not need anything further from us. If we choose to exclude them from this citywide, then their institutional master plan would continue to govern.

>> Okay? >> And it wouldn't be unless we modified that institutional master plan that they could move. >> Okay. >> Which spoke last Anderson. >> Thank you. I think it was me because my hand's going numb.

Um, so I'm not comfortable changing an institutional master plan and I I'll uh disclose I work at one of those institutions. I cannot speak for them. I intentionally had nothing to do with the development of the last plan for the community college because I was running for office and so I didn't want a conflict.

But I know what goes into development and then developing those institutional master plans. And for me, it's a courteous thing. Um there's a lot of work, a lot of stakeholders going in. There's um I'm I have no fear that they're going to build a big building or housing and not put parking in because everything operates at a very snail pace.

The way that they get funding for any new building can take a decade. And so they basically their institutional master plan really looks at the the big picture over a period of time and that indicates to the state legislation where they're going to want funding for new buildings or housing or anything else.

And so they first have to go ask for funding to do the study on building a building. Eventually legislation will give them the millions to do that. Then they go into funding queue to try to get funding for the building.

And then eventually they get funding and then they start doing the building. A building that is coming in next to my office at the college has been in the works for probably eight, nine years. So there's nothing that's going to happen quickly.

Um I think maybe we can communicate and if there's a way to do an amendment because they're like, "Oh heck yes. this is going to allow us to change things and build housing where we didn't think we'd be able to build, then that's great.

But, um, their plan not only goes through students looking at it and faculty looking at it, administration looking at it, the state looking at it, but eventually being approved by the board of directors, and then coming forward.

Um, it's a lot of work, and I just hate going in and making a change. I don't think it's very consequential one way or the other if we did in the sense um it's just al eliminating the parking but I think that communicating to them who have a big investment in this plan that you know this is a possibility um what are their thoughts is a courteous step towards an institution that is um very vested in their master plan.

Um, so I just my two cents. Um, I don't think it's going to bring in a lot more housing. It's not going to bring in a lot more buildings because it takes decades for that to be done. Um, but I just don't like meddling with these institutions plans without them knowing in advance that we're considering it.

>> So, I'm going to Yep. Call on Council Member Liiloquist. Just noting that we do have a motion before us and then depending on how much discussion there is noting we have one more item and then that will be well depending on discussion um and then an hour of executive session as well.

So whether this yeah go forward or not but council member Lilith >> with regard >> with regard to this applicability section the the exceptions are for not just in institutional master plans but also for development agreements and planned unit developments.

I wouldn't want to touch those. Uh and I also don't want to touch institutional master plans. The usual criticism of these parking requirements is that they're arbitrary onesizefititall rules that don't make sense in particular situation.

IMPs are the opposite. They're site and situation and institution specific negotiated agreements that are supposedly sensitive to context and were the result of kind of like a you know coming together and understanding.

So the IMPs are the hopefully the opposite of arbitrary one-sizefits rules. So I would keep them. That said, they're can also be outdated. So when the time comes to renegotiate these things, we could open them up early or they could open them up early.

they just wait until the usual update period. We will probably revisit that. We will reook at our transportation patterns. But let's just take for a moment Western. Western has some of the highest pedestrian and bicycle use in the entire city.

It also has some of the largest parking lots in the entire city and it has the most dense amount of transit service of any institution in the city. And still it has significant parking spillover effects.

So much so that we instituted residential parking zones to try to ameilerate this spillover. So I mean this is not a situation you should go into without a lot of consideration. And no transit and walkability don't make it all better.

Sometimes even with transit and even with walkability and even with parking lots you still have parking impacts. >> Council member Cotton. >> Sure. Um, just one more note on that. I'm not making a motion on that one, but just to say those are all institutions subject to a trip commute trip reduction mandates.

Um, so I just find it incredibly ironic that we are saying you need to reduce um, vehicle miles traveled, but we're going to make you have parking minimums that might be more than you need. So anyway, not touching that today, but um I just wanted to return to the um planning commission's recommendations um amending the bike parking requirements.

Um and they are in the packet. Do I need to read them or can I just move them? >> Um it >> um it's exhibit uh C. Am I right about that? Okay. Exhibit C in your packet. >> And just to be clear, those aren't the planning commission recommendations.

They're staffed recommendations that followed both the planning and transportation commission discussions. >> One of them is fixing a typo, but the other one is increasing the ratios for the E and cargo bike requirements.

>> Thank you for clarifying. Um, okay. Has everybody found them? Okay. I would move to amend the ordinance um based on uh the edits in exhibit C. >> Point of order question. Don't we currently have a motion?

>> We do >> on an amendment to the main motion. >> Thank you. I didn't catch amend the motion. >> Yep. Amen. >> So my point of order is these weren't already these these these changes are not in the current draft.

Okay. I will second the motion. >> Okay. So, there's a motion from Council Member Cotton and a second by Council Member Lilloquist. Does the clerk have information about where we're at? Okay. Um to edit the ordinance pursuant to exhibit C.

>> Okay. Any discussion on that? >> For reference, it's page 173 of your packet. Okay, any questions? Okay, seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? >> Okay, seeing none, that passes 6 with one excused.

>> Okay, council member Loquist, >> I rise to make an amendment. Um, this has to do with the same applicability section. Uh, Mr. Hamill, you asked earlier about where state law preempts and where it doesn't.

My amendment is designed to stay on the correct side of state law. Um, and it has to do with um certain situations. The majority of the complaints and concerns that I have heard that that rang with me had to do with cases where there's no safe place to walk or there's no parking and there's a concern for elderly or children or people bicycling.

uh not all places uh would it be a good idea to not provide some on-site parking. So in those cases where you can't rely upon public infrastructure. So in situations where the public infrastructure does not exist, you cannot walk, you cannot bicycle, there is no on street parking, what about in those situations?

What about in those situations? So, I have written an amendment and I move this amendment uh that says that um this section on getting rid of parking requirements applies citywide except for the institutional master plans and planned unit developments we talked about.

And in any case, a proposed development project in the residential area that is located on a but or budding on a street that lacks continuous pedestrian pathway on at least one side of the street and does not have available capacity for on street parking within 200 feet at the time of project completion.

In such cases, any residents over 1,200 square feet living space uh but for any residents over 1,200 square feet is living space.5 on-site parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided except affordable housing and senior housing as used in RCW5921994.

So that whole thing about 1,200 square feet and the 0.5 that's pulled straight from state law. It basically says in this one case, which is only in residential areas and only when there's no infrastructure and only if there's no parking, in that one case, and again, only if you're building larger units, then in that one case, we'll default to state law, which says provide half a parking space per drawing unit.

So, if it's an apartment building or if we have made an infill housing with a triplex, you might need to provide some parking. But recall if this is an apartment building and every single unit is under 1,200 square feet, this will never apply.

So this is a rare situation where there's a clear possibility of negative impacts and known deficient conditions. And in that one situation, in that edge case, I think we should uh still look at um providing parking.

My guess is in most these cases, the people making these developments won't have a hard time meeting that requirement. they probably want to meet that requirement. But from my point of view, we need to look at all the situations and take public safety into account particularly when that threat to public safety is due to an insufficiency in public infrastructure that is sidewalks and on street parking.

>> I'll second it. >> A motion. Yep. So motion by council member Liiloquist and a second by council member Anderson. Mayor Lyn. Council member Liiloquis, can you clarify what you mean by available capacity for on street parking?

How do you define that? >> Yeah, the usual standard for available parking is um at least 15% available parking at peak usage times. So, or if we do it though around 85% of parking spaces are used, you're fine.

If 86% are used, you have exhausted parking capacity. So, that's the usual standard for availability. Cotton, >> I'm not really sure who would be doing this surveying in this circumstance. Um but um I I would say um right also for ADUs we can't have parking within half a mile right of a um transit line.

Um so I just it seems like this is such a rare situation that it's introducing a lot of complexity. um with probably very few potential applications. Um so I I again I just um I think even with streets without uh like frontage improvements, we have other strategies, you know, to slow residential streets.

We could talk more about residential access only designations. I mean like we just have more tools in our toolbox. Um, and it I'm for how much complexity this introduces for staff um when we're trying to deliver homes more quickly for the people who need them.

I I just I'm not seeing the benefit. So, I will be voting no on the motion. >> Anderson, >> um I agree more than likely um we're not going to see a lot of this development. Um, but my main concern where I can see this being beneficial is Happy Valley.

It's not going to impact a vast majority of the development, but there are areas of Happy Valley that you don't even have off- streetet parking like that. You have a ditch. Um, so there that's what you would have.

And so if somebody goes into one of those and builds a McMansion, which we would hope nobody would, but the possibilities there and they have multiple bedrooms and they are not going to I would hope they'd put in parking because I hope it's not a rental and it would be a house that would be sold and that would be an upsell is to make sure you have parking.

But there is that slight chance of somebody building something and not putting the parking in and you have a street like that. Um, now this would not count because you have the sidewalk per se, but in some areas, um, you don't even have that.

So, um, I see this as preventing an unintended consequence that we hope would not have, this would help make sure that wouldn't happen. And, um, I only see this really being applied in maybe one, maybe two neighborhoods, but they are the ones that are the most impacted.

um for infrastructure and the things that you know we could address to deal with the issues that externalizes the cost onto the taxpayer and that takes a lot of time. So, putting in the sidewalks to be able to help with the transportation or putting in uh like, you know, parking permits like we have on Seome or putting in uh speed bumps or protected bike lanes.

all of that um in order to improve safety is going to be on our dime versus the one person who's developing I think in bad form because I wouldn't want to be a developer not putting parking in for a large house or triplex.

So before going um director line I just I had a similar notation just about the term capacity and how that would be interpreted and so for me I don't know if it's feasibility or infrastructure. I don't know.

I don't feel like capacity is the right word, but director Lion, >> so I wanted to provide a little bit of context because um when we talk about infill uh or uh larger multifamily development, but for ADUs, ADU is the only housing type currently that does not have to do frontage improvements when you're building new.

So in this scenario where you had a project that was um adding additional infill units or a multifamily unit project, they would require to build out the frontage to the city's what we call 3/4 standards which includes sidewalk, curb, gutter uh along the frontage of that particular property associated with that and and threearters of the street essentially making sure that the roadway is paved.

So that may because of the way infill works have a patchwork quilt effect in terms of the property here is getting built and then maybe not the next one over to it. Um the other thing I'll note um and I go back I'll go back and reference um this particular photograph.

Um we have certain jurisdictions in uh this community that have taken a pretty substantial stance against sidewalks. Uh, one of the first projects that I got involved with when I came to work for Bellingham was a 4-unit project uh, that fought tooth and nail against having sidewalks uh, in in front of that project.

Uh, and for a variety of reasons I won't take your time to go into today. So I would be really concerned that if we did this it would come across as a component of elitism where it's using a uh you know an opportunity to fight infill development and not to have that kind of the the um ability to have equity the way we talked about when if you go back to where we were with the Bellingham plan.

We talked about wanting to apply infill housing across the city and having the equity across the city so that all could participate in that. And so I would just I have a reservation or a hesitation that it would uh it wouldn't be seen as everybody kind of taking their share of providing that infill housing.

So I just I offer that for your consideration as well. >> Council member Cotton. >> Yeah. I I'm just not aware of any McMansions that aren't putting in parking. So, I'm just I'm just I don't I don't know what problem this amendment is trying to solve.

Um but uh secondly, just um speaking of frontage improvements, I think today we're like talking about a ton of transportation related questions and we're just not going to be able to cover all of them in the depth.

I mean, I think these are topics of long-standing conversation and planning in the city and will continue to be. Um, but just something to name, I think, yeah, not every street like there might be other treatments other than sidewalks that can increase safety and walkability.

Um and just to say like all the stranded sidewalks I think are a big issue and that um considering like a fee in L for those frontage improvements so we can have more connected you know I think that is an area of emerging interest and consensus from from both pedestrian advocates and and the development community.

So um so all that to say I I'm I don't think um yeah this amendment supports our our broader goals. Council member Anderson, >> I I do um appreciate the idea that any new development would have to bring street standards up to three quarters, but I also appreciate Jay uh Council Member Cotton um acknowledging stranded sidewalks.

And I don't expect necessarily a response, but I do want to highlight an experience where in the York neighborhood where there wasn't sidewalks and there was a new development coming in and it was going to be like a sixbedroom that was being put in.

um they were asking for a variance because the 40 ft frontage would look very different and it wouldn't connect to any sidewalk and so they were allowed that variance. So for us to depend on, you know, unless there was some uh code that says you don't get a variance that you don't have to put in the improvements, um it's difficult for me to say that is going to be the solution because when it's a oneoff with a nineb block section that does not have sidewalks, um it's a very easy argument to pay a consultant to come in and say they shouldn't have to put it in and have that approved.

predecessors have approved it >> and in our prior versions of the code before we did the interim infill toolkit uh we did not require frontage improvements for infill single family homes. So to the ex I don't know the particular project you're referring to but that wasn't a requirement.

It is now under the interim and would be that's the way it's recommended going forward. So there's an opportunity to get that with all projects again with the exception of the ADU. Uh, Council Member Cotton also brings up something that is what we've been discussing and contemplating was which is that in instead of it being a variance, then there's the opportunity to if it doesn't make sense in that location to look at the linear frontage for that particular area, pay in a uh an inloo fee and then apply that so that now we're building out the network and filling it in where it makes sense.

So it may not be that sidewalk right in front of that particular property for that particular reason, but it will help to build out the broader network across the city in areas where it's where it is more appropriate.

>> Anderson, >> is there an option that instead of building out across the city, it builds within that neighborhood um so that somebody in Happy Valley isn't benefiting Cordata? >> Yeah. And that's and that's absolutely what we were talking with public works is looking at the inventory of where we have uh projects where it makes sense to fill in those gaps.

uh certainly looking at safe routes to schools, access to other goods and services that might be directly beneficial to that particular area and that particular neighborhood. So that we do have that walkability from you know from maybe not right in front of that project but hey there's a there's a gap here with two or three different uh you know projects contributing.

We can fill out that gap. that gap provides, you know, a sidewalk to this destination or that destination and it starts to really build out. >> Thank you for sharing that. >> So, I have a motion before us by Council Member Liquist and a second by Council Member Anderson with the proposed amendment that's here in writing.

Council member Lillquist, >> just a quick few quick responses and we can uh vote. Um, if development does complete the sidewalk by bringing up to three/4er standards, then problem goes away. So, I mean, um, that I don't see that as a problem.

I don't see this particular complication because we're talking about rare cases that are easy to identify. We we know where the sidewalks are and where they are not and then we can look at the crowded parking and if someone is building a larger house and puts in a parking space, boom, again, we don't have to go with our analysis.

This is not going to be triggered very much. It's not much of a complication. Um, I don't think it's elitist and precisely because which already follows state law which says if you're building smaller units or affordable units or senior housing units or any of those, well then again, it won't be triggered.

This won't get in the way of them at all. So, it's it's not a barrier to the sort of housing we need the most and are are most in favor of. Um, those are just some of my responses. Um, I'm ready for the vote.

>> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Those opposed? >> No. >> Okay. So, the motion fails to four with one excused. Do you need a roll call? Okay. Any other proposed amendments for consideration at this time?

>> Council member Cot. >> I just want to flag I'm I want to think more about the institutional master plan. So, it's possible before third and final I'll have done more work to conclude that that's a good idea, but possibly not.

So, anyway, just wanted to flag that. Not ready to make a motion at this time. Okay. So, then we revert to the original motion which was brought forward by council member Hamill and seconded by Council Member Cotton as amended to adopt the changes as proposed in exhibit C.

Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Was that a point? >> Oh, yeah. You can go. I was responding to uh Council Member Cotton's comment about reviewing IMP requirements before third and final.

That likely will not happen because amendments to IMPs go through a type six process and we'd have to work with those stakeholders for each of those IMPPS, meaning the college, university, and Peace Health.

uh if we're proposing amendments to those things and so we we don't anticipate that happening before third and final. >> Council member Cotton. >> Yeah, just to clarify the the exemption that this ordinance makes for IMPs would be so I guess if it was an amendment it would be a three words.

[laughter] >> Yes. Respectfully, what that would do is it would change each of those three institutional master plans that, as council member Loquist pointed out earlier, have specifically um crafted parking regulations for each of those plans.

So, by taking out the amendment and then meaning all the parking regulations go away everywhere, including in those imps, we'd be vastly changing each of those imps without the appropriate process. >> Yes.

And that just might be a good idea, but agreed. [laughter] Okay, further discussion. Okay, seeing none, I'll call the question. All the in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay, seeing none, that passes.

>> I don't think your mic's on. Is it? >> I'm going to say I'm still thinking about this, but I will vote tonight. Okay. So, this passes five with one abstension and one excused. Okay. And you got that.

Okay. All right. So, to be continued, but thank you for the followup um inter city attorney on the institutional master plan. So, okay. So, with that, we have one additional item. Thank you very much.

We have one additional item before us. This is agenda bill 24973. This is a work session on the city council communications and community engagement 2026 work plan. So the proposed city council communications and community engagement 2026 work plan lays out recommended tactics for the council to consider implementing.

These communications tactics are designed to increase and improve community engagement with [snorts] the council. The work plan addresses priorities that council members identified at their April 20th, 2026 retreat.

The city council communications work group provided input for the work plan and will help guide its execution. This is the last of three guiding documents that form the structure of communications work in the council office.

The first two being the city council strategic communications and community engagement plan which is a long-term plan to better connect Bellingham residents with the city council and the city council communications and community engagement charter which lays out the specific roles and responsibilities required to support this work.

The city council voted to approve the latter two documents on April 13, 2026. At our last meeting on July 13, 2026, the city council communications and community relations manager presented the work plan.

Council members discussed and voted to refer this item to committee of the whole for a work session. So, we are back today with some minor amendments that I just wanted to draw to your attention. Um and then highlight that um David Braun, our city council communications and community relations manager, is also here with us to answer questions.

Um but in the proposal that's in the packet, there were some minor amendments in the introduction to incorporate um and try to address the um the note that council member Hamill brought forward about just you know council assigned commitments on committees as well as volunteer boards and commissions and that work.

So in the introduction sort of trying to highlight the work that council members engage in on an individual basis um beyond this particular work plan. Um and then the history just outlines really what was in the summary statement in the logistical consideration.

Section number six addresses just recording, live streaming, and remote participation as a logistical consideration that hadn't been highlighted previously, but um came up through further review. And then also wanting to note that there were um so the public comment revisions in section F were amended slightly but with just a a formal proposal for a particular path forward that again some people have talked about pilot programs or pilot projects or considerations and certainly this continues to be something that es and flows over time.

So um that was for formal consideration. Um and then in the final section under fug future public engagement opportunities, it has separated out listening sessions and discretionary public hearings. And so thinking about especially with public comment being at the beginning right under this proposal limited to 30 minutes two minutes per speaker wanting to acknowledge that there will likely be times we know there will be times when there's extensive public interest on a particular topic and thinking that that public comment period at the beginning of council meetings really isn't meant or intended to absorb that level of engagement and participation from the community.

but wanting to acknowledge that we have other mechanisms available to really provide that space and venue for um public engagement at that level with community members. And so thinking about listening sessions as opportunities that would sort of be offsite and maybe more informal on a particular area of of interest in the community um and topic specific.

And then also discretionary public hearings being something that would be more formal that I envision taking place here right in chambers where we have legal obligations for public hearings in some situations.

Um but we could certainly schedule a public hearing that is topic specific that's not legally required but at our discretion and those would really be um focused more on areas of interest that the council has on perhaps something that we're considering for adoption or we're going to be taking action on and voting on and there's extensive community engagement and comment that we're receiving and we want to provide that that space.

So, just wanting to highlight again those avenues for um when we do see extensive public interest on a particular topic and how we could address that as far as an engagement opportunity. Um but I will turn to David if there are any other particular changes that we made that wanted to highlight before the council considers it.

>> Thank you. That David Brun, city council communications and community relations manager, but you covered pretty much everything I wanted to say. So >> my apology I was >> No, that's great. Be great.

>> Steal your thunder. Um and just wanted to highlight again the extensive work that David Braun has put into um bringing forward this work plan. So um that appreciation but wanting to yes bring it forward for consideration from the council.

So any questions or >> council member Haml? Yeah, I just wanted to [clears throat] uh again acknowledge the work that that was put in into this and how important it is to have a plan uh for um for our communications.

So, I'll go ahead and move to approve. >> So, we have a motion from Council Member Hamill and a second by Council Member Williams. Council member Liiloquist. >> Just a clarification. And so this motion includes all aspects of this including the reduction of public comment from 3 minutes down to two and a hard cap at 30 minutes for public comment uh with those commenters being uh assigned to speak in a random order if there's more people signed up.

So that's included in the motion. >> It is. So the motion would as I'm reading Council Member Hamill's motion is to adopt the work plan as presented. Council member Liquist >> move to amend the work plan to public comment still remains at three minutes per speaker.

>> Second. >> There's a motion by council member Lilloquist and a second by council member Anderson to keep it at three minutes. So recognizing still capped at 30 minutes but allowing three minutes. So you would have 10 speakers instead of 15.

>> Probably nine actually. But yeah, >> okay. >> Discussion on the motion. Council member Cotton, >> I'm thinking maybe good to hear from more people than less people. I I I don't know if that that would be my thought.

So, >> Council Anderson, >> I'm still concerned about people who um are neur neurologically uh divergent um or they're just not adept public speakers. Um usually a lot of people if they're reading and they're comfortable at the mic and they're very articulate and they could speak quickly, they can get through a lot of content in two minutes.

Um, but we do have members of the community. Um, I don't want to, um, hinder their ability to communicate to us. Um, yeah, we might have one less speaker. Um, but I want to be considerate of individuals with disabilities.

um and not have folks not come forward because of the fear that 2 minutes would not be enough time for them to be able to get through content that um they feel is important to give to us. Sorry, just Council Williams.

>> My experience with um dealing with people is that once the rules are established, eventually they'll figure out how to follow the rules and fit their comments into two minutes rather than three. If it's four minutes, they'll get to four minutes.

I think that uh two minutes is a reasonable amount of time to to do that with with the exception of whether or not not interpretation is needed. And I've also observed that at sometimes um they they um they get a few more seconds to finish what they need to say.

So um I'm in favor of doing it the way that it's written here and uh with the understanding that people will figure out how to combine it into two minutes. in response to I've considered the um the concerns raised and certainly with interpretation and I think if there was a situation where someone was asking for an accommodation I would and I would expect that request to come come forward and be considered.

Um the other piece was wanting to right encourage individuals. Some people have written comments and that you can right leave those written comments with the the clerk. Um those written comments can be shared with the council and you know through email and others.

I think about part of what public comment and for me what's most beneficial about public comment is the ability to write see and hear from a community member in their own voice and um to convey with that emotion and what they're bringing forward and wanting to make sure that um yeah that that is is conveyed.

But sometimes people talking as fast as they can to, you know, squeeze content is in isn't always as influential as, you know, um as less um and more concise comments, but I appreciate the concerns raised.

Um David, >> yeah, thank you. Um and respond to Council Member Anderson's comments. So there still exists all of the usual channels that people can reach council members, mail, email, phone calls, we can request meetings.

Um, in addition to something that's not on the work plan, um, I apologize I left it out, but I do want to make just an orientation to providing public comment because like you said, people come up here who may have who may be neurody divergent or have an issue public speaking.

Um, it's not a very natural setting. you're addressing people on your left, have your audience on the right. Um, and there's the sound and the the space. It's just it's just a little bit different, isn't it?

So, um, doing what we can to prepare people for that experience and also giving them avenues that suit them and their abilities. >> Thank you. Um, and also wanting to note this sort of incorporates the motion that was brought forward by Council Member Cotton at the beginning of the year that has continued to be um, forwarded to continuing points in time and so wanted to incorporate that for a a formal vote and consideration.

But Council Member Anderson, >> thank you. Um, I appreciate the the thought of uh coaching or resources and I'm trying not to tear up because um I work with students with disabilities and I work with some of the people who have come forward and spoken at that dis and having conversations with them of what it took for them to come in and do it and it was a hot topic so they didn't have a lot of time to prepare and to assume that some of these people are going to sit there and say, "I need an accommodation." You're putting them in a situation that they have to self-disclose that they have a disability.

when they are already feeling um disenfranchised because of um the way this world is set up and that they have to basically they have a hidden um disability and so if the if English is not their primary language we are giving people ability a time for interpretation it is something that they can't necessarily hide it is very evident But some people who have um whether it's a speech impediment um most people would not know that I have a speech impediment.

I work really hard. Council member Lilliloquist had to sit on the other side of the table with me for over a half an hour and coach back and forth for me to be able to say the word condominiumization.

If you listen to how I break it down, I don't say it normally. And so occasionally you guys will hear me just stick on a word and try to get it out. And I punch my words so that I sound like everybody else.

But I struggle with speech and I spend a lot of time and effort on it. Not everybody has had decades of practice to be able to sit and talk at a mic. And I don't want anybody from the public to not feel that they're welcome to come forward because they know they're not going to be able to speak in two minutes.

I have had six conversations with people who have disabilities. They're neurodeivergent. A few of them have spoken in front of us before and they a couple people have told me to point blank two minutes would not be enough time.

and they feel that yes, even though there are other ways to be able to communicate to us, there is power to them to get in front and look us in the eye and say their words and know that they're being heard.

Sending an email, you don't have that same feeling of empowerment. So, I just know that we will be disenfranchising members of our community and I've been told that directly because I'm a safe person.

I feel right now saying what I have said is compromising their trust in me. But there's no other way for me to communicate that to this council um without disclosing that individuals who took a lot of um not only pride but a lot of risk to come in front of us and speak because it is evident that they struggled.

Um, but they were really proud of that moment. Um, and that there is power in that for them and we will be eliminating that. And so, um, I'm sorry I'm taking a lot of time on it, but it is just it's very difficult for me having heard their voices and knowing that this will silence them.

And I don't know how many other people in the community will be silenced because of the time limit. And we cannot ask them to self-disclose that they have a disability. That just goes in the face of a lot of confidentiality and ADA laws.

So that is not something we can expect. And if if they want to self disclose that that is on them. But then for us to then have a mechanism to say okay now you could have more time because you disclosed you have a disability.

Then we are marginalizing those who are not going to take that risk and tell the public they have a disability because they spend a big part of their life trying to normalize themselves in this community so that they're not outing themselves of having a disability and we're putting them in a position to have to do that if they feel like they can't get their content out and I don't want to do that.

>> Thank you, Council Member Anderson. Um, in response, I would say it's something that I take very seriously and I want to ensure that people feel comfortable coming forward and that we're not discouraging people from participating in public comment.

I also have concerns that I mean in my time on council I think I remember once someone utilizing the interpretation right that we are providing um at every evening session and I've reflected upon that and thinking that this is not right there's something about the space and that we've created in the way that we operate that is not a welcoming space um for certain members of our community and so part of this work plan is trying to look at other opportunities to engage right with different people in our community and hopefully different spaces and places where people do feel more comfortable um speaking and engaging with council members and so you know part of that is small group sessions in different locations that are maybe specifically you know with interpretation or you know in this case I'm thinking about the fact that there are times when I don't know two minutes isn't sufficient is three minutes you know sufficient or you know needing longer I Ultimately, I feel like we haven't seen an, you know, the diversity within our public comment time is not great, right?

I mean just I enjoy hearing from the members of community that we hear from routinely and you know I'm happy for that engagement but looking to expand that diversity and so I don't know that the difference between two and three minutes is going to bridge the gap to make people who are also neurody divergent and you know have um fear and anxiety about communicating that that's going to make the difference between them coming here or not.

I would welcome in in L, you know, as an alternative is having a listening session when, you know, there is time that's flexible and that we're sitting maybe in a circle and, you know, welcoming people to to speak at a pace and in a form that's, you know, most comfortable for them.

And so, I really appreciate the concern being brought forward. My concern is that this this point isn't I don't think it's going to fully address it. I understand that cutting it back may feel like we're now moving in the opposite direction, but that's why I was not open to even considering Council Member Cotton's proposal without a broader plan in place to try and bridge some gaps and do things differently in other areas of our work to try and um really meet people where they're at in our community.

And so I'm hopeful that this plan as a whole is getting us there and recognizing that public comment period is really a very very small piece of how we engage with the broader community. Um but I really appreciate you bringing those concerns forward, Council Member Williams.

>> Thank you, President Stone, because the thing that impresses me about having this is that we have a plan. with many options for people to engage with us. We did not have something like this before.

And uh it's it's showing me that how our role as a council and as individual council members, even though we go to meetings and we see people and we talk to people, but when I came on the council, I felt that all that stuff was done on the fly as as opposed to we have conversations circles or we have meetings where we can go and and if that are scheduled through our through our work as opposed to well, if I didn't hear about a meeting in so and so on a certain date, then how would I even know to go and and engage people unless they reached out to me?

This is us reaching out to them and I really really appreciate that and uh I think we should vote. >> Yeah, I don't want the this this amendment over the issue of the amount of time each commenter is given to overshadow this excellent document.

email, social media, um, op-ed pieces in Publix, in-person engagements, um, coordinated ways which we have email responses to common emails, public comment and the listening sessions and, uh, discretionary public hearings and even block party ideas.

There's a lot of of really warm inperson and and and two-way communications in here. I don't want to I don't want to miss that. Um I have always just looked for ways to increase public input and the quality of it rather than just say the quantity of it.

So just for me I think three minutes is better than two. Some people are eloquent. They can do it in one, right? But I think three has been a good number and I don't want to back away from that. Um we're already limiting comment to 30 minutes.

There's no perfect solution. Um but I think three minutes is better than two and I would just prefer to stick with it. Additional comments, council cotton, >> I think if [clears throat] different folks can speak different numbers of words per minute and yeah, some of that um could be attributable to um a disability and um I think you know there's that's just an inequitable format whether it's 2 minutes or 3 minutes or 5 minutes, right?

like but I also don't want to give the impression that the powerfulness or effectiveness of a comment is based on words spoken right um the number of words spoken I think it's um what um folks are communicating and um what it means for them to be sharing it with us so um I think um I I agree I quantity and quality are both important and I think are reflected in this this this document Um, but I think especially in the context of moving this to the front of the meeting and putting a 30-minute limit, I also knowing we just have a lot of frequent flyers and I I you know, I'm very familiar what they have to say and I appreciate hearing from them, but um I wouldn't want those folks to just sign up first and then there not be space for others who might have be there for the first time.

So, um I for those reasons I would want to stick with the two-minute and I just would second the conversations about um wanting to create um different spaces with other affordances that might be accessible to different groups of people in different ways.

So, thanks um for this work um and excited to vote on this after this amendment. >> So, we have amendment before us um to amend the comment period. It's currently presented from 2 minutes to three. Further discussion.

>> Seeing none, all in favor of the motion say I. >> I. >> Those oppos. >> All in favor of the motion. >> Favor. >> Change it from three minutes to two from two minutes to three minutes. >> I voted the wrong way.

>> Okay. >> Okay. So, all in favor? >> I. >> Those opposed? >> No. So, the motion fails to four with one excused. And then we have a motion for consideration of the work plan brought forward by council member Hamill and a second by council member Williams.

Any discussion? All in favor will say I. I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. >> Seeing none, that passes 5 with one excused. Thank you very much, David. I appreciate your time. Sorry. Six 6 with one excused.

Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Old new business. >> Council member Liquist. >> Yeah. I would like to um make a motion to request a future agenda item. uh for the city council. Uh this is uh an agenda item for staff to come forward with a discussion of uh transportation safety issues and programs and efforts uh by the city uh particularly as it relates to pedestrians and bicyclists.

It's been a topic of ongoing public conversation and a public campaign and I think a public discussion uh would be a good item. I've talked with um our He's not here right now. There he is. I talked with our our public works director.

Um he sees some value in utility if that's the way the council wants to go. Um but he did indicate that it wouldn't be happen right away that there's a full load uh for his staff and it would need to come forward at a future date.

>> Second. >> So we have a motion by Council Member Liquist and a second by Council Member Anderson. Can you just restate the motion as you'd like it to appear in the minutes? Sure. A discuss a future discussion item on transportation safety uh particularly as it relates to bicycles and bicyclists and pedestrians um to cover um current efforts, programs and policies and possible future programs and policies or you know whatever.

I want to leave it open-ended. Well, the motion can't be I >> I want the wording of the motion for the clerk to be clear so that we have it in the minutes >> and leave it as it was. >> Do you want to read back what you have?

>> Move to request a future city council presentation tied to transportation safety, specifically as it relates to bicycle and pedestrians and how it ties to current and future city work. >> Actually, the word was discussion, not presentation.

Thank you. Okay, Council Member Anderson. >> So, um, Council Member Liquist and I had a short conversation on this and we've all received a lot of emails supporting um kind of a pedestrian bicycle initiative for certain work to be done.

And I think staff did a a great job addressing um kind of like what our workload is, what we're working on. Um some of it dovetales, some of it's not. Um I think some of the things that uh this group has been advocating for um is going to happen over a period of time.

Um I don't know if all council members met with this coalition to discuss what their goal was. when I had met with them, um I I told them I could agree with a lot of the things that they wanted to accomplish.

I just had a struggle with the timeline. Um I was kind of like, you know, it's easier to take a, you know, eat an apple one bite at a time and it seems like this is a whole apple coming in because they wanted the stuff done before um fall and I just that's just not how the city works and especially when funding was already dedicated.

So, what I'm hoping um this discussion will look at is um basically the requests that were made that came forward, which ones um are already in the pipeline, which ones, how far are they out? Um so, I'd like to have a little bit of that examination.

We've all seen the signage go up on certain street corners about accidents or deaths that have happened to bicycles and pedestrians. I've had comments made to me by people in my neighborhood asking about these.

And I think having a discussion here with some guidance from staff would be a good uh community um enlightenment um because they're getting part of the information and I think getting more discussion on what the city is doing specifically to some of these requests would be beneficial.

Um, I know we can send out a lot of emails, but we don't always hear by those who are interested in how we're addressing this based on who sent us some of the form emails to um that they could get a response from us.

So, I I think um I know I've been having conversations in the community, but I'd really like to be able to highlight a video where there's staff expertise that is identifying some of these projects coming forward that I can direct inquiries to so that they can um get better information than they're going to get from me um about sight specific concerns.

So that's my hope um from this future discussion and I do appreciate that it's not like being asked to be brought forward next week. Um but that would be I think staff might be aware of the direction of um based on your conversation I hope um where we would like to go if we approve this.

>> Further discussion on the motion. >> Council member Cotton. >> I will support the motion. Um, I think I'm uh very interested to learn more about the local access um street um kind of uh treatments um to the extent that might be something we could integrate into the community streets program.

Um and also yeah, I think I'm a big fan of the um quick build approach to more protected infrastructure and um those are pretty cheap in terms of materials, right? um and probably not too complicated in terms of design.

So um it would be really helpful to know like what are the what are the actual trade-offs um and how much of that is around like how much new engagement do we want to do around these or is this because it's in the plan something we're already really kind of comfortable executing on.

Um and then kind of yeah just in the context of how we're executing on the pedestrian and bicycle master plans would be would be great. Um, so yeah, thanks for the motion. I'll vote yes. >> Okay, >> further discussion.

Okay, all in favor of the motion say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 6 with one excused. Okay, any other items for old and new. Okay, you will have another opportunity this evening.

Um, but in the inter room we have executive session and we have almost an hour of executive session items. So the first is potential litigation claim number 2026-18 with Phillips for approximately 5 minutes.

The second item is a potential litigation claim number 2026-19 also with Phillips for approximately 10 minutes. Third item is labor relations matter to discuss collective bargaining strategy with Danner for approximately 15 minutes.

Item number four is potential litigation matter with Rosenlat for approximately 10 minutes. That item was added on July 24th. And the fifth item is also a potential litigation matter with Rosenlat for approximately 10 minutes.

That item was also added on July 24th. We will take a brief five minute break before we start executive session. I will be back approximately 5:15 to adjourn. Um but for the rest of us, we will reconvene this evening at 7 PM.