City Council - Regular Meeting

[Music] e okay we're going to go ahead and get started here we are at the May 20th meeting of the uh Bellingham city council welcome public welcome mayor um and good to see you again uh City Council Members um I've got several announcements in upcoming meetings meetings that I need to uh go through so just bear with me here um Bellingham city council meets all requirements of the state of Washington open meetings act um before we begin I'd like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unseated territory of the Lumi nukak samish and seamu people who have cared for and tended this land since time immemorial truth and acknowledgement are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of Heritage and difference We Begin this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth we pay respect to their Elders past and present please take a moment to consider the many legacies of violence displacement migration and settlement that bring us here uh together today and please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events next announcement language access the Bellingham city council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings inter interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room they in that black box right over there remote viewers can log into cob.org SLCC and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in

Spanish and I believe our interpreters here thank you on June 3rd uh 2024 the city council will hold two public hearings regarding certain properties within the Fair Haven Urban Village the first hearing will consider amendments to BMC 2037 33 increasing the allowed height for certain properties second hearing will consider a velopment agreement between city the city of Bellingham and a contract purchaser regarding proposed development of property generally located at the northwest corner of 11th Street and M Avenue commonly referred to as the pit on June 3rd 2024 the city council will hold a public hearing to receive feedback on the draft 2025 to 2030 Transportation Improvement plan RCW 35.77 .010 requires cities to annually adopt a six-year tip documenting local state and federal funding program for Capital transportation and Improvement projects six-year tip demonstrates that the city has prioritized and invested local and partnership funds toward major Capital Transportation improvements that are likely to be competitive for state and federal grant funding well call please Hannah Stone here Holly Huffman here skip Williams here Lisa Anderson here Michael liquis here jce cotton here Dan Hamill here all council members are present thank you just a moment here pretty thick packet this evening first item up for today is um it's public hearing for consideration of amendments to the compreh comprehensive plan the Silver Beach neighborhood plan and a rezone for multif family

areas 89 and 13 in the Silver Beach neighborhood uh public hearing is to consider amendments to the comprehensive plan Silver Beach neighborhood rezone of those uh multif family areas that I just mentioned from high density down to medium density a project page has been developed where project information can be found um it's at the city's website you just type in Silver Beach neighborhood and you should be able to find it pretty easily tonight we're going to um we will be combining both public hearings into one so the second and I'm just going to read the the summary statement from the second one just we're on the same page in just a moment and we will be conducting either two votes tonight or possibly moving one of them to a a work session um the other public hearing is to consider amendments to the storm water management requirements for the multif family Zone zones in Silver Beach neighborhood in BMC 16.80 the lake Wacom Reservoir regulatory chapter public hearing to consider these amendments to the um BMC 16.80 uh will establish specific storm water management rules for development of new units and Redevelopment of existing family multif family units in the Watershed in multi family areas 89 and 13 for Silver Beach neighborhood and there's also a project web page located at cob.org and you can just type in Silver Beach uh neighborhood rezone and you should be able to pull that up pretty easily um we've got some folks from are planning department here this evening and I

just wanted to invite them to uh kick off a presentation and then we'll take public uh hearing testimony thank you council president my name is Blake lion I'm the director for planning and Community Development I also have with me director of Public Works Eric Johnson uh Steve sundine is our senior planner who will be walking us through the brief presentation this evening then we'll be able to answer any questions you might have thank you good evening uh Steve sundine planning department uh good evening to the council members and members of the general public whove shown up and taken time to be here this evening and City staff actually not staff we have all the important people of the city here um nonetheless I want to go through uh just a few remarks I had quite a bit of uh stuff to prepare to say there's a lot happening tonight so I might just go ahead and kind of narrow things down uh very quickly um we uh wanted just to remind you that the moratorium is still in effect and that is set to expire on July 10th of this year so we're moving towards having these or these ordinances these amendments um completed by then we'll talk about right at the very end about um what the timing on that may be um we are talking about areas 8 n and 13 in the Silver Beach neighborhood uh we did hold a we did we did establish a project web page so hopefully that was helpful to people in terms of having one source of information where everything could be found especially the members of the

public hopefully you found that helpful too because we provided reference to it in the staff memo uh we held a public hearing with the Planning Commission on March 21st we brought forward some information about our analysis of the multif family areas in regards to storm water uh treatment and also the density options that you you directed us to go and study back in November of last year that being the medium and the high density we provided that information to the Planning Commission we took uh testimony the Planning Commission took testimony we had some good discussion um the Planning Commission at the end of the meeting uh pushed us to go a little bit deeper uh on some several key issues three to be exact to their credit and um essentially those were looking at opportunities for mandating storm water uh treatment requirements absent any kind of development application so essentially saying you know make it so make it happen um also they directed uh staff to talk about and seek out what other options are available for storm water treatment uh within the Watershed and then the last topic uh was also had to do with uh providing some either affordability or some uh lower income housing opportunities for these multif family areas should they redevelop or develop um really quickly uh with as far as the Mandate was concerned we provided a cost benefit analysis essentially we sort of went through um I won't say back of napkin because we was better than that we had staff from Public

Works look at that analysis and talk about the number of single family residences uh in the Watershed that are existing currently and those that have treatment and those that do not and so just to use round numbers there's about 800 single family properties in the lake walkum Watershed there's approximately 50 that have full phosphorus controls in place there's another approximately 140 uh that have utilized the hip program the home and Center Improvement Pro program I think you're all familiar with that um but those do not necessarily remove phosphorus from an entire site that's usually a portion of the site and there's a fair a large number that have no treatment well up over 700 that have no storm waterer treatment whatsoever so we went through this analysis as far as the Mandate and and again this rough calculation that if if that were to be so for single family properties that could cost anywhere from 15 to $50,000 not to mention some of the other complexities with existing site configurations and those kinds of things we also looked at options and we um at a at the work session we provided a schematic in the memo I'll just show it really quickly it looks like this and what we wanted to point out here by talking about the options were kind of came out it from a different angle and that is that we are we are running uh short I'll just say on space available to the city to provide storm water treatment so you can see here in the photo or this schematic that the green areas

are all being treated and either individually through private properties or by City facilities that have been built and installed and those are shown with blue dots you can see uh that the private areas and brown are areas where no storm water treatment is existing and so the point of this was to was to show hey we've we've really um you know turned over uh all the rocks to look at what we can do as a city and the only real uh remaining opportunities not to say there's no more public opportunities but the bigger remaining opportunities are on these private properties and you can see um in lower left in brown we have Area 13 and then right up here we have area eight area 9's over here that's a little more detailed so we'll stay out of that for now but that's just simply to show what the options are and then the other the other thing that we wanted to show quickly too was uh the things that we have been doing uh there was a joint council meeting joint meeting of the councils on Lake Wacom and the lake Wacom Management program right after our public hearing on March 27th we had invited the planning Commissioners uh to attend because we wanted them to be aware of the multiple things that the city is working on um and uh there was at least one member in attendance other other members may have watched from home but at the work session what we wanted to convey to the Planning Commission is this graphic and you may have seen this already in the materials and that's great but you can

see here uh there's a Continuum of time starting in 1990 and it moves all the way to 2070 and we're currently we're currently right in here and the red line represents our Target under the tmale for the amount of I'll just say it for now the amount of phosphorus to remove or Acres that would contribute phosphorus to remove all these things you can read them there these are all actions that the city has taken to continue to sort of move the needle if you will towards our tmdl Target of this 373 number so what we wanted to convey is again to the Planning Commission under these options is that we are we are we have been we will continue to look at every opportunity but they're becoming more and more finite as we continue to sort of do things through time uh the other the other issue that we talked about at the work session was the notion of affordability um that was a good discussion and we spent a fair amount of time on that um at the end what we wanted to make sure that uh the Planning Commission understood members of the public understood is that um we're currently looking at a effort with the Wacom housing Alliance to look at areas for multif family tax exemption expansion into other areas we had that discussion at the end of course the Planning Commission uh after that discussion work session recommended 60 for the changes to the storm water code the storm water code is now the rules are written such that they're as protective of water quality in Lake Wacom as they are for

single family it also requires a retrofit requirement so if anybody is uh redeveloping 300 Square ft or more of impervious surface or of course new development they would be then required to go back and then retrofit and treat all of the existing storm water systems that may be in place um I did a little measurement before I got here just to give you a sense of what 300 square feet looks like this area where you were all sitting here to the wall to wall is approximately 300 square feet so if someone were coming in to redevelop essentially or build new that's the area by which trigger those requirements under the proposed storm water rule Planning Commission recommended 33 on the medium density there was a subsequent motion for 33 for the low density had one member absent so there was no recommendation for one or the other so City staff is still maintaining its recommendation initially of the medium density just really quickly a few other things here in regards to some of the comment that has been submitted thus far um PRI there is a it it is written in many places that the prioritization is on protection over treatment and the city and the county and Lake wam Water and Sewer uh take actions to uh conduct that protection but when there are no opportun ities for those agencies to take action um then the next step is treatment and treatment occurs through development applications and it's not it's it's actually it's it's common that development then triggers other requirements

all across town for certain things you build on a vacant piece of property you have to build your street Fage including bike lane sidewalk Urban gutter you have to extend utility ities those are just some examples of things that development provides because that's the way the rules are set up so that those things for the public and for the private development can be provided there's some discussion about the GMA goals and in specific specifically um providing um housing inventory and Environmental Protection this is in our current comp plan those are GMA goals goals GMA goals and comp plan goals are meant to be applied evenly they don't one doesn't have priority or the other strike a balance is a word that you've heard us say many people say many many times and that's consistent with what we're proposing here and that will become more relevant uh as we go through the 2025 update um housing inventory and tree protection those are two examples that just somehow came into my mind those are things that we'll have to wrestle with as we go through that comp planning process so it's always trying to achieve that balance we the city we acknowledge that there are some residences in certain multif family areas that are um experiencing uh trouble financially with being able to either stay in or or provide for increases that may be occurring as projects are being maintained and upgraded and that has been that's come out in some of our prior meetings and in our Hearing in our work session

so we definitely want to acknowledge that that's a real thing that is happening um and to just be to be cognizant of that and then finally I wanted to say also that some of the other comments that came in we're calling for more uh studies and more information and more analysis um about projects in specific projects and specific properties and what we've conveyed and I wanted to provide to you also is that um for the comp plan and rezone Amendment proposal we're working at a very high level we have rules in place already that address development applications in the future should they ever come to pass and those rules are in place to protect critical areas to examine traffic to make sure we have um the ability to provide utilities and services trails open space and the like and so that's a reasonable uh request to to um have this information but that's comes at a Project Specific uh uh Project Specific uh time and so just wanted to convey that you know at some point if something is proposed somewhere in any of these multif family areas we have tools in place while where we would take this deeper look into um the site itself staff's recommending uh approval of the storm water changes uh amendments we're hopeful that uh Council can take action on that this evening um we expect that the rezone comp plan Amendment would um require some more discussion we have a work session reserved for June 3 front of the planning committee um and so we can uh take that up after public comment if

necessary I'll stop there and anything else that you would like to add okay great that's it thank you one second so no no further comments from staff at this time okay all right council member list yeah um Mr sine um I wasn't sure I got clear enough answers for me to the three questions the Planning Commission asked in the packet says the information was provided but doesn't actually give it here the first question is demonstrate why a mandate cannot be ined in Lake welcome Watershed properties provide for foster reduction measures absent any type of revelent application your answer appeared to be that a mandate could occur it's just expensive is that a quick summary that's a quick summary yes okay you quoted 15 to 50 million per property in order to add up to Millions ye yes that's what was in the staff memo to the Planning Commission on the work not sure here an answer to their second question identify other options that might be explored or implemented by the city to address Foster seductions I didn't hear what the other types were that were explored or discussed we did not offer specific options what we talked about are the things that we have done and are planning to do and that the options are becoming uh harder to come by just based on the available space that's available to us we've already done so much there's less to do generally speaking yes and the third question they asked is explain why Workhorse Andor affordable housing cannot be included in the proposed rezone

and Rule amendment I don't think I heard it an answer that you provided to the Planning Commission on that one we we talked about the efforts that are underway in in terms of looking at that opport opportunity but we because this is at such a high level we were not specifying any requirements for providing uh affordable housing or low-income housing in any of the multif family zones would it be done or is it illegal to do so or is it barred by some other policies we have if I may um we are in the process right now of going through as Steve mentioned in the presentation with the multif family tax exemption and then by extension from there also looking at inclusionary zoning appropriately so one of the things that comes forward in that level of discussion is whether or not it's appropriate to look at those particular tools on an areawide basis or on a city-wide basis and so going through that evaluation is in in my opinion in our opinion prudent to do so at that scale and not on an individual project by project basis the concern I think that existed and where we were trying to to kind of thread the needle if you will is that this particular rezone discussion is for the Silver Beach area there's a lot of focus in on one particular private property within that area and it's not it's not appropriate in this context to focus in on one property just because that has the potential for redevelopment we wanted to look at that at the broader scope and that's why we pursued are

continuing to pursue the mft and inclusion area at that scale so summarize the staff's answer is um affordability requirements could be instituted but they shouldn't be instituted on one parcel or one property but they could and should be evaluated for all similar Parcels across the city correct is that yes okay thank you if I might go also back to the two PRI prior questions about mandating storm water requirements and if there's something else that could be done there's I think it's important to recognize that there's a timeline on the moratorium and so if in the absence of taking an action as recommended by staff to adopt the stormm water requirements to all properties within this area in within the moratorium time frame if an application were come through outside of the moratorium there would be no requirements for storm water retrofits so while there might be a possibility for more discussions and I think there's worth whether that's even possible to do whether we could mandate storm water retrofits onto existing properties without a trigger for causing those development those requirements to come into place we want to make sure that we are putting at least the minimum requirements in place today so without losing that window of the moratorium and and so those two questions could a mandate be established I think that's questionable and two is there a better option well this is the option that is staff's recommending at this time given the constraints and limitations we

see with this moratorium window and those requirements are consistent with all the existing properties within that Silver Beach area as well so think maybe a different answer to the question is there's a timeliness element and there's an element to make the requirements the same for other properties within this area Council further questions before the open up for public hearing council member Anderson thank you comment and then a couple questions um just as a reminder too we always have the ability to extend the moratorium so even though there is a timeline and we're coming up against it we have time to do an extension so um that I assume is not off the table um especially if this goes to committee if we don't have a vote tonight um wanted to make sure that this possible case scenario is doable just as an example to put an example to your words and applying to all properties that we're looking at not just one specific but if we went with a lower density if the working group decides to expand the the multif Family Credit um we would be able to possibly look at a density bonus um above the low density in order to bring in certain things like open space or trees or affordable housing depending on um what tools and levers we hope to implement so I would assume that would be a possibility on um Redevelopment of all of these properties should that come forward because um what we would be talking about is a density bonus in exchange of affordability so there there's two pieces I

think that I want to make sure we're clear about in this one is that when a development application this is the reason for the moratorium currently when a development application is submitted to the city it vests that development in the rules and regulations that are applicable at the time of that application so the reason for the moratorium was to essentially prohibit somebody from vesting to those existing conditions and as a reminder that would be the high density unlimited uh development potential and so when we when we finish up the moratorium whatever rules are in place in that regard is what they would be vested to the other piece is when you're starting to talk clarify we can extend that moratorium while we still work this out it's not as though come June 3 we don't have the option if we're still in committee working on this to do an extension in order to finish the work is that correct correct so the the reason for the June 3D time frame is that should the committee wish to do first and second reading that evening that would give us enough time to then do third and final and then go through a 15-day adoption period before you know so that those whatever regulations were adopted that evening would be in place before the expiration of the moratorium if there's a an desire to evaluate the issue beyond that point yes then on the June 3rd we would ask you to consider extension of the moratorium even further beyond what it currently is okay July 10th I believe is what we

identified thank you I have one more so um to kind of piggy back on uh council member list the the second Point um you you kind of addressed the the private homeowner or the property owner but I'm wondering was there any invest tigation on federal or state assistance to be able to um help create or subsidize the storm water treatment I know the county has received grants in order to do some of their rols and some of their work so has there been any investigation of partnering um with assistance of state or federal in order to be able to lower that cost or to create some centralized um catchments so that we can reduce the phosphorus in these areas and it's not just a burden on the the property owner so I want to make sure we try to separate the storm water requirements from the question of the density to as much the degree as we can because the part of the uh the recommendation on making requirements the same for this property as they are for other properties is to provide that consistency across all properties within the Watershed so I think there's benefit of recognizing that what we're proposing sets the same standard for this all these properties within this area as would be applied to any single family property as well so the St standard requirements of at 300 ft of new imp previous surface requirements for all the storm water requirements in addition removal this phosphorus to the pre-existing forested condition and setting aside 30% of the property for conservation uh

all those requirements are not currently in place on these particular properties within the reone area and would be applied the challenge uh and the city has used state grants before for many of our storm water projects some of which are in this particular in the water uh we would find it challenging I believe to apply for a grant that would apply only to a single individual property of which the minimum requirements would be applied to uh if we were to do that the city would also need to acquire an ownership interest in that property on that from that property owner to serve that individual property uh and we would need a willing seller to do that or find an ad justification to through a court proceeding acquire the property we they believe that would be challenging to do so um as much as I would like to try to separate the two some of the argument in our packet is that and I'm trying not to just focus on one property owner but the packet does also focus on one property um but part of the argument in here is that if we don't go with medium density that they're not going to be able to afford to be able to do the retrofitting so I'm trying to find a compromise um one I can't separate the two issues because one of the arguments say if we don't do medium they can't do the work and therefore we're not going to have the water quality coming off of the site that we need and so to me I want to be able to explore if we went with low density whether or not the property owners would be

willing to do a partnership and that we would be able to go out there and get grants in order to help offset so that they don't have to go with a higher density in order to be able to make it pencil out and still have water quality um so it might be that when the time comes to do a vote I'll have to do the blind trust that will do the work that's needed in the long run if we can't get an answer coming forward that it's a possibility um if I if I might I appreciate that then that's that's that we certainly have had that conversation in with uh other folks about the economics of development we want to try to separate that a little a little bit because that's up to the developer as to what their economic pack package would be and then in that economic factors of development are all of the pieces of infrastructure necessary to serve and develop and do the things that that property would the storm water is a very is one element of that but it is one only one of those so whether whether the project needs you know 52 units or 75 units to to amortise the cost of one particular piece of infrastructure uh is we want to try to maybe separate those two ideas right we're not advocating that we want to buy storm water by having a medium density proposal here that's not the reason to do that um but there is a reality that the economics are are are such that uh to afford the impact the construction of a project that there a certain breaking point and a and a and a scale of cost to do those

things but would hesitate to draw a direct connection between the medium density proposal uh that staff has recommending and directly tied that to storm water improvements again making sure that the minimum requirements that are applying to all properties in the Watershed apply to this property equally and not say it's because of storm water that we're proposing medium that's the strike the balance of all the elements that the is proposing but I would not tie those two together directly further comments or questions before I open up the public hearing okay seeing none all right we're going to go ahead and uh open up the public hearing and remember uh speakers that the um the public hearing is not public comment period That's later in the meeting this is Germain only to the two items that we're discussing here which is the storm water uh component in Silver Beach and then the rezone um in the same same location so those are the two um allowable um subjects to to speak to there's a timer right there and um we just ask you um stay within the three minutes we have 26 speakers uh signed up so this is going to take a while probably I would guess until 9ish maybe go a little bit later um and then we have 16 people sign up for public comment at the end of the meeting so um for those who wish to remain um you know um probably 11:00 tonight so all right okay first up we have Ed King John Sitkin and stepen Clark and just a reminder that we have two microphones one upstairs and one down

here as well and for folks that are using the up upstairs mic I think it's a it turns green when you turn it on so you just want to look down and see that and is it is it green or red okay sorry I got it backwards that one's red red for go and then green down here for also for go and go ahead speaker you're you're ready thank you and good evening that's fine thank you good evening city council and mayor and thank you for the opportunity to speak today um I've been here here before I believe many of you know my story um today I'm here to discuss the proposed rezoning within Lake watcom Watershed um and focusing on the issues of affordability and gentrification um this proposal hits me close to home as you know and and I'm um feel very vested in the outcomes um as we consider new developments it's essential to remember the impact on longterm residents um the current proposals lack Provisions for affordable housing which is a significant oversight without these new developments will likely cater to higher income residents displacing those who have been part of the community for years and if not longer um we've seen the damaging effects of gentrification in Silver Beach in the Silver Beach neighborhood long-term residents are pushed out due to Rising costs and the tight-knit sense of community we value is lost um this proposal risks repeating those mistakes um the at attorney for the owners of Old Mill Village has shown no interest in including in affordable housing in their

plans uh this attitude is deeply concerning and does not meet our community needs during the recent comprehensive Plan update the planning department emphasize the urgent need to protect existing affordable housing and ex ignoring this me will only worsen the housing crisis um I urge the city council to extend the development moratorium until these issues are completely addressed uh development should benefit all the residents of the city and not just the privileged few let's ensure that any new developments in the lake Wat Watershed including strict affordability requirements to maintain the diversity and inclusivity of our community and thank you all very much for listening and the opportunity and thank you John or Steven John or Steven either one thank you my name is Steven Clark I'm a Bellingham resident I want to urge you to continue or extend the lake watom moratorium and approx and uh support the water quality issues so I live in the area that is you're noting the map that the Planning Commission did not show you all the details that necessary first there's a wetlands and a tree buffer zone between Old Mill Village and Flynn Street for size comparison it is about twice the size going widthwise and twice the size going lengthwise the tree zone is approximately the same amount but going in a north south versus and East West uh the map does not show the trailer park that is on the south side of Flynn Street it does not show the 70 plus uh 70 plus trailers that are in the

trailer park it does not show the 40 foot Hill that rises on Flyn Street to go from Flint Street the wetlands up to danen and Electric Avenue there is just one single road that leads into Old Mill Village and it splits apart and runs along the runs against the treelined abutment of bodell V Donovan Park and the wetlands and the tree to the South tree line to the South I want to urge you to continue or extend the late watom moratorium and to support water quality issues thank you thank you all [Music] right so John siten was up next and then after John we'll have Carrie Burnside uh Jean Ryan and Marcus D thank you Mr chairman my name is John Sitkin 1500 Railroad Avenue and I do represent the owners of Old Mill Village and about two years ago we approached the city to look at how we might develop a partnership and trying to look at the Redevelopment of the site there had been over 40 years the Deferred maintenance by the prior owners from Seattle no work had been done on the units and there was an opportunity we felt to approach the city to how we might do things well two months later the city passed the moratorium my clients recognized at the time they could come in invest to high density unlimited Heights but they they did not pursue that they want to engage with the city we've been two years interest rates have doubled and we're you're asking you to pass the staff recommendation of medium density 20 years we've been discussing Silver Beach and there's been a perception or

culture of development is bad per se and I'm here to say it's not it's an opportunity to leverage and Achieve City goals and we're here saying leverage us we get the phosphorus and storm water treatment on the site it is though from Mark analysis only recoverable from an investment perspective at medium density giving all the other mitigation cost traffic impact fees and all the rest that are going on let alone the two past two years of carrying costs and future carrying costs we have for development of the site the opportunity is now but protection is not prohibition protection is utilizing regulations to leverage and incentivize development and to achieve treatment that would be here this site is one of the largly pr privately owned sites in Basin one and with the last sites that you could achieve Redevelopment and phosphorous treatment infrastructure to achieve as Steve's map said achieves the TDL limits at the city or come close to it that the city's indicated as I've said in our letter that these costs we've estimated an excess of $2 million for the phosphorus treatment site at this site we've had that estimate prepared preliminary engineering by a local engineer we have no incentive to do these infrastructure improvements unless we have a opportunity to return on the investment and our look is that that Medium density cannot be achieved by the low density there is an option to keep the existing structures not add new units and stay within the footprints and do

rehabilitate those units as they are and those costs will be recovered from rents so 40 Years of undef Maintenance new roofs are needed new infrastructure I was in some of these units that were vacant two year two weeks ago you'd be surprised how old these units are if you walk through those we can reduce the phosphorus loading from this site by 80% this treatment and these standards but we have to recover the costs I'm mindful of my time is clear near the end we ask you pass the staff recommendation on both counts protection is not prohibition and protection and treatment is a viable option if you utilize the marketplace to leverage us to the medium density I'm open to answer any questions you might have now or later thank you sir good evening my name is Carrie bernside I'm the Silver Beach neighborhood association president and I'm a longterm resident at Old Mill Village and I will share with you that when the appraisal was done and the appraiser during the sale of Old Mill Village they came in and said they were really surprised at given the age of Old Mill Village it was in really good shape shape and as someone that lived there for a long time I can tell you the previous owners maintained the property really well they would respond to maintenance requests encourage you to look at the current code violations that the current owners have incurred and also the ones that have extended to code enforcement so in addition they yes there were some big maintenance issues that I'm

I'm pretty sure they received a discount in the sale of the at the time of the sale of the property but then did not actually follow through on that I'm in one of the residents that they would not fix our roof raised my rent $500 a month and it after two years it finally they and having to go to code enforcement is when they finally did it so yes the buildings are old however the current owners have treated that property worse than like way I also want to mention that I really want to clarify we are talking about rezoning all of the multif family properties within uh Silver Beach neighborhood we're not talking about just Old Mill Village so if we take Old Mill Village out of the equation the city's plan does not address the other multifam properties especially mil willll park that's really built out to capacity their storm drains will not be mitigated with this proposal and that's what we're talking about we're asking that we pursue Financial grants like um Anderson mentioned find ways to make this mandatory so that that big map that we looked at it that showed the big area of mil whe park that's not being mitigated that that actually be mitigated and we find ways to offset the cost for the property owner we recognize that's a significant cost but hearing the discussion that that hasn't even been pursued yet it's too soon to be making any decisions and low density we're recommending for not one property in the Silver Beach neighborhood all of the property and that

affordability be attached to all of the properties because silver Beach's neighborhood is complicated in doing any type of development because it's the Watershed and so we have to be strategic we have to do it right the first time and I understand they're up against the time frame but there's still time to extend it and we're really at a pivotal moment in history do we keep repeating the same mistakes our predecessors did that led us to a compromise drinking water a a climate crisis housing crisis or do we actually take the time to do things differently and really address the problems thank you for your time Gan or Marcus this is Jean Ryan thanks for giving us this opportunity I'm a Bellingham resident but I'm not a originally from Bellingham I'm from the east coast and the thing that blew my mind when I moved here is that our drinking water has boats on it and has people dumping sewage into it on the East Coast everything is a two mile buffer to any Reservoir and it's fenced so I'm going to go with the let's look at a longer moratorium so we can consider this further because our water quality is not going to change unless we mandate more water treatment and if that means that things can't be built because they can't afford enough High income properties to build then don't build let the lake recover we've only got one water source in this wonderful place we live in and we're poisoning it thanks thank you all right and then after Marcus we'll have Todd Lusty uh Katherine Scott

and Randall pots I can't see the clock from up here it might be nice when we're up when we're up here if we could see the clock um we'll let you know this is Marcus D and I am I am usually up here speaking about homeless system we'll speak about that probably a little later but I do want to speak about uh Lake watom and the health of our aquafer I think we need to every time that we say the word Lake watom we should be talking about the lake watom aquafer we no longer have the Middle Fork to feed us when we need more um it's not it's not like it was and if we think we're just going to access that sippy straw it's just you're likely to get a giant fight so we've got to really protect what we've got many of you might remember the boats off initiative that we had some years ago um it may have been overreaching in that it was asking all gasoline powered boats to be off the off the lake I don't remember if it was a over a set period of time to phase that out but it's certainly something that perhaps we could consider you know when you have Property Owners they buy a recreation property on the lake or an investment property on the lake and they want to put in a dock and they want to enjoy their boat I understand that right but it doesn't mean that we can't Institute safer changes because this is not just a lake this is a reservoir this Reservoir is very compromised already and we know that we have a a fuel tank not so far from our Inlet of from where the water come where we take

the water from the lake we have um lots of visiting boats that come and I don't understand why on our Reservoir we should be doing that we're spending a lot of money to try to protect our reservoir from invasive species uh from from people visiting with their boats and I understand that there's a tourism part to this too component but we also have federal agencies uh acting in our Reservoir doing doing Maneuvers and and uh and drills the Navy uh Homeland Security I mean I appreciate it if the if the sheriff's department is running drills in there and understanding how they need to operate on our lake or EMS that makes sense on our Reservoir excuse me this is our drinking water and we need to revisit Boats off initiative and something that could probably phase out all gasoline boats eventually even for the homeowners who live there and who have invested in expected to be able to do to enjoy their boats on the lake our Reservoir there's so much more that we need to protect we chip sealed all around the lake last last summer how did how did any of that get sequestered it didn't our Reservoir excuse me I keep calling it a lake we keep calling it a lake this is your drinking water I swam my dog in it this morning it was great I'm glad to have that access but I'm glad to take it elsewhere and I think that businesses that are dunking their boats in our drinking water to test the the boat and then pull it back out say no it's still running too rich and it left a an oil slick that's

unacceptable so there's a lot that we need to clean up the storm water that's one thing these boats that's another thing whose boats that's another thing but we should be revisiting this big time I'm asking you to extend the moratorium until we do all of this research and I do suggest you turn turn the TV so people can see where their time is at cuz I have no idea where I'm at the TV is not working I sorry I apologize hi I'm Todd Lusty and I'm the chair of the 40th legislative district Democrats and I'm here to make sure that this city council considers that the Wacom Democrats recently passed a resolution calling for minimum density in the Watershed for our drinking water I want to point out to this Council that this is actually a pretty simple issue on one hand you have the developer and City Planning department calling for medium density on property in our drinking water Watershed in order to horse trade for storm water treatment on the other hand you have neighborhood associations your local Democrats and the Sierra Club saying hey wait we spend millions of dollars a year to minimize density in our drinking water Watershed don't build more luxury housing in the lake Wacom watershed on the one hand you can press the I believe button and think that building 200ish units of additional luxury housing will reduce Bellingham rents and that the storm water treatment is a good trade for the increased impact in Miles traveled in our Watershed that 200 more units of luxury housing

will have on our drinking water or you can say wait we don't actually know what the impacts will be and if they're worth the tradeoff let's extend the moratorium and actually hear from our community and look at the water quality projections from both the storm water treatment and the increased travel and density impacts recently we had an election and there was a clear message from the voters that they want a datadriven approach to how city does business unfortunately this horse trading of density for storm water is not data informed it is a shoot from the hip wild guess do you remember when the city staff was up here telling you that logging and Bessie sortz was okay thank goodness there were enough data informed citizens to overcome City staff City staff was quoted in the newspaper saying there's no difference between a heavy rainstorm and logging on runoff impacts to water quality multiple research papers refute the city's official staff statement so for this development in our Watershed I'm asking you to verify through actual data or at least projections that City are not wrong again there is no data in the city assessment of the storm water mitigation versus the impact of increased density just a statement that it's better we at least deserve an analysis of increased miles driven and imperious surface impacts versus how much storm water is currently untreated and will be treated in the end this Council should ask themselves in 20 years will people say I'm sure glad that

the city Council authorized Building 200 more units of luxury housing on our drinking water supply or will they wonder what you were all thinking building more density in our Watershed with no data to support your decision thank you Katherine Randall Katherine Scott or Randall pots go ahead should be green my name is Randall pots and I live in Bellingham uh tonight the two measures before the city council amendments to the comprehensive plan the Silver Beach neighborhood plan and a reone for multif family areas 8 9 and 13 in Silver Beach neighborhood have already met with robust public disapproval at both the council level and before the Planning Commission where they failed to secure a majority vote in fact to paraphrase a descending commissioner these measures would allow the 1% of bellingham's population to live large in their houses around our Reservoir and for example sail their motorboats on it while every resident is paying a monthly sech charge on their water bill to help Bellingham improve the water quality of our reservo War Lake Wacom these measures contend as do many City officials and staff that the only way to protect and improve our Reservoir is to develop more housing around it this is not the case again to paraphrase the same eloquent denter state and federal government agencies are ready to help Bellingham manage its Reservoir but city government rejects their help because they contend it violates private property rights this is absurd since property rights

end where the publicly owned water Begins the key to saving our Reservoir is to Pro prohibit any development or Redevelopment around it and use tax revenue to fix storm drain problems and ban all motorboats from our Reservoir which is a critical piece of infrastructure that literally no one can afford to lose the proposed development at the Old Mill Village site is particularly egregious as a previous Mill site whose owners have allowed raw sewage to enter our Reservoir and from their property an important unanswered question is has there been a publicly available soil study conducted conducted by a third party and if not why not as a former rer at the Old Mill Village Abby Stanton States in her public comment quote the owners of the Old Mill Village Peak properties are not the kind of people you want to build it trust me I urge the planning department to find another way than development and Redevelopment to finance storm drain retrofits to be clear State growth mandates for growth do not apply to properties around reservoirs period sadly what the city is proposing in these two measures is dangerous and would negatively of impact us all if the city is intent on destroying critical infrastructure in the name of saving it then residents must demand another solution and fight for state federal or judicial intervention and the moratorium must be extended thank you you okay next up we have Abe Jacobson Christopher dial and then apologies for mispronouncing this but AAR and sirana

Lily my name is a Jacobson and I live in Bellingham and I am just reporting today on a resolution that was adopted by the watom Democrats from the floor it does not come from the executive board or from the chair it's from the Grassroots membership and we passed this overwhelmingly this past Saturday and the resolution States watom Democrats support support only minimal development if any is required at all in the lake watom Watershed the watom Democrats advise city council to develop the Silver Beach neighborhood at only a low density if at all to protect Lake watom water quality as much as possible the reasons for this include clean water is a basic right and Lake watom is a critical environmental area demanding our protection Silver Beach neighborhood has areas of high density zoning that City staff have identified as incompatible with protecting Lake watom water quality going so far as to have Council Implement a moratorium on accepting development applications and permits relating to multifamily zoned properties with in Silver Beach neighborhood in July 22 and re renewed multiple times Lake watom Watershed is the drinking water supply for over 100,000 water users the current moratorium on accepting development applications and permits relating to multifam zoned properties will expire in July the current Lake watom management plan lacks mitigation for the lake watom tributaries does not require retrofitting for storm drains and doesn't account for already existing

development the department of ecology identifies that there must be over 80% less development than existed in 2003 but since then more development has occurred and the City of Bellingham has the city of Bellingham planning department has identified the current Lake watom management plan lacks mitigation for the lake watom tributaries does not require private property retrofitting for existing drains and doesn't account for already existing private development the planning department is UN underst staffed and may not have the ability to appropriately address the protections Lake watom needs thank you Abe your time is up thank you thank you AB my name is Christopher DIY I'm homeless here um regarding the water quality issues I spoke at the Planning Commission on this issue um addressing the water quality issues and I can see the point but well let me let me jump back to I was trying to listen as very carefully as I could to the affordable housing and it sounds like the reply you know is the information regarding it is on fiscated it's not very clear like it's not there's not a clear plan to make that a priority you know if there was to be development like let's do affordable housing make that the highest priority that we can and have a very clear plan about this and have very clear information to present to the public I didn't hear that so it sounds like you know what's being alluded to that it's going to be like high high cost housing that's probably more the reality so it's

hard to be in favor of it if that's going to be the case of course you know you know who who wants to be in favor of gentrification if it's going to affect the water qual quality U negatively but I just want to point out again uh what I brought up at the Planning Commission was that the um when I was in Colorado Springs about 2 or 3 years ago what happens and and I really didn't believe that this was the homeless that were doing it but they made it look like it was the homeless they were cramming all this trash and rubbish and garbage underneath of a bridge right by the creek that goes into um to the Manitou Springs area out off of Old Colorado um I think it was Colorado Avenue near 30th Street um and it was just like you would not believe how much garbage was crammed underneath and I'm like wait a minute you know I thought I gave it some thought that can't be homeless people doing that cuz homeless people aren't sleeping by the creek they're not allowed to so whoever is doing it they would have to bring if it was the homeless they would have to come from over the hills and far away so to speak and Del deliberately cramming garbage on homeless people usually do the homeless Shuffle at least when I was homeless in color you do the homeless Shuffle you go to the soup kitchen and you eat at this hoop kitchen you don't have garbage and rubbish you don't have all this U uh trash and uh uh but my point is is that the reality is whether it's the homeless or not it's a it's a product

of the culture war and that affects the water quality if you have all that garbage and R rubbish being put there to make it look like the homeless are doing it it's going to affect the water quality so if you don't take care of the issue of homelessness first and foremost to make that a highest priority you know you're going to have this issue it's not going to be addressed uh uh forthrightly and and that's that's what I find a little disappointing and I'd like to hear more of that is to make that more of a priority thank you thank you Chris all right a car um otherwise we'll have Linda Miller Scott Jones uh Carol Hanway and then we'll switch to we have one person online tonight uh Louis Schmidt okay sorry guys uh Linda Miller Scott Jones Carol hanaway evening city council and mayor lend my name is Linda Miller and I am a resident of the silver Beach neighborhood and I'm going to start my comments by reading some Google reviews of a lake in the state of Washington beautiful location but way too many weeds need a boat to fish great place to let the dogs run around love it great place to take your kids and pets quiet clean friendly neighborhood love this area nice to have this view in your backyard risky swimming might come out itchy features of this park have a boat ramp drinking fountain parking restrooms table benches and water access I feel all of those could adequately sum up Lake watcom blell Donovan but this is actually a description of Kitsap Lake in Bremerton and this

morning while at work I'm listening to KU and it was announced that they are doing algae control treatment on that Lake uh to prevent toxic algae blooms due due to excessive phosphorus so I only had a half hour lunch to dive in a little bit more to learn about well gee this sounds very familiar right is there the similar issues that we're dealing with what's going on at Kitsap lake so it is not the drinking it's not the source of drinking water for the city but uh pull up a Google map of kitso Lake and you will see lots of single family homes around the entire circumference of that lake with their boat docks and there's also a public boat launch and there's a camp and then I found some cleanup background information and it said the lake is fed by streams Springs storm water runoff which carries nutrients into the lake lake water has a very limited exchange rate so pollutants tend to hang out in the lake and settle to the bottom sounds very familiar similar to what we're dealing with here in Lake watom uh mayor wheeler of Bremerton and city council identified kitso Lake as a priority concern and dedicated resources to improve Lake quality and restore recreational opportunities to the community in late 2018 the city met with lakefront property owners to discuss lakew quality issues and developed a partnership committed to Lake cleanup and then when it talks about supporting activities it says storm water treatment retrofits have been designated in four locations that discharge

into the lake construction funding is on hand with construction starting in 2025 uh designed for a treatment system at another location is complete and funding is expected to be awarded in July of 2024 these systems will further reduce phosphorus in the lake and help the city meet ecology issued tmdl for phosphorus at the lake uh in terms of the funding it says treatment funding is provided by the city of brington general fund and storm water utility so please extend the moratorium so we can see if Bellingham can do the same thank you very much much Council mayor my name is Scott Jones and I live in Bellingham as you know the city has been buying land in the lake Wacom Watershed since 2001 in August of 2022 the Cascadia daily noted that 2400 Acres have been protected preventing development of 830 residential units at a cost of 35.5 million one example is a Silver Beach preserve where you proudly purchase 22 Acres from 10 owners to remove 57 homes from being developed this is incredible foresight especially since this preserve is almost 2,000 ft from the shores Wacom Reservoir developable will land abiding Lake Wacom is even more important to protect due to the city's expenditure of tax dollars on preserving land around the lake not reducing development in the Watershed when possible through zoning is unconscionable zoning old Miller Village to low density is the only choice we have thankfully we do not have to feel bad about the loss of housing stock by doing so as Bellingham

is experiencing a housing crisis I'd like to talk about why the new proposed units at Old Mill are not needed they will be too expensive for those who need them on Thursday night the Planning Commission was offered some important numbers on housing needs Bellingham needs 12,000 000 units by 2045 for residents earning $48 an hour or less folks making $ 32 to $48 an hour or the 50% to 120 P 20 120% Ami we need 3,000 units essentially 10% more of this type of middle housing venture to say that this will naturally occur due to the hot Market new state laws such as House Bill 1110 and the feel-good decision such as no parking minimums for the well off by 2045 at least 75% of needed units 9,000 units in total will be needed for residents who make less than $20 an hour this means that if 75% of our solutions for housing are not in that price range we are not doing a thing to solve our housing crisis subsidy monies are limited tax incentives are limited and temporary zoning reform is free and permanent n ,000 seems like a lot but it gets worse this 9,000 unit increase that is needed will increase the overall supply of this type of housing by 151% 3,000 versus 9,000 10% increase versus 151% increase that is a heavy lift and we will need every tool and every unit to make it happen when adus were being discussed proponents said that they weren't a silver bullet but every unit mattered that is the case for these 9,000 units every time zoning change allows for a few more affordable units

we must take that opportunity fully Old Mill Village is that opportunity thank you all right after Carol we'll have Louis Schmidt online and then Raymond falowski Judith Ain and Susan Kane ronning I'm Carol Hanway I'm from the Birchwood neighborhood and I come from a neighborhood that it was extremely we are extremely concerned about our drinking water and we've just come from a successful water uh savethe waterfront.org event and this is the third time in recent history that we have outside investors that are jeopardizing our community we are really concerned sustainability of lake watom is vital for both the 100,000 of my fellow neighbors and my children and my grandchildren I'm looking to you as our leaders we have got to have a maintained policy system and limitations that will protect Lake and our resources thank you thank you Louise is joining online as a reminder um in case folks have questions um online comment is only available to those who request an accommodation Louise you should be able to un unmute your mic and turn on your camera if you wish let me see see if I can get the camera working here it's okay it's it's not a requirement but we can hear if you want to go ahead I'll go ahead and I'll talk fast I'm Dr Lise Schmidt a concerned disability support Advocate including at Old Mill in the last meeting there were concerns about who was being heard in this potential impact to the city water supply it was reported that all the residents that submitted letters were

against any coding for development in Lake watcom Watershed overwhelming consensus for the protection of the sensitive drinking ining water wetlands in Zoning for vulnerable area zone or low density there were apparently a few letters for Old Mill which were from their Law Firm who are paid to support their financial interests still the Planning Commission not only sided with developers but promoted them raising questions about partiality of these those interests and if they are representing the community at large those asked to speak represented developers were only Old Mill Council inferring that they present Property Owners however with over 1,000 pages of code violations that include seage and illicit chemicals within their impact on the water supply already before this additional impact in direct conflict with stated Community interest and for which they have not been held accountable we hope they are not representative of all the residents we're asking for transparency in how these decisions are made an extension to this moratorium to allow all voices to be heard before zoning the city's drink water we need to confirm equity and accountability for all decisions that will so greatly affect the health more than 100,000 residents and Beyond once damage is allowed to occur to the water splite will be difficult to impossible to fully reverse the people at Old Mill have mostly not changed with the technical changes of ownership would not trust Old Mill with main freshwater

supply for over 100,000 people nor to following building codes to keep the water safe and drinkable in the future there is an urgent need for whistleblower protections within Lake watcom Watershed and drinking water supply I understand that you have been obliged to rely on public information from residents and citizens to report on the safety of the only local community drinking water supply with 12 vacancies in planning and only two inspectors in Bellingham you are relying on residents who have been put In Harm's Way by those violating the health of Bingham community that has put the safety and housy of those who in due diligence notify author ities of especially egregious code violations at risk they have paid a heavy toll it is essential that put very strong whistleblower Protections in place with limited data collection and code enforcement uh resources the risk of exposure to over 100,000 residents is high to date only the local reporting has provided on-site information and notification of public hazards to within Lake watcom privately owned repair room and Wetland sensitive areas since the proposed development of over 350 units in multi-story dwellings some within structures already falling below the water line the risk and detriment to Lake watcom is great thank you Louise your time is up thank you uh thank you uh for this opportunity to speak uh my name is ramen pulowski and I am a resident of Silver Beach neighborhood um I've been digging into this um issue for many

months now and I and every time we go through this I learn more from everybody and um but I also become more alarmed by where this is headed uh Old Mill Village has been in its current state for about 50 years and it was redeveloped uh 50 years ago was before the EPA had even been in existence and when the um Mills that were on that site which is also includes blell Park what was done at the time was when there were fires the um bulldozers came in and basically buried the stuff on site pushed into the water and they were done and I looked at there yesterday there's 80 ears that are sticking out of the water left over from those old mills that are still there and part of the Old Mill Village uh uh eement in the water and uh you know the it doesn't appear that anybody seems to know what the illusion is curent but what's there it's up to the private property owner to allow it uh I'm assuming that with a any kind of permit that's done that that would have to be investigated and before they even break ground and um if you haven't been out to the site uh it is private property but you can walk the perimeter it's surrounded by what's 50y old growth now on three sides and the other quarter is um on the shoreline where there's freshwater marshes an estuary a peninsula and the question is well with the setback where do they build there's not a lot of room left if you take those things into account guess the Alternatives is to go up and if they're going with a medium density my

understanding that could add an additional 300 plus units to the site there's 110 there now and next door at blell Park there's approximately 400 parking spaces and if you think about if you're adding that many units next door uh the amount of parking space that's going to be necessary for that uh development to go through so uh if you had a chance walk the perimeter take a look at the site and that's what I'm suggesting you do in the interim thank you thank you evening Council and mayor thank you for letting us comment tonight um my name is Judith Akens and I'm live in Bellingham and I'm speaking for the Mount Baker group Sierra Club tonight I'm also having trouble with my eyes so I'm going to try have to not see double here Sierra Club is the oldest Environmental Group in the nation was founded because of concerns about the environment and Mount Baker group carries on these concerns the Mount Baker group is very concerned about the Silver Beach neighborhood con comprehensive plan and [Music] reone and plans for additional development the old Ville Village is part of this area as you are well aware that this site was home to the lake Wacom Lo Logging company which in 19 1906 doubled their Holdings in size with the development of a 45 acre Mill site containing 35 Cottages a sawmill and a shingle Mill three shingle dry kils Lumber dry kills a planting Mill and a steel Refuge burner our concerns Center about the possible pollution in the soils when Disturbed and the detrimental

effects that this will have on Lake Wacom water quality causing more pollution and contaminants to enter our drinking water source we're asking that you extend the moratorium in order that the public can fully understand the Silver Beach resoning application we would like the request that the city we would like to request that the city hold public informational meetings to inform the public of this proposal in the possible effects at present The Old Mill Village site encompasses 35.4 Acres of which 14 acres are second growth older trees as well as Acres of wetlands the city has not Quantified what species are living there and whether there there any endangered species the Mount Baker group is also very concerned about the trees that will have to be removed because of the construction we are well aware of the posible Roll trees we are all well aware of the possible role trees play in climate change especially keeping larger more mature trees studies suggest that old growth trees not only contribute to carbon Stocks by long um excuse me by long carbon resistant times but maintain High rates of carbon AC accumulation of at later stages in their lifetimes sorry about this these trees contribut contribute to keeping the ear cooler in filtering runoff from the roads Etc especially next to the lake lastly we need to make sure that the wetlands are preserved and not simply mitigated as the result of development the Mount Baker group of Sierra Club urges you to extend the moratorium

so that these questions can be addressed sorry about this all right then after Susan we'll have John Kane ronning Stan Betts and I got some clarification um action and sustainability thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight I'm Dr Susan Kane ronning and I've lived in the Silver Beach neighborhood since 1994 I was the first president of the people forl quatum and wrote the department of ecology application to have Lake watcom listed as an impaired water body under the 303d list I urge you to continue the motorum in the Silver Beach neighborhood until storm water mitigation can be further evaluated decreasing density from multi family Parcels will actually increase the number of units built allowing over 400 units to be built on the Old Mill Village site it will also only trigger storm water retrofitting for the Old Mill Village parcel while the remaining multi family Parcels continue to dump unmitigated storm water into Lake quatum mil Creek meets the lowest criteria of all the sample sites in the just relased 2022 2023 Lake quatum monitoring program annual report on June 15th 2023 a Bellingham air art Herald article stated 16,000 lbs of dog waste is created in Bellingham per day harmful levels of feal waste have been found in all of the urban creeks in Bellingham especially problematic in Lake wakam Wat headed Old Mill Village borders Mill Creek the city of Bellingham touts states that drinking water is the best in the state this is misleading Bellingham has a

pre-treatment and treatment facility that cleans the lake water there is a difference between treated Drinking Water and Lake water quality the city also touts the lake is improving the lake still has dead zones without oxygen during the late summer declining inorganic nitrogen may increase growth of toxic algae chlorophyll has been trending up in basins 2 and three over the past two years total phosphorus is still elevated in Basin 1 and two during the summer when dissolved oxygen is low in 2002 to 2003 when the total maximum daily loading was developed the department of ecology determined The Watershed could tolerate 2 to 3% development and still effectively filter the lake to remove the required pounds of phosphorus in 2002 to 2003 12% of the Watershed had already been developed we were already over the doe standard to meet the tmdl and development has not stopped over the past 20 years 31 new homes were built in the Watershed in 20123 homes in Lake quam's Water Front have no stor waterer mitigation unless they voluntarily use the hip program or they surpass the 300 ft trigger limit Bellingham residents pay an additional fee in our city of Bellingham sewer and water bills it is frustrating to consider untreated storm Waters being allowed to flow Into the Storm Into The Watershed and put retrofitting and without retrofitting while we are paying to help protect the lake thank you good evening I'm John Kan ronning I'm a Bellingham resident um I'm here to speak about the

proposed rezone in the Silver Beach neighborhood I believe after looking at the latest Lake report and reading the article in the lake wam watch um by April marwitz so we need to extend and continue the moratorium there's some positives in the lake report I'll admit you know it it sounds pretty good but there's also some real concerns embedded in that report report first and foremost is continued development the lake is fragile and adding more people will definitely have a negative impact people are messy we bring lots of junk with us cars pets litter Etc 16,000 pounds of veal a day by pets in the city of Bellingham I was kind of astounded by that I didn't really realize that um so it I won't go off on that um so we need to retrofit all of the existing properties before we think about adding more development um expanding multif family housing will have a significant impact the Silver Beach neighborhood currently has approximately 3,000 people by setting the density of Old Mill Village to medium the development will add 300 units well if you think about 300 units and then you go okay 300 units three people per unit that's 900 people we're going to increase the density of people in the Silver Beach neighborhood by one3 by adding this development at a medium density um um Silver Beach the population in the neighborhood I was also curious um thanks to Mr suine this evening uh he I think if I quote him right that there are approximately 800 houses in the um in the Watershed so if

we increase this development and add another 300 houses or units that will increase the development in this in the Silver Beach Watershed by I'm just doing the math of My Head by almost 40% is my guess um that seems like a a pretty large impact for a pretty small area and I think we need to look at other ways to to mitigate um the runoff on that site thank you very much thank you good evening council members May lond my name is Stan Betts I'm a resident of Bellingham and also a member of Eleanor tenant Advocates I think you're familiar with me and our group and you know that our concerns have been primarily around the issue of quality affordable housing and support services for very low-income seniors but the issue here tonight touches on us as much as anybody else um lake watcom is everybody's backyard it's ours too the drinking water will have a definite impact on us it's important that the quality be protected um there's been talk about different approaches to this prevention protection treatment I think you need to do all of those because it looks to me like the reality is you are in a race against opposing forces if you open and accelerate development in the Silver Beach neighborhood it's going to have a direct impact on property values the city wisely has invested in Watershed protection by buying available properties to control that development and lessen those impacts when I talked to your Finance director earlier today he told me that you budgeted about $6 million

for the current bium you've already spent almost 4 million of that how much more can you spend if you're you're looking at acquiring properties that are increasing at a rate beyond what you can sustain the other reality is that there is substantial funds available right now at the state level um over $30 billion that are available to support and um improve water quality and I would suggest that you need to pursue grants for those funds so that you can do the necessary retrofit on the storm water system that you got in question applications for those funds begin in August they end in October you have a time frame you'll have more time if you extend the moratorium I recommend that you do that thank you very much thank you all right and after this group action and sustainability we'll have uh moo MDI Kathy Adams and Ryan Bowman action and sustainability would you like to go okay hello my name is Dr Susan Tosh uh I'm I am representing action in sustainability a community-based effort in water education I am a PhD hydrologist who specializes in the connections between land use water quality and health and H uh have over 30 years of experience working in drinking water supply in community Drinking Water Supplies I also have a degree in public health and in environmental planning so I like to talk shop with our with our planning department um I'm going to just start with a statement from working with the International Red Cross in floods and droughts and disasters around the world

their biggest statement that has stayed with me is that the best way to prevent a disaster is by not creating one I think we have a big opportunity here to not create a disaster in our community some of that has been demonstrated even locally the um by our neighbors uh Friday Harbor just recently polluted their sole source aquifer one aquifer for the whole island by a small amount of chemical and this was by friendly uh fire department and many of you know but it had long lasting repercussions uh another water supply that I've worked on is the city of San Francisco Isco where they were required to build a $500,000 Filtration plant because of a small parasite called crypto peridium that when uh protected by the Safe Drinking Water Act when it comes into contact with the very old the very young or the immuno compromise can be deadly and we are also regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act I'm just saying on the technical level cryptosporidium has one cyst equals one disease one cyst equals one disease this is in contrast to something like ca that has multiple cysts that equal disease of which is also actually in our water supply and can be triggered by a large amount of sewage or other types of things the regulating Factor on these diseases is filtration filtration is our soils the stability of our Waterfront the riparian areas and the sensitive areas that we know are there in Old Mill Village and in uh the Silver Beach area surrounding our drinking water supply there are a few

assumptions that have been made and I just like to quickly say there is an option in Zoning for uh critical area zoning that when we have more time I'll be happy to talk to you about if it might open some options as far as funding as far as storm water and as far as uh protecting our Waterfront thanks Mo Cathy or Ryan good evening I'm Kathy Adams I have been a resident of the Silver Beach neighborhood for over 20 years um I have listened along to the City Council meetings um and also to the Planning Commission meetings specific to this issue and I thank you all for your work and the opportunity to speak with you tonight I'm going to start with an analogy if we were analyzing lakewater pollution specific to boats we would not only look at the boats that are docked we would look at the pollution caused by people who are driving their boats the human behavior element preserving our drinking water quality is a complex issue and deserves complex Solutions City Planning staff acknowledged at the April 11th Planning Commission meeting that quote the question about human behaviors is outside the zoning regulation those behaviors we don't like to see are really separate from the zoning question and human behavior is not a zoning related question in this case I disagree the planning staff's formula specific to the amount of phosphorus projected to enter the lake is incomplete By ignoring the human behavior component it lacks the complexity inherent in the issue at hand to their credit

it is outside the scope of their planning department work however human behavior must be included in the formula when calculating phosphorus levels entering or drinking water I understand the goal of 0.15 pounds of phosphorus per acre for all three sites that are being discussed tonight I understand medium density is being proposed because supposedly it provides a profit margin for the developers to invest in Wastewater retrofits I understand the estimate for the Old Mill Village site comes in at about 4 to 4.5 pounds of phosphorus barely meeting that goal of15 pounds per acre however this goal will never be obtained it's based on the incomplete formula the planners are using and it does not take into account the human behavior aspect an expert human behavior analyst needs to conduct a study to determine the human impact of phosphorus levels entering our drinking water over time specific to the proposed zoning of the three properties of tonight's Focus relying exclusively on the planning Department's estimate the final impact is simply guesswork voting to extend the moratorium is the only informed option tonight Aloha City Council Members mayor lond our wonderful Community my name is Ryan Bowman uh tonight we got a question of priorities um what are we prioritizing and it seems to be coming up in a lot of different areas at these meetings um are we going to prioritize our drinking water or are we going to prioritize a development by a company that has no vested interest in

our community it's pretty straightforward there uh water is vital and right now one in 10 people in the world don't have drinking water we are adjudicating water currently judicially trying to peace meal where our water is going to go we have many companies in watom County who are vying for parts of that water to develop product and our people need to be able to drink what do we prioritize what are our what is our priorities as leadership here how are we going to safeguard this vital resource to develop around this area seems silly I think the information that was just presented with critical area should be something that we are more prioritizing um not worrying about how densely we're going to pack people around this vital Resource as the current situations with global warming continue to increase these issues with alil blooms and different issues like that are only going to become more difficult to mitigate and to be ready for this proposal that is being put forward is not even addressing those it's kind of counterintuitive to that problem that we already ready foresee coming our way we should be looking at being more advantageous in how we are developing our infrastructure around our wonderful Lake watcom noisy rumbling water I thank everyone that came out here to speak on behalf of that Noisy water because it is in our best interest as human beings who find water as a necessity for life we have plenty of housing our housing issue is not necessarily an issue 2020 census

shows that there's around 10,000 vacant homes in watom County what are we doing to address that and how do we utilize those already established facilities to House people uh dog feces how about we promote a program to entice people to pick up their dog feces and to address this water issue more aggressively so that we can start putting up programs to help the problem instead of working on spending our time in these C city council chambers discussing how we are going to help a company that is not from here get a return on their investment which is literally what they asked for so thank you very much for your time I'll be back in a few minutes you okay next up we have uh Carl wymer and Barbara plaset good evening my name is Carl wymer I spent 12 years across the street as a member of the County Council during my time on the council I joined with city council member Stan snap to create the lake watom policy working group I recently joined with Stan again to help start a new local organization the watom environmental Council a group of retired and semi-retired folks who have years of local experience working on local environmental issues the written testimony we provided a few days ago was our first effort out of the gate and it is fitting that as regards to the protection of Lake guatam the drinking water source for over half of the county I hope you've had time to review our written comments to see who all is involved in this new group making these comments and to review the

details that I can only touch on in my 3 minutes this evening we want to commend the city council for questioning the high density residential development in the lake watom Watershed and implementing a moratorium while next steps were considered to implement this down Zone we understand that housing affordability is a critical issue in the city and that increasing residential densities in many areas of the city will be an important tool to achieve affordability and prevent sprawl but the lake watom Watershed is not an area that is appropriate for dense development as evidenced by the city's own Lake watom land acquisition program when the city is spending millions of dollars to purchase development rights to address water quality we don't believe allowing over 300 more homes in the Watershed is good public policy we recommend the city adopt the low density designation for all areas within the lake watom Watershed a lowdensity land use designation is supported by your comprehensive plan where policy l31 says that a low density designation should be used for land that is not suited for more intense Urban Development because of environmentally sensitive areas the lake watom Watershed is such an environmentally sensitive area one argument that has been made is that additional development would generate storm water improvements that are needed where they don't currently exist but increasing development to pay for engineered Solutions is not a good Gamble and is not supported by

either your comp plan or the work plan of the lake watt Management program both which reiterate the need to quote focus on protection over treatment in managing Lake watom in its Watershed while we support the stronger engineered storm water requirements you are also considering such requ requirements do not fully account for the increased traffic land disturbance and pet waste that increasing the number of people in the Watershed also bring for that reason once again we encourage you to adopt the low density designation thank you for all your effort thank you Barbara Barbara plasket did you want to come you ready okay for at least 23 years 99% of the city including businesses our Workforce and the poor have been paying the bill for the lifestyle choices of the 1% of our population that live inside our Watershed and are polluting this is not a nimi issue it's a drinking water issue we have waited 23 years for these development triggers to happen they were not the next step they were the step that was there all along and hadn't been taken how many years does the entire population of our city have to pay for the cleanup from these properties before we consider that this program is a failure I suggest that it might be time to consider a watershed overlay we have the power of the permit process another 300 units on top of the 112 that are already existing inside are Watershed will not have anyone will not house anyone who already is a part of our Workforce and is Desperately

Seeking housing this project will be adding 412 new families to our community who do not have the knowledge or the history of their responsibility in our Watershed the public works department will tell you that they have education available but they've had that education available for decades and it hasn't solved the problem I believe that it's time to put our foot down no more new development in the Watershed these units will not help our Workforce housing crisis and we have plenty of dilapitated buildings and Urban Decay sites around town that could be utilized to increase the density to that end we do not need to utilize The Watershed I suggest that it might be time oh sorry said that already when we weigh out the benefits of the city cleanup program versus the density and obvious extraction of resources from our economy this is not fair and balanced putting any more luxury housing um putting in more luxury housing sounds like trickle down housing let's not use the housing crisis to further degrade our Watershed expensive luxury market rate housing is not the answer to our work force housing crisis nor our water quality prices crisis our water is precious resource and we should not be sacrificing ing it to solve a different problem how long does our Watershed have to be traveled before we change tactics at what point do we put an end to a failed policy and start working towards something new thank you I'll just call out again uh moo MDI and Katherine Scott Those Were the

other two names that were signed up tonight that I haven't seen come up okay or I'll be Mike mcau tonight um Mike mccaulay Carolina Avenue um it's extremely rare occasion I am on the Planning Commission I'm not here to Lobby or anything else but I did miss the last meeting which did not help you with a recommendation so I'm here tonight give you a small sense of my mind on this issue like probably all of you I went to college was going to save the world right and um studied hard I got that Urban Ecology degree and I realized that all the big kids in the room were always talking about tradeoffs everything's a trade-off right but not always I think tonight and in the near future you have an opportunity with no trade-off required I think that when you get a chance to make a difference you should take it thank you thank you that concludes the sign up that concludes the list okay all right I will close the public hearing and bring uh this matter or these matters back to council council member Anderson thank you um well I'm not going to mix words and I was prepared um before coming in to think about having this go to committee but um whether it goes to committee or not my mind's pretty made up about what's right and what's wrong um we have preserved over 2700 acres in the Watershed that has come with a pretty hefty price tag that all of our rate payers have paid over $35 million we have paid to try to protect that Watershed um and it's not getting better it might not be getting

worse but it's not getting better we sit through our Joint Council um Watershed meeting and some of us are like what else can we do and there was a comment made by staff about when there is no opportunity to um to take action we treat I see this as an opportunity to take action we don't have to necessarily expand our treatment um in this situation um the thought that in my term I've had four years I have four years or three and a half ahead of me I get excited when Council decides to spend a million dollars and take one or two Parcels off of potential development that's like these small little winds and it costs us a lot of money and I'm looking at if we go to medium density maybe in my lifetime and I'm hoping to live a long time we will not be able to purchase back 300 developable units with the amount of money that we are in taxation um of our community we don't have another Reservoir this is our drinking water so when you think about what is right and what is wrong I'm thinking stewardship of our Taxation and the funds that we have all invested to try to create a healthy Watershed I think of a 100,000 people in this Community who turns on that tap water and they hope that it is stable and clean and drinkable um and I feel that we I personally can't make that commitment and guarantee that when my grandchildren are my age they're going to have the same thing afforded to them unless we take very bold action and say development further in our Watershed is not okay we we cannot

create another Reservoir and treatment is not our best option protection is so with that I'm going to make a motion um I make a motion relating to multif family development in the Silver Beach neighborhood amending the Silver Beach neighborhood plan and Zoning table and Title 20 of the Bellingham municipal code to reduce the density of multif family areas 8 9 and 13 from high density to low density there a second I'll second motion's been made by council member Anderson second by council member Stone cqu didn't second your motion not because I don't agree with it but because I think I'd like to go through the dirty longer version of the process one of the things that we've been asked is to extend the moratorium or at least extend the discussion I'd like to extend the discussion I think that we could Prevail the right answers could come out of that longer so the reason I didn't support the motion is not because of where you're headed I think I'm headed in the same U place um so you're going to be forcing an awkward decision on me um what I want to say on this is that the status quo is not acceptable um since existing development has no form of intentional storm water control or water treatment that's why we put the moratorium that's why we asked for a down Zone but paradoxically low density zoning alone is not a solution low density zoning alone won't fix the lack of intentional storm water so low density alone it's not good for me um mandating storm water treatment it faces

an uphill course from a legal perspective and it to Fair it has to be applied broadly to all Watershed properties that's what staff was saying uh which I think would not be a bad idea however we're not prepared to do that in the next few weeks so I can't have that solution it's also expensive but I'll get back to the expense in a while uh adopting media medium density runs counter to numerous efforts in the Watershed it runs counter to policy it runs counter to practice it may trigger fits in some areas but it won't in other areas it requires us to be inconsistent and I don't want to be inconsistent and it is only a partial solution so that one's off the table too I'm running out of options moreover the medium density solution gets us involved in a strange kind of entanglement an entanglement we're told over and again we need to avoid that these are separate issues and then they go right back together again that's a sign that the The Proposal is problematic if it entangles when we're not supposed to entangle if it has us think about water quality but not think about water quality think about housing but don't think about housing so I don't like that way I'm running out of options as I said but not the only apparent barriers to retrofits on existing development are basically cost in the willingness of the land owner I've just defined the problem set why don't we look at that if our problem set is how do we retrofit existing property that don't have storm water treatment aren't

already covered by by some kind of storm water treatment facility let's address that problem these are two aspects we can address and I think we ought to address them one reason I would like to defer to committee is so we can discuss those in fact these are two issues not only that we could address and that we should address there are two aspects the city is already addressing we're already spending millions of dollars at water quality treatment in Lake watcom we have a special fund whose purpose is not only to protect but also to pay for treatments to protect Lake watom water quality we have the funds for it and we already offer public tax dollar support to private land owners to improve their property to reduce pollution to the lake it's already something we do not in this way not at this scale but it's not like we're setting breaking new ground on the idea um the one property owner indicates that it would be $2 million for them to add the storm water treatments to their property that's a big number for me it's not a big number for the City we get $6 million per year going into that Lake won Protection Program and our budgeted projected ending balance is1 million don't go spending all 18 million because some of that is already kind of like set aside and earmarked the point is the numbers kind of match up this is not a problem beyond our scope or ability to handle it may be a lift but I think we can maybe find ways of protecting Lake walkom water quality without having to do

it through zoning so we have an ongoing problem with untreated properties that should be retrofitted with known practices improve water quality this is a general problem this should be our task I would like to discuss that but before that happens what I want to do actually tonight is fast the new storm water regulations because that sets the bar that we're now in to and right now only some properties have to jump over that bar and others don't let's set that same bar for everyone let's take a step towards Lake watom protection pass the storm water regulations and then come back and address the issue of storm water retrofitting and also not get entangled and distort our zoning decisions based on our concerns for water quality that's where I'm going my problem is I don't want to vote on that tonight I want to work on it further so I may not be supporting your emotion Lisa so I agree but I think where things are done are a little bit misplaced um the motion for the storm water I think is the location of how do we do the retrofitting there's two things one what is the level of density we are going to allow in the lake wam Watershed to me that's a pretty clear black and white answer are we going to go with low medium or high it's about density levels how much housing will we fit in in our Watershed a lot of the things that you spoke to really are about storm water so if we pass that tonight we lose the opportunity to go to staff and say we want to look at these things how could we

create a mechanism for retrofitting of existing with this policy I understand that we might lose one potential if somebody's out there redoing a house we might not catch that but I don't think we're going to be looking at house to house more Regional area how can we address that that's going to come in the storm water and that can be extended so to me it's kind of a simple you know how much density are we allowing are we do we really need to debate if we're going to do medium or high or low um if you don't know yet and I don't know how much more information is going to be able to come forward to that specific question I think the nuance and a lot of the work is really going to be the storm water and that one I wouldn't be be ready to pass tonight I would want to send that on to work session to really dive into some of these potentials of how can we address you know some of the questions we had what kind of money is out there what kind of Partnerships could we create that type of information is going to come within that storm water ordinance ccor hopin um i' along the lines of what Michael has said I wouldn't be ready to vote on this the density issue tonight just because we are being presented with with two less than ideal options here with between the choice between low density and medium density um and they are complicated they as we being asked to bundle or unbundle the issues that are related to those I think that it's we we we have to um bundle the issues of Housing and

and uh the lake water quality with those um so I I won't be supporting motion um look forward to more conversation I think that we haven't really had a great chance to have a full conversation with staff about this yet staff want to chime in yeah I I i' ask Garrick to chime in to but um the storm water uh storm water ordinance before you will impose storm water uh regulations on uh multif family development in the Silver Beach area there's always council could always come back and look at retrofitting programs for existing development but but this requires all Redevelopment to follow more stringent storm water requirements that single family uh development already uh follows so we see no reason not to adopt the storm water regulations uh this evening because it there's no downside Eric do you have something I would just Echo that and when this this and this is not really the motion on the floor is related to the density but the storm water requirements when the Planning Commission was uh presented with the recommendation to adopt both medium density and the storm requirements at the same time they did not pass that proposal they did take a second action to separate and recommend to the council to adopt the stormw regulations at a minim as a minimum floor in part to make them equal to all properties within the watershed area that does not preclude us at some point in the future of coming back and adding additional requirements we can certainly do that we can change programs we

can do additional things but this proposal to adopt the storm water as a minimum standard would would our recommendation would be very much appropriate to do that but again that's not really related to the motion that's on the floor just wanted to be clear that the storm water is a minimum floor uh and equally applying to the to the multif family as to the single family currently there are no additional storm water requirements for multif family housing within the watershed area so the same rules that would apply uh in all the other neighborhoods of the city would apply within the Watershed but the storm water requirements in the Watershed are much more stringent water in within the rest of the city the trigger is 5,000 square F feet within the Watershed it's 300 Square F feet in addition you're required to remove phosphorus as part of the storm water regulations within the Watershed and not within the rest of the city and you're required to set aside property for protection of native vegetation areas that's not required within the rest of the city but again that's storm water separate from the motion about medium or low density that's on the floor arstone then Williams so I understand that um there have been concerns expressed about the motion but with respect speaking to the motion itself I did have a question that um I know in the staff memo there was a notation that the medium density in Area 18 right was no longer part of this proposal and I'm presuming that was because

the recommendation from staff was for medium density and if sub Area 18 was already at medium density it wouldn't need to be included um is that so in which case I would move to amend to include sub Area 18 um or was there another reason for that exclusion question the storm water changes address all the multif family 18 was accepted out for the density verion because it's built out already with single family homes so storm water would apply to all we took out Area 18 from the density discussion because it's built out with single family homes so I just just for clarification and simplicity within right mapping if if everything else a single family and this is still currently zoned at medium density and the justification is you know saying that there was a desire to reduce um development to the low density then I would think it would make sense to include that even if right you're saying nothing's going to happen but we don't know what the future would hold Fair on um I'll direct you to the um the exhibit on page 11 of your packet so it it identifies the um four areas um 8 9 13 and 18 that are kind of shaded in the um in the color there you'll see in The Legend on the right hand side of the screen residential multi- planned that's the same as area third between 18 and 13 uh in those two designation so if you wanted to certainly add it back in you know that's possibility uh the concern that Steve was referencing is that that entire subdivision is built out you know so you would

have to have each individual property redevelop and the likelihood of that is next to nothing still be subject subject to the 300 Square ft though by which all new requirements would then kick in single family so those single family Rules exist just and so I guess then for clarification director lion um by changing that are you saying that that would have a potential impact on the storm water no no they would uh the properties would be legal non-conforming so essentially that's where they would stand they would be allowed to retain what's existing there the storm water regulations would apply to them as director Johnson had said if they were to EXP ban by that 300 Square ft but from a zoning perspective that be legal non which from a from a property owner perspective and this that's not either to me you s consider but that presents challenges for the homeowner if they want to do something potentially the storm water requirements would apply no matter what however uh whether the zoning changes or not so if they change the driveway that would trigger the storm water requirements that would be required to put into those properties maintaining your motion or your Amendment rather based on yes I know because I was seeking clarification first um I mean I guess I don't see any impact on the existing homeowners right if it's added in and sent to low density it would then have some uniformity within right within the neighborhood so I would move to amend to include sub Area 18 second

second okay an amendment's been made to the to the main motion and it's been seconded by um council member list can you restate the motion or the amendment please so the amendment is to include sub Area 18 in the original motion which is to move forward with low density okay so we vote on the amendment first and then we'll we'll vote on the main motion so uh all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed extensions that motion carries 70 and then we'll go to speak to the main motion um Miss gut can you read that back please yeah so it's just a move to amend the ordinance relating to multif family development in the Silver Beach neighborhood uh amending the Silver Beach neighborhood plan and the zoning table in Title 20 of the Bellingham municipal code to reduce the density of multif family areas 8 9 13 and 18 from high density to low density okay any further discussion to that main motion um council member cotton I just want to say I agree with council members Huffman and list that we could benefit from a longer discussion um so yeah interested in having that um at our next meeting and so I won't be supporting this motion any further discussion to the motion con rans I also agree with this um with with what my colleagues have um said part of this is we do need to have a little more a little more discuss discussion on on this issue so I will not be supporting the motion as well okay any further discussion I'll chime in to you so um Mr council member Lilo Quist brought up the

word consistency and uh consistency to me uh consistency with the land purchase that we make almost every month in the lake wam Watershed most of which are not even in the city of Bellingham they're in the county um a low density designation be consistent with those purchases would also be consistent with the um the purchase of or the conservation uh easement on galberth Mountain Thousand Acres of which are in the Watershed Side of the Mountain uh it's also uh consistent with the reconveyance I'm looking at uh former County council member um Carl wymer and former former uh city council member Stan snap who put in work to achieve water a lot of water quality so I'm in favor uh at this point of a lower density however I do agree with the other council members that more discussion is not going to detract from this I think it can enhance that a little bit so I would I would um support moving another uh moving a work session to I think June 3r is our next uh next meeting so uh we're pretty close to that I think that we can get to an agreement um during that time so I would just that would be my preference to do that so anyone else want to disc any more discussion to the the motion that was made by council member Anderson and second and by council member stone or I almost called you council member City attorney uh Al manner sorry stress that on the third you need to either pass the ordinance uh you're considering low density or you must pass uh extend the uh moratorium yeah yeah um

so we're going to have to bring forward both matters so that depending on which way you go you may decide you need more time to consider at another work session okay everyone clear on that okay all those in favor of the motion um to um for the low density for tonight I'll signify by saying I I I opposed no no no motion fails 43 do you need a roll call okay all right um I'll entertain a motion to move uh work session to June 3rd so moved second motion's been made by council member Williams second by council member Huffman um any further discussion on that one seeing go ahead Cil mstone I just wanted to confirm where it was going to go I believe that um when Steve S was being mentioned something about planning but the request for me would be Committee of the whole but we're happy to support that yeah I think Committee of the whole it's a big enough issue I think okay uh all those in favor signified by saying I I I opposed exensions recusals motion carries 70 council member lest move approval of the ordinance to amend the storm water management requirements multif family zones in Silver Beach neighborhood in BMC 16.8 of the lake walk and reservo Regulatory chapter second motion has been made by council member list seconded by council member hman any further discussion council member Anderson um a question to uh my colleague um after this vote are you prepared to make a motion to request staff to start looking at uh options for retrofitting um the existing uh properties that are

not um having sufficient storm water and uh possible ways that that would partnership for payment we don't actually coordinate ahead of time that would be my intention yes okay okay um we didn't vote on that okay sorry let good we've been here for 12 hours um anyway um all those in favor signify by saying I I I posed exensions recusals motion carry 70 okay I guess we move on go ahead council member will I move that we request um an agenda future agenda item from the administration probably in the public works at Natural Resources committee to uh address the issue of uh retrofitting um existing properties in Lake oan Watershed that are not already being treated second motion made by council member liquis second by council member Anderson any further discussion uh I'll go to um our director uh Johnston and then to council member Williams to clarify just want to make sure that you're referring to all existing properties regardless of zoning or are you specifically referring to multi the general problem all properties thank you m Williams excuse me say that again Michael the general Problem whatever in the Watershed is not being treated and is existing and wouldn't be covered by the new so water regulations because it's already existing I'd like to talk about solutions for all those properties okay what um is there any data that shows what the scope of that would be ballp parket we we we would need some time to address that so I think the motion that you wanted us to address that

question we would answer that question when we came back with the work session for addressing the motion that Mr list is proposing one point of clarification however it would be all properties within the city's jurisdiction not all properties within the Watershed okay there's uh question goad is that what you intended you know I hadn't thought about that um frankly every time we talk about action be taken in the city we treat them as a model for the county to potentially follow but I think we start with our own house okay go one of my concerns about this is that um I basically agree with what uh director liance said when we start to peac meal some of these policy issues in my opinion it's going to lead to just a a very chaotic situation if you live here here you don't have to do it if you live over there you do have to do it and that's something that I would want to avoid so if this motion is going to apply to the whole city not just this Zone then um I think that's something we need to look at now now we were we are dealing with this particular problem with this particular property in this Zone because this zone is around the Watershed and this was a very unique individual situation um and I am just concerned that there is that there's not going to be an adequate way of dealing with this issue unless it's either or I'm I'm not seeing a way to address these concerns other than it's got to be this way or it's got to be this way based on the on the uh testimony that I've heard

and I saw this you I am I mean there were some issues that uh came up that need more work on the density issue but if we do nothing it remains at high density The Proposal was to lower it in return for putting in the storm water um things and which from the information I read would positively impact what goes into the lake if it were done regardless of the size of the unit but if we do nothing it's an unlimited construction project that could be and and then everything is handled through the permitting process which is not from from the way that I've read things is not consistent on the multifam housing if it stays at high density this water mitigation is as as I recall is handled through the permitting process correct and and it may apply one way to this property and another way to another property and what I saw in this was at least on the water mitigation piece that it standardized standardized how this is going to be applied if you want to remodel or extend your footprint by 300 ft or more you have to do this Mr Williams yes I'm sorry the the motion that was previously passed did put those rules into place to make them across the board equally what I understand the motion to be now is to they so now that that has been passed for treating the existing multif Family Properties the same as all single family properties within the Watershed that was passed by the council the new motion as I understand it just to be to clear of this is to have staff come back with

considerations and discussions and information related to uh potentially considering requiring all existing properties regardless of zoning okay to to be retrofit for storm water treatment requirements which would be beyond what they currently have to be clear I did not say requiring I said just simply look at ways of getting to retrofit fting getting to retrofit so getting so how would we go to getting to retrofit whether that's requirement or some other mechanism where we would yes okay so if if I may clarify a little bit as it exists right now with the with the motion that was approved that triggers 300 Square F feet whether you're in now in single family or once this becomes effective whether you're in multif family but council member liist is saying is that we're looking for other opportunities that don't trigger that 300 that we would look for retrofits whether that's through an incentive program through a requirement through some other means that does not have the 300 Square F feet be the precursor to triggering that piece and that will require the additional work and that that would be in addition or above and beyond our current hip program which is voluntary which which adds those improvements to existing property so looking Beyond The Hip program and into other options that might be considered uh and mechanisms to put those things into place what I don't know is when we'd be able to back I need to S to staff and consult with the mayor office but that would uh it

would not be June 3rd I would I know that I want to thank staff for providing that clarification because that's why my hand went up this is about the Watershed not the entire city it's about protecting our drinking Reservoir and one of the things that I had spoken to earlier I was not prepared to vote tonight because there were things that I felt were not on the table that I think think we need additional tools and staff said that they could always do an addendum or Amendment later once that research and those possibilities are identified so this really is about that map that showed all those brown areas around the lake where they don't have storm water mitigation and it's developed unless they opt in to the hip program we don't have any tools and often the barrier is it could cost them $50,000 or so in order to be able to do the work so what tools do we have to be able to partner and it what I'm hoping is we might be able to identify um federal or state funding that we can put together a program in order to help these homeowners um or blocks um be able to retrofit into a better storm water um system versus more phosphorus into the lake it's about leaving no stone unturn so um to me is it is hopefully will be an amendment or addendum to the plan that we've approved um much of the city has storm water but we have areas right on the Lake Shore that don't have it so what tools can we develop in order to make that work and I want to thank um council member lillquist for bringing

that forward and that was why I asked before I voted because I wanted to make sure we'd have this opportunity um and as far as timing I know that it's staff time and resources um and after they if this passes and they kind of look at it hopefully they can bring information back and give us some kind of idea of timeline that this would be able to be looked at motions for the discussion Mr I'm sorry can I ask one more clarifying question sorry if you be have so many clarified questions but uh with the what recently formed Water Resource Advisory Board would the councils be interested in having them weigh into this conversation before or after we have the presentation to the council might be a clarification BR asking any objection to that I I think I think from my perspective I would recommend that we go to the RAB first consistent with practice how we deal with other policy questions that we vet Su some of those questions with the RAB that will extend a signifant amount of time however before we come back to the council just wanted to clarify that I see how nods all around yeah okay so okay RAB first and then city council when that is ready for to come back y okay Mo been made uh Second and all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed extensions recusals motion carry 70 okay that is the end of the public hearing for this evening so do does council want to take a u five minute break and if folks are just here for the public hearing this is your time to make the French exit

as they say [Music] is [Music] okay I'll just get us back to order here it's 9:31 um next up is uh mayor's report all right good evening Council good evening members of the community that are still here and staff um I'm going to work diligently to make this go quickly so for information this evening I'd like to make several appointments to the mayor's neighborhood advisory committee those appointments include Lauren bunky as the Roosevelt neighborhood representative to her first term Jack Wellman as the seahome neighborhood representative to his final term and Nick Kelly as the Cornwall neighborhood representative to his final term and it is with particular Delight that I appoint Lauren as the Roosevelt neighborhood representative because that has been a vacancy for many years so we're thrilled to have representation in that neighborhood and I just wanted to put a plug out that there are still several neighborhoods that do not have representation on the mayor's neighborhood advisory committee and I would love to have representation from across the city so um if putting the word out there that the Alabama Hill Barkley ironate Meridian and wam Falls neighborhoods are all seeking mnac representatives and so um putting a plug and letting it be known I would love to have representatives from those communities around the table as well I wanted to share that the upcoming weekend will be busy in our community it is Memorial Day weekend there is the annual parade downtown on Saturday

and also on Saturday happening downtown is the Gathering of the Eagles it is a procession um well it'll include A procession from Waypoint Park to Maritime Heritage Park but the Gathering of the Eagles is an indigenous Le group from the lact tamish territory story conducting a canoe journey through their ancestral lands and Waters and the journey will conclude the co Salish Day events and of course on Sunday is the legendary ski to se multisport team relay from Mount Baker to Bellingham Bay so it'll be a busy weekend out and about around town and I wanted to take a minute just to emphasize something that came up earlier today many members in the community are hearing about the Nook Zac Basin water rights adjudication and many members of the community are wondering um as a city of Bellingham what our customer what actions are required on behalf of them and this was mentioned in the public works and national uh natural resources committee this morning but I wanted to make it clear and just emphasize that the city expects no significant changes in our ability to serve both our current customers and our future water customers and that no specific action is required by our water customers during the adjudication process adjudication is led by the state department of ecology and the process aims to clarify where and how much water is legally allowed and how much water should remain in our streams and instead of handling individual permits or issues one by one this will be a

multi-year process that creates a comprehensive legal management system and confirms the rights to Legal water use and for more information you can go to cob.org adjudication and that's the end of mayor's report tonight you mayor Lon that will take us to our committee reports the first one was uh this morning at 9:00 am and that was uh chaired by council member Hannah Stone thank you very much president Hamill um so this morning I was joined on the public works and natural resources committee by council members Anderson and council member coton s in um for council member lillquist we had a number of items before us this morning starting with agenda bill 24120 this was a contract award um idiq on call multiple Hearth incinerator repairs so the city solicited bids for an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract for on Call incinerator maintenance and repair services work will be scoped and performed under individual work orders on an as-needed basis over a maximum of 4 years and subject to a not to exceed contract amount of $3 million the city received two bids which were publicly open on April 23rd 2024 JT Thorp and Sons Incorporated from Burlington Washington was the responsible bidder who offered the lowest responsive bid of $37,800 requirements because individual work orders are expected to be well under $1 million um however um if there were a work order that exceeded that threshold then the apprenticeship um hours would would apply um we were joined this morning

by Public Works director Eric Johnston as well as Mike Olinger assistant director of Public Works and operations um there was a unanimous motion this morning to move to award the contract to JT Thorp and Suns Incorporated um and is so moved second motion has been made by the chair and second by council member Anderson any further discussion on this item seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I post exensions recusals motion carries 70 thank you very much the next item before us this morning was agenda bill 24121 this is a request for sewer service at 968 Marine Drive the watom county health department has informed the owners of the existing residents at 968 Marine drive that their septic system has failed the property abuts a city sewer Main and the property owners have applied to the city for retail sewer service so Bellingham municipal code 15.36% and there therefore staff is recommending that the city council authorize the mayor to extend retail Sewer Service to 968 Marine Drive pursuant to the attached contract um I just wanted to highlight that as far as you know fiscal impact the property owner in this case will pay the sewer system development charge a sewer latecomer assessment and monthly utility bills so really the cost of this is on um on the property owner um we were joined this morning by Public Works director Eric Johnston um and Brent Baldwin was with us as well Public Works development manager um there was this morning a unanimous um vote to um

move forward a motion to authorize the mayor to execute a contract to provide retail Sewer Service to 968 Marine Drive and ISO move second motion's been made by the chair and seconded by council member Anderson uh any further discussion seeing none all in favor signified by saying I I I opposed extensions recusals motion carries 70 thank you the next item this morning was agenda Bill 24122 the contract award for Pacific Street operations center phase 2 admin building and vehicle storage e f178 bid number 6 b-224 so the Pacific Street operations center phase 2 improves the city of Bellingham operation Operation Center originally constructed in the 1950s the site has several buildings that no longer meet operational needs and have reached the end of useful life the work consists of demolition of old structures a new two-story all electric administration building and a new operations building the administration building will have a new public reception area and construction includes solar panels a green roof lead silver equivalent construction practices 1% for the Arts and a 15% apprenticeship requirement this project continues the work of ensuring climate resiliency for this um critical infrastructure the city publicly opened four bids on May 1st 2024 Dawson construction is the responsible bidder who submitted the lowest responsive bid of 20,758 70 including any applicable sales tax the engineer estimate is 23,9 27,25324 50 um so for this we were joined by Public Works director

Eric Johnston as well as Public Works assistant director of operations Mike Olinger um and this morning there was a unanimous motion to move to award the contract to Dawson Construction LLC and I so move second motion has been made by the chair second by council member Huffman any further discussion on this one seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed extensions recusals motion carry 70 thank you very much so the next two items before the public works and natural resources committee um are sort of well somewhat related so first agenda bill 24133 which is adoption of the 2024 bicycle master plan and agenda bill 24123 which is adoption of the 2024 pedestrian master plan so the bicycle master plan was adopted by City Council in October of 2014 and The Pedestrian master plan was adopted by City Council in September of 2012 um the city has updated the bicycle master plan to continue to make the city's multimodal Transportation Network more safe Equitable and connected which will encourage more people to walk and roll for their daily Transportation needs this as well as pedestrian plan includes recommendations related to policy facility design and maintenance um bicycle Network programmatic action s and implementation the Transportation Commission endorsed the bicycle Master Plan update on April 9th 2024 at that same meeting the Transportation Commission also endorsed The Pedestrian master plan um staff and the Transportation Commission presented a summary of

the community engagement and key plan elements to city council at our last meeting on May 6th 20124 the plan is available both of these plans are available on the city website at Co b.org slpr slpb m2022 um and staff recommended to council to pass the attached resolutions adopting um each plan so we' review them individually and two separate votes but just wanting to note that um Public Works director Eric Johnston as well as Joel fun assistant Public Works director for transportation was with us this morning um first with respect to agenda Bill 2413 3 there was a unanimous recommendation to move adopting the resolution of the 2024 bicycle master plan and ISO move second motion's been made by the chair second by council member Williams any further discussion council member Anderson thank you I just wanted to add on both of these plans um there was a section that got added because I know we received a lot of community input regarding um smart uh measures and so there is a paragraph put in that City staff shall work with the Transportation Commission as part of the 2025 work plan to recommend to the city council specific measurable achievable relevant and time-based smart measures and targets that can be used to track implementation of the goals and policies um included in the 2024 pedestrian master plan so there will be a little more work to come so that we'll have very specific um items that will be measurable to see if we are staying on track meeting our goals and be able to

have some items that we could actually measure our Effectiveness so that will be coming a little bit later but with that inclusion um it kind of felt much better about the whole plan motion's been made and seconded uh any further discussion on this one seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed exensions recusals motion carries 70 with respect to agenda Bill 241 23 adoption of the 2024 pedestrian master plan um there was again a unanimous motion adopting the resolution for the 2024 pedestrian master plan and ISO move second motions been made by the chair and seconded by council member Huffman any further discussion that one seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed exensions recusal motion carry 70 thank you very much and so as council member Anderson had highlighted just wanting to um bring the Public's attention as well in both plans um or in both resolutions it noting as well that you know passage of the plan though is necessary for implementation of the 2024 bicycle and pedestrian Master plans um so that work can begin immediately um at integrating the plan into updates to the city's six-year Transportation Improvement program comprehensive plan speed limit setting policy and neighborhood traffic safety program policy so important to pass the plans at this time so that work can move forward on those fronts but then as council member Anderson highlighted um there will be work coming forward um with respect to those smart smart measures

and targets um that can be used to track the implementation so looking forward to that work going forward almost done the final item before us this morning was agenda bill 24124 so this is the Water Systems Plan update so work is underway to update the city's water system plan water system planning is a requirement of state law and as a Class A water purveyor the city is required to plan for all elements of its water utility system including Source protection water rights customer service level policies treatment storage distribution technical engineering analysis climate resiliency and fiscal planning the updated water system plan will include recommendations on rates and charges needed to fund utility operations and capital Improvement M ments so this morning staff provided a brief update presentation about the planning process with an emphasis on staff's public engagement efforts um in the spring and summer of this year so wanting to note that we were joined this morning by Public Works director Eric Johnston as well as Mike Wilson assistant director of Public Works for engineering um and Natalie Monroe Communications coordinator for public works and wanted to highlight um that the um the the survey site that's going to be going live tomorrow on engage Bellingham so to get feedback from the community with respect to just Community Values um and priorities that then staff can take and incorporate into the new draft for the water system plan um so we looking for that on

engag Bellingham starting tomorrow and then also just wanting to highlight where we're at in the process so next you know focusing on that public engagement and then the plan or this work will go to the RAB the Water Resources Advisory Board and once add dra plan um has been finalized that will be open for public comment and then returning to city council for review and consideration um in early next year 2025 so if you're interested in more information about that you can go back and watch the recording from this morning's meeting but that was for information and discussion only um and with that we concluded our meeting and I will turn it back to you president Hamill thank you committee chair I thought there was going to be impromptu speech um so the next uh next committee was Committee of the whole our first item was a um an update on the wam County Bellingham wam County uh uh County Commission on sexual and domestic violence that um commission was formed by the city in the in the county in 1998 the commission inspires and coordinates our community's efforts to address sexual domestic and domestic violence each year staff from uh the domestic violence commission provides an update to inform the Council of their work as well as to provide education about the impact of domestic violence in our community this afternoon we uh discussed restorative justice uh domestic violence offender treatment the upcoming Summit on missing and murdered indigenous women and people coming up in

November um and a number of other uh items related to this to this body of work um I would encourage folks that are interested in in this item to go back and watch the presentation by Susan marks who's the director of that commission the next item was just me one second here was uh financial management guidelines so strong upto-date financial policies are critical to maintaining the financial health of the city these policies ensure fiscal prudence and guide decision-making and policy prioritization they also set parameters for many Financial procedures including budgeting monitoring issuing debt and investing the financial management guidelines and Associated policies were last updated back in 2010 uh this new version updates for brevity and Clarity throughout makes significant changes to the budget policy to reflect a return to a one-year budget which is a significant change for the city and revises fund reserves T fund Reserve targets uh this afternoon there was an amended resolution that was passed and the amendments are the removal of that they relate to investment policy changes and they the they are the removal of supranaturals commercial paper and corporate notes um and that uh that resolution passed and I so move second second or sorry is there a second second okay sorry uh motion's been made by the by the chair and second to my council member Williams any further discussion on that one seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed abstentions

recusals okay that passes 70 next item was mayor's uh 2025 budget priorities I'd invite the mayor to if you if you'd like to just highlight a couple of the the high level ones you're more than welcome to do that certainly um I don't have my paper in front of me but essentially it was a presentation sharing some of the top priorities as we Endeavor to um provide resources for the community and also close a $4 million deficit and as we enter into that work it was a directive to staff and an invitation for all of you to weigh in on the priorities of public health and safety with a particular focus on the Justice project implementation plan goals and strategies it was a a focus on um climate action and preparing for a more resilient climate future it was for housing affordability across the entire Continuum of need in our community and also a directive that we're focusing on providing the tools and the resources for the city to deliver great government on behalf of the community thanks pror Michael May mayor covered it thank you okay great and then um second last item uh was was parking reforms consideration of eliminating off street parking requirements there was a motion was there a motion yeah okay um do you have a copy of what those first two items were I don't have it verbatim but I can just roughly I know the request is to come back to staff to come with forth with presentation on eliminating parking minimum Citywide and a focus on Transit oriented development in urban

Villages okay that's right the successful motion um were those two items to come back to to council was actually move them through the type six process type six process yeah okay okay um all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppos extensions recusal that motion carries old and new business Mr Mariner yeah can we Rec I just wanted we didn't get a first and second on that previous motion I don't believe when we reintroduce or we just discussed it a first and second related to the parking reforms we just made one well you you made the motion but no one seconded your motion oh this evening oh okay then can I get a second second okay give it to council member cotton this what happens when you work for you know 13 hours 12 hours uh been made by the chair uh second my council member cotton all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose extensions um motion carries 70 okay now we're go to uh City attorney May yes um at City council's Direction uh staff is bringing forward an ordinance and I'll read the title and you were emailed this ordinance uh last week an ordinance relating to the preservation of landmark trees declaring an emergency and establishing interim development Reg regulations with respect to Landmark trees throughout the city um because staff was concerned that people Property Owners may start cutting Landmark trees during the five weeks that it a minimum five weeks it takes to uh uh put a regular ordinance into effect this ordinance is drafted as an emergency and

if five or more of you approve the ordinance this evening it takes effect immediately it does require that super majority um RCW 3678 390 authorizes Council to adopt interim development regulations if it holds a public hearing on those regulations within 60 days of adoption and adopts findings a fact justifying its action um this evening so I just want to be we had some questions from Council Members um this evening you have at least three options you can adopt the ordinance as presented um you can adopt the modified ordinance as you decide to amend it within reason so that we can incorporate it those amendments into the ordinance that you have or you can reject the ordinance and that would be a a vote of less than five people in support of the ordinance um the other time that'll come to you and you can adjust is uh this the public hearing if you do pass some kind of ordinance this evening in 60 days within 60 days there'll be a public hearing and at that time if you take no action that ordinance will remain in in effect um or you can repeal the ordinance or you can amend it again at at that time um if some ordinance is passed um this evening that ordinance will remain in effect for six months and staff will initiate a type six process to work on a final permanent uh ordinance um and so here I'm going to turn it over to Blake but Eric's Here Blake Nicole all three were involved in drafting the ordinance and I'm going to uh have James take my seat he uh coordinated the writing

of the ordinance that's before you and all all four of them can answer any specific questions that you have and if I may I'll take a few minutes uh this evening I'll try to be as uh efficient with my time as possible given the hour uh but I do think it it's prudent to kind of walk you through a little bit about how the ordinance is structured and the part that I want to kind of do as AE little bit of a preamble is to um illustrate or or enumerate on the fact that the ordinance is set up with uh protection and preservation in mind as kind of the first order of business if you will but we understand that there's a wide range of circumstances that may vary based on the properties and locations of these trees and there may be instances where uh through a hazardous condition or emergency situation or through some uh consideration for development where it is appropriate to go through a removal process and we do have that enumerated in here so the way that the ordinance is drafted once you get past the whereas statements it really does identify the purposes and the intent behind this particular um emergency and interim ordinance and I won't belabor uh the point to go through all of those you've you've had those yeah sorry so I just just had a question about whether so this being brought up this evening as an emergency ordinance does it have to be read into the record the title of believe is what's going to be read into the record but not the not the ENT entirety of the ordinance in

of itself okay and so then the entire because the ordinance obviously wasn't included in the packet um and so I'm just wondering how that information in its entirety gets shared broadly before we sort of start talking about it since no one's Beyond us have seen it yeah that's a terrific question it it wouldn't be shared like in real time uh if the council uh takes any action on the ordinance or even if it doesn't then we could publish uh the emergency ordinance draft that you're all looking at uh you know either later tonight or tomorrow so uh the first section is the finding of fact and then we go directly into the purpose uh of this particular emergency ordinance and there are multiple items that are listed there on the ordinance on page two and three if you're following along um as with any type of ordinance we certainly look towards uh def definitions and to provide that Clarity of purpose and so section three that's identified for you and there's one that I want to uh in particular note and and it gets into a little bit of the subsections later on but as an example and why definitions are important there's a reference in here to normal pruning and maintenance and the idea what the reason that that's important is when we get into later sections where we're talking about exemptions there does allow for the ordinance does allow for those activities that are normal pruning and maintenance to be uh Exempted out of the requirements of the ordinance the question then becomes

what extends Beyond normal and there is a a permanent process and a standard by which you do that so we've tried to enumerate a number of different things in this particular ordinance again that start with that preservation in mind but give the opportunity to address a wide range of circumstances and issues this ordinance also does establish an inventory process whereby we look to um establish a a definitive preservation for any tree that is 36 Ines or greater uh but does allow for the nomination of a tree that might have distinct and um identifiable characteristics and there's a way to enumerate that that's at the top of page five in the ordinance U and gives the ability to consider something that might have some significance to the community but may not meet that actual uh um size standard as a as a portion of that and we would go through the process of inventorying those so we know what uh what is existing within the community there's also a opportunity um in section five that enumerates a little bit more about the preservation and what it means to be uh to establishing those protective measures that are associated with that so it it becomes important to understand the various different points associated with that and as I alluded to earlier there is opportunities in uh in certain circumstances to go through the removal so section six really does make an effort to try to identify where those opportunities might be appropriate um and it talks about enabling construction on

um or reasonable use of a property and it goes through and kind of identifies that it identifies areas where there might be opportunities or concerns about conflicts with utilities or where you have the hazardous condition and it goes through even further uh in that hazardous position on page seven and identifies that we use the tree risk assessment of a qualified arborist and so we go through those different and identify whether they are at extreme risk a higher risk moderate risk or low risk and there's different approaches based on that so you'll see that there's uh intended to be a lot of thought and logic behind a lot of those and we do allow for exemptions that are enumerated in section seven and it talks about in Section 8 The Landmark tree committee which is a represent representative of each of the three departments that was Allan mentioned so the planning department the public works department and the parks department would P put forth a subject matter expert to serve on that tree committee and ultimately they would make a recommendation um based on the nomination of that tree or based on the development impacts associated with that to the planning director uh which would then provide an opportunity to to render a decision on that particular tree and we go through and we talk about the different review process by and large it's a type one review process which is a staff level but there are a list of criteria that go through um and begin to identify and justify where

it's appropriate to do that and sets up uh maintenance and monitoring programs associated with that so if you do have the need for removal there is an opport opportunity to make sure that we are uh addressing those concerns or dealing with some various different emergency actions that may uh prove to be necessary during the course of review and where we do have uh conflict with development again the goal is to try to protect and preserve those trees we're looking to provide incentives to those property owners that are doing so in ways that we can identify concerns that might be something that we're putting in place in the development regulations things like can we uh provide for a reduced setback or uh reduction in the on-site parking requirements or open space requirements things that are of our own making that would help incentivize the protection and the preservation of that tree and allow development an appropriate amount of development to occur in and around that facility and then lastly I want to mention there's a couple more sections at the tail end of this that talk about the fees the fees are already EST established in the development regulations and the fee resolutions so it wouldn't be anything above and beyond what is already existing um a large percentage of the trees that are being proposed are often associated with development so that would be just folded into that initial request and consideration but if somebody was coming through outside of a development

proposal we would have a standalone fee that would be associated with that if memory serves me correctly it's $106 the last piece in here that I wanted to mention uh is section 11 which talks about the violations and the concerns that are there if somebody is uh truly trying to circumvent the rules and regulations that would be put into place there's an establishment of a minimum uh $800 Civic penalty up to a maximum of 5,000 which keeps it in that gross misdemeanor uh situation and keeps it out of criminal court but uh and that is a per tree violation issue that could be amassed but in addition to the actual fine itself is really um and this is on page 13 of yours under section 11b where it talks about the need to provide then a replant requirement and a monitoring program and so not only would you have that fine that would be potentially attributed if you were um circumventing the rules you would also have that replant uh and it speaks a little bit to council member Anderson's concern about um are we being doing enough to try to address some of the issues when some somebody is uh maybe not acting with the best of intentions so um happy to try to respond to and answer any questions sorry to be so quick with it but I just wanted to kind of lay it out for you the structure of the ordinance as it's in front of youc any questions council member Stone hman and Anderson so I guess my first question um this being brought forward as an emergency ordinance I don't know if um it would

be from the city attorney's office or one of the department head but um just if there's any further language to articulate I know it states that an emergency exists involving the immediate preservation of the public peace health or safety as defined in the charter um you're able to speak at all to certainly I think one of the things that was um particularly concerning is that uh when we were going through the urban forestry plan and we were doing the listening sessions and the feedback loop that we had over over the last um better part of the last month uh we started hearing a number of the folks in those technical sessions that said in anticipation of the city taking the tree uh the urban forestry plan they were already getting a a significant amount of calls and having requests to remove preemptively remove a number of the trees and the concern by staff was that we were going to be losing these resources to this community without the necessary opportunity to evaluate that so we felt it prudent to try to address this in a in the emergency fashion so that we don't lose those resources and we can still have the ability to evaluate the issue and in in addition to that there's a gap between when the ordinance would be hit introduced and the time it takes to go to first and second reading third and final reading and then 15 days after that so with the indications of some concern in the community and then the reality of of which is what the ordinance speaks to is the reality of of

inter producing it on day one and then 45 days later not having any good effect there's an indiv reading period where it is potentially likely based on some the information that we have heard through that public process to have someone slip in prior to the ordinance coming to effect so I think both things are there and James can speak to that as well thank you for that question I'm not sure if your concern was that that finding might seem kind of conclusory and there might you know put a little bit more well I guess in right in I don't want to say typical terms but when you're thinking about for me public peace right health and safety I mean I think I can get there probably under the health right if you're thinking about a healthy Vibrant Community and what those trees represent especially with respect to our climate action you know goals and other pieces but I just wasn't sure internally if there had been discussion about where that would be sure and I also just want to point out on um page one of the ordinance in the recital there's a factual basis there uh for the Emergency which is was just recounted by director line just kind of that time discrepancy between going through the normal legislative process would allow for approximately six weeks of any of these significant trees to be either removed or for developers to submit applications and vest to the rules currently in place which would allow for removal without going through any of this process Council hman then

Anderson um you've mentioned that there would be an inventory done of landmark trees do we have an estimate at this point of how many we have in the city don't think I could recall that number for you we have we do have some uh you have well not to preempt Blake but Renee lroy is here she's been working on the urban forestry plan with staff and might be able to address that question directly so obvious sorry we don't actually have an a estimate of how many trees would be nominated there's the difference between how many trees um qualify for 36 in diameter and above and how many would qualify for the other reasons for being exceptional beauty or Heritage or size um sheat and look cultural significance thank you so we don't have a sense of how many of those would be nominated okay CC Anderson thank you um I support this I want to thank the mayor and staff for addressing this my concern has been the timing um I've been pretty vocal with examples of uh people taking down trees and rideways and the penalties definitely do not mirror basically it's a cost of doing business to get that driveway where you want it um my question is is if this does pass right now I believe it's still that the owner would have to get a permit to cut down a tree we know I know in my examples uh the owners did not get a permit and they worked with a company to take down a tree what is our plan to get this information out so that um people are aware of this I I assume that we'll be notifying some of the

tree cutting companies but is there any additional Outreach that will be happening um across the city so that people who may not want to be a bad player and will play by the rules they'll know that there are rules to be played by we're certainly working on uh an effort right now Communications strategy uh we certainly wanted to understand the action that might be taken here this evening before we finalize that but we would expect to have that up uh and available to push out that information tomorrow uh given the direction that that we received this evening uh and then we'll continue to go through our development review process and notifying and just continue with that effort to address and continue pushing that information out lqu uh yeah I think you kind of buried the lead there I mean I think the important thing is that this covers only trees which are 36 in diameter at chest height 45 in and are in healthy condition um I just Tred to find some information on when a Doug fur reaches that how old is it if you can believe the formula that it's circumference times 1.6 then that would for Doug fur be 180 year old tree other trees grow diameters at different rates and whatever and it depends on microclimate so I don't know but I mean the point is that this should cover some of our oldest trees trees that date long before the establishment of the city of Bellingham those are the landmark trees that we're talking about and they have to be in healthy condition and I would also add

to that if I might the the ability to nominate something that is under that 36 inches also exists so if we find that there is a tree that has significant aesthetic value cultural value uh you know other contributing things to our community There's an opportunity for someone to identify that tree go through the nomination process notify the property owner if that happens not to be on their particular property and go through a deliberation process to determine if that's the case it also allows for Groves of trees to be nominated as part of landmark tree so if there are multiple trees that are grouped together as a Grove those could be also equally nominated with the criteria that are set forth in the ordinance the point is it's not simply trees that are 36 inches and larger it's other trees or groups of trees that could be considered I think in layman's terms it's helpful I find it helpful to think of these as our most exceptional trees so for one reason or another whether it's their age their aesthetic value value in a neighborhood this is not every tree it is the most remarkable trees in our community that we're seeking to to preserve um I had a question regard to the terminology referenced a few places where it speaks of removal but then also damage and I didn't see damage defined but in the list of definitions but then I guess the second part to that so one is how we're recognizing or defining damage and then in the violation section I didn't see damage specifically

referenced but it does say anyone violating or failing to comply um with the provisions but then focuses on removal so wondering if we're focusing at all on damage and if there was damage would that be a violation or not um I think that well there is defin there is some discussion in there about the different actions under the preservation portion of it which I believe is Section Five um so it starts on the lower portion of page five and it goes through no person may remove damage harm a landmark tree and then it goes through additional uh in discussion about what is involved in that the other portion that I would also bring to your intention um is it really begs the question of whether or not that is posing a hazard uh you know and so when you do get a tree that is hazardous because of that then there is a provision that talks a little bit more about what uh what's the risk associated with that so I think the combination of those two things gets you gets to your concern recognize council member cotton and then I'm going to ask for a motion for an ordinance after that just in the interest of times so go ahead Mr cotton yeah and I I support this I think we have to be accountable to the fact that when our actions lead to a change in the anticipated regulatory environment that leads to results contrary to public um public interest we should we should do this so thank you for for bringing this forward um I guess my question to follow upon council member Anderson's question um

what why are why these violation amounts and um and what are what are some of the constraints within the Civil infraction process I mean yeah can you just speak to that I'm not sure I understand the question C right um so particular why why $5,000 maximum for each violation and and how do we get to that number are there are there legal considerations yeah so as uh staff was working through the ordinance uh there were a couple of different suggested numbers uh that we discussed uh and it was trying to find that right balance of an amount that would be punitive um but at the same time an amount that um that didn't uh take us above and beyond what the maximum fine would be for a gross misdemeanor in municipal court and that maximum fine is $5,000 so we wanted the maximum to be 5,000 or below but also to set a floor for a minimum fine so it didn't become I think I heard Council M Anderson say just like the cost of doing business right you don't want it to be like a $100 fine to knock down a you know a 200 year old Douglas F Tre because someone just paid the $100 so you want to have it have some um punitive value to dissuade people from harming uh damaging removing Landmark trees without following our process uh but also like recognize what the jurisdiction is of our Municipal Court Anderson okay um in the interest of I support this in time um I'm I move that we accept the emergency ordinance um relating to the preservation of landmark trees declaring an emergency and establishing

the interim development regulation with respect to Landmark trees throughout the city second motion has been made by council member Anderson and second by council member Huffman does that satisfy the requirement for reading the the title into the record okay any further discussion seeing none all in favor signify by saying I I I opposed extensions recusal motion carries 70 thank you any other items for old new okay um I will now read the report from the executive session we had a couple items this afternoon um first was litigation city of Bellingham versus Fang um staff provid provided information on a litigation matter this was for information discussion no action was taken second was uh potential litigation with James herb staff provided information on on a potential litigation matter will now entertain a motion to adopt the letter from Parks director Nicole Oliver to Jean Shannon dated March 27th 2024 as a decision of the city council with respect to the request by Jean and Connie Shannon for a refund of the park impact fees that they paid in association with the development of South Base Suites in 2013 city council denies the Shannon's request for a refund of Park impact fees for the reasons stated in director Oliver's letter the decision is final and any peel would um would go to wam County Superior Court move approval second motion's been made by council member Williams second by council member Anderson any further discussion on this one seeing none all those in favor

signify by saying I I post exensions recusal um motion carries 70 consent agenda move approval second motion's been made by council member Williams second by council member lillquist any discussion on this one seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed extensions recusals Mot carries 70 final consideration of ordinances General Bell 24105 an ordinance creating a fund to account for the new 2/10 of 1% sales and use tax for public health safety and Justice second second third and final by council member Anderson seconded by council member Huffman um roll call please Anna Stone hi Holly Huffman hi Skip Williams hi Lisa Anderson hi Michael liquis hi jce cotton I Dan Hamill I motion carries [Music] 70 next up we have agenda ball 24106 an ordinance amending the 2023 2024 banial budget amendment number 13 move third and final second third and final by council member Huffman seconded by council member Anders Anderson roll call please Dan HL hi jce cotton hi Michael L hi Lisa Anderson hi SK Williams hi Holly Huffman hi Hannah Stone hi motion carries 70 okay now move into public comment all right those [Music]