Bellingham City Council Committee of the Whole

The Bellingham City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting on November 17, 2025, was a comprehensive marathon session focused primarily on implementing state-mandated housing reforms while also addressing emergency services and the long-awaited 2025 Comprehensive Plan. The meeting ran over five hours, including executive session, demonstrating the complexity and significance of the policy decisions before the council. The dominant theme was housing policy reform, driven by recent Washington State legislation requiring cities to expand housing options. Council processed three interconnected housing ordinances—accessory dwelling units (ADUs), middle housing types, and co-living arrangements—alongside updated design review standards. All housing items were designed to increase housing production while maintaining community character, responding to what Mayor Lund characterized as the existential threat that "our children cannot live here" and "our grandchildren will not be able to live here" due to housing scarcity. The ADU ordinance passed unanimously after council addressed Department of Commerce feedback and Planning Commission recommendations. The measure eliminates owner-occupancy requirements and allows ADUs with all middle housing types, significantly expanding housing options throughout the city. Council Member Anderson raised technical concerns about bathroom ratios in co-living facilities, while Council Member Lilliquist questioned utility infrastructure capacity, leading to detailed staff explanations about building code requirements and fixture counts. The 2025 Comprehensive Plan dominated discussion time, with council members proposing and debating several amendments. Two notable policy additions passed: a new environmental policy requiring collaboration with state agencies on forest practices, and a commitment to monitor and evaluate progress toward tree canopy coverage goals. However, council struggled with how specific to make tree canopy targets, ultimately rejecting Council Member Hammill's proposal to include the specific 40-45% target in the comprehensive plan itself, preferring to keep such details in the forthcoming Urban Forest Plan. Two emergency medical services agreements for Galbraith Mountain passed unanimously, continuing the city's partnership with South Whatcom Fire Authority and securing one-third cost reimbursement from Whatcom County. Council Member Williams was absent for these votes. The meeting concluded with an executive session addressing litigation and potential property transactions.

**AB 24693 - ADU Ordinance:** PASSED 7-0 on first and second reading. Removes owner-occupancy requirements, allows ADUs with all middle housing types, eliminates parking requirements, and addresses Department of Commerce feedback. Staff recommendation aligned with council action. Includes Planning Commission amendments eliminating setback agreements and minimum parking. **AB 24737 - 2025 Comprehensive Plan:** Multiple amendments considered. PASSED 7-0 to adopt changes from November 10 work session. PASSED 6-0 (Anderson absent) to add forest practices collaboration policy. FAILED 2-5 to include specific tree canopy targets (opposed by Huthman, Stone, Williams, Lilliquist, Cotton). PASSED 7-0 to add tree canopy monitoring policy. FAILED 2-4 to change "mandatory" to "opportunities" in inclusionary zoning policy H-16. One housing segregation policy tabled until evening. **AB 24735 - South Whatcom Fire Authority Agreement:** PASSED 6-0 (Williams absent). Continues emergency medical services for Galbraith Mountain 2025-2027. $36,000 annual cost with Whatcom County covering one-third. **AB 24736 - Whatcom County EMS Agreement:** PASSED 6-0 (Williams absent). Companion agreement providing city one-third cost reimbursement for Galbraith Mountain emergency services. **Presentation AB 24734:** No formal vote required. Work session on housing ordinance interdependencies provided context for evening public hearings on middle housing, co-living, and design review standards.

**Blake Lyon, on middle housing integration:** "This type of development pattern exists in places throughout the city already." **Mayor Lund, on housing urgency:** "We are faced with our children cannot live here. Our grandchildren will not be able to live here. We have harms playing out in large encampments for people who cannot afford units of housing." **Council Member Anderson, on policy scrutiny:** "Our job is to sometimes get into the weeds. I don't think we've lost touch of why we're here... we are approving what's going to impact Bellingham potentially for the next 20 years and I want to make sure we get it right." **Blake Lyon, on Bellingham's proactive approach:** "Bellingham as a community was way out ahead of just about every city in the state on climate early on years ago." **Council Member Williams, on policy clarity:** "If a word in the language narrows the perspective, no matter which side of the coin you're on, then that will limit our ability to look at other options that may or may not work." **Council Member Lilliquist, on income integration:** "I think that we need to have mixed income neighborhoods... we need to avoid segregation by income."

**Meeting ID:** BEL-CON-CTW-2025-11-17 # Real Briefings — Full Meeting Narrative ## Meeting Overview On a crisp November morning in Bellingham, the City Council Committee of the Whole convened for what would prove to be a marathon session — a three-hour and fifteen-minute deep dive into some of the most consequential housing policy decisions to face the city in years. All seven council members were present: Council President Hollie Huthman presiding, joined by Hannah Stone, Daniel Hammill, Skip Williams, Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist, and Jace Cotton. The agenda was packed with five major items, all stemming from sweeping changes in Washington State housing law that are reshaping how cities across the state must approach residential development. From accessory dwelling units to middle housing, co-living arrangements to comprehensive planning — the morning's work would set the stage for how Bellingham accommodates growth and addresses its housing crisis for the next two decades. What made this meeting particularly significant was its timing. Three of the agenda items would have public hearings that very evening, with final adoption scheduled before year's end to meet state law compliance deadlines. The pressure was on, and council members clearly felt the weight of decisions that would fundamentally alter Bellingham's residential landscape. ## Housing Revolution: Four Interwoven Ordinances Planning and Community Development Director Blake Lyon opened with a comprehensive presentation on how accessory dwelling units, middle housing, co-living arrangements, and streamlined design review all interconnect — four pieces of a complex puzzle mandated by state law but shaped by local choices. Lyon's message was clear: "This is not just a product type, it's a promise of belonging," he said, quoting economist and urban planner Patrick Risk. "Regardless of where you are on the spectrum financially, socially, culturally, you'll have a place to feel like you belong and integrate into the community." The director emphasized a crucial point that would thread through all the morning's discussions: these housing types already exist throughout Bellingham. "Middle housing already represents 13% of our housing stock in the city and every single residential neighborhood in the city," Lyon explained. "We have 25 neighborhoods — all but two have middle housing already in the neighborhood." Using detailed graphics and real Bellingham street examples, Lyon showed council members how duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings are woven into the fabric of established neighborhoods, often so seamlessly that they're hardly noticeable. The goal wasn't to introduce something foreign, but to make these housing types available in more places. **Floor Area Ratio Fundamentals** Lyon spent considerable time walking through floor area ratio calculations — the mathematical framework that governs how much building mass can be placed on a given lot. Using a hypothetical 5,000-square-foot lot, he demonstrated how different FAR values translate to different building possibilities. "At its heart it's a math equation," Lyon explained, showing how a 0.6 FAR on that 5,000-square-foot lot yields 3,000 square feet of total building space. But the flexibility comes in how that space gets arranged — all on one floor, split across two stories, or divided between a principal dwelling and an ADU. Council Member Lilliquist pressed on implementation details: "What does title 15 and 17 currently say that if we remove this language from the ordinance and that defaults to Title 15 and 17, what would that allow in middle housing in terms of shared or separate utility services?" The questions revealed the complexity lurking beneath seemingly straightforward policies. Mike Wilson, the city's assistant director of public works, explained how utility connections work under a "premises" concept — one connection can serve a property even with multiple uses, but complications arise if properties get subdivided and units achieve separate ownership. ## State Transit Rules and Local Innovation A key policy discussion centered on how Bellingham could earn additional housing units under state law. The statute allows cities to permit up to six units per lot in two scenarios: if the fifth and sixth units meet affordability criteria, or if they're within a quarter-mile of major transit. Lyon explained that Bellingham chose to be more generous than the state requires: "The state's definition within that really talks about guideways and light rail — we don't qualify for that definition. But we can be more permissive. So when you look at the four existing WTA Go lines, they have that higher degree and frequency of service." Council Member Stone raised an important strategic question: "Is there a balance? If we're allowing that fifth and sixth [unit] in proximity to those Go lines, are we missing out on the affordability piece?" Lyon acknowledged the tension: "To get to that fifth and sixth purely on an affordable and subsidized unit is a struggle under the current economic conditions. So giving this alternative way to get there in terms of proximity to transit — there's also an inherent more natural affordable component that comes in with the size of the unit and the concentration of the units." ## Co-Living and the Bathroom Question The co-living discussion revealed how state housing mandates sometimes clash with practical concerns. Council Member Anderson immediately zeroed in on a potential problem: "I noticed that there wasn't anything as far as a requirement for how many bathrooms. I'm thinking 24 bedrooms — it's a concern." Under the proposed ordinance, co-living arrangements count bedrooms at 0.25 units each for density purposes. So a traditional single-family lot could accommodate 24 individual bedrooms — each with separate leases but shared common spaces — and still count as just six density units. "There is not a development criteria or regulation that speaks to that," Lyon initially responded about bathroom requirements. But city building official Kurt Nevifeld jumped in with reassurance: "The building code actually has a specific occupancy residential classification for these types of buildings, and there's actually a set standard within the building code for the number of restrooms." The exchange highlighted a recurring theme: state housing laws push cities into unfamiliar territory, requiring staff to navigate between existing building codes, new state mandates, and practical livability concerns. ## Real Projects, Real Numbers Lyon brought the abstract policies into sharp focus with actual Bellingham development examples. On G Street and Clinton, he showed a project retaining an existing building while adding seven townhome units — transforming underutilized space into homes for multiple families. More striking was a St. Clair Street example: "You have what was one property under a single ownership, now down to nine properties, potentially under different ownership models, that each can have an ADU associated with them." Using Atlanta-based pricing data scaled to Bellingham's median home price of $700,000, Lyon demonstrated how land division can dramatically improve housing affordability. While the original large lot might require 165% of area median income to afford, the divided smaller lots could be accessible to households at much lower income levels. "The attainability for lots two, three, and four in this scenario... becomes a lot more attainable for a larger segment of our community," Lyon explained. It's a key argument for infill development: smaller lots mean lower entry costs for homeownership. ## The ADU Ordinance: Removing Barriers The second agenda item — finalizing the accessory dwelling unit ordinance — moved more briskly since council had already held a public hearing. The main issues were technical amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and the state Department of Commerce. Chris Coe, city planner, walked through three recommended changes. The first two — eliminating setback reduction agreements and parking requirements — passed unanimously. But the third sparked debate about utility sharing between ADUs and other housing types. "All of these combine to allow a very large number of potential scenarios of how utilities can be configured on a property," Coe explained. "Staff does not feel that it's appropriate to allow a blanket provision to allow shared utilities." Council Member Lilliquist pressed for clarity: "You're comfortable because it's going to require separate service, or you're comfortable because it will allow shared service?" "It's flexible," Coe responded. "It allows both." The flexibility proved important as the city grapples with scenarios never contemplated in original codes — ADUs that might someday be sold separately, properties divided into multiple ownerships, utility meters shared across different housing types. Council Member Anderson raised concerns about short-term rental language, noting potential confusion in how ADU provisions interact with existing short-term rental regulations. The issue highlighted ongoing challenges in keeping code sections consistent as housing laws evolve. Despite these technical concerns, the ADU ordinance passed both first and second reading unanimously. ## Comprehensive Plan: Climate, Equity, and Urban Forests The morning's longest discussion focused on the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update — a 20-year vision for Bellingham's growth that had already received a public hearing but still needed fine-tuning. Chris Behee, long-range planning manager, walked through amendments emerging from the previous week's work session. Most dealt with technical language around annexation policies and energy systems. But council members weren't satisfied with the staff recommendations. **Forest Practices and Fire Safety** Council Member Hammill proposed adding language about collaborating with state agencies on forest practices "including land clearing and grading, protection of critical areas, wildfire and wildland urban interface, efforts to address nuisance abatements." The amendment reflected growing concerns about wildfire risk in Bellingham's forested neighborhoods and the city's ability to address problem properties that might pose fire hazards. Blake Lyon noted the city already works with state agencies on forest practice permits but often lacks authority to override state decisions. "We want to make sure we have the ability to have that level of discussion," Lyon said. "As we continue to work through... encampment concerns, our nuisance abatement concerns, we want to make sure we have the ability to address those in a manner that's appropriate." The amendment passed 6-0 with one member absent. **Tree Canopy Targets: A Policy Battle** More contentious was Council Member Hammill's second amendment seeking to establish specific tree canopy coverage targets in the comprehensive plan. Hammill proposed language referencing "a canopy cover target from 40% to 45% by 2050" to align with other quantitative goals in transportation and climate plans. But staff pushed back on including specific targets in the high-level policy document. "Throughout all of these implementation plans and functional plans, the targets live in those areas," Lyon explained. "To bring this one item forward with specific targets... would be just a big departure from that overall structure." Council Member Stone agreed: "Thinking about that level of specificity and really getting into the implementation and those targets, that has to live in that particular implementation plan." But Council Member Anderson saw it differently: "Until that plan is live and approved and is a guiding force, I think the comp plan has to supplant that. We have other plans that have been approved and vetted that we can adopt here by reference and not have the detail needed." The debate revealed a fundamental disagreement about the comprehensive plan's role. Should it set specific, measurable targets, or provide high-level policy direction while leaving details to functional plans? Hammill's amendment failed when he couldn't muster majority support, even after modifying language to reference council's previous vote rather than a draft plan. But the conversation wasn't over. Council Member Lilliquist crafted compromise language: "Regularly monitor and evaluate progress toward canopy coverage goals, to be included in an Urban Forest Plan, to inform programs, policies, and practices." This version passed unanimously — acknowledging the importance of canopy goals without specifying exact targets or timelines. It represented the kind of diplomatic solution that allows policy-making to move forward when council members have legitimate but competing concerns. **Housing Integration and Income Segregation** Later in the discussion, Council Member Lilliquist raised a different concern about housing policy: "I think we need to have mixed income neighborhoods... we need to avoid segregation by income." Lilliquist worried that existing comprehensive plan policies didn't explicitly address income integration, despite empirical research showing social benefits of mixed-income communities. He pointed to the Samish Way Urban Village as a positive example: "That's income integration... within a quarter-mile or less radius is a lot of income diversity." Staff responded that Policy H-10 already addresses this concern by calling for "income restricted, affordable rental and ownership housing in all neighborhoods" — with "all neighborhoods" being a new addition from the 2016 plan. But Lilliquist wasn't satisfied that the existing language went far enough: "Saying we want to create housing for all income levels is not the same thing as saying we want to avoid segregation by income level." After crafting specific amendment language, Lilliquist ultimately agreed to table the discussion until the evening meeting, giving staff time to develop alternative approaches. **Inclusionary Housing: Mandatory vs. Optional** The final amendment debate centered on Policy H-16 regarding inclusionary housing programs. Council President Huthman proposed removing the word "mandatory" to allow more flexibility in program design. Director Lyon explained that inclusionary housing typically comes in three varieties: voluntary (incentive-based), mandatory (requirement-based), and funded (where the city helps finance affordable units). Current Bellingham programs like the Multi-Family Tax Exemption represent voluntary approaches. Council Member Anderson worried that removing "mandatory" would eliminate an important tool: "I think we should be continuously monitoring what is happening in the field... if we exclude this, then that excludes the lens of monitoring it." But Council Member Cotton saw broader language as beneficial: "There's other potential carrots that I think I would love to see us evaluate... so I'm supportive of the motion." Council Member Williams focused on clarity: "That word mandatory means different things to different people... if a word in the language narrows the perspective, no matter which side of the coin you're on, then that will limit our ability to look at other options." The amendment ultimately failed on a 2-4 vote, with one abstention — keeping the mandatory language while acknowledging it doesn't require the city to actually implement such a program. ## Emergency Services: Galbraith Mountain Agreements The morning's final two items dealt with emergency medical services for Galbraith Mountain — a popular mountain biking destination that generates regular rescue calls but sits outside normal service boundaries. Deputy City Administrator Forrest Longman presented two related interlocal agreements: one with South Whatcom Fire Authority to provide the actual emergency services, and another with Whatcom County to reimburse the city for one-third of the costs. The agreements represent practical problem-solving for a geographic challenge. Galbraith Mountain technically lies within city limits but is far from city fire stations. South Whatcom Fire Authority has closer response times but normally wouldn't serve city territory. "This is continuation of an agreement we've had," Longman explained, noting the arrangements had worked well in previous years. Council members had few questions about the straightforward service agreements, which passed 6-0 with one member absent for each vote. ## Time Pressure and Democratic Process Throughout the marathon morning, tension emerged between thorough deliberation and meeting state law deadlines. Council President Huthman repeatedly reminded colleagues about time constraints, noting 29 total agenda items between the morning work session and evening public hearings. But Council Member Anderson pushed back: "Our job is to sometimes get into the weeds... I'm going to do my due diligence and ask the questions I feel like I need to ask regardless of timekeeping. We are approving what's going to impact Bellingham potentially for the next 20 years." The exchange highlighted a fundamental challenge in modern municipal governance: state mandates create compressed timelines that can conflict with local democratic deliberation. Council members felt pressure to move quickly while also fulfilling their responsibility for careful policy consideration. Mayor Lund periodically intervened to remind everyone of the broader context: "Why did the state enact these laws? That is the risk that we have of continuing to be a community that is only affordable and accessible for people who got here at the right time." Her comments underscored the housing crisis driving all these policy changes — a crisis playing out in large encampments for people who cannot afford housing, in young adults who cannot afford to live in their hometown, in workforce shortages as employees seek more affordable communities. ## Closing and What's Ahead The committee meeting concluded at 12:15 p.m., after which council moved into a nearly hour-long executive session to discuss litigation and potential property matters. The day was far from over. The evening would bring public hearings on middle housing, co-living, and design review — with final votes scheduled for December 8 and December 15 to meet state compliance deadlines. As council members departed for lunch, they left behind a morning's worth of detailed policy work that will reshape Bellingham's residential future. From the technical intricacies of floor-area ratios to the philosophical questions of income integration, from the practicalities of bathroom requirements to the aspirations of tree canopy coverage — the morning had touched on the full spectrum of considerations that go into housing policy. The decisions made in Committee of the Whole would soon face public scrutiny in the evening's hearings. But the morning's work had already shown both the promise and the complexity of Bellingham's response to Washington State's housing reform agenda — a response that aims to balance state mandates with local values, regional growth pressures with neighborhood character, and the urgent need for more housing with the careful deliberation that democracy demands. What emerged was a portrait of municipal government grappling with some of the most challenging policy questions of our time: How do we create more housing while preserving community character? How do we accommodate growth while protecting the environment? How do we respond to state mandates while maintaining local control? The answers developed that November morning in Bellingham's City Hall will influence how those questions get answered for years to come.