Name: Bellingham City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee meeting, May 18, 2026
Start: 2026-05-18
End: 2026-05-18
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee

Mon, May 18, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Public Works and Natural Resources Committee — May 18, 2026

This was a single-item committee meeting chaired by Councilmember Michael Lilliquist, joined by Councilmembers Lisa Anderson and Jace Cotton. The session covered a significant citywide speed limit overhaul roughly 18 months in the making.

Ordinance Adding Chapter 11.05 to Bellingham Municipal Code — Citywide Speed Limits

What it is: The proposed ordinance rewrites how speed limits are set throughout Bellingham, replacing the decades-old "85th percentile" engineering method with a context-sensitive, safety-focused methodology. The 85th percentile approach — in use since 1948 — sets speed limits based on the speed at which 85% of drivers are already traveling, effectively letting driver behavior dictate the limit. National policy changed in 2024 to require engineers to consider roadway context instead.

The new approach: The city adopted the NACTO "City Limits" methodology, which sets speed limits based on crash potential with vulnerable road users — primarily pedestrians and cyclists — and incorporates broader city policy goals. Staff applied the methodology to the entire street network using a custom tool developed over about 18 months of work.

What the ordinance does: It establishes a citywide default speed limit of 20 mph for all non-arterial (residential and neighborhood) streets, effective 15 days after adoption. All unposted arterial streets also default to 20 mph. Speed limits on all remaining arterial street segments are now explicitly codified in the BMC, meaning any future changes require council action. The ordinance also updates the arterial street designation table in BMC 11.63.110 — last revised in 2006 — to align with the current Comprehensive Plan.

Implementation plan: Staff described a phased, three-year rollout. Year one (2025–2026) focuses on public education and outreach, with gateway signs at major city entrances announcing the 20 mph citywide default. The one exception for immediate physical signage changes is the downtown core, where signals are already timed for 20 mph progression and pedestrian/bicycle activity is highest — formalizing existing conditions. Changes to principal arterials will follow in 2027, with secondary and collector streets in 2028. Staff emphasized this is not a "gotcha" enforcement campaign; an educational grace period with warnings (not tickets) will precede strict enforcement.

Council discussion: Councilmember Anderson expressed strong support, noting that speed concerns are among the most common issues raised by neighbors over her six-plus years on council and her prior 15 years on a neighborhood board. She pushed back preemptively on expected public criticism that the change is a revenue-generation scheme, explaining that speeding citations are relatively rare and that the real goal is behavioral change and crash survivability. She also noted that speed bumps — a frequent public request — are generally ineffective on arterials and can degrade street function.

Councilmember Lilliquist highlighted a key sentence from the policy document: lowering speed limits alone will have only modest impact on actual speeds, but it establishes the legal and policy foundation for re-engineering streets to match the new limits. He noted this removes a longstanding barrier — engineers previously couldn't design a street for 25 mph if it was officially designated at 35 mph.

Councilmember Cotton asked about "shared streets" — a new RCW-authorized designation allowing 10 mph limits on streets designed primarily for pedestrians and cyclists. Staff explained the designation is intended for streets that visually and physically signal cars are not the primary user (they cited Pike Street near Pike Place Market in Seattle as an example). No Bellingham streets currently qualify, though staff noted future street designs could be built to that standard from the outset.

Amendment discussion — Old Fairhaven Parkway: Councilmember Lilliquist raised a concern about where the speed limit transition occurs on Old Fairhaven Parkway (a state highway). The ordinance as written places the transition from 30 mph to 25 mph at Donovan Avenue (near 15th Street). Lilliquist argued the transition should occur earlier — near the 18th Street right-of-way — because sight lines are lost before that point, and pedestrian crossings, bus stops, and bike lanes are present in that earlier stretch. He moved to amend the ordinance text accordingly.

After procedural back-and-forth — including a substituted motion, a clarification from staff that WSDOT has ultimate authority over speed limits on state highways and that any change would require an engineering study and WSDOT concurrence — the committee voted down the direct text amendment. Lilliquist then moved a new motion directing staff to develop a proposal (and separate ordinance if needed) to shift the transition point to approximately the 18th Street right-of-way location, with WSDOT consultation as required.

Vote on staff direction for Old Fairhaven Parkway: Motion by Lilliquist, no formal second required in committee. Passed unanimously (Lilliquist, Anderson, Cotton all in favor).

Vote on the main ordinance (unamended): Moved by Anderson. Passed unanimously. The committee forwarded it to full council with a unanimous recommendation for adoption.

Key Takeaways

All residential and neighborhood streets in Bellingham will default to 20 mph upon the ordinance taking effect — a major shift from the current patchwork of limits, largely set at 25 mph.

Arterial speed limits are now codified in the BMC, meaning future changes require council approval rather than administrative action — a structural increase in council oversight over traffic safety policy.

Implementation is phased over three years, beginning with education and downtown signage changes this summer; enforcement will follow a grace period.

The speed limit change is a foundation, not the finish line — staff acknowledged the real safety gains will come from re-engineering streets to physically match the new limits, work that will unfold over decades.

A separate process will address Old Fairhaven Parkway, with staff directed to consult WSDOT and return with a proposal to move the 25 mph zone boundary to better reflect actual sight line and pedestrian activity conditions near Fairhaven.

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

An ordinance adding a new Chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding speed limits

# Summary: Speed Limit Ordinance Discussion

Staff presented ordinance 24933 adding Chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code to establish citywide speed limits based on a safe systems approach and crash-potential methodology that prioritizes vulnerable road users. Tim Holman and Shane Sullivan from Public Works explained that the ordinance shifts from the traditional 85th percentile methodology to a context-sensitive approach aligned with 2024 national policy changes, setting all residential streets at 20 mph by default and updating arterial speeds last modified in 2006. The phased implementation plan spans three years, beginning this summer with outreach and education in the downtown core, followed by updates to principal arterials in 2027 and secondary/collector streets in 2028. Committee member Lisa addressed safety concerns and community requests from neighborhoods like Electric Avenue and Alice Street, emphasizing that crash survival rates decrease significantly with speed increases of 5-10 mph as the city densifies. The committee unanimously approved the ordinance while directing staff to coordinate separately with WSDOT on sight line safety concerns at the Fairhaven Parkway transition point near 18th Street before full council passage.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

24933ProceduralAn ordinance adding a new Chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding speed limits

The city is creating a new set of rules to establish and manage speed limits on Bellingham streets. This ordinance will give the city a formal process for setting safe driving speeds in different areas and could affect how fast residents and visitors are allowed to drive throughout town.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Amend the amendment (speed limits on Old Fairhaven Parkway) - refer to staff

nay 3

Jace Cottonnay

Lisa Andersonnay

Michael Lilliquistnay

Request staff to draft proposal for speed limit transition on Old Fairhaven Parkway

aye 3

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Recommend approval of ordinance adding Chapter 11.05 regarding speed limits

aye 3

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Verbatim transcript available

150 transcript segments indexed

Welcome back to the Bellingham City Council Committee meetings. Our next committee this afternoon is Public Works and Natural Resources. That committee is chaired by Councilmember Lilliquist, so I'll turn it over to him.

City of Bellingham Public Works and Natural Resources Committee minutes May 18, 2026, 2:15 PM Chair: Michael Lilliquist Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Lisa Anderson, Jace Cotton Email: ccmail@cob.org Web: cob.org/council City Council committee meetings Standing committee members receive reports and information, ask questions, and vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the regular meeting.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. Present: Committee Chair Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Committee Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Committee Member Jace Cotton, At-Large Public Works and Natural Resources 24933 1.

Thank you very much, uh, President Stone. We have one item before us today for the Public Works and Natural Resources Committee. Joining me on the committee are Councilmembers Anderson and Cotton. And this is an ordinance that would add a new chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding speed limits.

An ordinance adding a new Chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding speed limits Summary: Tim Hohmann, Public Works Assistant Director of Transportation, and Shane Sullivan, City Transportation Engineer, presented the ordinance, which lowers City speed limits.

Um, the city has conducted a study to develop a citywide speed limit setting policy that takes into account roadway context and safety of multimodal roadway users. The policy produced a tool for determining speed limits that was used to develop recommended updated speed limits for many arterials citywide.

Council Members discussed the ordinance and asked questions. Action: Michael Lilliquist moved to amend the ordinance, “11.05.020 Speed limits established – 25 miles per hour. Old Fairhaven Parkway from 12th 18th Street to Donovan Avenue.

Additionally, the policy study recommended lowering all residential street limits to 20 mph. The proposed ordinance will establish these updated speed limit recommendations. And this is based on a rather substantial report which I'm hoping or assuming you're going to be summarizing for the community because this really represents, at least going back to 2024, a substantial body of work and a substantial body of thinking in other communities at the higher levels of DOT.

Um, um, Mr. Holman, should I turn it over to you first? Yeah, thank you very much, uh, Chair Lilliquist, members of the committee, other members of the council, and the public at home. I'm Tim Holman, I'm the assistant director for transportation in the Public Works Department, and I'm joined today by, uh, Shane Sullivan, who's our, uh, transportation engineer.

11.05.030 Speed limits established – 30 miles per hour. Old Fairhaven Parkway from Donovan Avenue 18th Street to I5 Northbound Ramps.” Page 1 of 2 Michael Lilliquist moved to amend the amendment to request staff to develop language for inclusion, connect with WSDOT, and return with a proposed amendment at third and final.

MOTION FAILED 0-3. OPPOSED: Michael Lilliquist, Lisa Anderson, Jace Cotton Action: Michael Lilliquist moved to request staff to draft a proposal to change where transition of speed limits occur on Old Fairhaven Parkway and if necessary, work on a separate ordinance with WSDOT to define the language.

And I just wanted to start off, I'm going to go off-script a little bit and say to the council, "Happy Public Works Week." Uh, this this is Public Works Week, we'd like to acknowledge it. Uh, so, wish uh, felicitations to you all on that.

Um, and then I'll get to the real the real, uh, meat of the, um, of the day, which is a pretty important ordinance uh adjusting speed limits across the whole city. Um the number one thing that you can do uh to uh to [clears throat] enhance safety is to lower speed limits, right?

Speed is the number one factor in almost every collision and it enhances safety for all users of the roadway. Uh drivers, pedestrians, uh cyclists, and all modes, and it has the biggest effect to the most vulnerable users.

Um and I know uh Councilmember uh uh Chair Littlequist uh kind of alluded to. This has been something that that Council's been asking for for a long time, and public has been asking for, and uh the transportation uh division has been working on for some time.

Uh this this desire of the community is reflected in that this is the the first goal in the transportation section of the comp plan is to create more safety. Uh and it uh some of those uh policies directly refer to lowering speed limits.

Um and uh the like >> [sighs] >> like I said, the transportation division has been working on this for for quite some time because really what we're looking to do today is change how speed limits have been set uh by engineers for the last 70-plus years.

Uh as Shane will probably talk about, they've used what we call the 85th percentile methodology, but really this ordinance will solidify speed limits that are uh taken to account the context of the roadway, and really what we're looking to do with that roadway in the city of Bellingham.

And so, with that, I'll turn it over to Shane Sullivan. Right. Thank you, Tim. Uh thank you, Council members, for being with us this afternoon. Um I'm really excited to bring to you this next big step in our city wide speed limit policy project which is a new ordinance establishing speed limits in our city.

So it's been a while since you all heard from public works on this topic. So I thought I'd take a minute to catch you up to where we are at in the process um a little bit about the ordinance you see before you as well as some of the next steps.

So this project has been going on for about a year and a half and is really rooted in everything we're trying to accomplish in our transportation policies and our traffic safety goals. So as I'm sure we're all aware but for those who don't and like like Tim mentioned um addressing vehicle speeds is integral to reducing the severity of crashes on our streets.

And uh how we set speed limits in particular um plays a key factor in the ultimate operating speeds on our roadways. So um historically the city Bellingham has set our speed limits based on what we call the 85th percentile method uh which has been around since 1948.

And it centers around uh the 85th percentile speed which is the speed at which 85% of vehicles are traveling at or below. It also makes certain assumptions including uh that drivers are choosing the most appropriate speed for the roadway based on uh you know ideal driving conditions uh taking into account vulnerable road users, roadway geometry all of that.

So as you can all imagine that falls short of the real world existence. Um just how people drive on the street doesn't really model that that ideal driver. Uh so much so that national policy changed in 2024 that now requires engineers to take into account roadway context when we set speed limits.

So with all this in mind uh back in early 2025 we undertook to develop a comprehensive, modernized, context-sensitive methodology for setting speed limits that also aligns with current engineering best practices and our broader transportation and traffic safety goals.

So, we began the project with a broad literature review of all of the current research and and guidance when it comes to setting speed limits. Um we we tested several different methodologies and we ultimately settled on one particular methodology called the NACTO City Limits, which served as the basis for our own specialized city methodology.

So, this this methodology focuses on setting speed limits as they relate to crash potential with vulnerable road users and that that's primarily pedestrians and bicycles. And it also incorporates broader city policies into the decision-making process.

So, once we had our methodology sort of fine-tuned to the conditions of Bellingham itself, we took the next step and applied the methodology. We developed a tool and applied the methodology to the entire street network and we came up with an initial set of recommended speed limits.

So, we took that initial set of recommendations to several groups. One of these was the Bellingham Traffic Safety Coalition, which is an informal traffic safety group with representation from Bellingham Police, Fire Department, WTA, School Districts, WSDOT, Whatcom County, Western, sort of all the the local and regional partner agencies that are going to be impacted by this sort of thing and would have an interest in traffic safety.

So, we took these recommendations to them earlier this year and we got a unanimous support for not only the recommendations specifically from the from the methodology, but the methodology itself. And we also took feedback from that same group um, into developing a an implementation plan that that incorporates, you know, coordinating with these local agencies so that the project is successful in implementation as well.

And I'll touch on that a little bit more later. We also involved Transportation Commission in this process. So, in addition to several initial presentations to them early on in the project, we also, um, asked them and got an approval of a formal endorsements of the adopted, uh, city limits methodology in January.

And then they ultimately recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance, uh, just in April. So, that brings us to the ordinance itself. So, in it you will see that, uh, we are essentially setting a citywide default speed limit of 20 miles an hour on both arterials and non-arterial streets as permitted under RCW.

So, then the following sections of the ordinance then break out the specific arterial street sections grouped by the speed limit. And what this all means essentially is that all non-arterial streets, that's all of our neighborhood and, um, residential streets become 20 miles per hour by default, uh, upon, you know, 15 days after adoption of the ordinance.

Uh, this includes also all unposted arterial streets would also be 20 miles an hour. And then all remaining arterial speeds are now codified in the BMC. So, any changes to those speed limits would have to go through a similar council process like this one and would have that policy oversight.

Also, included in the ordinance is an update to, uh, BMC 11.63.110, uh, part E, which is the table that designates all of our arterial street segments. Um, the RCW language that permits us to set these speed limits as this part of this whole process, uh, has very clear language about how we treat non-arterials versus arterial streets.

And this section in particular, the BMC, has not been updated uh literally in 20 years. Like it was 2006 was the last update to that to that section. And since then, um I believe the city has even gone through an annexation process, and our comp plan currently has arterial streets in it that also designates arterial streets that are not in this in in the code currently.

So, really we're focused on uh updating this section not only to support this this process, but also to bring it in line with the Bellingham comp plan. So, now I want to give just a few next steps what we plan on doing afterwards uh to as far as the implementation of the prog- of the project.

Um so, like I said, we developed a comprehensive implementation plan of how we actually roll this this thing out. Uh we took feedback from, like I said, all of our partner agencies to help coordinate how they can make their operational adjustments to make sure that they are successful um in making sure that they are incorporating that into all of their operations.

Um and we plan on breaking this process out this project out into three years. So, three phases. Uh the first phase is really mostly an outreach educational phase to sort of get the word out and get people aware of the changes that are coming.

Hopefully, educate them as to why we're doing it, why it's important. Um we also plan on putting up some of these you'll you might see some gateway signs at major the main arterials coming into town. This These are sort of large newer type signs that say citywide speed limit 20 mph unless otherwise posted.

And that essentially enacts the default speed limit 20 mph. So, we don't plan on changing arterial streets this first year other than the downtown core. So, we did make an exception for the downtown core for several reasons.

One of them mostly is that we are basically formalizing the conditions that are already present in the downtown core at 20 miles an hour. So, we are our signals already timed for a 20 mile per hour progression through the lights.

We have some of the most pedestrian and bicycle use out of any part in the city. So, we really felt like downtown would be a great place to start. Just sort of formalize the conditions that are already there and sort of make this project a little bit more visible as well.

And then the so that those first changes will be this summer. And then in 2027 and 2028, we plan on implementing the actual changes on arterial streets. So, one year we will take tackle all of the principal arterials and then followed by the secondary and collector streets.

So, that's all I have for you for now. So, I invite any discussions or any questions that you might have for me. Um thank you very much. I've asked our office manager if she can pull up a map on page 247, which is page 25 of the report.

I just to give people an idea. As you indicated, the step one would be to set the default, but that wouldn't change arterial speed yet and then it wouldn't be enforcement as the first course. There is an education holiday I don't know what you call the a period which people are going to be given warnings about the new speed limits.

There's no gotcha plan here, I assume. Um I do have a question about this map. We'll get to it later, but before that, committee members, discussion? Lisa? Thank you. Um this is a great body of work. We've received a couple of emails where people um have various concerns.

Um but I um just a little history for uh the public. We've been talking about this for a while. And I was um on a neighborhood board for 15 years and on council a little over six. And one of the most common things that come up within neighborhoods is people concerned about safety and speed other than parking.

Um but a lot of times people are like the emails that I have helped facilitate trying to educate people or even as when I was working with uh my neighborhood board, one of the number one things were people were concerned about the residential neighborhoods and then some of the um I'll call them our more I don't want to say the main arterial, but some of the um things like Alice and Sammamish um where we're trying to encourage bike lanes and pedestrians, but we're having a lot more development and people have to cross multiple lanes.

Um people have been wanting speed reductions and um I think of Electric Avenue as a primary. I probably had 10 or 15 emails over time on that one. And what comes up most in the public is let's put in speed bumps.

And that has you know, I've done a lot of education why we don't do speed bumps, um how they're not necessarily as effective as people think that they would be and then also some of the issues around that.

Um and the 85% there is a certain amount of people who are going to go the speed limit because that's what's posted and there's always going to be people who don't, but the tendency at least for my uh looking around driving experience, if the the speed limit is 25, people are doing 30.

If you have a downhill like you have on Ellis, they'll pick up an extra five. And then there's going to be people who do the speed limit, but um the reason why I'm kind of going off on this is because we're going to be getting emails where people aren't I've got the you know, it's a gotcha.

It's just to generate revenue because we're going to start handing out a lot of speeding tickets. That's not the emphasis of doing this. It's not to create an opportunity to generate money. Um if you take a look at how many speeding tickets go out into the public, they're not that many and they're usually pretty egregious before they get pulled over.

But the reality is is as we densify, we have a lot more uh pedestrian traffic and um I am always shocked. I have a street that doesn't really go anywhere and I have people who will try to do it 40 miles and it is a two-block section.

And those people will still do that, but there's a certain amount of people who will actually obey the speed limit. Um I know Michael probably has one area that he's concerned about that he'll speak to, but um I am very much for this um for so many reasons and I just wanted to share speed bumps don't always work.

Um I know we've tried to get creative in our neighborhoods with um painting intersections. Um we try to do the landscape. Various things to try to slow down speed, but I I do think there's a certain amount of the population that will obey the law and if they see a speed limit is 25 or speed limit is 20, they're going to adhere to that.

And if anybody has ever done physics and you know the rate of crash for every 5 10 miles, the percentage of survival goes down. And I'm uh sad, but I'm glad you put in here how many, you know, accidents and fatalities we have and one is too many.

And if lowering the speed limit in some of these areas will make survivable for a pedestrian or somebody on a bike happen, it's worth doing. So, I don't have any specific questions. I am just really happy to see this come forward.

We've been waiting a long time. When I say a long time, for me it feels like 20 years of trying to get spot specific areas reduced on speed. When I've talked with the city, whether it was neighborhood or council, I was always told we need to do a speed study.

We need to do a traffic study. We can't do spot specific. So, now that we have the study, we have the work. I'm glad we're going to go towards implementation providing we have council support for that.

So, thank you so much for this work. I've been literally waiting decades for certain areas to be addressed, and this plan will have that happen. So, I'm thrilled. Well, first happy public works week as well.

Um Uh so, um the piece I'm probably the This is amazing, but the piece I'm the most curious about is the criteria for shared streets designation in the future. So, not something we're um looking at implementing right now.

I'm um but uh as part of this ordinance, but um I'm curious like if those criteria like uh when you say that we would need to to achieve those before designation as a shared street, um I mean, I guess like those seem like some of those go together, right?

So, um yeah, I'm just curious what the process will be in evaluating where that could be appropriate. I think the answer is we don't quite know what that looks like yet. It's a fairly recent change to the RCW, but we do know that that the intent of of a shared street is a street that is primarily used by pedestrians and bicycles or or other vulnerable users that they are the primary users of that street.

So, often times, um you know, we might get requests for um like a local access street to be converted to a shared street. But, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. So, the RCW allows us to lower the speed limit down to 10 mph on shared streets, but that is in support of the existing use of the street.

So, um this is a this would have to be a place that feels like as a driver you are unwelcome to be in. So, this would be a street that has visual cues that that suggest that it is not a primary place for cars, that cars are allowed to travel into, but are not like the primary use of.

Um I could see a some of our streets eventually becoming a type of shared streets, um but we don't really have any roadways currently now that we foresee being that. I don't know if any of you have been to is it Pike Street in in Seattle recently?

Um the block away from the market, that has now been officially, I believe, a shared street. So, if you take a look at that and you see, oh, well, now that makes sense. Like, there is a roadway and a lane and you can drive in and out, but by no means does it look like an arterial street or a place where cars are supposed to be.

So. Yeah, since since we during this work, we've had kind of this question off and on because the same RCW that allowed us to switch uh in the implementing this speed methodology also uh passed the ability for shared streets.

Um so, we've kind of brainstormed around a little bit, uh you know, what streets in town even lean towards a shared street. I think the one that I've settled on that that might be closest is maybe High Street through Western, if you can think of that.

Um I think even that is not what we would classic classically say is a shared street because it still looks very much like a street. So, I think uh when it's, you know, the elements that make it like a shared street is it's gated off, it's it's limiting the access from for cars that can use it, but it's still very street-looking.

So, I think if that was to be retrofit and and be more like a plaza that a car is allowed on occasionally, that is kind of the the context for a shared street as has been envisioned by that RCW. Yeah.

I do want to point out that um we've been talking about existing streets, but we could also apply this to a future designed street. So, if a new street is designed to be a shared street to begin with, we could also consider designated it from the get-go as a shared street.

Oh, thank you. Um yeah, I just um only thought is, right, if we need those traffic calming elements to consider a designation of shared streets that um that we think proactively of what areas have those that potential and yeah, that.

Um we didn't inherit any and that's because of previous design decisions, right? So, but thank you for that work and for this great um step forward. So, I'm going to go off of that that's a nice segue, the design decisions.

I think one of the most important um sentences in the citywide uh speed limit policy, I really enjoy a bull enjoyable. I found it enjoyable document. Um it says in here very clearly, while lowering speed limits alone is expected to have modest impact on actual speed limits, right?

It's just a sign. It serves as a foundational basis for identifying, prioritizing, funding, and ultimately constructing engineering solutions for reducing vehicle speeds on arterials. The real solution is to re-engineer the streets with safety in mind, but we had a barrier.

We couldn't engineer a street to handle 25 mph traffic if it was officially designated as 35. So, by lowering the speed limits, we now have given a new charge to the engineers to engineer to the new speed limits, and that will bring about the behavioral change, which is sort of like going towards a shared street.

And it's why speed bumps don't work because it's it's putting a speed bump on arterial that's always a 35 mph street isn't actually changing the street. It's just messing with and ruining the a straight street, so it can function neither as a slow street or as a fast street.

Uh I thought that was really important sentence, and what that means though is that um there's decades of work to do uh on these one by one. Um I have a a question about this map. First of all, I think there's an error.

And it'll The green line that is All Fairhaven Parkway stays green all the way into to I think further than I can't zoom in it. Further I'm I'm not sure, but it does go too far um because I think the transition maybe transition occurs at Dustin Curve, I think it does.

Um and that's what I want to talk about. I think the transition is occurring in the wrong place, and I say wrong I say wrong based both on the criteria being used in the plan and wrong based on community feedback, in particular some serious injuries that happened within the last year and and some other injuries.

I'm trying to find this one so I can look at it more closely. Um so, the green line is 30 mph, and then even though it's a state highway, it transitions down to 25 mph just as it comes into Fairhaven.

Um and the amendment I'm sorry, the ordinance the ordinance that was before that. Here we go. Here's the map. Yeah, that's showing the green line going all the way to 12th Street. Is this supposed to be 30 miles all the way to 12th Street?

So No. So, we did change that to be I believe Donovan. So, now that was actually in response to so, our GIS information matches the state's database for for their speed limits. So, this is state highway.

Um so, the state already has the limits of where the speed limits break in their own um highway log their database. And so, ours just matched that. But, then when we were looking at the actual signs on the roadway, which take precedence more recently after this report was published, we realized that the posted speed limit doesn't agree with their own database and the posted speed is what takes precedence.

So, we decided to adjust the ordinance to reflect the posted speed limit. >> Okay, so the map shows the sort of out of date statutory declaration, whereas the ordinance matches reality and the signs. That's right.

Um so, I would like to propose an amendment to this ordinance on Old Fairhaven Parkway and on page 213, it lists Old Fairhaven Parkway from 12th to Donovan as a 25 mile an hour section and then it lists from Donovan all the way to I-5 as a 30 mile an hour section.

That's where the green line should should turn um blue. I'm on page 213 and 214 of the ordinance. This is where they list all the streets, just list them all and say, "Here are the 30 25 mile an hour arterials and here are the 35 30 mile an hour arterials." Um as we were talking and as I've talked with staff before, the the road curves there and you lose sight lines actually uh earlier.

So, the So, the the road becomes not only more pedestrian traffic. There's There's pedestrian crossing there. There's bus The bike lanes there. There's bus stops there. There's a crossing there that's used from from the neighborhood to get to those bus stops or to go to the park.

All of those pedestrian uses actually occur before it tran- the speed limit transition at at Donovan. And Donovan is really where 15th Street would hit cuz Donovan comes in and it kind of dog legs, and it's really where the 15th Street right-of-way is.

So, the transition now is at 15th Street that we're calling it Donovan. Um based on my conversations with the community and my own analysis and also looking at the methodology there, applying the methodology that's on pages 21 and 22 of the NACTO city limits, I really do think the transition should occur earlier.

And so, I'm going to move that we amend the ordinance section 11.0 5.020 to on page four of the ordinance to have the line read All Fairhaven Parkway from 18th Street to Donovan Avenue, and similarly section 11.05030 to have the text read All Fairhaven Parkway from 18th Street to I found I-5 northbound ramps.

I'm using 18th Street even though 18th Street doesn't connect because the 18th Street right-of-way does connect. Is that an adequate way to define where the transition occurs cuz 18th Street doesn't actually touch.

It's in the middle of the bend. That's not typically how we like to do it because if 18th Street should ever be constructed, it may not be constructed where the right-of-way currently intersects the roadway.

How can we define where the bend occurs in the road then? We like to use intersections as natural break points, um, but there's no intersections there. >> no intersection. This is where the sight line disappears.

So, as you're coming in, that's where you lose the sight line, and where the transition actually does occur according to ordinance, you've already got the sight line back. You've already gone through the dangerous portion.

You've lowered the speed limit after the danger is gone as opposed to lowering the speed limit before the danger. So, if indeed the committee and the and the council wanted to move that transition, how would we define that in the ordinance?

Yeah, so I have two two things to suggest. One, I think we can we can uh, define a distance from an intersection as well, right? So, we can take that 17th intersection that does exist and and, uh, have a a distance before before that to align with whatever that 18th Street right away is.

Um, I will caution the council. This is not speaking against your potential motion. We'll defer to whatever the council decides. I do want to put on the record that this is a state highway. So, ultimately the authority for the speed limit lies with WSDOT, and I think the, uh, the, uh, state law says that needs to be based on an engineering study when we're proposing a a, uh, a change to a state highway's a speed limit within our city limits.

So, the the ordinance can be passed, but ultimately we'll need to, uh, coordinate with WSDOT whether they uh, concur with our ordinance or not. >> Thank you, and you did explain that to me before, and so when if if they say no, then the ordinance has to flex and give away.

Then we'd we'd come back. Yeah. Um, well, first of all, is there a second for the motion? Second. >> don't need for this right we're in committee. Uh okay, so we have a motion on the table and the motion now would Are you going to restate the motion?

The reason the the motion is to amend um parts 11.0 11.05020 and 11.05030. Yeah. Um to indicate that the transition would occur at approximately where 18th Street right-of-way would join Old Fairhaven Parkway, but to be defined, I guess, in an uh in an engineeringly appropriate way.

Mayor. I would like to suggest that the motion be amended to allow staff to come back with a recommendation that meets the spirit and the intention of what you're trying to accomplish, but that we allow staff to go off and work within the constraints to engineer a a solution that works within the framework.

So, versus trying to do it in the >> practical question is, do you does staff feel they could do that before this evening or we could actually push it off to third and final if that's understood? And then just be read into the record in third and final.

I make a suggestion, please. Uh and that is that with respect to the public works staff as they're trying to figure this out on the fly, um I I respect the concern that's been brought forward here with respect to maybe shifting this line of where the transition is to reduce speed limit entering Fairhaven, um but given the complexity and needing to talk to WSDOT about it, I I don't recommend moving forward with changed language that WSDOT might ignore or disagree with.

So, my recommendation would be to move the ordinance forward on first and second as it is written. Uh allow public works to have those conversations with their counterparts at WSDOT, see if they'd be amenable to making that change and where the transition is before council takes action to make that change.

Cuz that's a really discreet change that could come back as a relatively like one-page ordinance in the near term rather than holding up approval of this entire uh package of amendments over that one change.

I think if if council wishes, we would be happy to to have that conversation with WSDOT. And bring back a a revision. Okay, we have a motion on the table to amend the uh text of the current ordinance.

Are there any objections by the community members to revising the motion to instead make that explicit instruction to staff to work on language for the final reading um which would include not only come up with language that is suitable um but also give it to opportunity to consult with uh WSDOT.

Is there an objection to amending the motion? Then the motion is amended. Lisa. Clarification. Um just for process. I do appreciate having a motion because we've all talked about let's do everything by motion so it's trackable.

But I'm just wondering if the process would be cleaner um to maybe during old and new have a particular motion directing staff or requesting staff to work with WSDOT to bring back so that we could amend or do we wait to do third and final until there's that opportunity?

I'm just kind of wondering delay-wise cuz this is something I do support going forward. I've been out there. I've seen the emails and the concerns where the crosswalk is. All of that is very concerning with the sight lines.

I want to see it go forward, but I'm also wondering if WSDOT is going to be timely to bring something back. So, is it better to combine this and wait until we get that back, or is it better to have it be a separate motion that this gets passed if it's supported and then we go forward to bring this back as a separate um motion and then come back as a amendment if it gets approved.

Just practically speaking, >> we should try to finish this now. Otherwise, we have a really small piece of work all on its own. Sure. And I think that's almost worse. Mr. Funt. Uh Joel Funt, [clears throat] public works director.

I think that what would be most effective for transportation staff is to actually parse it out as a small small um one individual change that we could bring back separately and independently so that we can work with WSDOT.

Um we would, you know, be happy to um you know, respond to a individual motion like Council member Anderson is is suggesting because I think that would be the most effective way to move this, you know, important piece of work forward and then we could work on that that one individual item separately and make sure that we're doing that cleanly and appropriately in coordination with WSDOT.

Okay, I'm just trying to find the right process forward and as Council member Anderson said, we're trying to do things not so informally, but make it really clear that there is indeed a vote and support, at least from the committee at this point, to create that satellite piece of work.

It'd be nice if it could be done in time to go forward with third and final. But I if if staff is comfortable having it be this extra bit of work out there. Um Well, the current motion doesn't quite say that.

Uh further discussion. Yes. >> So, for that um just thinking about the minutes and how things are documented. So, at this point I'm still not clear on what the original motion was. I know you referenced the two sections and then it said to indicate that a transition and there was some other language, but whether that was specific language you were requesting to be put in or if that was direction to have something similar to that.

And then subsequent to that, there was an amended motion and I don't know what the amended I'm not clear on the amended motion, either. >> Yeah, the the amended motion of the there was no objection to the substitution, so that's a tantamount to a vote, was instead to request that the staff develop that language for inclusion.

And now the suggestion is rather than an explicit direction to develop that language to instead go off and work on the idea and the process, which could come forward as a satellite ordinance. I'm calling it satellite ordinance.

So Change your motion. Yeah. So, the initial motion was to indicate that a transition it was at 18th. It's hard to do it in you know, strike-through language format cuz of the way this is this a giant list.

It's not like section A. It's just the line in there. Um the original one was to specifically substitute instead of the word 12th Street, 18th Street and instead of the word Donovan, 18th Street. No, no, sorry.

Yeah, that's how it would go. Instead of 12th Street No, instead of Donovan. Sorry, substitute 18th Street for Donovan. Would have been my motion. In those two sections. In those two sections. Okay, was to substitute 18th Street for Donovan.

Yeah, and then there's other language where Old Fair Oaks is referred to, but that's just defining the whole section as an arterial regardless of speed limit. But there was a There was an agreed-to substitution which instead was to, rather than amending the the current for first and final, have them come back potentially with language for possible inclusion later.

The current suggestion from staff, and I maybe Lisa as well, is instead to don't touch this ordinance, make no amendments at this point, but to ask staff to work on this project and if it requires a separate ordinance to bring forward a separate ordinance.

Make that motion, Derek, old and new. No, we can do it in a committee. Um I would suggest procedurally what we should do right now is vote on the motion before us. I'll vote no, and then I'll make a new motion.

Any dis- any uh Do I need to restate the motion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying I. No. Any opposed, signify by saying no. No. Motion fails. I make a new motion which is to request staff to uh work on a proposal to uh change where the transition speed limit occurs on Old Fair from Parkway, so it occurs approximately where the 18th Street right-of-way is rather than where approximately where the 15th Street right-of-way is.

And if if necessary to bring forward an ordinance, and if necessary to consult with WashDOT before that work comes to us. We don't need a second for that. Is there any need for me to restate that motion?

Any need to discuss this any further? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Okay, we still have an unamended ordinance before us. Lisa? Move approval of um ordinance uh well, item 24933, um the ordinance adding a new chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding speed limits.

The motion before us, any further discussion by council members other than the committee? I have a question about the status of the speed limit setting policy. We're not adopting the policy. Does council not adopt that policy?

Is that an administrative policy? It seems like a very important policy document. I'd like to adopt it. I'd like to give it my council manic approval, but is it necessary? Is that not appropriate? I think at the moment we're viewing that as an administrative policy.

We did get concurrence from the transportation commission. They passed a fairly robust resolution on that policy, but as it was an administrative policy, we felt that it wasn't something that needed to come to council.

That was my frustration all along is that I've been fighting this arterial battle. And the response to council members is I'm sorry, there's an administrative policy in the way. And what I kept saying all along was no, public safety is a council manic policy.

And I always thought that safety needed to not Trump, but drive and govern. And this is exactly what that policy does. This policy is amended based on an unwritten unofficial policy which I've been trying to advocate for a while.

I still think there's something in here that is council like, even though maybe though it's written, it's more like a report for administration. I would say that staff's feeling is that this is a this is a technical exercise that is underpinned by engineering analysis as well as judgment.

And that that is um something that that we make these decisions um regularly um on a day-to-day basis and um and that is that is totally based on the policy direction that has been provided by council through the comprehensive plan, through the bike and pedestrian master plan, and this the intent of this um policy, more of a um you know, uh administrative policy is our our efforts to um reflect the the will that of the adopted policy that we have gotten from um city council.

And so, um for us to do that uh effectively, it is much um it's much more uh you know, we can do that more more robustly and on a regular basis if when we can just base that based on best engineering judgment and um and the best practice of today.

Shane, I don't know if you used the word um safe systems approach in your presentation, but I but in the report it refers to this as an example of a safe systems approach. You're nodding your head. And the reason why I mentioned that is you mentioned the comp plan and comp plan policy T1, which is cited in that policy, says to adopt a safe systems approach.

So, in a certain sense, you're saying that is the that is the policy. We just said do the safe systems approach, and then this document is that safe systems approach. No, you're nodding your So, this is an integral part of a safe systems approach.

The safe systems approach is a framework for reducing or eliminating severe fatal injury crashes on our roadways. It's one portion of the safe systems approach is safer speeds. And it's 1/6 of of the framework.

[snorts] Now, safer speeds does not necessarily mean safer speed limits. Speed limits is one portion of safer speeds. So, safe speed limits would be the administrator of the the policy part of safer speeds, but we also need to pair that with other ways to get the operating speeds to match speed limits.

And we intend to do some some good work to develop a full safe systems approach for the city in the coming year, but we felt that speed limits was such an important element that we decided to get that work done before we develop the whole safe systems approach framework as envisioned in the comp plan.

So, that will be coming to council near in in soon. Thank you for that. That's helpful and yeah, like I said, I really enjoyed the policy. Would love to vote it for it. I'll just say I loved it and that's going to be good enough.

Any further discussion? We have motion before us to approve the ordinance to create a new chapter 11.05 to the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding speed limits. All those in favor signify by saying I.

I. All those opposed, I'll bring it forward with unanimous recommendation tonight. That was the one only item for the Public Works and Natural Resources Committee. I return the meeting control back over to you, Council President Stone.