City Council - Regular Meeting
City Council - Regular Meeting
Mon, November 17, 2025
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summary
Summary not yet available.
Agenda items (40)
Council Business
1Council BusinessLitigation: Scarmuzzi v. City of Bellingham, et. al (Phillips, approx. 15 min.)
2Council BusinessLitigation: Jewett v. City of Bellingham, et. al (Phillips, approx. 10 min.)
3Council BusinessPotential Property Acquisition (Stamps, approx. 3 min.)
4Council BusinessPotential Property Acquisition (Stamps, approx. 3 min.)
5Council BusinessPotential Property Acquisition (Stamps, approx. 10 min.)
6Council BusinessPotential Litigation (Stamps, approx. 10 min.)
24693Council BusinessAn Ordinance Relating to Land Use Planning, Amending Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) Titles 20 and 21 Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
24734Council BusinessPresentation on the Interplay between Accessory Dwelling Units, Middle Housing, Co-
24735Council BusinessAn Interlocal Agreement with South Whatcom Fire Authority for Emergency Medical
24736Council BusinessInterlocal Agreement with Whatcom County Related to Emergency Medical Services on Galbraith Mountain
24737Council BusinessAn Ordinance Adopting the 2025 City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan Including the Future Land Use Map
24738Council BusinessA Resolution Adopting a New Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program Land Management Policy and Repealing Previous Policy Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity 3:25 PM
24739Council BusinessPost Point Septage Rate Increase for 2026
24740Council BusinessInterlocal Agreement for Paramedic Training Per-Student Costs for 2026
24741Council BusinessAn Ordinance of the City of Bellingham Washington Adopting the 2026 Budget
24752Council BusinessPost Point Solids Management and Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Update
24754Council BusinessAuthorization to Enter into a Grant Agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology for Partial Funding for the Remedial Action of the South State
24755Council BusinessAdoption of the 2025 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Adjournment
44AdjournmentTues. 12 p.m. – Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
45AdjournmentTues. 7 p.m. – Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
46AdjournmentWed. 8 a.m. – Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
47AdjournmentSat. 12 p.m. – Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
48AdjournmentSat. 7 p.m. – Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting Online Streaming: The meetings are streamed live at https://cob.org/btv. Online viewers will see exactly what cable customers would see. Video: Video recordings of each meeting are available on the Internet at https://cob.org/meetings within five business days following each meeting.
Ordinance
24714OrdinanceAn Ordinance Relating to the Levy of Taxes and Establishing the Amount to be Raised in 2026 on the Assessed Valuation of Property within the City
24715OrdinanceAn Ordinance Relating to Land Use and Zoning, Extending Interim Zoning Regulations to Eliminate Minimum Automobile Parking Requirements and Establish Consistent Bicycle Parking Standards Citywide for an Additional Six Months
Public Hearing
24731Public HearingA Public Hearing on a Resolution Authorizing the Partial Relinquishment of a Public Utility Easement Located Within Vacated Douglas Street that is Surplus to the City's
24732Public HearingA Public Hearing on a Resolution Authorizing the Relinquishment of a Public Water Main Easement on Property Located at 404 Baker Street that is Surplus to the City's
24733Public HearingA Public Hearing on an Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) Title 16 and Title 20 to Allow Co-Living in Zones Which Allow Multi-Family, Update and Add Definitions Relevant to Co-Living, and Replace References to the Word Family with Household
24742Public HearingA Public Hearing on a Proposed Ordinance Relating to Design Review, Adopting an Interim Ordinance to Establish Clear and Objective Design Standards and Streamline the Design Review Permitting Process
24753Public HearingA Public Hearing on a Proposed Ordinance to Amend and Extend Interim Zoning Regs, Apply New Development Regs to Single-Family and Infill Housing Development, and Allow Infill Housing in All Areas Zoned Predominately for Residential Use, Except in Lake Whatcom Watershed, For an Additional Six Months
General Business
24743General BusinessMayor's Appointment to the Community Development Advisory Board (Information
24744General BusinessMayor's Reappointments to the Greenways Advisory Committee (Approval)
24745General BusinessMayor's Reappointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (Information Only)
Procedural (2)
24746ProceduralApproval of the 10/27/2025 Special City Council Committee Minutes
24747ProceduralApproval of the 11/3/2025 City Council Committee and Regular Meeting Minutes
Consent Calendar
24748Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued October 24, 2025 through October 30, 2025
24749Consent CalendarAuthorization of Payroll Labor Cost Payments Dated October 16, 2025 to October 31, 2025
24750Consent CalendarAuthorization of Payroll Labor Cost Payments Dated October 1, 2025 to October 15, 2025
24751Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued October 31, 2025 through November 06, 2025
24756Consent CalendarWashington State Department of Ecology Grant Acceptance - 2025-2027 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grant - ITEM ADDED 11/14/2025
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Approve resolution authorizing partial relinquishment of public utility easement at 925 10th Street (Agenda Bill 24731)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve resolution authorizing relinquishment of public water main easement at 404 Baker Street (Agenda Bill 24732)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Amend interim housing ordinance – change quarter mile to half mile walking distance to major transit route (Section 9EE)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve ordinance amending and extending interim zoning regulations for middle/infill housing (Agenda Bill 24753)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Amend co-living ordinance – strike Section 4 (parking ratios)
nay 1 · aye 1
Lisa Andersonnay
voice voteaye
Approve ordinance amending BMC Titles 16 and 20 to allow co-living and replace family definition with household (Agenda Bill 24733)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interim design review ordinance (Agenda Bill 24742)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve mayor's appointments to Greenways Advisory Committee (Zachary Cook and Neil Shainer)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve ordinance amending BMC Titles 20 and 21 regarding accessory dwelling units (Agenda Bill 24693)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve amendments to comprehensive plan policy HB and policy H17
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal agreement with South Walcom Fire Authority for emergency medical services on Galbreth Mountain (Agenda Bill 24735)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal agreement with Watcom County for emergency medical services on Galbreth Mountain (Agenda Bill 24736)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Appoint council members Lilliquist and Stone to Trifunder 2027-2031 engagement plan interviews
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to retain outside counsel in Scaruzzi v. City of Bellingham
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to close real estate transaction with Borenstein/Neland – Lake Watcom watershed property ($275,000)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to close real estate transaction with Watcom County – Lake Watcom watershed property ($15,000)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to enter into lease agreement with La Mrage Kifman for space at 3125 Mercer Avenue for Bellingham Police Department
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to enter into settlement agreement with Northwest Clean Air Agency
aye 1
voice voteaye
Amend Lake Watcom land management policy resolution with proposed changes
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt resolution for Lake Watcom land acquisition and preservation program land management policy and repeal resolution 2005-09 (Agenda Bill 24738)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal agreement for paramedic training per student cost for 2026 (Agenda Bill 24740)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt resolution for 2025 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize grant agreement with WA Dept of Ecology for South State Street Manufactured Gas Plant remediation (Agenda Bill 24754)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt 2026 budget ordinance (Agenda Bill 24741)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve consent agenda
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve ordinance extending interim zoning regulations eliminating minimum parking requirements for additional 6 months (Agenda Bill 24715) – roll call vote
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Edwin 'Skip' Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Amend tax levy ordinance – correct year from 2025 to 2026 (Agenda Bill 24714)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt tax levy ordinance as corrected (Agenda Bill 24714) – roll call vote
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Edwin 'Skip' Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Verbatim transcript available
704 transcript segments indexed
Right. We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Bellingham City Council this November 17th, 2025. Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the state of Washington Open Meetings Act.
Before we begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unseated territory of the Lamei, Nuksac, Samish, and Seamyu 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 together here today. And please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events.
The Bellingham City Council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings. Interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room.
Remote viewers can log on to co.org/cczoom and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen listen in Spanish. Go ahead and let our interpreter repeat that. Thank you. Roll call, please.
>> Hannah Stone >> here. >> Dan Hamill >> here. >> Skip Williams >> here. >> Lisa Anderson >> here. >> Michael Lilliloquiz >> here. >> Jace Cotton >> here. >> Holly Huffman >> here. >> All council members are present.
>> All right. Well, first we have five public hearings. So, first we have Genville 24731, a public hearing on a resolution authorizing the partial relinquishment of a public utility easement located within vacated Douglas Street that is surplus to the city's needs.
The proposed resolution provides for the relinquishment of a surplus utility easement that encumbers real property at 92510th Street. The proposed relinquishment comes to the city council for decision upon application of the property owner to facilitate development of the private property.
The public works department has reviewed the request and determined that a portion of the easement that encumbers the subject property is surplus to the city's needs and not needed for utility service.
Accordingly, sta staff recommends that it be relinquished. And I believe I am turning it over to Mike Wilson, our assistant public works director. Thank you again. My name is Mike Wilson, assistant public works director uh over engineering and serving as a city engineer.
Appreciate the opportunity to be with you tonight. Um tonight, pending public input, we are recommending approval of an easement relinquishment. Uh the easement is located at 92510th Street. Uh and it's a portion of Douglas Street that uh is involved here.
The city vacated the Douglas Street rightway in 1966 and at that time an easement for utility purposes was retained. Uh there was there will be a width of 30 ft of easement relinquished to the city. Uh as the development that's happening on this uh parcel happens, we will be granted back the southern 10t of rideway as part of the improvements.
So there's a net 20t of width of easement being relinquished here. Um we've consulted with the utilities in the area and looked at city utilities and we u uh re recommend that the easement be relinquished.
Uh Puget Sound Energy does have an easement that's um a part of this and uh that easement interest will be retained as part of the development process. So that's that's a part of the resolution tonight or the relinquishment tonight.
So, as required by law, a public hearing is required prior to taking action on this proposal, and I'd be happy to address any questions. Council member Littlequist, >> just to clarify, the right of way will actually be increasing.
>> Uh, no, no, we'll be >> Yes. Yes. We vacated it in 1966 and we'll be obtaining 10 ft of that back um as part of the >> the rightway will be getting larger but the easement will be disappearing. >> Correct.
>> Council member Anderson. >> This area doesn't have a lot of sidewalks in the area. When this property gets developed, are they going to have to build to the standard of putting in the um the curb and sidewalk?
I would have to double check for sure, but it should be required. I would anticipate the frontage improvements are required as a normal development. We'd get those full frontage improvements. >> Other clarifying questions?
Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. How many folks are signed up? >> We have two names signed up. Okay. And remember, uh, public hearing is, uh, just for speaking to this specific subject.
And when your name is read, please line up, um, at one of the microphones, uh, to keep things moving along. Go ahead and read the names, Kelly. >> All right. We had Brian Gas and Alan M or Alex McClean.
Can we get the microphone on turn? Ah, it looks like Brian's passing. Uh, Alex Mlan, I hail from the, uh, sultry swamp land of Happy Valley. Um, this was a different right of way than than I thought it was.
Uh, the Douglas Avenue right ofway. Um, some of you have been subjected to my jihad about uh trying to tighten up our policies for selling or relinquishing rightofways over the last five years. Um because in 2020 you sold a right ofway that had a public trail on it in my neighborhood.
Um and I found that process the technical review committee um to be pretty inadequate as far as retaining these uh transportation easements for future use especially in a city where we are uh trying to simultaneously get people out of cars while increasing density.
Um, so since this doesn't uh this isn't the section of Douglas that I'm fixated on, I'm not going to spend too much time on it. But I will tell you that since that trail has been vacated, it is now uh completely filled with garbage and weeds and we have not had a public trail for the last 5 years.
So, if you can tie these things to development that is going to happen and wait to do the relinquishment until the end, that would make the most sense where you're not clearing all the trees or getting rid of the trail um and just trying to retain that asset as long as possible.
Thanks. >> Thank you, Alex. I was just a crazy person signing up for everything. So, I really wasn't going to talk about this until uh Council Member Anderson brought up a question. I wouldn't um just take their word for it that they're not going to do a sidewalk.
It can be very very um subjective. Uh there's a person that I was working with who off of um oh, what is that? Sunset Drive, two acre or two and a half acres planning department. the guy just wanted split up nine nine lots and the planning department was going to force like a 600 foot sidewalk along Sunset and yet the one development that's happening on St.
Claire, I think that they were people were talking about it before. Um, they can they can put basically 19, you know, cars in one driveway uh in that neighborhood and they're not requiring sidewalks. And so I would ask if you're going to relieve that and say, "Hey, you're going to make sure that they have sidewalks there and be more um consistent on when you're going to ask for it." Thank you.
>> Thank you, Brian. If I may, Blake line, director of planning and community development. Um, sorry I don't have it to put up on the screen for you, but what I do have on my laptop is the U proposal for development on that particular site.
And there is a sidewalk that goes both uh down 10th Street as well as on the Douglas site. So, it is full frontage of the proposed property. >> We'll we'll go ahead and close the public hearing uh officially.
Go ahead, Council Member Anderson. >> Um, is it to full scale? Because I know some of the things that we're looking at in the comp plan would be requiring it regardless of what's around adjacent properties.
In the past, when adjacent properties in an area is not developed out, um, they've been able to not fully put in all the, um, amenities for the sidewalk. Um but that the idea is eventually everything's going to get redeveloped.
So may as well develop it correctly the first time. So are they to uh scale and requirement for >> Yes, it does appear. So so on the um 10th street side there's uh angle in parking >> that's shown here and then the sidewalk actually comes inboard of that.
You can see it kind of slightly uh curved there. The series of town homes that extends and then as it comes around on Douglas, it carries through as well. And then there is a break here where the driveway comes in with the ADA truncated dome.
So it appears to be per standard. >> Perfect. Thank you, >> Council Member Hamill. >> Yeah, I'm going to move to approve the resolution contained within agenda bill 24731. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Hamill, a second by Council Member Williams.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. All right, moving on. Our second public hearing tonight is agenda bill 24732. This is a public hearing on a resolution authorizing the relinquishment of a public water mane easement on property located at 404 Baker Street that is surplus to the city's needs.
The proposed resolution provides for the relinquishment of a water main easement that encumbers real property known as 404 Baker Street. The proposed relinquishment comes to city council for decision upon application of the property owner to facilitate development of the private property.
The public works department has reviewed the request and determine that the portion of the easement that encumbers the subject property is surplus to the city's needs and not needed for utility service.
Accordingly, sta staff recommends that it be relinquished. And again, I will pass it over to Mike Wilson. >> Again, Mike Wilson, assistant director of public works over engineering and the city engineer.
Uh again, appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you tonight. Um pending public input, we're recommending the relinquishment of a water easement uh at 404 Baker Street. The city obtained this easement in 1931.
It's a little bit nuanced from our typical relinquishments in the sense that this is not in a public rideway. This is on a parcel. And so the the normal ask of utilities that are involved is not in play here because the franchise agreements would not be uh in the parcel uh where the city's involved.
So, we've reviewed this request from our utility perspective as a as a city and concluded that the easement is not required for the portion of the for the portion of the easement that's being vacated.
In this exhibit, if you look that there's purple cross-hatching on both sides of I5 and on multiple lots. That's the extent of the full easement. The part that we're uh recommending relinquishment of is just the extent of the easement on the lot at 404 Baker Street.
Uh so again, recommending relinquishment of this easement. Happy to address any questions. >> Any clarifying questions from the council? All right, seeing none, go ahead and open up the public hearing.
How many names do we have signed up for this one? >> We just had one individual. It was Brian Guess. >> Okay, great. No. >> No. Okay. >> Okay. >> He declines. >> Great. We will go ahead and close the public hearing.
Council member Lillquest. >> So, um I see a water mane running on the south side of the highway and one on the north side of the highway. We're never going to run one through the highway. I assume we don't need to.
Um why not relinquish all easements on all of these parcels on both sides of the highway? >> I think it's just a matter of circumstance. The property owner here is tearing down a barn and wanting to do improvements and so that the ask is just narrow to his property.
>> Okay. >> Council member Hamill. >> Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and move approval of the resolution contained in 24 uh 732. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Hamill and a second by Council Member Williams.
Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> Okay, great. Two down, three to go. Up next, we have agenda bill 24753, a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend and extend interim zoning regulations, apply new development regulations to single family and infill housing development, and allow infill housing in all areas zoned predominantly for residential use except in Lake Wacom wershed for an additional 6 months.
The city council will hear from uh the public regarding a proposed extension and modification to an interim ordinance originally approved in May to regulate middle housing development in the city. While the original ordinance does not expire until May 2026, state legislation passed in 2025 adjusted the requirements that must be met by the city of Bellingham by the end of 2025.
This proposed ordinance, modification, and extension would bring the city into compliance with these requirements while permit regulations are developed. And I will go ahead and pass over to Chris Cole.
There we go. Thank you. Good evening. So, I'm going to cover uh why we are here tonight uh revisiting this uh existing intram ordinance and also follow with uh proposed updates to that interim ordinance.
Uh again, House Bill 1110 was adopted by the state in 2023. Uh it requires uh local jurisdictions such as Bellingham to implement uh middle housing into our local development codes. Uh middle housing consisting of duplex, triplex, forplex, and such.
And Blake uh went into detail this morning on this subject. So I I won't uh go into great deal detail here. Um but uh again it it places a a quite a few requirements on local jurisdictions to adopt and implement the middle housing.
Um some of them specifically that middle housing standards may not be more restrictive and single than those for single family development and also the city must apply to middle housing. the same permit and envi environmental review processes that apply to single family.
So, the city uh in 2025 earlier this year, adopted an interim infill housing ordinance um and that adopted our locally uh adopted infill housing toolkit. That is our version of middle housing. Uh and that was adopted citywide, applied to all areas that substantially allowed residential uses, including single family zones.
And uh I I would say with with that um uh again sorry about that. Uh it it included a number of requirements for um for the standards and uh also um sorry I I lost my place there. So, one of the requirements of House Bill 1110 um is that if the if the requirements of the House bill aren't adopted on the local level, um then the middle housing standards the the model ordinance will supersede, preempt and invalidate local development regulations.
So that is why it is very important that this work be completed here. Uh the purpose of the proposed amendments is to uh provide full compliance with house bill 1110. Um the work is being coordinated with the city's ADU regulations which you reviewed in a previous public hearing and uh had a work session on that this morning.
It's also being coordinated with proposed interim design review requirements that were adopted by the state and that will be the item that follows this. Uh the proposal will extend the interim housing ordinance by 6 months and it will allow time for staff to work on permanent code amendments in the coming year with our work program.
Some of the specific proposed amendments is that ADUs will count towards the 4 to6 unit maximum allowed on a lot and the maximum floor area ratio allowed on lot. Currently, ADUs are exempt from that. Uh it will allow six units.
Uh so to begin with uh um interim or the uh requirements allow four units on a lot or six if at least two are affordable and uh or six if two are within a/4 mile of a m major transit route. Um also it would not require parking if within 1 half mile of a major transit route.
Uh the proposal would consolidate development standards including how floor areas measured. It would consolidate infill housing design standards for infill housing and single family development and it would provide administrative review process for projects with six or fewer units.
Currently the threshold is is four units for infill housing. In conclusion, the proposal will achieve compliance with House Bill 1110. It will reduce barriers to development of housing and it will allow time for staff to work on permanent code amendments in the coming year.
So staff is recommending that uh council vote to approve the ordinance and the extension. And that concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. Any clarifying questions? Council member Liilquist. This will give staff six more months to work on a permanent version.
What additional issues would be included in that additional work over the next six months? What more is left to be done or harmonized? >> Part of what we want to make sure we're addressing is uh you know the design review components.
Maybe make sure we get those detailed. So as we were talking about a little bit earlier today, some of these kind of go handinand glove uh for some of that. So, we have those options. Again, there's other opportunities to be more permissive if we want to, but um really just to see how all these work together quite frankly.
And >> and I would add if I can that, you know, we're going to be working on a zoning overhaul to our code and so this needs to be harmonized with that work also. So, there's quite a bit that we're dealing with.
So, what I'm hearing you're saying is there's no obvious piece of unfinished work or a flaw that needs to be fixed, but you're saying there's several pieces in motion. Might as well keep this one not quite dried in place yet.
>> Yeah, we've got to address it. Chris was saying, you know, we've got the conversion from residential single, residential multi into those residential low, medium, high. So, we want all of those to kind of work together cohesively.
>> Other questions? Council member Sun. >> So I think I've asked this before, but I want to confirm that it applies here. So the use of then single family right throughout this ordinance. That's because this is the interim awaiting sort of that transition to the new right the new language and and scaling.
>> Yes. We'll we'll replace single family with single household or primary units. Another way we often describe it. Anything further before we open up the public hearing? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing.
How many names do we have? >> Yeah, nine individuals signed up. >> Nine. All right. And remember, uh, this is speaking to just this subject. Um, and we have public comment at the end of the meeting as well.
Um, and when we read the names, please, uh, come up to the microphone so that we move along a little bit more quickly. Go ahead and, uh, start with the first couple, Kelly. >> Okay. Okay, so first up we have Brian Gas, David Stalheim, Brian Russell, and Daniel Blumar.
>> Hello, I'm Brian Gas, live here in Bellingham. I appreciate everybody giving us the chance to talk tonight. Um, I've said this before and one of the things that I really appreciate is uh my time here in Bellingham and as a homeowner and somebody who could rent and live in uh, you know, a relatively happy life where my family grew up and my kids grew up next to them, their friends, and still and I still feel that um, that being said, I do believe that, you know, the stuff rolls downhill and I know that the planning department in Bellingham's marching orders from the state, but that doesn't mean you have to roll over and not really recognize the damage that can be done.
It's It's almost like if I was like a conspiracy theorist or something, I would I would build a I would have a system that says like maybe they do hate housing or like home ownership from a control standpoint.
Maybe maybe they they they're okay with destroying the single family zone neighborhoods that people have grown up here in Bellingham and love to someday live. Why would they do that? Why would they just roll over and I'm going to say lie lie on what their intentions are?
uh when I first introduced this middle housing debacle uh was uh was a slide that one of your uh planners had put out there that said that the detached single family home was considered an exclusionary housing policy.
And the funny thing was they said, "Well, it's because not everybody could afford them." And yet our planning department has not produced one thing that can be purchased or be affordable uh for anybody.
Uh, and it's sad because you guys said that the 25 neighborhoods weren't going to be part of the the slide said that weren't they weren't going to be part of the Bellingham plan. You know, their neighborhoods won't be adopted.
But you know what? They didn't know that when we look at the new plan, 6,000 units are being dropped into the middle into the neighborhoods from middle housing. So, they were part of the plan, but they were kind of misled the whole time.
It's like, "Oh, it's not going to be for you." and then next thing you know they're going to have these mental housing rentals in their neighborhoods. And I don't think it's right. I don't think you're doing any any favors by destroying home ownership and not giving people a choice to either rent or buy a place.
And I just want everybody to know that the planning department cannot consider ADUs as an ownable thing. I I don't want you to be misleading people into thinking any of this stuff in middle housing except for town homes that can be owned.
Everything else is like hyperbole or or subjection or some sort of magic hoops that they got to run through to get, you know, joint utilities and and driveways and whatnot. What I'd like to do is but you we have to extend this and I know we're up against the time but I really would rethink how we present this to the public and not destroy the single biggest way that a middle class or a person can own a a pro an asset and build a life here in Bellingham.
Thank you. >> Thank you Brian. >> Good evening David Stalheim. Um, wanted to talk a little bit about uh some my background with housing issues. I know that only two of the council members know a little bit about my background, but I'm not going to um spend more time in the three minutes I have walking through that.
But I do want to say that my last job um before retirement was uh to do a job called Rethink Zoning in the major urban city in Puget Sound. And a lot of that focuses in on housing issues. And so here are the some of the things that I learned in that process of of doing that.
Density spread out over a large area doesn't achieve your objectives. So minimum densities alone are not sufficient. We set minimum building heights in the code along with minimum densities in our urban core and along transit routes to ensure that we built up and not out.
The Bellingham plan, for example, sets no minimum density standards. There are specific standards or specific details that you need to consider when allowing more units or eliminating parking based on distance to transit.
Take my neighborhood for example. My house is less than one quarter mile to a transit stop, which is fine if I'm headed to Southern Valley. But if I want to catch the bus to downtown and cross Lakeway safely is nearly 1 half mile to a transit stop.
Distance to transit stops should consider whether the path is safe and whether those with mobility challenges can get to transit. Our street doesn't have any sidewalks and is less than 20 ft in width.
Is this a safe path and is half mileile the proper distance for people with mobility challenges? Distance to transit should consider where it is measured from. Our code and best practices measured from the front entrance of a building and not from the edge of a property.
Floor area ratios are an outdated concept. When multif family housing developers uh do project feasibility, F calculations create complications without any real public benefits that couldn't otherwise be obtained through uh height, lot coverage, open space, and design requirements.
If you want to streamline multifamily housing, look at floor area ratios. Finally, the uh proposed regulations. Uh I noticed something there extends the full standard street improvement requirement to single family units so that you have it uh consistent across all development.
This could be a huge shift and potential financial burden on existing vacant lots and areas with no sidewalks, curb, and gutter. I'm not sure that this requirement is well baked at this time. I think this is an intermance.
I think you should move forward. You have a time deadline. Uh, but I'm mostly offering this as the staff works on this to bring back a permanent ordinance to work those into a permanent ordinance. So, hope you take that into consideration.
Thank you. >> Thank you, David. >> Hi, my name is Brian Russell. I live in the Letter Streets neighborhood. Longtime listener, first- time caller. I'm I'm here to encourage you to vote yes on this tonight.
pass this now and in the next six months we can go so much further. Um, thank you Michael for asking about what obvious work is ahead. I would like to encourage planning department and council to consider the following next steps.
Um, minimum lot sizes and F and lot coverage limits. um were invented along with single family zoning circa 1916. Um I'm drawing heavily from uh an excellent book called arbitrary lines. But just around 1916, uh the Supreme Court said that it was no longer legal to segregate neighborhoods by race.
So neighborhoods that wanted to keep segregating looked for alternatives and segregating by wealth was the obvious next one available. So a minimum lot size was instituted to say you can't buy any land unless you can buy a lot of land.
And single family zoning says, and you can't share the costs of that lot of land with another household because then you could have poor people living in this neighborhood, people of color. and F floor area ratios or requirements and lot coverage limits say that even in areas where you are allowed to have more than one household, you're not allowed to build housing on at least 40% of this land.
You have to let 40% 60% depending on the area leow. So you have to buy a lot of land. You can't share the costs with another household and you can't fill the land. Each of those were designed to make housing more expensive and it worked.
Here we are with expensive housing. I encourage you to investigate each of those. Not perhaps to the extent removing each of these may not make housing affordable again to the middle class, but it is reducing the barriers to that affordability.
So, thank you for considering um passing this tonight and in the future looking at minimum lot sizes and lot coverage limits including F. Thanks. >> Thank you, Brian. >> All right. And then after Daniel, we have Alex Ross, uh Steve Zawaski, Scott Pelton, Paul Schistler, and then we'll go online to our Perry Escridge.
Good evening. My name is Dan Blanker and I live in Birwood. I am here tonight in support of all three of the housing related public meetings. They also support the creation of more housing and I'm very excited for that.
I urge all of council to approve these measures. I do also however ask that there are these are the fir few first few steps of a city that really wants to expand housing options and not just trying to achieve state compliance with the law.
Uh I do want to thank staff for including all of the city's go lines from the WTA as major transit that's not required by the bill. Uh as well as increasing it from 4 to 6. Those are really good little pushes in the right direction that hopefully can add housing supply to the city.
I hope to see though those are good first steps but I am very excited to see what comes through. I know in the next few months as we work through the interimm ordinances and other aspects of the comp plan other designs um I hope we continue to be ambitious and create solid Bellingham for all.
Thank you all. >> Thank you Dan. >> Hello council. My name is Alex. I've been here before. I'll probably be here again. In fact, yeah, I will be here two more times tonight. I'm sorry. Um, but I just want to talk about a a really small part of some of the legislation that's been talked about today, and that is the specific verbiage of the single family house.
I am just overjoyed to hear that it is a thing that staff and the council is maybe at least a little bit concerned with changing this language from single family to single household. Let me talk to you for a second just about like every single one of my friends who lives here in Bellingham.
All of them are splitting what used to be called a single family house with about five other people who are not in their family. Now, it has been the case before in this city that people have taken issue to that, that people have called for greater upholding of the law, going into people's houses to make sure that, God forbid, there never be more than three people who are unrelated to each other living in the same house.
Personally, it is my belief that whether or not you are sharing your house with someone who is a blood relative or not is not something that the state should be concerned with. It is not something that it should care about in the slightest.
There is more in heaven and hell, my dear Horatio, than the single family house. It is good to be able to build community with people who maybe you don't share blood or kinship or the bonds of marriage with.
Sometimes sometimes your family sucks and you need to go find a new one and that means that you need the freedom to go live in a single household as opposed to a single family home. Uh, beyond that, I just want to tack on to what a lot of other people have been saying tonight.
Um, something that our planning director mentioned is that we could be more permissive in the future. Let's do that. Can we get to that future like very soon and get more permissive? Can we start allowing more houses?
Can we start allowing more diversity in homes? Can we start experimenting with what are all of the tools at our fingertips to make cheaper, more vibrant, more communal housing available to everyone that lives here?
And density is really the first primary and most necessary step to getting us on that path. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alex. Uh, hi. Uh, my name is Scott Pelton and I'm the manager of the Wacom Housing Alliance.
Friday marks the one-year anniversary of the mayor's housing executive order. And I want to talk about what that truly means, uh, what it means to truly live up to that commitment. To do that, let me share a simple tale of two cities and my own personal story.
I've been meeting with stakeholders in Blaine and learning about the real conflicts they are facing. In Blaine, we see a city stalled by forces that cannot accept change. Organized opposition to growth has stalled progress and is straining the people and services of that good city.
The costs are real and not abstract. Developers are walking away from prime housing opportunities because the process has grounded to a halt. School enrollment is down three years in a row and the lack of affordable housing for its f for families is a part of that story.
City revenues are dropping and 46 full-time staff for a city of that size have been laid off. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been carved for legal support to fight off anti-growth groups that are flooding the system with time-consuming public records requests.
This organized effort is fueled by a fear of change as the community itself is eroding. That is one path, a path of permanent no. Shrinking opportunity and a slow erosion of the public services that make a city livable.
Bellingham has a different opportunity. One year ago, the mayor issued a housing executive order that said clearly, "We're going to take housing supply, diversity, and affordability seriously." Extending and strengthening these interim ordinances is one of the many tools we need to rely on to turn that promise into a day-to-day reality.
This is where my own story fits into the picture and where I want to be very clear about the choice that is in front of us. For me and my family, this is no longer an abstract policy question. It is a it is conceivable that in the future we may be forced to consider whether our family can afford to live here.
The reality has woken me up on too many nights. The only way families like mine can stay in Bellingham is if Bellingham is willing to change. The only way to pres preserve the community we love is to let the city adapt.
The ordinances you are reviewing tonight might be the tools that my family relies on to stay in this community we have called home and have contributed to for nearly 30 years. This is not just about my household.
My friend of 20 years will lose his job in December and he will not be able to afford his home. He does not know what he is going to do. I'm fighting to create housing for people like him and for families like mine who have contributed to Bellingham's past and are fighting to be a part of its future.
Tonight's decision isn't just a technical matter. It's a deeply personal one for me. If we fail to embrace these changes, we risk exacerbating a generational affordability issue and forcing people into jobs away from this city.
I want to thank city staff for the enormous amount of work that has gone into these ordinances on top of everything else on your plates. On behalf of the Wacom Housing Alliance and myself, I urge you to extend that mayor's housing executive orders and in doing so, keep Bellingham firmly on the better side of this tale of two cities.
Thanks. >> Thank you, Scott. >> All right, Steve or Paul? If not, we'll move on to online with Perry Escridge. All right, Perry, you should be able to unmute and turn on your camera if you wish. >> Good evening.
Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. We're ready. >> Great. Thanks. Perry Ass representing the Building Industry Association of Wakom County and the Waken County Association of Realtors. I just wanted to weigh in here echoing a lot of the sentiments that you've heard tonight about um the necessity for these uh code changes and u more importantly the work that is still to come.
Um we are very encouraged by the fact that staff has reached out to us to ask us some of those hard questions and we've made uh some of the experts in this field available to them from around the state and uh we just encourage you to adopt the interim ordinance and we look forward to the work to be done in the next six months.
Thank you. >> Thank you Perry. >> Is that everybody? Kelly, >> that concludes our go ahead and close the public hearing. Council member Hamill. Yeah, I just want to clarify a couple of points here. Um, so under the subject line, it says a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend and extend the interim zoning regulations.
Um, but under the recommendation, it says information and discussion. So, that's conflicting to me. My understanding is that you there the staff is requesting a six-month extension. Is that is that correct?
>> Yes, that's correct. We we set it up um for the council's consideration that if you wanted to do just the public hearing tonight, you'd have the opportunity to do the first and second reading. Uh you can either do that tonight or you can do it at your next meeting on December 8th and then we would need the third and final by the 15th.
That would give us the additional time to get this all adopted before the end of the year. Okay. Um are the amendments um the they're included here. underlined in the ordinance. Those are the amendments that you're requesting.
>> Yes. >> And um if we pass this extension tonight, that would give you ample time to examine those um amendments and bring that back to to council. >> Yes. If you were to take a first and second reading tonight, then we would we can certainly have all those accepted accept all those amendments and then have a clean uh consideration clean ordinance for your consideration.
Third and final. >> Okay. >> Council member Loquist. >> Um Chris, you said something that confused me a little bit and it may be moot because it has to with parking and we already have a a parking ordinance in place which requires no parking.
But you mentioned something about a half mile radius in parking. And yet when I read the code, it says, "Oh, by the way, there's this interim ordinance, but when parking is provided and then it lists a bunch of things and it doesn't mention the half mile that you talked about." So, I'm confused.
Again, right now, we have another ordinance which supersedes all those requirements, but I'd still like to understand what's underneath that. And maybe I missed something. I'm on pages 48. Oh, there it is.
>> So, as we discussed a little bit earlier today, and I'll let Chris chime in on this as well. Um, the state law gives guidance. The interim uh version of that tries to follow some of that guidance, but acknowledges the actions that you've taken previously um to reform parking and omit that.
And so the intention behind the way it's drafted is that because that also is an interim action, if you choose not to formalize that, then it would default back to the language that's in here unless you unless you >> Okay, I understand.
Now, is the half mile part of the language the state would require? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. I have an empirical quibble with that which will come up later which is the research shows that a half mile is not an attractive distance for walking to bus transit but it is uh people will accept that for rail it's an empirical decision.
People actually value rail differently and they'll walk further to it but that for buses a quarter mile is the actual distance that people accept. But apparently the state lawmakers didn't read that article.
>> Well, to be clear, the state law does identify the transit options as well includes rail, but it also includes bus rapid transit. We just don't happen to have those available to us at this time. And so we wanted again to be permissive and to to follow that same increment, but understanding that our transit is not quite at the same offer.
Again, this is moved because you have another ordinance place, but just so the public knows, WTA is moving towards a version of bus rapid transit. It doesn't use dedicated rights of way, but has all the other features of bus rapid transit, and it'll be a couple years before that is a reality.
>> Other questions, comments, motions? Council member Hamill. >> Yeah. So, um, by my account, if we pass this tonight for an extension, that would put us into May of next year, April, May, somewhere in there.
Um, and then we would typically, we've done this before for other extensions. And typically we have a further work sessions that we staff comes comes back with modifications or changes and we can we can change things as well.
Um, so I don't see any reason to not pass this tonight. And that would provide staff to um that opportunity to for a six-month extension unless there's objections from legal. I just want to I think in um it's section three of the ordinance, it's a six-month extension from the existing interim ordinance.
So it's which expires I think on June 3rd, 2026. So it's extending it from June 3rd, 2026 to December 4th, 2026. So it's something out in the future. >> Yes. >> So that's a that's a later extension. So right now we're not talking about from tonight.
We're talking about later. >> Okay. Fair enough. >> Further questions, comments? Council member McCen. >> So, um, Council Loquist, you brought up that question of how far people are willing to walk to the bus.
I think there is good research that after half a mile, people tend not to want to do that as much, but some people um, but um, so within a half a mile though, I think there's good research between quarter mile and half mile that there are people who are interested in that.
But also this is more I think about um uh increasing um intensities like I think we're all kind of swimming in the same direction as of transit oriented development and that that's something that will certainly take up more in the future.
So um I'm always kind of interested in taking a bigger bite out of the apple sooner. Um I I have a two-year term so like a year is like half my political lifespan, right? Um so um I um would uh move to um amend um section subsection B um and section 9EE uh from one quarter uh mile to um 1/2 mile walking distance of a major transit route.
>> Second motion by council member Cotton, second by council member Williams. What stage of the packet? >> 47 on page 44. >> Oh, 2B. >> Thank you. 2B. Yeah. >> Council member Anderson, >> can I ask clarification?
You handed out earlier today the um proposed amendment. Are you first proposing A, which is Sorry. Is this what you're proposing? >> I think I made it as confusing as possible for you, Council. Um, so in red is the a the existing amendments within the ordinance and then bolded the only change is quarter to half.
>> That that is confusing. I thought the red was the new material. So >> further discussion on the amendment motion to amend >> council member Stone I mean for me it's interesting that the state had differentiated I guess maybe it's because of the high rail or you know rapid transit um but to me when we are thinking about increasing density in addition to right potential removal of parking and focusing on that being extended out to a to a half mile.
Um I see a lot of that to go to go hand in hand and the um the consistency to have that be a set half mile and recognize that that you know looking at the map with respect to the go lines and you know how much that would cover.
But part of the thinking is one we're trying to look at every lever that we have. The reality is is the impact here to increase the density from four to six um isn't going to be practical in a lot of places within the city, right?
There already is development whether the homeowner is looking to redevelop or not and you know what's going to happen with that parcel. So I think the opportunities to maximize and actually take advantage of this increased density that has been provided at the you know at the state level um is something that's actually going to be fairly minimal.
And so for me in thinking that expanding that to a further half mile instead of a quarter um the actual impact it's not that every lot in city is then going to have six. In most cases that is not going to be practical um or feasible.
we think about tree protection and you know all of the other things that people are having to to balance but at this point I think we're looking at you know every opportunity when possible um that that could be taken advantage of um again to to address the the crisis that we're currently facing Anderson.
So, if this was supported and we went from the the four units automatically to six, how is that going to impact the um two additional units for affordability? Does that just completely negate that and toss that out?
That certainly ret is retained outside of that half mile increment, but somebody could get to that fifth and sixth unit within the half mile just by the proximity to the transit location. Outside of that half mile, uh then you would have to to get to the fifth and sixth, they would have to be those affordable components.
Can I follow up based on that map that you showed earlier, which I think was regarding more of the transit, not the the six. Pretty much all of I mean a huge swath of Bellingham was consumed what by those boundary lines.
I didn't see much outside of um maybe hitting out towards Sunset or um the lake that wasn't included. So, I'm just kind of I'm cautious without being able to visually see that because that other map that you showed, it did didn't look like there was much left over.
Um, so I would I would hesitate supporting it unless I knew exactly how much of that was encompassing and what our percentage might be to lose a small lever of trying to get gain some level of affordability because if it really only leaves a very tiny portion left um then we've just lost another lever.
Council member Cotton Um, your quick pulling maps up, Blake. Um, my my first um thought is there are still other carrots to to get at those five and six, including the 12-year MFTt, which is a pretty substantial incentive, I think.
Um, but I think we should we have reason to be skeptical that that is going to pencil and make sense in a lot of cases. And so, um, that I think that's, you know, knowing how deep of a housing shortage we're in and to council member Stone's point that this will only be feasible in some number of lots, I think it makes sense.
But I appreciate those concerns. >> Council member Stone. >> Yeah. And to council member Anderson's point, I mean, I think earlier today, right, that was one of my questions is about the affordability piece.
And by addressing um this area, this issue in the proximity to transit, does that sort of take, you know, strip away the affordability? I think unfortunately because of the housing crisis that we're in currently and the cost of development, the cost of building, my concern is that if it's the affordability piece or not for areas that fall outside of that, then there just won't be those additional units.
And if we're looking at these being right smaller units and also the opportunities for you know land division others and hopefully increased home ownership opportunity as well as additional housing units that by again increasing the number of units and having maybe smaller right units and structures being built that that will be even though maybe not the capital A affordable that it will help to address those affordability concerns.
Otherwise, in the short term, I'm a bit skeptical at this time that we would see anyone taking advantage of the affordable outside of maybe Coulson Community Land Trust or others or some, you know, subsidy that it's not going to be happening.
And so, part of it is looking at what levers we currently have. >> Council member Loquist, >> um, with regard to these, um, these two are different. These two maps are different in two ways, I think. The the one on the left shows an actual measure of walking distance, which is appropriate in part because if there's no sidewalk to take, if there's no if there's a highway blocking you, I mean, there are actual barriers to walking.
Whereas the one on the right appears to be as the crow flies, um, which may be easy to do, but is not reality on the ground. The ordinance talks about um walking distance in the if we actually apply it, would we actually apply it more like on the left genuine actual walking path?
Because I know that we our GIS layers can give us actual walking path distances as opposed to crowfly distances. Would we imply it more like on the left as people walk rather than on the right as as crows fly?
>> Typically, we would look to be permissive in that respect. So when you talk about these also talk about uh the transit stop or the transit line associated with it. Um then you look at the sidewalk and you go basically measuring that half mile or quarter mile from that.
The question came up earlier the statement was made earlier about whether or not it was to the corner of the property or the front door. We don't get that precise. It is really is intended to be to the property.
So when you start to look at these on example on the left and you say okay from that vantage point it picks up the entire parcel if you if you tip the corner within that provision. So that's why you start to see kind of these jagged edges.
This is a good example up here where the quarter mile may be quite a bit narrower than that but the parcel being bigger it picks up the full extent of that parcel. Um, so you start to see kind of some of these jagged edges that that uh play out in that way.
When you look at the image on the right, it kind of is using uh concentric circles that go through and kind of do a like we do our notices where it you put a point and then do a radius around that point, which is why it has that kind of bubble image associated with it.
>> Well, to be clear, I think as a crowly is just the wrong way to apply these regulations. If it has to do with actual walking distance, then I think the route, if there's an actually a realistic route, it matters.
I don't really care if you touch just a corner of the property and it's a large lot. I mean, I I'm more and the other thing is um I really if we want to do this as as the world actually works, we don't measure from the transit line.
We measure from bus stops. It'll give you almost the same picture, but if there's an area where there are no bus stops in between a route, then it doesn't matter if the bus goes by. So I mean again we have GIS layers.
I think we could probably do this. So I'm sorry to uh sidetrack from the issue which is quarter mile versus half mile. But if we apply this I want these to be actual walking distances because otherwise uh you know we it won't have the added benefit because on the on the ground reality won't be there that we think is there.
>> I'll just add that the the code language it it measures in walking distance >> and so we would interpret it more like on the left. >> Yes. >> That's reassuring. Council member Anderson. >> So I can agree under the current state more than likely to get that affordability for the two additional units.
It's not going to probably happen anywhere unless we figure out what additional carrots and that's one of the things that I'm hoping in the big picture those two additional units how can we look at um trying to gain more affordability.
So, I know this is a temporary measure, but I'm hoping when it comes back, we can look at things like do we um do we eliminate hookups? Do we, you know, like some of the impact fees, some of the things that are uh cost um heavy for development is, you know, if we do the math, how do we subsidize the difference between the cost and perhaps what they lose by that affordability?
Even if we look at things like, you know, our our home fund, if we can get long-term affordability, we're going to have to think outside the box and use more tools than just requiring it of a developer.
Um, but I'm hoping we're going to be able to do that work. And I know it's an extra thing to add, but you know, in the short term, I'm okay approving this, but in the long term, I'm hoping that we can find more tools to batch together to create that affordability because we are not going to build to that affordability and the city can't meet that 31% to 100% AMI.
And those are the people I'm most worried about. And when we keep passing things like this and you lose stuff like using the reduction of parking towards affordability, losing the ability to add extra density and just giving those things outright, um there has to be a way for the math to work out for the developer and gain what we need so that they still save some money, they still get to densify.
It's a win for them, but we're getting a win for our working class and our workforce housing because we're not going to be able to build enough in my opinion to bring those costs down. Um, it's just not going to happen in my lifetime.
So, either we figure it out now or whoever replaces us in the future are going to be forced to I kind of look at it as our infrastructure. We're paying the price now because previous councils weren't brave enough to do it.
Um because it was going to cost money and now we're spending a lot more money for it. We're going to spend a lot more money subsidizing housing 20 years from now if we can't figure out how to incentivize it.
>> Council member Liquist. >> So this uh these two forks to get up to six units either by being adjit or affordable. those those two forks they're created by state law. We we would have a choice about those two forks.
We can make it more permissive, but those two forks are required of us. Is that correct? >> So the fifth and the sixth unit uh that are affordable is a provision of state law. Right. >> The fifth and the sixth in proximity to transit is also a provision of the state law.
However, the transit as defined by the state, >> that's where we're being more permissive. >> Okay. So here's where I want to go. I don't think that the legislature realized the perversity of what they've done because what they've done is they've created a zone close to transit where affordable housing is disfavored.
They've created an easier route to density by not going affordable. So that area around there, that's not the magic zone of affordability. That's a magic zone where you don't have to build affordability.
I don't think legislature was thinking this through and I think our only saving grace is what um Jace referred to earlier which is that we've also layered on the MFTTE which so right now state law without realizing it and we we kind of walked into the step they've created a zone of of our affordability is not required and the only way to get affordability back in the game is to layer on the MFTTE and I'm not sure what's going to happen.
Um, I think unfortunately we're just going to have to wait a few years and see how it plays out. >> Okay. Any further comments or questions on this motion to amend? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I.
I. >> Any opposed? Abstensions. The amendment passes 70. >> Anything further? Um, I think we probably still either need a motion to pass the ordinance or to move it to committee. >> Second. >> Motion to approve the ordinance by council member Hamill.
Second by council member Cotton. Further discussion. Council member Loquist. >> There at least two or three places in here where we have like a weird placeholder for an ordinance which is not yet passed.
Insert here. Um, can we fix that on third and final? >> Council member Anderson. >> I just want to recognize that um I think one of the confusions on our end in there it asked us to pass but it was for information discussion just for the public.
We generally have talked as council that we don't want to approve the same night as a public hearing. Um, so that way there's time to take what the public has said and the emails and everything, digest it, ask questions, and bring it forward.
But this is a temporary ordinance, and it's something um that's pretty close to what we passed previously. So, um I don't have a an issue with approving it same night. If it was a permanent one, I think we would be heading back to session um to kind of dive a little further into the nuances of details.
So, um it's kind of an anomaly, but it it fits for um being a temporary. >> Yeah. And on that note, we did just talk about this in May of this year. Um so, it's not completely new information, but very nice to have some of the updates that we've received um as well.
So, okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I I >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. All right. Thank you everybody. We are moving on to our next public hearing. Agenda Bill 24733, a public hearing on an ordinance amending Bellingham Municipal Code, Title 16 and Title 20 to allow co-living in zones which allow multifamily, update and add definitions relevant to co-living, and replace references to the word family with household.
The proposed code amendments are necessary to comply with Washington state law regarding the allowance of co-living housing as an equivalent to multifamily housing. Staff recommended approval of code changes to define and allow co-l livingiving housing where multi-family housing is permitted and replace the definition of family with household thereby eliminating restrictions on the number of unrelated individuals who may live in a dwelling unit.
Looks like I pass it over to director line. Thank you and good evening again. Um we have Sydney PC with us this evening as well as Sarah and they're going to walk us through a little bit of the specifics um to extend a little bit more on the kind of introduction I gave you earlier today.
Uh, and then we're certainly happy to take into consideration, council member Anderson, to your earlier point, we have this set up to where we can take public comment tonight, but depending on where you feel, if you want, we have the opportunity in the schedule to do first and second reading on the 8th and then third and final on the 15th.
So, I'll turn it over to Sydney. >> Great. Thank you, Blake. And let me just Right. Hi, everyone. It's good to see you again. I'm here on an item that's not the Bellingham plan, so I think I can do it.
Um, I'm joined by basically everyone in planning, but specifically Sarah Olman. She'll be presenting and here to answer questions with me. Um, Sarah and I will be discussing the proposed updates to the BMC to allow co-l livingiving in Bellingham.
And then also, um, Alex, this is for you. um to eliminate BMC references that regulate the number of in unrelated individuals that can live together in a residence. Um just so we're all on the same page at the start again from the state that's the theme of the night.
Um the co co-living is defined as a residential development where the sleeping units or bedrooms are independently rented or sold and residents share kitchen facilities. Cool. So, I'll go over why we are doing these updates now and explain what currently exists in Bellingham because some of the public comment came before this exists throughout Bellingham already.
And then Sarah will get into the specific code updates and our recommendation and we'll open up for discussion. And like Blake said, if there's buyin, um, we would be looking for a vote tonight. All right.
So, the groundwork for these updates first started in 2021 when the state legislature passed Senate Bill 5235. This affected Bellingham because our current definition of family does limit the number of unrelated individuals that can occupy a housing unit to three.
Because our family definitions not in compliance, we have not enforced it. And as a result, there are many situations throughout Bellingham that have more than three unrelated individuals living together within a single dwelling unit.
And that's perfectly fine. We have a lot of naturally occurring co-living, multiple unrelated people living together, more formally just informally known as housemates. This is fine. Um, also, um, this past year, the state legislature passed House Bill 1998, which requires co-living on any lot where six or more multif family units are permitted.
And I'm just going to get ahead of the irony itself because this is wild. We are abolishing the family definition, but for now until we update our code following the Bellingham plan, we are still using the terms multifamily and single family to reserve to our zoning destin designations because if we're to go and change every single one of those designations with this code update, we'd be here a lot longer than we already are tonight.
But that is forthcoming next year. So, I just wanted to get ahead of that confusion. We are replacing the family definition but we will still saying single family and multiant family until we can update our zoning code fully.
Um so again the naturally occurring co-l livingiving it exists in Bellingham and throughout Bellingham and that is awesome. Um, I know that a lot of your meetings lately have been focused on the future 2025 Bellingham plan, been a part of them and all the code work that will follow.
Um, including that rework of our entire residential code. But I just want to make it clear that the Bellingham plan has not yet been formally adopted. I think you're aware of that, but just to make sure that we're all on the same page.
And so right now we're working under our 2016 plan and we're working under our existing BMC. So, just like how I said the multifamily single family definitions are still here, right now we're working under our 2016 framework.
So, while some of this may seem in conflict with what we're been presenting with you these past few months, just know that this all will be reworked when we update our residential code in the following years.
Um, so again, co-l livingiving has gotten a lot of buzz in the past few years with housing reform across the state. But again, please keep in mind that this is something that regularly occurs and has occurred through time.
And again, typically at a small scale, this would be a collection of individuals renting a single family home. They each either have their own bedroom or share their bedroom with a partner. And then the house all shares kitchen, like one kitchen or a few and a few bathrooms.
Um, but what's before you tonight is what we've been referring to as co-l livingiving large. It's not really a formal term, but think more dorm style units. So, each unit may have its own kitchenette um which we define in the ordinance or a private bathroom, but the kitchen and other amenities are shared with the whole building and all residents.
So the proposed code updates before you tonight are to ensure that this co-l livingiving at a small scale keeps happening without additional regulations or barriers. And then with these updates we make the pathway for that larger co-l livingiving development um to be as permissible as multifamily um and just to occur in the same way that multif family occurs now.
And with that I'm going to turn over to Sarah to get into the more specific updates to the BMC. Thank you, Sydney. Hi, good evening. Um, I have to always raise this to my height. The proposed ordinance introduces several new definitions into the land use code to help define and regulate co-housing development.
Co- sorry, co-living development. Co-living housing will be defined as a residential development with at least 24 sleeping units and provide living and sleeping space and residents share kitchen facilities with other sleeping units in the building.
A shared kitchen shall be provided for at least four and at most 24 sleeping units. Um, four co-living sleeping units is equivalent to one dwelling unit for administration of density and development regulations.
Co-living housing may be known as congregate living, single room occupancy, rooming house or boarding house. I want to break down this definition a little. Um, a question came up at today's council work session about why we are not establishing a bathroom ratio in this code and we had said that that is because the international building code already regulates the number of plumbing fixtures based on occupancy.
So our code does not establish a fixed ratio. We want to give differenceence to building code to potentially have more affordability. The more resources that are shared in co-living buildings, meaning kitchens and bathrooms and laundry facilities, the deeper the affordability that is seen.
Um there are some examples. We've seen a project that didn't come to fruition in Bellingham that was proposed to be a rooming and boarding house with 37 units and or 37 sleeping units and each had their own bathroom.
Um, another example is in Seattle. This has been developed. This is the Roost Lofts. Um, we've studied their website and all of their floor plans include sleeping units with their own individual bathrooms.
So, this is sort of on one end of the spectrum that we could see, but we could also see dorm style housing where there's several bedrooms that share um one long large bathroom with multiple um showers and toilets.
I'm going to bounce back to that slide. I do want to highlight that building code does not establish a ratio or size for kitchens. So that is why the proposed ordinance does establish that minimum and maximum ratio of four sleeping units to one kitchen up to 24 sleeping units to one kitchen.
The purpose of this every time you write code you have to think of it like an algorithm. So what is the thing that could be spit out based off of the code that you're writing. We want to prevent manipulation of code in which people are basically building apartments where it's like two sleeping units sharing one kitchen.
We want to drive that that increase in shared resources across multiple sleeping units. Um, and the other thing I want to point out is the threshold that we are establishing as co-living. This is the 24 sleeping unit threshold equivalent to six density units in compliance with state law.
We are setting this limit to again have more intensity of development within our multif family zones. We want to reserve our multif family zones for highintensity development. Again, we need to think of this like an algorithm.
What could be the unintended consequences of it? If we establish this housing type purely based off of lease structure and not off of scale, we could wind up with what look like single family houses in our multifamily zones.
And we don't want that. We've passed previous code updates, our RM project a few years ago to eliminate single family development in multifamily zones. So, this ordinance stays on track with those goals.
Um the the term um rooming and boarding house is actually proposed to be deleted from our zoning code. It's familiar. It it actually looks and functions similar to what co-living will be. Um, but this term is problematic because it's defined with the old outdated family definition and it currently requires a conditional use permit in most zones.
So, we're seeking to delete all references to rooming and boarding to avoid confusion and just have everything defer to the co-living code update and comply with state law. Um, as required by HB198, co-living must be treated the same as multifamily.
So, the code update will be allowing co-living in multifamily zones, commercial zones, and urban villages. Um, and it will also be subject to design review, the same as multifamily. I do want to point out that the draft code update does include parking ratios.
These ratios have been established in the state law. Um, as you all know, we're working on parking reform. Um, it's an ongoing discussion, but right now we have an interim ordinance in place that eliminates parking ratios citywide.
So, we do want to keep these ratios that are established by the state in code right now and they will be superseded by the interim parking ordinance until we have a permanent code. Um, as we've previously said, the zoning code contains an obsolete definition of family that prohibits informal group living opportunities.
So, we want to delete these references, except in the cases that Sydney recognized. Um, and replace the family definition with household, which is a more inclusive term that allows for one or multiple individuals to share a household regardless of blood relation.
So to summarize, the purpose of this ordinance is to comply with state law by our January 2026 deadline. We want to allow a path forward for the development of co-living housing as an equivalent to multifamily housing.
Um, and specific attention has been paid to the scale of co-living housing to prevent the underutilization of our multifamily zoneed land. The other purpose of this ordinance is to not get in the way of naturally occurring group living dynamics which are present throughout our community um including single family zones.
This concludes the summary of our proposed changes. Staff recom staff find the proposed co-living code update will establish compliance with multiple sections of the RCW expand the allowance of co-living housing a naturally occurring affordable form of housing and simplify the development process allow informal group living dynamics for unrelated individuals and further implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan staff and planning commission recommend approval and adoption of the proposed ordinance thereby amending ing title 16 and title 20.
And this concludes our presentation for tonight and we're available for any additional questions. >> Okay, thank you. Any clarifying questions before we open up the public hearing? Council member Liquist, >> just a little technical thing.
I believe you said that the plumbing fixture count was regulated by the IRC. I think it wouldn't be the IBC in this case. >> I may have said IRC. Um, it's IBC. You are correct. We're great. >> Anything further?
All right, we'll open up the public hearing. And Kelly, how many folks do we have signed up? >> We have four individuals. >> Okay. Um, go ahead and read the four. >> Uh, we have Adam Bellinger, Brian Gas, Dian Daniel Blanker, and Alex Ross.
And then we'll have one online as well. So, five Good evening, council. My name is Adam Bellinger and um I have a little bit of experience with um in the past, it was about uh 10 or 15 years ago with my near my first house that I uh owned uh on 44th Street.
Um there was uh proposed uh dormatory housing up on the top of the hill of top of consolidation and it was pretty intense uh the amount of density that was going to be you know layered on there and it was I believe up up to 400 uh college students were essentially proposed in that development and um one of the things that my comments to it I wasn't necessarily really opposed or for it.
But um one of the issues that I saw with going with that kind of density and just normal multif family is that the sidewalk uh capacity for the neighborhood was nowhere near what it would need to be for that kind of intensity.
Uh, so I think as we look at this, you know, it's this is being mandated by the state. We're going to have to do it. But I do think we need to look at what the pedestrian impacts are because there's certain multifamily zoned areas that it's just not going to be feasible because there's no connection to anything for for walking and um the more density you get, the more reliance you do have on the walking uh capacity.
So, we need uh the like consolidation only had one side with sidewalks which went down to the bus uh depot for uh or not depot but the uh parking lot for uh Western and there's just not enough uh capacity there to handle that.
So, um I would I would encourage you when um these kinds of things come up with this new ordinance uh that we go back to the state and tell them, "Hey, this doesn't work for this reason." Thank you. >> Thank you, Adam.
>> Hello again, Brian Gas here with Bellingham. I actually um I was talking this before. I am I am for this. One of the things that I would be against is a better definition of exactly where you're going to put these six units or these six multif family units and that they don't just sprawl out into wherever.
Um I I would say that putting them in the urban or the you know the uh not the urban growth areas you don't do that. um the what do you call it the um village the urban villages right that's what that's a great place to start putting those things because those people they can you know there is a bus line there is a supermarket you know there is a place to to eat and walk and be walkable the whole idea behind the the urban villages I just feel like sometimes it becomes this like shotgun do this and then part of me says that maybe the states just being so over bearing it.
They just take it and do what you hopefully do what you want to make the community that you want. But I want everybody to know that you know those those those co-l livingiving is a good idea. I I just I feel like I don't know if we talked about this in other meeting but you know the legal the legality of leases and and how people are going to live in these things and and how do you regulate them when the police are coming or something when you have these multi-unit places.
I just feel that we have to look at those to get that type of um real life result that happens when people live in these things. But I'm I'm all for it. I just feel like I would like to have it just stay in the urban uh or in the urban villages to start at least so that you have those areas already for people who don't you don't want parking.
Great. Get rid of it. They can park in Hagen's parking lot or something if they live over there. But I want to see where we do more strategic thinking about the consequences of enacting some of these um rules.
But I am all for it and I think you should do it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Good evening all. My name is Dan Blanker. I live up in Birwood. Um very excited to support this measure. I have, this is relatively personal for me as I have only lived in what I recently learned was called naturally occurring uh co-living.
I have only ever lived in that form of housing first with my parents then dorms in college and then in my entire postcolgate experience. I have just found roommates wherever I was being and found a way to keep rent down.
Uh it is so my current situation here in Bellingham is I live up in Birwood in a single family home with four roommates. Uh it is admittedly what is likely to be built here is going to be as living large co-l livingiving is going to be a little different.
It is probably going to be as anything new a little more expensive than my current rent which is $672.50 a month affordable to someone working part-time on minimum wage in Bellingham. Uh these units will probably be a little more expensive.
I would have to guess again as anything new is. However, they probably won't have a natural gas furnace that heats the house. They probably won't have cracked windows. They probably won't have an ant and spider problem, at least to start.
Um, so I'm I'm very hopeful that a lot of this will be good for the city. And a lot of these units aren't going to be attractive to certain people. Um, a lot of the people for whom we have historically talked about our housing conversation, these people that are going to be in these units aren't have never been the focus.
These are going to be students at Western or recently graduated students at Western. There are people who had a change in their housing situation sudden due to family uh family dynamics, relationship dynamics.
They're people who are alone usually and just need a place to be. And they're for people who just want to be inside from the weather. If you might not want to live in a very small in a sub 300 ft home, that might not be room for you.
Um, but if your alternative is to be in a tent outside, it's probably a great deal. I do encourage, this is a great way for us to target housing that is in that sub 50% area median income. It is the way I have always achieved sub 50% area median income housing and I encourage you to pass it.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. >> Hi, I'm back. Uh I'm going to talk about co-l livingiving for a second. Um did you know that the number of people experiencing uh homelessness in the city of Tokyo in Japan is between about 400 and 600.
Did you know that at that maximum end of that bound, that number is still a hundred less than the number of people estimated to be experiencing houselessness in Watcom County. Now, there's a lot going on with why that's the case over there and it's not the case over here.
But I would like to point out one major difference, and that is that the city of Tokyo, the most dense, the most largely populous city in the world in all of human history, never banned co-living. They never went through a phase where they said, "Hey, you're not allowed to do this.
In fact, you can do co-living in Japan. You can do SRO's in Japan that are even denser with even less amenities than here. Now granted, do I want to live in an apartment that doesn't have a kitchen? Do I want to live in an apartment that's like 150 square ft?
No, I don't. But I also don't want to be homeless. Um, and you can get an apartment in Tokyo, Japan for $300 a month. And man oh man, that's a lot better than not being able to find an apartment for $300 a month.
For most of human history, we have been allowing co-living. I have experience with co-living because everyone has experience with co-living. That is how you lived most likely until you were around 18 years old in this country.
You did co-living with your parents. If you went to college, then probably like 50% chance you did co-living in college. And guess what? The world didn't end. We figured out how to do it. We figured out how to do leases.
We figured out how to make sure that you're comfortable, that your needs are met within that housing situation. Now, why do we then say that it's good enough for our children and it's good enough for our collegeage children, but it's not good enough for consenting adults with jobs?
I don't know. Seems like staff doesn't know either, which is why we're doing this now. and we're allowing co-living because it's naturally occurring here anyway. So, uh I urge you all to vote yes on this.
It seems like a real slam dunk of a policy to be able to facilitate naturally affordable housing and we have been banning naturally affordable housing for about 80 years now in this city. So, I think it's time for us to stop.
I think it's time for us to stop just trusting the market to build expensive single family homes and then rent them at a loss to renters and instead acknowledge that if you want to make cheap housing, you need to let people make cheap housing.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Alex. We've got one more online. So, Perry Esgridge, you should be able to unmute. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Thank you. Uh again, Perry Esridge. Uh usually with the Building Industry Association of Walom County and the Walking County Association of Realtors, but these comments are my own personal comments.
I have been waiting 25 years for this moment. I have been asked by neighborhood groups when I was working with the city and in other situations to enforce the definition of family against households primarily in the sameex households in a time before same-sex marriage was legal and we only had the um the partnerships available.
I have counseledled landlords about mail theft by neighbors that were seeking to prove that familiar relationships in a rental house did not did not exist. The neighbors would take the mail and if there were different names on that mail, they would ask for enforcement.
I thought we would accomplish getting this horrible definition with incredibly racial discriminatory roots in it. I thought we'd get it gone with the um increased attention immediately following the George Floyd murder and we almost did it with Christina Michelle Martins's help but that motion failed in this council 3 to four council and staff have continuously for over 25 years defended this horrible definition saying how will we ever define single family housing if we don't keep the definition And I just want to say I I'd always wondered what it would take.
And apparently what it would take is Mayor Lun's executive order saying that she was finally going to get rid of this horrible definition from the Bellingham ordinances. And I guess my last comment is, you know, we we tried mightily, but if it took Mayor Lund, then I thank God that she came along to get this accomplished.
Um, I emphatically, enthusiastically, with every fiber of my being, urge you to get rid of that family definition and adopt the definition of households and move forward with this ordinance. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Perry. Okay, that's it. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Council member Stone. So, it is interesting. The time that I've been on council, this has come up a few times and I feel like we've reconciled it and then it continues to right linger and so it does um feel good to have this resolution coming forward um and also or currently as an ordinance but um this work moving forward.
So, definitely supportive of the changes and supportive of co-l livingiving. One of my questions and maybe it falls outside the scope of this public hearing but to put in a a pin in it for future discussions is as my oldest child now is currently in college far away on the east coast and our daughter is a senior and right looking at schools and the number of universities that have either mandatory onampus housing requirements for a period of years in our son's case for two years out of the the four and recognizing that Western has no housing requirement um for students.
one I mean I could talk about the you know beliefs on the value of yes experiencing you know co-ping and um being on campus and having those connections but some of these larger right scale the intensity and density um of these co-living situations with a shared kitchen with 24 right rooms does really you know appear to be dorm style housing and I guess as our housing crisis continues I'm not opposed to this as a housing housing type.
Um but my question really is about where where that should be and as have we as we have land um shortages and you know where that housing is going to be built is you know where and when and how do those discussions come forward with the university um and perhaps even BTC and Watcom but about how to really stimulate that that growth but maybe um more directly tied to to the university because otherwise I feel like if we again as we talk about sort of giving things up if we sort of invest in then um supporting that even further within the community then I think it's you know harder to to pull that lever.
So I don't expect that to be addressed directly but it's been weighing on my mind. If I can, excuse me, if I can offer a little bit of a a response, and I want to um hearken back to something that Sydney said earlier, she's absolutely right that we are working under the 2016 comp plan.
We have not yet adopted the 2025 comp plan. So, having said that, this is the future land use map for the 2025 comp plan, but since we're close and we're getting there, I wanted to provide that level of context.
So what you're seeing in here uh and I tried to illustrate this a little bit earlier today in the work session is the um kind of orange color that you see spread throughout. That's our residential multifamily.
That's those are the areas where you would uh be allowed to have co-living but would have that minimum density requirement of six units or 24 sleeping units associated with it in those particular areas.
Sarah also mentioned in her comments tonight that it would be allowed in some of the urban villages. Those are the areas that you see currently that are outlined in the brighter pink color. We have seven urban villages that are um orchestrated throughout the city currently and so it would also be accommodated within those.
Um am I forgetting anything else? Commercial. >> Yes, commercial as well. Okay. So, commercial are basically these light red shade maybe darker pink components of that that are that are in there as well.
So, that's where you would start to see those being on. I guess just as a brief follow. Yes, I I appreciate that and the the context I guess just thinking about that we have as I think was said right consenting adults who right are looking for co- livingiving housing who you know have jobs and are currently living in our community and potentially living in our community long term and wanting to make sure that they have places to live as well and maybe looking at um I mean co-living situations and the ability to have maybe a smaller right footprint that you're responsible for financially.
Um but when that housing gets filled with students naturally we're here for a short time and leave it does have a an impact that we've seen right on our our housing system. >> And I should also explain that's where the minimum density allows.
So Sydney also made reference to the kind of smaller scale natural in uh the single household opportunity. So that would be allowed anywhere that's kind of in the yellowish color on here. And to to touch on kind of the housing the housing issue around our colleges, both Western Washington University and Watcom Community College, they're governed by an institutional master plan.
I think both of them have been updated fairly recently. Um, but I think that that is something for, you know, staff and decision makers to kind of file away and keep in mind the next time those institutions come in for an IMP.
IMP is the acronym. come in to update those plans. Um, I think that those are really good points. I don't know if it has been discussed in those previous updates. I wasn't the planner that worked on them, but that would probably be the venue to bring up that discussion.
And >> those are illustrated. So, you can see Walcom Community College in the blue up here in the northern portion of the city and then Western down here in the blue. To Sarah's point, the um IMP for Western um hasn't been updated in a while.
We are in conversation with Western. They're doing some bigger kind of enrollment planning and other things that will ultimately lead into that update, but we have not done that recently. >> Council member Hamill.
>> Uh yeah. So, this is great. Um and we've as council member Stone has pointed out that we've we've talked about this um off and on for for years about the definition of what a family is or you know and I'm glad it's being replaced with the term household.
Um and it's not just Western um or Wacom that are uh the community college that are building these types of shared facilities. So, Wacom just put a a building. I forget the name of it. Um, >> oh, thank you.
Um, and it's, you know, it's a central kitchen and shared by, I think it's up to four four or five. Okay. Four um students. And then Western has that as well, but there's also um development along um uh State Street, Stateide that has similar, you know, shared living um facilities.
And um I just think it's the time has come. I mean, that we we we do need to update this. I mean, when I went to when I went to Western, I lived with three other people and I apparently I was breaking the law every day.
Um which I didn't know. Um, but I think that's that's ve fairly common in a in a town that has a lot of students and it's um become more and more common um in a community where housing is more um unaffordable.
And so when people um you know move in together and they're they're sharing the the cost of a household, I think it's it's only fair that we try to accommodate that as best we can. Um I I heard um council member Anderson when you said that you know typically we don't after a public hearing we typically don't pass um an ordinance right away.
Um the the choices are we can refer to a committee we can refer to committee of the whole. Um I just think that the discussion on this has taken years and I'm not I'm just not patient with this any longer.
So, um, so I'm going to move to approve the ordinance. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Hamill. Second by council member Stone. Council member Liquist. >> Well, first I'm glad we're adopting the use of the terminology household and we will get rid of MF and SF soon enough.
Um, that part's great. Um, I want to talk about what this ordinance is not. This is not about any of the boarding houses or housing situations that most of us have talked about. This is about co-housing large.
When I shared a house, it was with four of the guys. That's not 24 co-sleeping units. So, I've lived in a lot and only once in a dormatory in college that I actually live in one of these. So, there's a whole lot of co-living that this does not apply to.
So, that's kind of surprising because I think that people are still looking for SRO's or boarding houses that are less than 24. Um, you may or may not have been breaking the law when you were had roommates because if you were in that orange portion that was there was no rule of three ever applied.
The orange portion above Western. Only in that yellow finger would that rule have applied. And there are people in the yellow finger right now. They're in a large house and there's probably six of them in a household.
What about them? This ordinance does not apply to the large house shared by eight people. um what happens in those situations and especially because that was based on the old rule of three which used the outlawed f-word that we're not using anymore.
>> So great questions and the way that our ordinance is set up it's not like in your face with what we're doing but I want to explain how this will play out. Um we're providing that path forward for purpose-built co-l livingiving large the 24 sleeping units and the other things that we're doing replacing family with household and eliminating the boarding house definition.
We are essentially outright allowing any other group living dynamic that's occurring. So, we don't want to define that as anything right now because the city does not regulate. We don't review private leases, nor do we want to.
We don't want to talk to landlords and confirm whether they have everybody on one lease or if all the bedrooms are on separate leases. It's fine and functional in its existence. We just need our codes to catch up to that.
So, if somebody wants to not live in their house anymore and rent it out to seven people, go for it. They don't even have to talk to us. They just need rental registration. So, I think that's the power of this ordinance.
We're doing a lot by doing very small precision snips at our existing code. Um, and this is a phased process as you all know. There's a tremendous amount of work to be done in 2026 and 2027. I think in the future we may want to look at you know defining this a little more because there's opportunities through MFTTE co-living can benefit from MFTTE.
So we might want to solidify a smaller scale definition for other areas. We're not ready for that yet because there's so much else in flux and in the pipeline. Right now we're focused on our multifamily zones and we're trying to clean up code so that these great group living dynamics are not prohibited in our code.
Does that make sense? >> Well, so let's say I wanted to build a 10-bedroom household with one kitchen, >> totally permissible anywhere. >> So, under the existing code in in our residential single uh zones, if that home, the only thing that's uh restricting that is the size of the home itself.
So, right now it's uh you can build up to a 5,500 square foot home and then you're required to get a conditional use permit if you go beyond that. So you can have a situation where you can build a home, you know, of of varying different sizes depending on the parameters that we talked about earlier, which is the setbacks, the height, the you know, overall and and if you wanted to have that situation occur where you're renting out those rooms, there's nothing preventing or prevent prohibiting you from doing that.
>> I'm seeing another strange and maybe unintended tension. So, we talked earlier about the middle family housing and you had a larger lot. Let's say it was like 10,000 square feet or maybe it was eight or six.
And we talked about how you can put four units on there, especially if the house is well situated and you can put all these ADUs and these ADUs are then potentially independent ownership opportunities.
Or heck, I'll just build a 10-bedroom house and rent it out as as a co-living situation. We might have created an easier path to co-l livingiving, easier, more profitable, simpler in terms of design and construction and permitting and everything and utilities especially than the much vaunted middle housing.
We we may have created an easier pathway that goes away from middle housing and towards large well in this case small co-l livingiving under 24 co-living. I think I think one of the points that you're making which is um I would hesitate to call it an unintended consequence because what we are trying to do is open up a range of opportunities.
So what you're describing is true um but but so are all the things that we discussed earlier today. And so we're trying to set the table with that plethora of options so that people can make those choices and that if those choices shift over the course of their lifespan or their personal needs or circumstances then we talk a little bit about and we haven't talked about it much today but this idea of aging in place and one of the things that I often say when we talk about that is it's about staying in the uh you know in the community in which you've become accustomed to and you've built your village, right?
Whether that's your dentist, whether that's your uh home care provider, whatever the case may be, you have the ability to stay within that dynamic. That doesn't mean you stay in the exact same dwelling or the exact same residence, but you can stay within that community.
So providing that range of options um gives us the ability to welcome in new people, to retain old people, to accommodate our children, to do all of these things that we aspire to as a community, as a society by expanding those different options.
>> I think we're misidentifying who's choosing. Here's what I mean. When HMOs first came online, people said people want choice, medical choice. I want choice. But they weren't given choice of doctors.
They given choice of HMOs. and then they complain when they realize they couldn't pick their own doctor. In this case, we're not the people who are choosing are not the people who want to have to live in a housing.
It's the people who own the property who are making the choice. So, we're opening up a range of possibilities. This is not a range of possibilities for people who want to rent or buy a place. It's a range of properties for people who already currently own or will own that property who are then making decisions.
And it's their choice, their rational decision I'm thinking about because they're the ones in the driver's seat. And they're not going to say, "Hey, are there four households out there who want to buy small houses I should build for them?" What they're thinking is, I've got a plot of land and I can put in 10 or 12 unit co-ousing or I could put in four complicated smaller homes or courtyard homes.
They may choose this pathway as opposed to that pathway. So, we have to understand who is making the choice. I don't know how this is going to play out, but I think we need to realize that co-housing is now a competitor with middle housing.
>> Well, we do see people making that deliberation and that choice because it becomes a question for that individual property owner on whether they want to be landlord, whether they want to parcel off and sell, whether they want so there is some dynamic that comes into play um in that in that choice.
And as I mentioned earlier today, part of what goes into that deliberation is what your current set of circumstances are, but then also maybe thinking a few iterations down the line as to whether or not you want to prevent or preclude any of those different opportunities.
So what may be uh very important and resonate with you in your current life circumstance may not always dictate what may happen in in the coming years. And so to be able to maintain that choice and that variety is I think paramount in part of our thinking.
Sarah, >> I also want to be really careful with terms. Tonight we're just introducing co-living as it's defined by 24 sleeping units and we're eliminating the household definition or the family definition.
So, what we're talking about at the small scale and single family zones, at the end of the day, your building permit is still for a single family residents and you're following all of the associated development regulations to do so.
So, I I I'm I'm hesitant to to say it's co-living competing with middle housing because we haven't defined co-living at that scale yet. We're just saying that's a house and the city doesn't care if you rent out the bedrooms individually.
We're defining it at that large scale. And I also want to clarify that we're not changing the way that our existing code works. We don't allow single family development in multifamily zones. So we're not creating an incentive.
That's exactly what our code is trying to do. We're trying to prevent people from building co-living and it's just a single family house in a multifamily zone. We want that scale to be increased. We want it to be appropriate for that underlying multifamily zoned land.
>> If I may add one more thing um and that is and I I don't have the numbers committed to memory. But um but if I did, what what we would be able to articulate maybe a little more effectively is when we look at our existing housing stock in this city.
Um a lot of that is driven by threebedroom homes, maybe in some cases fourbedroom homes, but the number of people that are residing in them are often less than the number of bedrooms provided. And so one of the things that we worked on this past year is providing a home sharing opportunity where we're trying to encourage and incentivize people to tap into that surplus of housing availability in that regard.
And this speaks a little bit more to the naturally occurring co-living uh rather than what we're here to talk about tonight. Again, there's programs and offer that we have in the city to try to help encourage those opportunities for people to use to to to make available that untapped uh resource.
>> Council member Anderson, >> thank you. Um I just wanted to share and then make a request. So, um Welcome Community Colleges, um institutional master plan does have housing as one of the elements that they're planning for.
they have built one uh co-ousing and there's um land identified for two additional as population grows. So they're doing their part to provide housing for um not only Wacom students but BTC and Western students also if there's spaces available.
So, that's happening. But the request is is um as Western is looking at their institutional master plan, if you can kind of put this in the pocket, they have a lot of parking lots up there, gravel, um land that just stores the the metal and the four rubber tires.
And it's always kind of irked me a little bit that they have only built because they they tore down and redid a building and they gained about an extra 150 units, but they've more than doubled their population and not doubled their housing.
And so being in education, um, one of the things we know and what we read about is that being on campus helps with retention and success of students. and Western has not done that, but they've externalized their housing for their growth of student population onto this community.
And that I fully believe contributes to some of the lack of housing um that we experience because if you put six 7,000 people into this community, into our housing, then that depletes what's available for other community members.
So, I hope when they work on their plan, we can if not somehow legislate because I haven't looked into the law by the state level, but if we could really encourage them to put housing on those parking lots and help um their students not only grow, succeed, and have affordable housing, um but perhaps their students would be a little bit more successful, although a lot of them are.
They're great um students. um and on to community members, but um it might help with their retention. So, I hope somebody from Western's listening right now. There's a lot of issues going on right now in higher education with funding, but we are talking about a long-term plan.
So, I hope they take that to heart. >> Council member Cotton. >> Okay. I'm hoping we can vote on this quickly and even if I don't prevail in this, just let's move on. Okay. But anyway, this is so tight.
Um, okay. So, um, my question is I think HB1 1998 has been superseded by Senate Bill 5184 with regard to parking requirements. I think that goes into effect 2027. And also just thinking about our ADU conversation earlier where just to be consistent with that where we also removed the um uh inconsistent parking mandates in that code.
Um and yeah, I think we we probably we know what direction we're going, but it seems um worth it to remove um section 4 um from the ordinance today. Um, I can wait to make a motion if staff wants to comment at all on that, but um, >> um, yes, thank you for bringing that up.
Um, so, as we know, the draft ordinance does include parking ratios. These are put in place by the state law. They are actually lower than what the ratios were required for rooming and boarding house, significantly lower, and parking is exempt when it's near transit.
The state law also says if jurisdictions seek to increase that ratio, we have to submit a a formal report that evidences why we need an increased ratio. Um, so just in this grand shuffle of code updates from a practical standpoint, it would be my recommendation to leave in the statemandated parking ratio so that other code writers that are not Sydney and I that are finalizing those parking code updates have that information in front of them because it's just one more thread to follow to track co-living parking code requirements and the state mandate and obligation to show your work if you increase ratios.
Sorry, that's a little rambly, but I think that it's best that this draft ordinance include the ratios that were established in state law. It does no harm right now with the interim parking ordinance in effect, and it provides good data in our code for code writers to study as they finalize the parking code updates.
Council member Stone. Yeah. >> Just wanted to I appreciate the the feedback. I just had a clarifying question where you said if the ratio was increased and so what does that equate to? I mean increasing the ratio meaning requiring more, >> right?
So right now the draft ordinance based off of state law says that co-living housing needs to provide one parking space for every four sleeping units and no parking is required when co-living is within 1 half mile walking distance of a major transit stop.
So let's say we bump up that ratio and we say you need one parking space for every two sleeping units. the state would have us write a report that evidences why we think that is necessary based off of safety requirements or whatnot.
Um, so it's just one of those those things where there there's there's more to it and so it's nice to put it in our municipal code and have it at least be consistent with state law independent of whatever happens in the future with the parking updates.
But um if I may, where you're going with it in terms of reducing it further is still within the prerogative of the council. So if the goal is to follow through with basically what the interim uh parking reform does and it gives you the opportunity to um pull back from that even further, that's still within your prerogative.
I think that probably is where I would land on this. Um, and just thinking about um, yeah, the um, we're going to by the state law have to eliminate all parking requirements for dwelling units under 1,200 square feet within a year.
Um, and so just I don't, you know, don't want a maybe a out of town developer who's maybe going to build our first co- livingiving units to be any more confused than than I usually am reading through our code.
So um uh I would yeah I I would say I move to strike section 4 from the interim ordinance or not interim ordinance from the ordinance. >> Second motion by council member Cotton, second by council member Stone.
for the discussion. Council member S. >> Um, and I guess I mean I'm supportive. I understand that it's an interim ordinance and you know the director has spoken to the fact that you know maybe leaving these things in place until we know what's going to happen with the interim ordinance, right?
Um, reduces the risk of having to go back and sort of clean things up. But for me, it's about consistency. When if and trying to reduce confusion if people are looking at the code and when something new has been passed, does that send a mixed message about what's happening under the current interim ordinance versus this?
And so, I don't know, for me, that seems cleaner. >> And I'd like to clarify the um interim reference that I was making was with regard to the parking reform. This is a a formal ordinance. So this is not this particular one is not inter.
>> Can you say that again? >> The parking that you all addressed the reduction elimination of parking citywide that's the interim version. This particular ordinance with respect to co-living is not interim.
It's proposed as a full ordinance. So then to follow up is um I guess maybe what Sarah was addressing is the concern that because the other parking thing is interim that if the state looked at this then they would they're the ones that would be confused about whether we're in compliance or not or um so we have the interim parking ordinance in effect.
permanent code has not been written yet. Um, but when they write that code, they're going to be studying our existing municipal code and the uses and the parking ratios that are established therein. Um, so I don't know what that final code would look like, but if I was a codew writer, I would want to be able to go through the uses and see what our existing ratios are.
um and have something to base new ratios off of, have some understanding or rationale. Um so that would be my recommendation. I understand where you're coming from that from a policy perspective when we have a pretty drastic ordinance in place, but then we're passing other ordinance ordinances that have parking ratios.
That does look confusing. Um so I do understand that. Um, >> and I think in this set of circumstances, those things are going to occur relatively close together. So, I don't know that there's a huge concern that we're going to be um forgetting or going down a correct path.
So, >> Council Member Anderson. >> So, I don't support this amendment to the motion. Um, the motion was made to pass this. This is not interim. This is long-term. We're not going to get another bite at this apple.
This closes the book on it. Um to get rid of parking since the no parking minimums is currently temporary. So staff could really take a look at it. I would have a dozen questions like how does this impact ADA parking?
What does this look like in certain areas with people with disabilities? Um are you know seniors? How is this going to impact? Are people going to actually be able to walk a half mile to a go line if it doesn't have a stop?
So, I feel that getting rid of parking without really looking at the impact on everything, which is what I'm hoping the interim ordinance coming back to us will do. Um, I think it would just be a lot cleaner to make that decision in totality of looking at all the different type of impacts and housing types and certain zones because I'm not confident that we're going to have no parking minimums as a permanent.
Um, I would imagine that there's going to be a compromise in there somewhere. And I again, you know, this makes this makes me question how what are the impacts going to be on the population living there, especially how does this impact ADA parking?
Um, you know, if we wanted to reduce parking, do we require more ADA parking and exchange, but no general parking? Because based on the ratio of how much ADA parking per room, it may not be sufficient across the city in certain areas.
Um, so I wouldn't support it because I have too many questions and I would like to move this on and have it approved tonight, but if this passes then I won't be supporting this. I'd want to kick it back to session to be able to ask further questions.
Council member Williams. >> Council, um, Council Member Cotton, could you explain your motion a little more in in depth for some clarity about why you think eliminating this is uh necessary because my understanding from what I'm hearing is this reflects current state requirements.
So this puts us in conformity with state law. So could you please explain a little more in depth about why you think this needs to disappear? >> Well, going back to our parking discussions. Sorry, it's not quick, I guess.
um uh that we know that um builders uh often install more parking than has previously been required and that I would very much expect that um uh many builders still put in plenty of parking for co-l livingiving.
Um but uh this these units are in multif family. they are um very small and within a year any parking requirements for this um uh code would be out of compliance with state law. So I think knowing how busy we are with staff time, just thinking if we know it's something we're going to have to change within a year, let's go ahead and change it while we're while we're in here.
staff. >> Is it related? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, if this were, this is a question for you guys. If if this were eliminated, is there any consequence or any um um I'll just use the word consequence for not being in compliance with state law.
>> So my understanding of the state law is this is like the ceiling. We we can go lower, but they established a ceiling. They just wanted to make sure that jurisdictions weren't being ownorous on developers of co-l livingiving.
Um but my understanding of the of the RCW is is we could do a lower ratio. >> That's true with respect to the co-l livingiving piece. The other state law that's being referenced is Senate Bill 5184. Okay, >> which is the one that comes into play um in January of 2027.
So, that's the year that was being kind of referenced earlier. And in that uh law, it says that you cannot assign a parking requirement for any uh unit under 1,200 square feet. And as what was kind of alluded to is that often times the the unit sizes associated with co-living may fit that definition.
Uh and so we would not be able in that set of circumstances would not be able to provide a require parking requirement for that. Okay, I'll take a go before council member back to council member Anderson.
Um I'll be supportive of the motion there. I'm particularly excited about this co-l livingiving ordinance because I can think of probably two um 100-year-old buildings downtown that are co-living situations, boarding houses.
Um so we used to build these and we stopped. Um, and I remember learning about these places, being in them, and thinking, "Wow, it's why don't we do this anymore? This is a way to get into a really affordable space where you have your own locking door and you don't have to go on Craigslist and try to find some roomate roommates that aren't um frightening or, you know, potentially a problem in the end." Um, and so it it was always shocking to me that we didn't already do this.
Um, those two buildings that I can think of don't have any parking. They were built 100 years ago. Um, and I know that they are those are highly sought after spaces because they're so affordable. Um, and you know, we're we're looking at putting these particular uh buildings in multi-residential zones.
So, um, you know, even if we do change, uh, course on parking, um, we're still, you know, looking at at, you know, very few areas in the city that are already designated for this kind of, um, this kind of use.
And so, I'm I'm okay with uh, removing the parking element from this one. Uh, Council Member Anderson. So, more about the bill in 2027. I'm assuming that um in order to comply once the parking comes back to us, the the interim ordinance, it would deal with um any housing units that are under 1,200.
That would be something that could be added um not just for the co-living but other types of housing. So, I'm assuming that is going to be addressed when it comes back to council. Correct. >> Yes. In fact, that was when we when we asked for the extension was in part because we were still waiting for some clarity from commerce around this particular issue.
So, it would keep us in compliance uh allow the parking reforms to continue but keep us in compliance with that state law and the direction we're headed. >> And do you expect that before um this would become out of compliance?
They they indicated that we would have that direction in uh in the year in the new year. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further discussion on the amendment? >> Okay. Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> No. >> Any abstensions? Passes 52. >> Council member Loquist. >> I see three parts to this ordinance. Um changing the definition of household. Love it. Um we'll call in co-l livingiving large.
Fine. Sounds good to me. Um the third thing that it does is it removes the boarding house definition which as you indicated with that one simple excision. It means that we are completely uh don't speak at all to co-living situations not in multif family.
Therefore in what we call single family. Part of the problem is single family is going to go away by the end of next year and so is multif family. And so we're going to rewrite that and who knows whether we'll have it apply just to medium and high density or also medium high and low whatever.
It'll be somewhere in there. Um I'm still can't figure out why someone wouldn't just build a 10 unit house. Why wouldn't they just build a traditional boarding house as I thought about it? Um, and is that what we want as again as said as as a competing use in what we're still calling single family, but really is middle housing.
So middle housing exists in what we call single family. And these traditional under 24 unit co-housing things will now be allowed. I I still see a competition here. It's the removing of the boarding house definition that I think is is going to create some unintended consequences.
So I'm told I'm talking about that onethird of this ordinance, not the other two/3s. >> Okay. So my answer will be kind of two-part. Um as Sydney said, since 2021, we have not enforced the family definition.
So honestly, a developer could have been building large houses for the last four years and we haven't seen that happen. Um and then the co-living roll out in other medium and low density zone districts that is in our work plan.
We've been talking about it. We have we have multiple Excel spreadsheets talking about when and how and who's assigned. We are very aware that we need to think of how this will integrate with our future zoning districts.
Um but we just don't have all of the information yet because we haven't mapped out that framework of what those zoning designations will look like. Um but it is coming so we are very aware. But we we feel confident we're not creating any weird incentive problems with this code update.
I don't think we'll see a der of large houses come online. Um and if we do, I don't know if that would be a huge problem. Um I I think that we are in a situation as Blake said where all options are good options.
We want to just provide more options for housing for folks. >> And let me run out. >> Can I just respond to that? I do think there is a concern here and the concern has to do with ownership opportunities.
One of the things that's been happening with almost all the middle housing is we're multiplying opportunities for rental housing and we're creating types of housing which are more than likely going to be rental only.
There is a strong policy consideration to not closing off avenues to ownership and middle housing is potentially dividable and shared ownership. these co-living situations when they're co-l livingiving small they're they're never going to be I really doubt they will ever be ownership situations.
So I agree 10 people in a house is not the world's worst thing but if we're creating a bias away from ownership opportunities then that is a concern and I I don't know if that will happen. I'm just looking forward and thinking there's a there's a pathway for that I may not want the community to take.
Before I hand it off to Blake, I do want to point out that the the co-l livingiving, our true definition with the 24 sleeping units, that does allow for for rent or for sale. We paid close attention. We deviated from the state's definition because we wanted to allow opportunities for condoization.
We don't we've never seen it, but we don't want to close off that opportunity for somebody to do it. So, it is in the books for co-l livingiving large. I acknowledge that at at the state level we have some work to do on condo liability insurance requirements that that that work needs to be done.
This is these are a couple slides that I had in this morning's uh presentation if we went there. But this is an example of just trying to provide a few different ownership options. So you have fee simple this is kind of a town configuration where these can be on fee simple lots and you can do that.
But one of the other things that we talked about, and this gets to the example I think you're bringing up, is if somebody were to build a large home, and you can imagine this being a 10-bedroom home, there still is the opportunity to take that existing residence and begin to break that up into different units.
You see this example play out substantially in places like San Francisco, New York, Boston where you had old Victorian uh era homes that then were broken out into stack flats or other different configurations.
And so that opportunity for ownership is not precluded by the fact that you might start with the intention of the existing owner to build a larger scale home like you're referencing. Maybe they have the model of co-l livingiving in mind, but that allows the ability to then go through and think about ways to break that up into different units configurations, whether that's for ownership or for rental.
Again, we get less involved in that level of the decision about rental versus ownership and more just the range of different housing types and let the individual property owner and or prospective uh tenants drive those.
I think the other thing maybe to point out is this scenario you're talking about of somebody building a 10-bedroom house on a lot. It's not mutually exclusive with middle housing. You could build a house on a lot or you could convert your existing house and chop it into more bedrooms and still use our middle housing ordinance.
So, I I want to be very clear. We're not procluding that ability. It's still the same as it's ever been. You can build a house on a lot and then we have our middle housing ordinance in effect. They work together.
Um I guess that yeah, there are financial constraints. Do you want to get a loan on one thing or or everything that we we can only have so much control over? But we're not taking options off the table for people.
>> I'm pretty good at forgetting to get myself in the rotation here. Um so I'll take a go. I have a couple points that keep stacking up. Uh f first I actually live about three houses down from a house that was built about 100 years ago that has 11 rooms in it.
It was used as a boarding house uh I think a care facility um and it currently has one family multi-generational that is living there. Um and is a very wonderful addition to our neighborhood. Another point I think something that gets to the heart of some of this conversation that we're having is who's choosing.
Um, and I think that's a really great great question. I would venture to say that yes, the property owner is choosing what to build. But I can also be a candy store owner and choose to buy purchase what candy I'm going to sell in that candy store, but people might not choose to buy it.
Um, and so a property owner is also going to want to build what the market is asking for. Um, right now I think we're in a place unfortunately where there just isn't choice. And so you don't have a market that gets to choose because there just aren't options.
Um, what we're trying to do here is get to that place in the market where it is the marketplace deciding the the the renter, the homeowner deciding what they want and picking that. Um, and it's up to the land landowner to um predict what the um the consumer wants.
So, I think of that a little bit differently. Um, this one's going long. Uh, this agenda item, there's a lot of conversation about it for something that seems so simple and we're all clearly very supportive of.
Uh, but very excited to see the co-living option in here. Um, very excited to see that we're finally changing the family definition. I as a brand new council member, I sat down with our planning director and he said, "What are your top five goals before you, you know, before you end your this council job?" And I think the family definition was my top goal.
Um and then COVID hit and then every other, you know, priority item came out ahead of that and we weren't enforcing it and um so it really it while it was a a big goal I think for everybody and lots in the community, lots of council members, it just didn't reach to that point of necessary.
So I'm glad to see that it's finally changing. Um with that, I'm very supportive of this ordinance. And we have council member Stone next and then council member Anderson. So, I just want to speak to I guess Council Member Liquist's concerns that have been raised a couple of times because my from my perspective, it feels as though um you're focusing on sort of this home ownership model that has existed for a long period of time and sort of this single F right world where there's one unit and one owner.
And what I'm thinking of is that our community and the diversity here and what I've heard from community members that they're looking for is new, unique, creative ways to actually accomplish home ownership.
So, when I think about the opportunity for cooperatives or yes, a group of people coming together saying, "I'm not going to be able to afford this on my own, but hey, we all get along. We, you know, living well together.
Can we, you know, share resources and accomplish purchasing this home? I don't know what that's going to look like. I mean, the ability to, yeah, condominization and the ability within either multiple units on a lot or within a single unit, as director Lion was just looking at, right, this is unchartered territory that we don't know.
But I think it's our job, as the planning department has been saying, to lay the table with as many options as possible and let you're saying who's going to decide. I'm saying let the community decide.
And my hope is that we're going to have more owners, right, potential owners who are getting to make those decisions and decide what do they want their home, residence, dwelling to look like, who do they want to be sharing that with and what is that going to look like?
And so to me to preemptively say, well, home ownership looks this way and we're going to be preemptively, you know, disallowing um or precluding ownership if we allow this particular, you know, um yeah, this particular um building to to exist in this way with multiple homes.
I mean, I just think we don't we don't know. And at this point the what has been I think a disincentive to the community and really been um working against people from acquiring home ownership has been all of these constructs that we've seen over you know over history um the course of history and we are at sort of a a fork to be able to think about things differently um and we don't know but these are living decisions as I say often that we can adapt um but at this point in time, I'm hopeful that, you know, it's just another another option um that the community can hopefully leverage to to either acquire a home in a safe place to live as a renter or perhaps, you know, um be able to accomplish home ownership as well.
So, Council Member Anderson, >> Council Member Stone kind of covered a lot of what I was going to say. Um, I think if you've been involved in neighborhoods for a long time, um, we all have these stories of certain developers skirting code to create de facto boarding houses, um, and calling them single family, like building eight rooms, but there's only four bedrooms, but the other four have the exact layout of a closet, but they never put the closet doors on.
So, they called it a four-bedroom house, and it came down to permits and what they pay for versus what they actually built. But I see this as a a I understand some of the concerns that it might take away the opportunity for ownership, but I also see it as a great opportunity of creating ownership through co-ops.
Um, and I think co-ops of a certain size would be appropriate in uh the smaller um whatever the zoning we eventually come up with. Um, I hope to see that as one of the options because I wouldn't mind next to me a 10bedroom, you know, fourb or whatever large kitchen shared area and it's a co-op and I live in what's currently called a single family.
Um, I think it would be a great opportunity for people to pull their resources together for home ownership. So, um I like the idea of getting rid of the boarding house definition because we haven't really had um a good pathway to create co-ops um as a smaller housing unit in create the density for multi- either multigenerational or um selected family to be able to cohabitate and have home ownership.
So hopefully that will open up a floodgate of that for us. Okay. Anything further? Ready to vote? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed for abstensions? Passes 70. Okay. I'm going to call for a break at some point either before or after.
Let's let's do it after this hearing. We'll do it after this hearing. >> Okay. Our fifth and final public hearing, agenda bill 24742, a public hearing on a proposed ordinance relating to design review, adopting an interim ordinance to establish clear and objective design standards and streamline the design review permitting process.
City council will hear from the public on a proposed interim ordinance regarding design review for residential, commercial, mixeduse projects and industrial projects in urban villages. This interim ordinance amends the city's current design review process and regulations to align with several state bills passed in recent years requiring objective standards and other specific processes.
Due to the state legislation passed in 2025, these changes are due by the end of 2025. The interim ordinance will bring the city into compliance with this legislation while permanent regulations are developed.
I'll go ahead and turn it over to Director Lion. >> Thank you and good evening. I'm here with a couple members of staff as well. Sarah's continued to join us on this one. We've also brought Lindsay Kushner as well.
They've been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on this particular item. Um, in the interest of time, I'm going to try to go through this relatively quickly since you did get a little bit of an introduction to this this morning, but please feel free to follow up with any questions or or interject if if need be.
Um, as you've seen a little bit in these presentations, we try to provide the existing kind of framework for what the current uh, regulations are and then we'll go into some of the proposed updates. Uh, by way of clarification, this is an interim ordinance.
Again, we are trying to come into compliance with uh, the state requirements by the end of this year. And so, we'll hone in on that a little bit. There are several different state laws that are applicable in this conversation.
This is also the first conversation where we're moving out of just housing forms and we're also talking a little bit more about um commercial and mixed use uh as well uh to that. So you heard a little bit earlier this evening about the House Bill 1110 which is the middle housing and the requirement for having um administrative only reviews.
There's also other provisions within the state law that you see on the screen before you that talk about streamlining development regulations. You've heard a little bit of discussion about the clear and objective standards, concurrent review, the need for only one public meeting associated with that.
And then the one that we haven't touched on uh earlier today in as much depth is House Bill 1183, which talks about development regulations of the form. And in particular, you you may recall in past provisions where we've had stepbacks or additional kind of articulation that's required on upper volumes of buildings.
And this particular state law prohibits that additional modulation if you're building one of six different properties uh excuse me building types. So I'll go through that list just really quickly for you.
Uh if it's an affordable housing project, if it's a new construction that's meeting passive house requirements or if you're retrofitting a building to meet passive house requirements. So those are the first three.
Then it's an existing conversion of a home or mixeduse development that includes housing, modular construction or mass timber construction. So it's those six that do not allow for you to do the additional um building modulation for for those types of projects.
Um the importance of why this and why now um is that if we don't do um this by the end of this calendar year then we lose kind of the ability to have um design standards or design guidelines uh until we put something effectively in place.
So we wanted to just kind of give an indication um that there is a desire to hold on to some elements. A lot of the work that staff has done really looks to um start from the framework of what we have existing and take out some of that level of subjectivity and work through some of that and make it a little bit more streamlined in its overall approach.
So we really have tried to build on enhancing the public realm, creating that sense of space, u fostering just those different social interactions that make uh you know Bellingham what it is and really try to provide that opportunity for you know attractive um situation.
The other challenge that you've often heard and you can probably attest to if you've gone through any of these is that we have rules that are kind of scattered all over our BMC. Uh, in fact, there are some instances where I think it's as in as many as 12 different spots depending on if you're talking about an urban village or different handbooks.
Um, there's some subjective language. So, you may be familiar with things like shall meet the general character. Uh, and so those kind of subjective pieces really pull back. Um, so we've had design review in Bellingham since about 2001.
uh we went through some major changes about a year and a half ago and then obviously this would pull together. It focuses in on essentially three different uh forms. So the the first two are what you see up here, the infill housing uh and ADUs uh and then multifamily.
So we've talked a little bit about that uh at various different points today. But then it also allows for uh design review for commercial and mixed use including uh urban villages. And then once you get into that uh design review component, we really hone in on these three different elements.
And I gave you a little bit of illustration about how that works on a particular project. Um uh if you may recall earlier today about the Clinton and G Street example that walked through a few of those things.
Um it's important to note and and if you have your ordinance you can look it's in uh starts on page 104 of your packet. Uh and it goes through and there's basically these if I go back a slide here these three different infill housing types.
So that starts on page 104. And then you can see once you start from there, you go into the the leftmost column is the public realm portion. The center column is the site design and then the far right column is the building design.
And then that same pattern is followed through. If you jump back to page 106, it then goes into multifamily. And then page 108 goes into the commercial and mixed use. And you follow that kind of same pattern that goes through the public realm.
the site design and u the building design components and then as I alluded to earlier in this morning's presentation you have the ability to then go through in some of these where you're picking from a menu of options where we've identified for example eight 11 different alternatives and you can pick five of those to meet the you know this the criteria associated with that.
So again, taking those 12 different versions, funneling it down to uh this interim design regulation and then ultimately you end up with a simplified design process. Um we have the design review board that's available to look at uh any departures that may come up in urban villages um and any particular needs that that move forward in that respect.
So, we're here to answer any questions. Uh maybe a little bit by committee just to kind of give you all the details that you might need. But, uh that's what we're asking for uh as an interim measure and then we will be back with u we again like with the parking, we want to test out a few of these things.
We want to make sure we we hit the mark on these and make sure that we can identify ways that that it works effectively and hopefully streamline the overall process. as um was mentioned earlier, the mayor's executive order.
This is one of those three legislative pieces that we we talked about and obviously with that being driven by the state law as well. So, I'm going to stop there. Certainly welcome to hear from the public, but if there's any questions you might have now, um happy to entertain those.
>> Any clarifying questions from council? >> Okay, we'll go ahead and open up Oh, council member Cotton. Nope. Okay, go ahead and open up the public hearing. How many people do we have signed up? Right.
We had seven individuals signed up. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> All right. So, first is Adam Bellinger, Brian Gas, Brian Russell, and Slater Meyer. Good evening, council, Mayor London, uh, planning development staff.
Um, my name is Adam Bellinger again. Um, I, uh, recently read an appraisal. Um, and it's a comment that I had read over a year ago was that it takes about 18 to 36 months to get a multif family project through planning and the development process in the city of Bellingham.
Um, out of context, uh, the Empire State Building went from approval to completion ahead of schedule and under budget in 14 months. Um, and as I look at this uh ordinance, which I do support, um, I think we need to also look at the data on how this change is actually impacting the the total process or timeline it takes to go through the permitting process and everything.
um because um there's a lot of things that and I'm going to use an example here but um that could still not have the impact that we're looking forward for um and so um where it's we're actually getting reduction in time frame.
Um my brother um for example and this he's not really impacted by this uh design uh this particular ordinance just because of the size of his house that he he bought a house uh about 2 or 3 years ago.
Um it's a 100-year-old house. It's an investment for him and uh it's a uh we call it actually a murder house cuz he was it was actually where somebody was murdered and he's been going through the process of making this a better thing.
Uh so he's going through the uh remodeling. Um it the house has a large house. Um it has uh two permitted bedrooms but it actually has upwards of four bedrooms in it. and um the uh the process to go through uh getting that those two additional bedrooms permitted because it increases the marketability and the investment potential of the house.
um is he's now 2 years into this process and um the latest holdup is uh the level of glazing on one of the bathrooms for the window of a 4 square foot window that um he's been going back and forth with the planning department on um the the level of glazing does not meet the standard.
Well, he doesn't know what the standard is and it's not clear. And so in this ordinance, we're talking about, you know, objective standards, but we can't even get without hiring an architect to tell us what the standard is.
And that just seems crazy to me for a very simple uh pro process that we should be able to go through without having to hire an architect to understand. Um, so, um, I think we need to look at the actual, uh, reduction in time and if it's actually occurring over time.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Adam. >> Brian Gas from Bellingham. First off, um, I agree with Mr. here uh with Councilman Liquist and I'm going to tell you why I'm going to build a 10 a 10 story or 10bedroom house is going to save me $100,000 in connection fees and impact fees that you would try and get uh jammed on by the city for uh different like a bunch of tri like a triplex or whatever.
So I would do that to save a bunch of money because if you got a 10 you only have one connection. Um, I would like to say without taking too much time is that also I I I I own a real estate firm. I I managed about 30 or 40 agents and I probably involved in 2,000 transactions.
Just curious if anybody's ever taken the time to actually go through a transaction and see what it takes to do these things that you say you're that you think we're going to sell because at some point you can put all the you can put all the dressing on it, but someone's got to finance it.
Someone's got to come up with the money. Uh, I've dealt with divorced people. I've dealt with people who aren't divorced, got married and had to separate their not married, they weren't married, but they had to separate their property.
There there's a lot of implications in just saying like, "Hey, let's just make it affordable." And like like, no offense, but it's not like saying, you know, like my kid would say I'd say, "I don't have any money." Oh, well, just write a check, Dad.
That's what I hear. Um, and I know that the mayor's um um housing housing um proclamation is is in the best intentions, but I'm just saying like planning is like going through the I mean I always joke like that's where dreams go to die is at the planning department and it's not like they're there to really help or make things faster.
So what I would appreciate if you're going to start doing this, you want to make housing cheaper, make it easier to split a lot. Make it happen now. Don't sit here and say we're gonna I look at the the plan drives me crazy.
This there's nothing in that Bellingham plan that really puts a real number on anything. How many houses we're going to do, how this is going to happen, it's going to be we're going to look at this, we're going to look at that.
Get planning to start issuing some permits faster and you will have better results because that is the one department that controls what gets built, who gets to build, who gets to build it, how much. Where a builder doesn't just say, "Hey, I want to put 20 houses on there." No, the planning department has to say that.
So, I want to see I'd like to see some some some hard responsibility and like hook like I don't know give big bonuses, huge bonuses for for for cutting the permitting, you know, planned uh time down by half, right?
Put some put some incentives to people to actually get this stuff done rather than talking about it because that's what's causing people to not have houses. It's not because of anything other than they can't build it fast enough.
And design review is a great idea if you just stick to the designs and not jerk around or not mess around with the designs and get them through so people can build them. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian.
>> Hi again, Brian Russell, Leard Streets Neighborhood. Um, my understanding of this bill from the state, these many bills from the state, is that they're trying to decriminalize housing types that are useful in ending the house housing crisis.
Um, this design review portion is mostly excellent, but I want to point out one reason why I think we should try again. Um, I invite you to turn to page 104. And in tonight's packet, um, and now this is my understanding based on trying to wade through this for about five hours this weekend, and I could be wrong.
Um, but my understanding is that currently Bellingham requires design review for ADUs that are built. And um the design review is that extra layer of process to evaluate the appearance of each building.
Now the new state bill um foresaw that cities would try to find other ways to prevent more than one household sharing the costs of a lot. And so the clean way to approach this is to abolish single family zoning.
The backdoor way is to allow ADUs within single family zoning. So we can share the costs of a lot. In the state bill, it says you're not allowed to have more ownorous requirements for the ADU than you have for the primary building on that lot.
And so let's see. Yeah, let's dig into a little history. Um, someone mentioned that design review was written into code in 2001. I think that was Blake. That same year in Bellingham, I was looking at Herald Archives.
That's the first year that housing supply was described as a crisis in Bellingham was the year that we established formal design review. Um, not causation, but suspicious correlation. um so nervous. The the clear intent of state law is to reduce the barriers to building housing.
And so we had two options. One is um if ADUs require design review and the primary residence does not, do we remove the requirement for design review for ADUs or do we add an additional requirement for the primary building?
And this adds additional requirements to building types that previously did not have them. So I recommend not passing this until we remove pages 104 through 107. That's tables one and two. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brad.
>> All right. And then after Slater, we'll have Alex Ross, uh, Steve Zawowski, and Perry Esridge online. >> Good evening. Good evening, everyone. My name is Slater. I live in the Roosevelt neighborhood, and I would like to talk a little bit about design review.
So, I live in a townhouse that's right outside of Barkley Village. And as sort of a special circumstance of that location, streets like uh Verona, East Illinois, and East East East Maryland fall outside of the boundaries of what would be considered uh Barkclay's Barkclay's design review board.
So, as a result, many types of duplexes and condos have been built in that area, thus increasing the housing housing supply. I love living in, you know, I love living in a townhouse, but um but to subject new town houses in these areas to an additional design review process wouldn't mean that less housing would will be built, not more.
I'm asking council to not pass this agenda item. Don't make it harder to build housing by requiring design review for housing types like mine. The path forward for increasing housing supply will favor fewer hurdles, not more.
Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Slater. Hi. I don't know about you, but I hate like whenever religion comes up in politics. I would like to pe I I would just love if people like kept it out completely gone.
Uh with that said, anyway, I'm Jewish. Uh I want to talk about being Jewish for a second and I want to talk about the Bible because I was reading the Bible this Saturday. Uh because I don't know if you know this, but if you're Jewish, then traditionally every Saturday you read a different chapter of the Torah and you go through that on a yearly cycle.
Last Saturday we read this little portion called Sara. That is the part in Genesis when Abraham's wife Sara dies. And what does he have to do? He has to go before a council of landowning Hittites and beg permission to purchase land to bury his wife in.
He has already found a seller who is happy to give him the land and yet he's trying to buy it anyway. However, because Abraham is a g being the Hebrew word for a foreigner, a residing alien in the land, he does not have the legal right to buy that land.
And so he has to go before a council and ask for a little review of whether or not he's allowed to do so. Now, they let him do so because they say, "Abraham, you are the elect of God, so of course we'll allow you to do this." But here's the thing.
I think that's a bad system of governance that they had there, the Hittites. I think that maybe your right to buy a grave plot for your wife should not be up to the whims of some random council deciding whether or not you are the elect of God.
I don't like councils arbitrarily applying subjective design standards to these sorts of things. Because when I read this portion in the Torah, I think about 2.5 millennia of Jews having to beg for permission to buy land and being told that they can't because those Jews violate the proper Christian character of the area that they are trying to settle in.
I think about how many decades we have spent blocking housing because of arbitrary decisions we have made that a proposal does not fit the character of the neighborhood because they don't like the paint job because they don't like the style of the windows because they don't like the people living inside it.
I think about in 1907, the day after the race riot where we kicked out all of our six in this city, the mayor said in the Bellingham Herald, "Well, maybe that wouldn't have happened if they just had agreed to dress normal and weren't living in such cramped, irregular housing situations.
I want us to move to objective design standards. I would prefer if we just stopped doing design reviews at all. I would prefer if we stopped making people beg for the right to build. I would prefer if we stopped making them beg for the right to live.
And I would prefer if we stopped making them beg for the right to bury their dead. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alex. >> You should be able to unmute, >> right? Harage for the building industry association.
Wacom County Realtors. Um, I like, you know, I'm I'm not a huge fan of design review, but I understand that it's here and that it's probably here to stay. The one comment that I have had from the developers that have been talking about this is that when they when the objective clear standards are adopted, they want to make sure that the code specifies that if there are options to be exercised, that those options are exercised at the discretion of the developer or the builder, the person who's actually investing the money to build the buildings rather than city staff.
I'll give you a really good example, and this is a good measure uh to utilize when you're thinking about carrying costs while you wait for permits. Today, the carrying cost on a building is $300 per day per million of project.
And here's a specific example. One of our committee members was talking about a building. He was building on State Street. the stairwell had to be lit. And so one of the ambient qualities allowed windows to be installed in that stairwell.
When he went to his architect and said, "Hey, I need you to meet the code." The architect said, "Oh, it's a stairwell. We'll just put in these rectangular windows." When it came to the permitting process though, the staff member said, "Hey, because this is near the waterfront, wouldn't circular windows be interesting in that stairwell because it was reminiscent of bubbles reflecting the water?" And the developer said, "That's a nice idea, but I want to put in the rectangular windows." My understanding is they went around and around and around on the shape of the windows in a stairwell for five weeks.
That may not seem like a long period of time, but it added $95,000 to the cost of that project. When you're talking about design review, I think this example clearly demonstrates the importance of clear objective standards that the professionals, the architects, and the engineers that these developers pay tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to design these buildings, aren't them subject to the whims of a staff member who has different aesthetics.
So, please keep that in mind. Please be sure that when there are options to be exercised, the decision on what options to exercise fall to the developer or those professionals for which they are paying really good money.
>> Right. Thank you, Perry. It's at the end of our list. Okay, council. We'll close the public hearing. Council member Liquist, >> let's just start with Mr. Escrig's point. For many of these design standards, it's possible to meet them a number of ways to pick from a menu.
Uh who gets to decide which option is chosen? >> It's an administrative decision. So, it is it does come down to staff, but it's verification that they're meeting one of like in the example that I gave you where there's 11 different options for how to deal with that.
As long as they demonstrate that they're picking five from that, then that's consistent. >> I'm just trying to avoid the the parable of the window, right? I'm reoccurring. as are we. >> Okay, >> council members.
>> Council member Cotton, >> I for sure still have big picture questions about the design review board or the, you know, role of design review standards, but um uh yeah, I think we are under the gun. I'm supportive of moving this interim forward and um I think ugly buildings get built under all kinds of regimes and um I care a a lot more about having a community that's full of neighbors and um we want to reduce barriers for um uh more people who are locked out of affordable housing to get into housing they can afford.
So um I will um move approval of the interim ordinance. Second by council member Cotton, second by council member Hamill. Council member Anderson. >> Well, happy to see this day here because I've been talking probably uh Mr.
director is probably the third one I've talked to about wanting updated design standards that were streamline and a menu. Um, I think going back 20 years worth of looking at this type, um, it seems like each time we make revisions, whether it's the comp plan or something like the design standards, we keep getting better.
And I really do like the menu because as you go through it, it does give the developer or the builder the option of what's going to fit best. um they'll be able to make um economic decisions. They'll also may be able to make aesthetic decisions.
Um and I think it provides a very clear pathway like you need to do three of these or you need to do four of these. Um so the menu option is just a great improvement. So thank you and I'm really happy to see design standards come forward.
It's um one thing checked off my list. So, thank you for helping us get there. >> Anything further? >> There's a fatal error that needs to be fixed on page 117. Uh there are the the gateways that are marked and in sometimes for some of these adjacent villages, the the same gateway is marked in two places because it fills in both maps.
There is a Lahi Street connection there that's supposed to be a gateway on that figure for Oldtown that's missing. So if you could just put in that little circle, the fatal flaw will be removed. >> Daff will look into that.
Um >> we Yeah, some of these maps had a few different um symbology in their legends. We tried to narrow it to just the gateways because that was the only one that reflected any design standards from our old code.
So, we will verify that. I trust you, but we'll double check. >> It's just this downtown gateway is the exact same gateway in the old town. It's just not on both figures. >> That's a great point. Thank you.
>> Samish is correct. >> Council member Miloquist. Um, so there is a one special carve out urban village and that's Fair Haven because that has a historic uh um district and sort of has a different um design standards.
Um are all those design standards also though been modified to be objective and administratively dealt with? >> Yeah. Um so that is exhibit B in your packet. Um, and luckily that code was pretty good compared to some of the other language that we were working with.
It was fairly objective. We just dialed it in a little to get rid of the the shoods and turn them into shells and um provide a little more definition like with the base, middle, and top language. We tried to define what exactly that was and what we were looking for.
Um, but yeah, we didn't really re rework very much. We were able to keep a lot of it intact. Council member Stone just had a question about the the variation. So in the mapping on page 18, right, Samish Way looks different than the others with the pedestrianoriented commercial streets, right?
How it's laid out. Is that simply because of the um Samish way and the nature of that street with potential um like medians and things or I don't I just wanted to better understand why that one like looks distinctly different from from all of the others, right?
And the yellow shading and that the yellow shading doesn't encompass the entire road. >> Yeah. So that was established with the urban village design guidelines update that was done a few years ago. And so as far as why it's just in that section, I'm actually not sure.
Sarah, do you have any? >> No, I'm not sure. We we provided our existing maps from our code and our guide books to GIS staff. So if there was a discrepancy, we can look into that, but it should be just a um a copy over what we already had, but we can definitely look into that.
>> Council member Anderson. >> Um Council Member Stone, were you asking why the yellow was just in that one section? Well, why it's on the sides and it's split by the road. So on the other maps, right, the entire roadway is >> is yellow assuming that the pedestrian corridor sort of encompasses the entire route, but here they're like right there's narrow shading on the side.
Yeah, it's just to show right where the buildings will be built up to those portions of Samishe are required to have some additional uh windows, amounts of windows and so that is a good question. I'm not sure why.
>> I mean just to look into it if there is a reason the consistency would be appreciated and I guess articulating if there is a reason why that area is treated differently. Um because even around the right the circle at Otis and and Maple and Samish I mean then there are little spots at the corners.
So just understanding what that pedestrian oriented area is >> that area is the urban core. So that's the highest density. It has a higher um height area, but it also is the way the buildings are supposed to be uh activated for pedestrian whereas the other sections are not listed as that way.
Um and I don't know if the reason why the whole area is not yellow, but um it is a pretty wide road um with bike lanes. So, um it's probably a larger lane area because of the hightraic thoroughfare from western to downtown, but that area is the urban core and it has very specific um height and orientation of the buildings.
>> I just pulled up the the map that exists right now in our urban village design guidelines and it shows that same. I think it's sort of a one-off. If you would like, we can look into trying to make it consistent for third and final um if that's allowable um and make it the solid um yellow block um to indicate the pedestrian oriented street.
>> I mean, or if there's a reason why it's treated differently just to maybe articulate that on the map so that someone looking at them for comparison would understand why the sandwich is treated different.
But I appreciate >> we'll get an answer for you. Thanks. Further we have a motion on the table. Then all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. All right. And with that we are done with our five public hearings.
Might be the longest public hearing session I've been through. So we will take a break because we still have quite a bit of business to do. Um, extra credit if you stick around. >> But we'll be back here at >> 110.
>> Extra credit if you go >> or not 110. >> We're going to go get some snacks and some drinks and then uh no uh 1010. See you in your seats at 10:10. You're sticking around. Heat. Heat. Heat. One minute warning.
>> 59 58 All right, we're going to go ahead and get started. And up next, we have the mayor's report. Actually, I'm just going to sit here. So, I'll just turn on the mic right here. I'm going to do my part this evening.
Good evening, council members, to staff that are in the audience, and members of the community that are here tonight. Uh, I'm have three appointments to various boards. Two are for information only and one is for your approval.
The first for information only is an appointment of Sachi Chu to a first term on the community development advisory board. Next for information only is that I will be reappointing Michael Kowski to a second and final term as the South Hill Neighborhood Representative to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission.
And for your approval this evening, I'm seeking to appoint Zachary Cook to a first fullterm and Neil Shainer to a second final term to the Greenways Advisory Committee. >> We move approval. >> Motion by Council Member Williams, second by Council Member Hamill.
Further discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> Great. Thank you. And that's the end of Mayor's report tonight. >> Fantastic. All right. Up next, we have committee report out.
We started this morning at 9:00 a.m. with committee of the whole. Um, and we had six agenda items, five agenda items. Up first, we had agenda bill 24734, presentation on the interplay between accessory dwelling units, middle housing, co- living, co-living, and design review.
Uh this work session provided city staff the opportunity to present and for the city council to discuss the interplay and dependencies between several new ordinances that are being developed uh that you heard some about earlier uh in response to changes in state law.
The presentation and ensuing discussion highlighted how properties may use different types of infill housing options such as accessory dwelling units, middle housing or co-living. Additional consideration will be given to the proposed interim regulations for design review for all applicable project types infill housing, multif family, residential, commercial, etc.
Uh, which will also have its public hearing ended earlier today. Um, and so again, that was uh just more information regarding some of the things that we've already um discussed during the public hearings earlier.
Um, and I think that I will go ahead and just move on from that to keep things going. Michael, yes. >> Well, the the conversation was cut off this morning and I just I want to ask one question of the planning director with regard to this presentation.
>> Certainly. Um, Mr. lines. Um, you talked about people who are asking at the counter uh with regard to middle housing and other opportunities. Who is asking at the counter? What are they asking for?
I'm trying to gauge the degree of understanding and interest in taking advantage of these new opportunities. >> So, we see um current property owners that come in and want to effectively kick the tires and understand what they can do with their property.
We see prospective property owners that are maybe considering buying a property and want to understand what the yield might be. We see conversations that happen with design professionals that might be in that space and on behalf of a prospective client or an current client.
They're asking those types of questions. But again, it's it's working through a range of different opportunities because they they're thinking about the cost implications. They're thinking about the design implications.
and we've set the table with a variety of different options. So, they're trying to understand those. But I I brought three of those examples in that presentation today to kind of illustrate the range of different things that we're starting to see.
>> Thank you. >> Moving on. Our next agendum agenda item was agenda bill 24693, an ordinance relating to land use planning amending Bellingham Municipal Code titles 20 and 21 regarding accessory dwelling units.
The proposed code amendments are necessary to comply with the Washington State Law HP 1337 regarding expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units.
Generally, the amendments remove owner occupancy requirements for ADUs, allow ADUs with all BMC 20.28 28 infill housing types. Eliminate the exemption from zone zoning density limits for ADUs. Eliminate floor area ratio exclusions for ADUs.
Eliminate development and design standards that are more restrictive than that applied to principal units. Include non-substantive changes to code that improve clarity and understanding and remove provisions that are redundant or have no regulatory purpose and other changes as detailed in the attached draft ordinance.
Planning Commission recommended approval with changes by a vote of five to zero. And the committee recommended uh adopting the planning commission's findings and approving the ordinance as amended and I so moved.
>> Second. >> Motion by the chair, second by council member Williams. Further discussion, council member Stone. So just a question to legal I guess about whether do those amendments from the afternoon need to be read in again this evening for the second reading or or not.
>> Um yeah I I think that you were it was sufficient to do it in the afternoon. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? >> All right. Seeing none all in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70.
Council member Cotton, if >> I could just request as soon as practical to have maybe have a work session on utility sharing because I think more that we want to learn about that. Great. Up next, we had agenda bill 24737, an ordinance adopting the 2025 city of Bellingham comprehensive plan, including the future land use map.
Bellingham City Council held a public hearing on November 3rd on the draft Bellingham plan. the city's 2025 periodic update to the comprehensive plan. The city will now consider the draft plan for adoption.
O, we've had a long day. Um, if I remember correctly, I didn't write notes. We did approve quite a few amendments, though we did not approve the comp the comprehensive plan ordinance. And so are there questions or comments from council regarding the ordinance?
Council member Anderson. >> All right. This was the one that there was a couple of changes staff was going to bring forward to us to consider and I think they're up there. Sorry. Earlier today, um, uh, council asked staff to take, uh, suggested language provided by council member Liiloquist back and, uh, our Bellingham plan team looked at that, uh, initial language, which you can see here at the top of the page, um, from council member Liiloquist's notes, and we incorporated that in, um, a couple of ways that we felt were probably the most appropriate for council to consider um, related to uh, policy HB in the housing chapter.
And then also um which could live um entirely just like that without any additional changes. But if you felt um you wanted to add uh further clarity, uh we felt policy H17 was the most closely aligned with um the intent of the language and we felt like adding a portion of the suggested language to the beginning of that is kind of a leadin um that that was probably the most appropriate fit for that if you wanted to have a goal and the sporting policy underneath.
So those those are our um on the-fly if you will suggestions to how how to incorporate I think the intent of council member Loiquist's request. >> Council member Loquist. >> I move approval of the suggested changes to um HP and policy H17.
>> Second by council member Liquist and a second by council member Stone. Further discussion seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Thank you for that. It's been it's been a lot to keep keep on top of today.
Anything further from the council on this agenda item. So staff is requesting a motion to approve uh the ordinance. Do we need to do that tonight? Or is this something that if there is more discussion or consideration, we can do that at a later date?
>> You have the opportunity to do it uh at the next meeting for this first and second on which would be December 8th and then third and final uh on the 15th. That would give us enough time for adoption before the end of the calendar year.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, we do. If if you do feel ready, we don't want to rush you by any means, but if we know we are running up against the end of the year, if you are ready for first and second this evening, then we could come back at the next meeting with a complete or ordinance that incorporates the changes you adopted just now earlier today um in a in a complete form.
So, we could have that as soon as the ETH for you. >> Okay, Council Member Stone. >> I mean, I appreciate having it done sooner rather than later. maybe preference of staff. It's been a long day and my preference would be also for transparency and this has been a heavy lift and for staff clearly.
Um but to be able to have this um in the agenda for our next meeting in the final form um and I imagine at that time comments would be minimal but at least to be able to have it published in that final form at the time that we take first and second reading since we do have the time to then have third and final on the 15th.
But that's my one preference. Council my rel. >> Yeah, there was also a slate of other amendments that was made earlier this afternoon which we've seen and we've voted on. But I agree be greater transparency if that if we brought it forward one more time with the earlier work and this one change here so we can receive comment on that and and there any further hiatuses.
I I we're headed in this direction. I don't think we should doubt that fact. >> Council member Hamill. >> I agree. I think wait till the uh till the until the 8th. That gives us gives staff some time and gives some time for further reflection from the community as well.
>> Agree. Do we need a motion or just >> I'll move to um >> no >> give direction. Bring it back next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we can just take that as direction. We'll come back with a final we'll we'll incorporate all the changes that you have approved um in the past couple of work sessions and we'll we'll come back with a clean um copy of the plan itself.
Um you'll have the planning commission finding because they are um currently attached and then the ordinance itself. Council member Lquist, >> I appreciate a clean version of the plan, but it it'd be nice if there was an introductory memo which told the community members where to look for what the changes have made.
Like, please look at H17. It's different. Please look at whatever >> we can. Yeah, we have actually I think we have that summary with with the exception of today's changes. We have that that we can provide as well.
So, great. We can have that as an attachment. >> Council member Stone. And so you're mentioning a clean version in our packet and I'm assuming then that the online version would be updated as well in advance or is that able to be >> I I think our intent in our discussion earlier today with our team was that we would have the um the formatted doc the plan itself would be formatted in time for um this Thursday for inclusion in the packet for for the uh for the ETH.
So I I think that we can make that happen. Yeah. Fantastic. We can move on. >> Great. Thank you. >> Right. Next up, we had agenda bill 24735, an interlocal agreement with uh South Walcom Fire Authority for emergency medical services for Galbreth Mountain.
This interlocal agreement would compensate South Walcom Fire Authority for emergency medical services on Galbworth Mountain for 2025 to 2027. State law excludes timberlands from fire districts. As a result, no fire agency has a legal responsibility to provide service services on Galbreth.
SWFA's traditional coverage of the area has become less tenable without compensation as costs increase and create potential liability. A subsequent proposed interlocal agreement with Watcom County would reimburse the city for one-third of the cost of this agreement.
The uh committee voted unanimously to recommend approval and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by the chair and a second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. and a related agenda bill 24736 interlocal agreement with Watcom County related to emergency medical services on Galbreth Mountain. This interlocal agreement is a companion to the agreement with South Watcom Fire Authority for emergency medical services on Galbreth Mountain.
With this agreement, Watcom County would agree to reimburse the city for one-third of the city's payments to SWFA for 2025 and 2026 pending passage of the their midmonium budget and adjustment in early December.
The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by the chair, second by council member Williams. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. And this was skipped this afternoon, but uh old and new. Council member Stone. So I thought we had tabled it to bring it back. I don't know if people have the bandwidth to address the trifunderer um needs that.
So the appointment from council I believe there were two looking for two names to provide. >> Yeah, we could address that tonight if you want to. We also can wait till the next meeting. >> We can check it off.
Yeah, >> check it out. >> Okay. Is everybody aware aware of the >> uh explain it >> the Yes. So uh and I don't have you have the paperwork in front of you. Could you explain it please? Council member Stone since I don't.
So this is regarding the trifunder. The seeds 2027 to 2031 engagement plan. Um so this is with the three jurisdictions. Watcom County, the city of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham are parties to the regional economic partnership trifunderer agreement.
Um so providing leadership to support in the economic development division at the port and its related activities. Um they're going to be taking on interviews um to be conducted by Jennifer Novc um in October and November it had said and as well as in January and February.
And so they were looking for two Bellingham City Council members to participate um in that that process as um as they're conducting those um those interviews. So it says invited to participate in one-on-one interview to provide input as to priorities, goals, aspirations, and visions for Watcom County's economy.
So we were looking for two names. And at that point, you and I had shared that we were interested. Are there other council members that are interested? Okay. Well, then I would nominate council member Lilquist and myself.
>> Second >> for extra work. Uh, okay. I guess that's a motion and a second by Council Member Liiloquist. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70.
Great. Thanks for bringing that up, Council Member Stone. Anything else for old new? Okay, I'll move on to executive session report. We had six six items for executive session. First was litigation Scaruzzi versus City of Bellingham at all with Phillips.
Staff provided information on a litigation matter. I will now entertain a motion authorizing the mayor to retain outside council to represent the city of Bellingham as defendant in this matter. >> So moved.
>> Motion by council member Williams, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Up next, we had a litigation matter uh JW versus City of Bellingham at all with Phillips.
Staff provided information on a litigation matter. It was for information and discussion. No action was taken. Third, we had a potential property acquisition with stamps. Staff briefed council on the city's Yeah, my phone notified me, too.
It was time to go to bed. Uh staff briefed council on the city's pending agreement to purchase a 20 acre property from Daryl K. Borenstein Jr., Robert D. Borenstein, and Linda L. Neland. The property is located in the Lake Watcom wershed and is identified by the assessor's parcel number 380432-457195.
The purchase price is $275,000. Closing is set to occur on or before December 5th, 2025. Subject to council appro approval, the property will be acquired through the city's Lake Watcom wershed land acquisition and preser preservation program using restricted funds dedicated to that purpose.
The program is funded by city water customers through a water w waterhed sir charge on their utility bill. I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to close the real estate transaction described in the city's executed purchase and sale agreement with the property owner Daryl K.
Borenstein Jr. Robert D. Borenstein and Linda L. Neland with a purchase price of $275,000. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Anderson. Second by council member Liiloquist. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Up third, we had another potential property acquisition with stamps. Staff briefed council on the city's pending agreement to purchase a4 acre property from Watcom County.
The property is located in the Lake Watcom wershed and is identified by assessor's parcel number 380419006520. The purchase price is $15,000. Closing is set to occur as soon as practicable. Wacom uh subject to council approval.
The property will be acquired through the city's Lake Wacom wershed land acquisition and preservation program using restricted funds dedicated to that purpose. Program is funded by city water customers through a water watershed searchcharge on their utility bill.
I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to close the real estate transaction described in the city's executed purchase and sale agreement with the property owner Walcomm County with a purchase price of $15,000.
Move approval. Motion by council member Williams, second by council member Anderson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed extensions? That passes 70. And fifth, we had another potential Oh, we had a potential lease of real property with stamps.
Staff provided information on a potential lease of real property. I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to enter into a lease agreement with the property owner, Larage La Mrage Kifman for 5, 504 square feet at 3125 Mercer Avenue.
Suites 103 and 104 for storage office and laboratory space related to Bellingham Police Department operations. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Williams, second by Council Member Anderson.
Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. And then finally, we had potential litigation with stamps. Staff provided information on the proposed settlement of a potential litigation matter.
I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to enter into the proposed settlement agreement with Northwest Clean Air Agency resolving the notice of violation dated March 27th, 2024. >> Move approval.
>> Second. >> Motion by council member Anderson, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose or abstensions? That passes 70. Okay, I'm going to let some other folks talk for a while.
Uh up next we had public works and natural resources and that was chaired by council member Stone. >> Thank you very much. So this afternoon I was joined on the public works and natural resources committee by council members Anderson and Cotton.
We had three items before us. The first was agenda bill 24752. So this was postpoint solids management and wastewater comprehensive plan update. Staff presented information related to past decisions and future considerations concerning solids handling and emission maintenance upgrades at the Post Point wastewater treatment plant.
The presentation covered the history of solids handling as well as current and future solids handling at the plant and provided information about the upcoming wastewater comprehensive plan. Um, we were joined by Mike Olinger, deputy director for public works, as well as Mike Wilson, assistant public works director for engineering.
Um, and Steve Broadchap Bradshaw was also with us this afternoon um, for that meeting. I would say that was a longer presentation. For those who are interested in following um following that development um and ongoing work, I would encourage you to go back and watch um the afternoon's session.
Um but just wanting to highlight that at this time with the um the work going forward in order to ensure that the incinerators are able to continue um the work and maintain compliance as was noted in the executive report.
So, the Northwest Clean Air Act um that notice of violation, the city has reached a settlement um and those incinerators will be brought up to the quad 4 um you know, compliance within um the the time frame required which will be ahead of the normal the normal schedule.
Um but here with that you know wastewater treatment just how important um the you know solids and liquid handling there at the plant is to our community and ensuring that we have reliable service and that we also have backup um plans in case of an emergency.
Um so at this time the city's going forward with um just more research on the state of you know technology. We're talking about there are some emerging technologies that will be um tracked but at this time looking at other communities like Lynwood and Edmunds and the struggles that they have had with um you know keeping those systems online and and meeting the compliance and and standards.
um you know gives us reason for for pause and obviously wanting to look for options to improve um you know emission standards and and other pieces tied to our climate action work. Um but at this time needing to make sure that we have dependable you know reliable service um here in the city and so kicking off that sewer comp plan with public engagement that will start in you know early to mid next year 2026.
So that work will be moving forward, but again um letting community members know to certainly go back and watch that presentation. That was just for information and discussion only this afternoon. Um the second item was agenda bill 24739.
So this was postpoint septage rate increase for 2026. So the postpoint wastewater treatment plant accepts septage waste from registered haulers with completed agreements on file. The use rate for dumping septage tank waste is considered a special service fee determined annually by the public works director and published by December 1st of each year pursuant to Bellingham Municipal Code 15.12.210.
So although costs of to treat septage waste have increased over the years, the current rates were set in 2012 based on a rate study completed that year. So to help ensure that septage disposal rates are covering increased cost, the rates will be increasing by 39% on January 1st, 2026.
Um the update increases the dump fee from $15.75 per dump to $24.32 per dump and increases the cost per gallon dumped from 13 cents to 20 cents. So all permitted haulers have been notified of the change and notice has also been posted regarding the upcoming rate increase um in accordance with the code again section 15.12.210.
Um just making note that this so the septage waste um that's the highly concentrated organic material pumped from septic tanks as well as set pools or portable toilets, RV holding tanks, things of that sort.
Um but this is was for information only. This is a decision as noted um that's made by the public works director. So this is really just notice of that that rate increase that will be coming forward again at the beginning of the year.
Next um item was agenda bill 24 738. Um, so this is a resolution adopting a new Lake Watcom land acquisition and preservation program land management policy and repealing previous policy. So the Lake Watcom land acquisition and preservation program has purchased over 3,500 acres of property to protect Lake Watcom since it was established in 2000.
So since the original management recommendations for watershed protection properties were adopted on March 21st 2005, pressures from development, recreation, forestry, and climate change have all increased in scope and complexity.
This has made it necessary to implement additional and adaptive management strategies. The new policy was developed to clarify and focus land management strategies and rules for public access that meet the ongoing goal to reduce phosphorus inputs into Lake Watcom by purchasing, protecting, and stewarding undeveloped land and making improvements to mitigate impacts from storm water.
Um, so for this item as well, we were joined by Mike Olinger, so deputy director for public works as well as Mike Perilskin, who's a superintendent for natural resources. Um, just noting that Matt Stamps from legal was also um with us.
So there was not a vote taken this afternoon because there were some proposed changes um that were being brought forward. So I have a copy of that that I will share. So, I was going to share this on um on the doc cam just so that we can read in.
I believe the changes need to be read into to the record. Um so, there were this is land that the city owns, but that is outside of the city limits, right? So, most of this is out in the county within the watershed.
the land management strategies. There was um a question brought forward by council member Anderson just wanting to make clear um you know sort of the priority to um to be decommissioning unauthorized trails within the watershed and making sure that that was priority and that we weren't prioritizing you know new new development in that in that area.
So a couple of the proposed changes one is here in so this is section two subp part D under monitoring and maintenance. So now it reads um monitor ecological conditions and human activities on program properties to protect water quality and uphold program goals.
address issues such as forest health decline, encroachments, unauthorized land disturbance, and unauthorized trails that may increase storm water impacts and phosphorous loading to Lake Watcom, including but not limited to the removal of unauthorized trails.
That's one proposed change under the land management strategies. other more detailed changes under permissible activities. So, this is where um we're seeking some additional clarity about what would be permissible as far as new trail construction and then decommissioning of unauthorized trails.
So, section subsection three under part A would now read new trail construction only as authorized by the public works director. New trails shall adhere to International Mountain Bike Association trail development guidelines and United States Forest Service trail standards and be built outside of the seasonal restrictions for land disturbing activities.
Any new trail shall at a minimum be offset by decommissioning one or more unauthorized trails at a rate of at least one to one. Approved trail trails shall prioritize design and layout to avoid sedimentation such as avoidance of steep slopes, coververts, low areas, and implement techniques such as grade reversal and bridges to avoid adverse effects toward program goals.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the city's authority to remove unauthorized trails. And then one final change, this is in prohibited activities. So section B under um subsection 7.
So this is adding um and amending the language as follows. So depositing or storing any pet waste, refues, debris, vegetation, personal property, litter, or any other material. So again, just adding pet waste um as a precluded activity.
As was mentioned, there's some um limitation with respect to enforcement in this area on behalf of the city since we're property owners, but it falls outside of the jurisdiction of the city. Um but we would have authority through, you know, trespass and others um other remedies if there was a violation of these you know um approved and prohibited activities.
So at this time I would move to um amend based on the changes that were presented presented here. >> Second >> motion by the chair, second by council member Anderson. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> Thank you very much. Um with that end of committee, Seth, one more vote. Um, so there was not a vote this afternoon. Um, but I will move to approve then the um move to approve the resolution adopting the Lake Watcom land management policy and repealing resolution 20059 as amended.
I guess motion by the chair, second by council member Cotton. I hear that council member Anderson. Yeah, I I did have a question for staff. Um Blake, sorry. Um earlier I had asked about the previous resolution and then the the goals and policy or the goals that were listed and staff said that um it would live or be posted um kind of along with this uh this new resolution.
And I just wanted uh to confirm that. >> No, I'm sorry. The um this one as far as the Lake Wacom resolution update, >> it's going to be fun, >> I think. Sorry about that. >> Public works. >> I guess it's public works.
>> Sorry about that, please. You just look so >> It's late. It is late. >> Sorry about that. Um >> wrong director. >> Joel Font, public works director. Uh yes, that is something that uh we did try to recognize all of the work that the the WAB had done back in the day to develop that um that uh initial document that was um mentioned in the wherees as part of the resolution.
Um, and we will also continue to um have that reside on the website as reference document and and you know, even though it's um been repealed, it will still be available um as kind of a continuation of of the all the work we've done in the watershed.
>> Thank you. I appreciate that acknowledgement. >> Great. Don't worry. I'll call on him next for something for you. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions?
That passes 70. >> Thank you very much. With that, end of committee. >> Thank you, Council Member Stone. Up next, we had public health, safety, justice, and equity. And that was shared by council member Hamill.
>> Um, thank you, Council President. I was joined this afternoon by council members Williams and Lil Loquist. We had two items before us. Agenda Bill 24740. This was an interlocal agreement for paramedic training per student cost for 2026.
The fire department operates a paramedic training program to teach current firefighter EMTs to become firefighter paramedics. The ongoing costs of the paramedic training program are funded through a multi-year contract with Wacom County contract C2301522.
Each year, the city and the county create a separate interlocal agreement or ILA to cover the specific uh per student costs for preceptors, student supplies, and student backfill costs. This ILA provides funding for the departments four students that will be part participating in the 2026 cohort as well as the supplies and the precepting costs for several out of county uh students that'll be part of the class.
This was presented by assistant fire chief Dave Dave Pathik and this afternoon the committee voted to approve and I so move second. >> Motion by the chair, second by council member Williams. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> Our second and final item was the adoption of the 2025 comprehensive emergency management plan. Um Washington administrative code 118-30 requires local emergency management organization organizations to develop and update a comprehensive emergency management plan.
Staff from the Office of Emergency Management have been working throughout 2025 to update the city's plan. The plan is a broad overview of the city's local emergency management systems to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of disaster.
Um, the plan has been reviewed and it's been approved by the state and um then became ready for the the city to adopt. this afternoon. The committee um chose to adopt that uh through a resolution and I so move >> second >> motion by the chair, second by council member Williams.
Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> And the committee report. >> Thank you, Council Member Hamill. And up next, we had Parks and Recreation.
That was shared by Council Member Williams. >> Thank you, President Huffman. Uh we had one um for Yeah. First, I was joined by uh council members Stone and Cotton, and we had one item on our agenda for today, which was number number 24754, which was an authorization to enter into a grant agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology for partial funding for the remedial action of the South State Street Manufacturing gas plant.
The city owns portions of a model toxics control act cleanup site known as the South State Street Manufactured Gas Plant. That's a mouthful. Site wi which is a site located at the north end of uh Boulevard Park.
um making this a potential making the city a potentially liable party pursuant to the model toxics uh control act. The city is requesting approval to enter into a remedial action grant agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology to help pay for the cleanup costs associated with the site.
Now, portions of the property are contaminated due to operations of a formal sorry former manufactured gas plant that operated there, which is the part of Boulevard Park behind the musical performance area from the 1890s to the 1950s.
The contamination has affected soil, groundwater and marine sediments within within the site boundaries and the site encompasses approximately six acres of the upland property and another six acres of of adjacent marine area within Bellingham Bay.
So, uh, the city acquired the property around 1975 for use as a park. So, um, to date, the city has received multiple grants from ecology for this site, which funds about 50% of all of the eligible costs.
And the city will use this environmental re uh uh remediation funding for its match to the grant for design, permitting and construction. The staff recommended that we uh that we approve of this and the committee concurred and I so move.
>> Second. >> Motion by the chair, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> And that was the end of our meeting and I'll turn it and we had next a budget and finance.
>> Thank you, Council Member Williams. Up next was budget and finance with uh chaired by council member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um today we had one item before us and I was joined by council member Hamill and Council Member Liiloquist.
Um, bill number 24741, an ordinance of the city of Bellingham, Washington, adopting the 2026 budget. The proposed 2026 budget was introduced to city council on September 29th, 2025. The city council had held numerous budget work sessions, considered amendments, and had two public hearings on the budget.
The attached ordinance is the culmination of that process and sets the 2026 budget beginning January 1st, 2026. It includes operation operating expenditures of 388,47,567 and a capital expenditure of $155,858,734.
So, um, we had voted to approve the budget and I so move. Second >> motion by the chair and a second by council member Hamill. Further discussion. >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions?
That passes 70. >> End of committee. >> Thank you. Council member Anderson. Consent agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Williams, second by council member Liiloquist. Further discussion?
Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Final consideration of ordinances. >> Gender bill 24715, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, extending interim zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide for an additional 6 months.
>> Second. >> Motion by council member Hamilton, second by council member Stone. Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Oh, roll call. Roll call, please. >> Roll call. >> Hannah Stone.
>> Hi, >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi, >> Skip Williams. >> Hi, >> Lisa Anderson. >> Hi, >> Michael Lilloquist. >> Hi, >> Jason Cotton. >> Holly, there >> I >> We got there. The motion passes 70. Okay. Sorry guys.
Agenda Bill 24714, an ordinance of the city of Bellingham, Washington, relating to the levying of taxes and establishing the amount to be raised in 2025 on the assessed valuation of the property within the city.
>> Can I guess we Yeah, we we Council Member Anderson, we can do discussion first. Yeah, >> thank you. Um, I make a motion to amend. We have a typo. So, if you will turn your attention, if you still have your packet open, to page 989.
Um, the ordinance at the top, it says an ordinance of the city of Bellingham, Washington, relating to the levy of taxes and establishing the amount to be raised. And it states incorrectly 2025. I would like to correct that to be 2026.
>> Second by council member Anderson, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? The amendment passes 70. Council member Anderson.
>> Move third and final as corrected. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Anderson. Second by council member Hamill. Roll call, please. >> Hannah Stone. >> Hi. >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi. Skip Williams. >> Hi, >> Lisa Anderson.
>> I >> Michael Liiloquist. >> Hi. >> Jay Cotton. >> Hi. >> Holly Huffman. >> Hi. >> The motion passes 70. >> All right. Thank you to my fellow council members uh for the teamwork getting through today.
Um that concludes the regular business of the meeting. We will now move to the public comment period. If you are watching live online or on BTV, the broadcast will now end. However, you can continue watching via Zoom at co.org/cczoom or listen via telephone by dialing 253-2158782 and entering meeting ID 896-988012044 and password 9.
Again, that's co.org/cczoom org/cczoom or dial 25532158782 and enter meeting ID 896-98012044 and password 9 to continue to watch or listen live. If you are watching a recorded version of this meeting, you can view public comment videos at cov.org/ccub org/ccub comment.