## Meeting Overview On June 23, 2025, the Bellingham City Council Planning Committee convened at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to tackle two of the most significant land use policy reforms the city has undertaken in decades. Committee Chair Michael Lilliquist presided, with Hannah Stone and Lisa Anderson present for what would become an hour and fourteen minutes of substantive discussion about the future of how Bellingham plans and regulates development. The meeting addressed two interconnected work sessions: first, the city's proposed shift away from 25 neighborhood-specific plans toward comprehensive citywide planning processes, and second, the implementation of state-mandated changes to residential zoning that will allow multiple housing units on all residential lots. Both discussions were continuations of conversations that began on May 5th, but with new urgency — the state legislature had accelerated the timeline for implementing these changes by six months, requiring completion by December 31, 2025, rather than the originally anticipated June 2026 deadline. What made this meeting particularly significant was the collision of state housing mandates with Bellingham's long-standing commitment to neighborhood character and grassroots planning. The discussion revealed tension between efficiency and local identity, between citywide equity and neighborhood uniqueness, and between administrative simplicity and community-specific needs. ## Retiring the Neighborhood Plans: A New Era for Bellingham Planning Chris Behee, Long Range Planning Manager, opened the substantive discussion by walking the committee through the case for retiring Bellingham's 25 neighborhood plans. These plans, some dating to the 1980s, currently govern land use decisions through a complex web of 343 sub-areas scattered across the city's neighborhoods. "We focused on the need to simplify the land use and regulatory structure that we find ourselves in," Behee explained, referencing the May 5th discussion. "We touched on the complexities of what's in the neighborhood plans... that kind of crazy visual graphic that we showed with all the different bubbles, there's the comp plan at the top. And then underneath that 25 neighborhood plan bubbles and 430 plus of those sub areas." The staff's argument centered on several key points: the current system creates inequities across neighborhoods, with different rules applying to similar situations depending on which side of a neighborhood boundary you're on. The plans are also drastically out of sync with the city's infrastructure planning cycles. While neighborhood plans might be updated every 20-30 years, utility plans, park plans, and transportation plans operate on much shorter cycles — typically six years — with regular updates based on current data and community needs. Blake Lyon, Planning & Community Development Director, emphasized the administrative burden: "We have about, optimistically, five years after adoption of a new plan to do implementation, and we have a long list of implementation tasks. And then we're back into that kind of review cycle that that growth management lays out for us." Behee walked through what would be preserved and what would be lost. Much of what's in neighborhood plans — open space priorities, utility planning, transportation needs, even detailed descriptions of current development patterns — is now handled more effectively through citywide processes. The city's GIS data provides real-time information that makes the static descriptions in neighborhood plans obsolete. "When we're doing development review, we don't pull out the neighborhood plan and say, what did someone write down about this sub area 20 years ago or 30 years ago? We pull up city IQ, we run a property report, and we have all that current current information at our fingertips," Behee said. However, one element would genuinely be lost: the neighborhood character descriptions that open most plans. These narratives, sometimes dating back to 1980 and updated over the years, capture the historic development patterns, notable geographic features, and civic evolution of each neighborhood. "This is probably the one truly unique piece," Behee acknowledged. ## Council Concerns: Preserving the Special While Embracing the Systematic The committee members' questions revealed sophisticated understanding of both the benefits and risks of the proposed changes. Lisa Anderson, drawing on her experience serving on the Planning Commission, raised perhaps the most challenging issue: how to preserve neighborhood-specific solutions that work well in their unique contexts. She cited the example of Alice Street in the York Neighborhood, where live-work units were specifically designed to preserve old housing stock while limiting height due to the unique geography — small houses on a ridge line that would be shadowed if four-story buildings were built along the transportation corridor. "But if you were going to come up with, okay, so along hypothetically, transportation corridors that interface with housing behind it, that could be, you know, modeled after the York, you know, live work units, some height restriction in order so that it's scale. If we were to apply something to make it unilateral across the city for ease, is that really appropriate for another area transportation corridor like Eldridge?" Anderson asked. Lyon acknowledged the challenge: "Do we want to have the ability to accommodate housing for future generations and to be able to do these things and do it in a way that defines equity at the core of that and provides greater opportunity and greater? Or do we want to have everything be unique and special and independent? Because that's a that's kind of the juxtaposition." Anderson pushed for transitional zones along transportation corridors that would provide context-sensitive standards. "I think those transitional areas are probably some of the most critical pieces and but the hardest to address," she said, advocating for solutions that balance simplicity with appropriateness. Hannah Stone raised a different concern about public perception. She worried that when people hear "neighborhood plans are going away," they think neighborhood identity itself is disappearing. "I think the response I hear from laypeople is like, oh, neighborhood plan that that is about neighborhood identity. And that's, you know, sort of the unique things of like, oh, here are our little neighborhood signs and this is what makes us special or unique." Behee assured her that neighborhood character elements could continue to be curated separately from land use regulations: "It's just removing that land use regulatory component from that conversation so that it is truly just celebrating who neighborhoods are." ## The Case for Grassroots Planning Committee Chair Lilliquist raised perhaps the most fundamental question about democratic planning. While supporting the staff's argument for administrative efficiency, he insisted that Bellingham not lose its tradition of bottom-up, neighborhood-initiated planning. He cited five examples of successful grassroots planning efforts: the Samish Way Urban Village, which started with community visioning at Western Washington University; Happy Valley's green infrastructure plan that became the grandfather of the city's urban forestry master plan; Happy Valley's ADU pilot project to create more housing opportunities; Fairhaven's parking task force; and the Letter Streets rezoning consolidation of 2007. "These are five grassroots, bottom up, neighborhood level planning efforts. I don't want to lose those. And I don't need neighborhood plans to do it. But I do need neighborhood voices. So that's what I'm advocating for is a place for neighborhood voices," Lilliquist said. Lyon agreed wholeheartedly: "The grassroots piece becomes more authentic, more real, more tangible, and what we want to ensure is that it doesn't stay specific to that neighborhood and that neighborhood only that if that is a grassroots initiative that is worthwhile, then it shouldn't be just Happy Valley. It shouldn't be just, you know, we should look at citywide context and say, hey, is there a way to scale up and to do those things and to have everybody benefit from the value that those grassroots efforts are initiating?" Behee pointed to the 18-month engagement process for the current comprehensive plan update as evidence that this kind of grassroots input can happen within citywide processes. "The desire for more small scale commercial embedded in every neighborhood was exactly that. We heard that from a variety of community groups at that grassroots level. Everywhere we went with the Bellingham Plan team." ## Accelerated Timeline Creates New Pressures Before moving to the residential zoning discussion, Lyon delivered sobering news about the timeline. Senate Bill 5558, passed during the 2025 legislative session, had unintentionally accelerated the deadline for cities like Bellingham to implement middle housing regulations. Originally, cities in the 2025 comprehensive plan update cycle were to have until June 30, 2026, to implement House Bill 1110 middle housing requirements. But when the legislature adjusted timelines for 2026 cities, they inadvertently caught 2025 cities in the change as well. "So the six months that we thought we were going to have after the adoption of the comp plan, we no longer have. So we now have to implement this along with the comprehensive plan. So that's six months faster than we expected to have to do this," Lyon explained. This means the city must complete roughly 12-13 different code provisions by year's end, with different consequences for missing different deadlines. For middle housing specifically, failure to adopt local regulations would trigger automatic adoption of state model codes — a scenario Lyon wanted to avoid to prevent confusion for both staff and the development community. ## Restructuring Residential Zoning: From Single-Family to Three-Tier System The second work session focused on implementing House Bill 1110's requirement that all residential lots allow multiple housing units. Rather than simply overlaying these requirements on the existing single-family/multi-family zoning structure, staff proposed a more fundamental restructuring. Behee outlined a three-tier system: residential low, medium, and high density zones that would replace the current single-family/multi-family distinction. All three would allow the middle housing types required by state law — duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters — while higher zones would also allow larger apartment-style development. "The overall idea is to simplify our citywide zoning kind of tapestry that we have into a three levels low, medium and high," Behee explained. Each zone would have minimum density requirements — a concept already implemented in the city's multi-family zones in 2021 but new to areas currently zoned single-family. The committee spent considerable time discussing what minimum density means in practice. For existing lots, it wouldn't require property owners to build multiple units, but it would establish maximum lot sizes for new subdivisions, ensuring that future development could accommodate the full range of middle housing options. Anderson worried about unintended consequences for property taxes, asking whether zoning changes that increase development potential would trigger higher assessed values for people on fixed incomes. Lyon acknowledged the connection between zoning and valuation while noting that House Bill 1110 itself had already increased development capacity regardless of local zoning decisions. Stone appreciated the move away from "single-family" terminology, which had always been problematic. The new system would focus on density and building types rather than outdated concepts of family structure. ## The Technical Challenge of Minimum Density The discussion revealed the complexity of implementing minimum density requirements. Lilliquist observed that these requirements matter most at lower densities, where there's a tight correlation between lot size and the number of units that can be built. "For lower density areas, areas with the traditional residential 35 foot height limit, there's kind of a tight correlation between lot size and density because you're building at a low level and all that goes away as soon as you start going up to multi-story forms." At higher densities, building code and construction type become more important factors than lot size. Lyon agreed: "In the multifamily and the higher density pieces, what really comes into play is more building form and the building code. When you start to make that transition from wood frame construction to steel construction or single stairwells to multi stairwell." The committee worked through scenarios about how minimum density would apply to existing properties. If someone's house burned down, would they be required to rebuild to current density standards? Lyon clarified that subdivision would trigger the new requirements, but rebuilding on an existing lot would not force anyone to add units they didn't want. Anderson worried about the implications for greenfield development versus existing neighborhoods: "I'm kind of wondering, how does that, you know, impact I've used this as an example. My house burns down, it's been changed. And now instead of rebuilding my house the way it is with my property, if we had a minimum density, I have to conform to something that may not be replacing my family home anymore." Lyon and Behee assured her that existing lot owners would have choices, but new subdivisions would need to meet minimum density requirements to preserve future housing capacity. ## Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial: The Popular Initiative The final topic generated the most enthusiasm: allowing small-scale commercial uses in residential zones. This idea, which emerged from extensive community engagement during the comprehensive plan update, had universal support. "That was very popular. I never heard anybody who didn't like that idea and doesn't talk lovingly about little neighborhood stores," Lilliquist said. But the details proved challenging. Lyon highlighted practical issues like waste management: "One of the biggest challenges we're going to face is the trash and refuse and recycling and food waste. And where you now had, you know, multiple bins and different sizes and loading zones." Behee described a continuum of small-scale commercial uses, from in-home businesses barely visible from the street to small markets like Nelson's that serve as neighborhood anchors. The regulations would need to address compatibility and scale, with different standards for different residential density zones. Anderson, drawing again on her York Neighborhood experience, emphasized the importance of getting the list of allowed uses right and considering practical constraints like narrow streets and poor access for delivery vehicles. "Being able to get shipping vehicles or other things in can be very difficult. Gravel to alleys that are. Not good sight lines, you know." Lyon acknowledged the challenge of regulating by use type rather than tenant-specific preferences: "We can't always dictate oh I, I'm okay with woods but I don't want Starbucks. I mean, those kind of that we don't get down to tenant specific like that. Yes. If it's a coffee shop then it can be any coffee shop." The committee expressed support for developing these regulations as a standalone ordinance by year's end, potentially providing an early victory in the broader housing reform effort. ## Technical Requirements and Implementation Challenges Throughout both discussions, the specter of state requirements shaped the conversation. Lyon emphasized that new state laws require "clear and objective standards" for design review that can be administered by staff without public hearings. This limits the city's ability to rely on case-by-case discretionary review. The committee also discussed the relationship between the middle housing code, which requires allowing up to four units on each lot, and the underlying zoning that determines how lots can be created in the first place. "The middle housing code applies to each, where each lot is allowed to build a particular number of units," Behee explained. "What we're talking about here is the underlying land use fabric for creation of those lots." This two-step process — first creating appropriately-sized lots, then allowing multiple units on each — represents a fundamental shift in how Bellingham approaches residential development. ## A Pragmatic Path Forward As the meeting concluded, the committee expressed general agreement with staff's proposed directions. Lilliquist summarized: "I think we're seeing general agreement. I remain a little bit uncertain about the difference between the high density and how that blends into mixed use. We don't need to worry about that now, but that just sort of lingering question." The staff took the committee's "silence as complicity" — approval to move forward with developing the three-tier residential system, minimum density requirements, and small-scale commercial allowances. The meeting represented a remarkable moment in Bellingham's planning history: a clear-eyed recognition that systems developed in the 1980s for a smaller, slower-growing city no longer serve the community's needs, combined with determination to preserve what makes Bellingham special while adapting to new realities. ## What's Ahead Lyon promised to return in July with a comprehensive workplan showing all the code amendments required for state compliance. The next few months will test whether Bellingham can successfully balance state mandates with local values, administrative efficiency with democratic input, and regional housing needs with neighborhood character. The stakes are high. If successful, Bellingham could become a model for how cities can implement state housing reforms while maintaining their distinctive character. If unsuccessful, the city risks either failing to meet state requirements or losing the community engagement that has long been central to its planning culture. As committee members filed out at 4:14 p.m., they left behind a clear directive for one of the most ambitious planning reforms in the city's history. The real work — drafting code that balances competing values while meeting legal requirements — was just beginning.

### Meeting Overview The City Council Planning Committee met on June 23, 2025, to discuss two major shifts in Bellingham's planning approach: transitioning from 25 neighborhood plans to citywide planning processes, and restructuring residential zoning to implement state housing legislation. The committee focused on ensuring equity and consistency while preserving neighborhood character. ### Key Terms and Concepts **House Bill 1110:** Washington state legislation requiring cities to allow multiple housing units (middle housing) on all residential lots, with at least four units allowed outright. **Middle Housing:** Housing types between single-family homes and large apartments, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage clusters. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** State law requiring cities to update comprehensive plans every 10 years and conduct buildable lands analysis every 5 years. **Critical Areas Ordinance:** City regulations protecting wetlands, steep slopes, and other environmentally sensitive areas on a citywide basis. **Minimum Density:** Requirements that new subdivisions create lots small enough to ensure a certain number of housing units per acre. **Senate Bill 5558:** Recent state legislation that moved up the deadline for implementing housing regulations from June 2026 to December 2025. **Infill Toolkit:** Existing city regulations allowing context-sensitive development that staff will build upon for permanent middle housing rules. **City IQ:** The city's real-time database system that tracks current development conditions more efficiently than static neighborhood plans. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Michael Lilliquist | Planning Committee Chair, Sixth Ward Council Member | | Hannah Stone | Committee Member, First Ward Council Member | | Lisa Anderson | Committee Member, Fifth Ward Council Member | | Blake Lyon | Planning & Community Development Director | | Chris Behee | Long Range Planning Manager | ### Background Context Bellingham has operated under 25 separate neighborhood plans since the 1980s, creating 340+ sub-areas with different rules. This fragmented system has become outdated and inequitable, with infrastructure information that's out of sync with current citywide plans. Meanwhile, new state housing laws require cities to allow more housing types on all residential lots. The city is now moving to a simplified, three-tier residential zoning system (low, medium, high) that will be more equitable across neighborhoods while allowing small-scale neighborhood commercial uses. The deadline acceleration from Senate Bill 5558 means the city must adopt all these changes by December 31, 2025, rather than having until June 2026. This creates significant time pressure but staff believe they can meet the deadline with focused effort. ### What Happened — The Short Version Staff presented detailed analysis showing how current neighborhood plan elements (character descriptions, parks planning, utilities, transportation) are now better handled through citywide processes that ensure equity and efficiency. Committee members expressed 90% agreement with the shift while raising concerns about preserving unique neighborhood characteristics, especially along transportation corridors where development transitions to residential areas. For residential zoning, staff proposed combining single-family and multifamily zones into three tiers with minimum densities. The committee supported this direction while asking detailed questions about how minimum density would work for existing lots versus new subdivisions. Members showed strong enthusiasm for allowing small-scale commercial uses in residential areas, with staff targeting adoption by year-end. ### What to Watch Next - July committee meeting: Staff will present the full workload of 12-13 code provisions needed for state compliance - December 31, 2025: Final deadline for adopting all housing-related code changes - Development of small-scale commercial ordinance as a potentially standalone early victory - Planning Commission review process for all proposed changes ---

**Q:** When must Bellingham adopt its permanent middle housing regulations? **A:** December 31, 2025, due to Senate Bill 5558 moving up the deadline by six months. **Q:** How many neighborhood plans does Bellingham currently have? **A:** 25 neighborhood plans covering 340+ sub-areas throughout the city. **Q:** What are the three proposed residential zone tiers? **A:** Low, medium, and high density zones to replace the current single-family/multifamily distinction. **Q:** What happens if Bellingham doesn't adopt its own middle housing code by the deadline? **A:** A state model code would supersede local regulations, which staff wants to avoid. **Q:** How often does the Growth Management Act require comprehensive plan updates? **A:** Every 10 years, with buildable lands analysis required at the 5-year mark. **Q:** Which council member chairs the Planning Committee? **A:** Michael Lilliquist, who represents the Sixth Ward. **Q:** What is the minimum number of units House Bill 1110 requires on residential lots? **A:** At least four units outright, with potential for six if affordability is included. **Q:** How often is the Parks Recreation and Open Space (PRO) Plan updated? **A:** Every six years, providing more frequent updates than neighborhood plans. **Q:** What system does the city use to track current development conditions? **A:** City IQ, a real-time database and query system used by multiple departments. **Q:** What was Lisa Anderson's main concern about the neighborhood plan transition? **A:** Preserving unique neighborhood characteristics, especially transitional zones along transportation corridors. **Q:** What example did staff give of successful small-scale neighborhood commercial? **A:** Nelson's Market and Letter Streets Coffee as neighborhood-serving businesses. **Q:** How does minimum density relate to lot size? **A:** Setting minimum density is equivalent to setting a maximum lot size for new subdivisions. **Q:** What tool does the city use for protecting environmental areas? **A:** The Critical Areas Ordinance, which works on a citywide rather than neighborhood basis. **Q:** Will existing homeowners be required to add housing units under the new rules? **A:** No, the requirements only apply when creating new lots through subdivision. **Q:** What was staff's target timeline for the small-scale commercial ordinance? **A:** Adoption by the end of 2025, potentially as a standalone ordinance. **Q:** How many permits was Bellingham processing annually in the 1980s versus now? **A:** A few hundred in the 1980s versus several thousand per year currently. **Q:** What did Lilliquist emphasize about neighborhood character? **A:** The need to maintain "sense of place" and celebrate Bellingham as a "city of neighborhoods." **Q:** Which neighborhoods were mentioned as examples of bottom-up planning initiatives? **A:** Samish Way Urban Village, Happy Valley (green infrastructure and ADU pilot), and Fairhaven (parking). ---