[0:14] 90 seconds.
[0:43] just start talking.
[0:48] » Good evening. Like to call to order the
[0:50] July 9th, 2026 meeting of the Bellingham
[0:53] Planning Commission. Heather, would you
[0:55] call the role? Lethre
[0:59] » Here.
[1:00] » Jerry Richmond
[1:01] » Here.
[1:01] » Claire Swingo
[1:02] » Here.
[1:03] » Jed Belaloo
[1:03] » Here.
[1:04] » Mike Estes
[1:05] » Here.
[1:05] » Lisa Marks is excused.
[1:11] » All right, we have no minutes. So
[1:14] tonight on the agenda, we have one item.
[1:17] It's a public hearing to uh look at the
[1:21] lowincome housing development incentive.
[1:23] It's a public hearing. So, starting out
[1:26] the meeting, uh, we'll have a public
[1:28] comment period where you can come
[1:31] forward and talk about things that are
[1:33] unrelated to the agenda item. Uh, so
[1:36] anything that is not related to the, um,
[1:39] public hearing, uh, come on down and
[1:42] share what you have to say. 3 minutes is
[1:45] what we ask you to limit your comments
[1:47] to. Um, so please be mindful of that.
[1:52] All
[2:05] right, having no comments, I guess we'll
[2:07] move on to the main agenda. So, Tara or
[2:10] Kurt, I don't know which of you is
[2:11] running the show, but I guess kick it
[2:14] off to you.
[2:15] » I'll start. We're both running the show.
[2:17] Uh, Tara Sundine, I'm the community and
[2:19] economic development manager for the
[2:21] city. I don't come here very often. I
[2:23] know a couple of you, but it's good to
[2:25] see and meet the the the others of you
[2:27] that I've never met before, Jerry and
[2:30] Claire. Um, so I'm going to start us
[2:33] off, turn it over to Kurt. We don't have
[2:35] a very lengthy presentation. I think
[2:37] this is pretty straightforward. Um,
[2:39] we're bringing forward a proposed
[2:41] amendment to Title 20 that would
[2:43] establish a new lowincome housing
[2:45] development incentive.
[2:48] The purpose of the proposal
[2:50] is to remove unnecessary regulatory
[2:53] barriers that make it more difficult and
[2:57] sometimes and oftentimes more expensive
[2:59] to build housing that serves lowincome
[3:03] households. As you're aware, uh our
[3:06] nonprofit housing developers uh face
[3:10] significant challenges. They face more
[3:12] challenges than our sometimes our
[3:14] private developers. in that um of course
[3:18] both are faced with rising construction
[3:20] costs. Um but our affordable housing
[3:23] developers are also faced with funding
[3:26] um requirements that are complex and
[3:29] also require deep subsidy utilizing
[3:32] public funding.
[3:35] In many cases, these projects rely on
[3:38] that limited public funding and every
[3:40] additional cost or delay can mean fewer
[3:43] affordable homes are built. The proposed
[3:46] incentive is intended to address those
[3:48] challenges by creating a more
[3:50] predictable and streamlined development
[3:52] process for qualifying lowincome housing
[3:56] projects. For eligible developments, the
[3:59] proposal would reduce or eliminate
[4:02] certain zoning and land use requirements
[4:04] and Kurt will provide you with an
[4:06] overview of what those are. This
[4:09] incentive is carefully targeted. This
[4:12] incentive is um only eligible to those
[4:16] developments that the city funds. Um and
[4:21] so what that looks like is they are are
[4:24] permanently affordable housing units. Um
[4:28] I'll describe what we require, what
[4:30] we're proposing to require. Um they need
[4:33] to be funded by the city. That means
[4:35] they've gone through our vetting process
[4:39] um and are approved by the city council.
[4:42] So it means that we are all in on those
[4:44] projects. To give you a sense of the
[4:47] pace of our pipeline, we at most build
[4:52] one large and what what I mean by large
[4:56] in this case is like 60 to 70 unit
[4:59] apartment complex every year. And that's
[5:02] us being at a pretty good pace just to
[5:04] get give you a sense of scale.
[5:07] Um
[5:10] in in exchange for this reduced
[5:12] requirements um as the incentive the
[5:16] project must record a covenant ensuring
[5:18] the housing remains affordable for a
[5:21] period of 50 years. So it's a
[5:23] significant period of time that's being
[5:25] required.
[5:27] Uh ultimately our goal is to improve
[5:29] project feasibility, reduce those
[5:32] development timelines, and increase the
[5:34] supply of housing. Um tonight, uh the
[5:38] planning commission's role is to conduct
[5:40] the hearing, consider our proposed
[5:42] amendments, um and hopefully um if
[5:47] things look okay, u make findings,
[5:50] conclusions, and a recommendation to the
[5:52] city council. With that overview, I'll
[5:54] turn it over to Kurt, who will walk you
[5:57] through the proposed code amendments and
[6:00] offer you two additional amendments that
[6:04] um we are proposing based on feedback
[6:08] from our affordable housing development
[6:10] partners. Kurt,
[6:14] » Great. Thank you, Tara. Um
[6:17] so the why I think Tara just explained
[6:20] why we're here today. Um it's really to
[6:22] try and increase the low-income
[6:23] affordable housing out there. Um
[6:26] secondary, as you may recall, or some of
[6:29] you may recall going through the uh the
[6:31] recent comp plan um process, there's
[6:34] been several state changes, state law
[6:36] changes that require us to um make sure
[6:39] that we are providing housing for all
[6:41] levels of income uh throughout our
[6:43] community. And so we believe that this
[6:45] will also help fulfill some of those
[6:47] statemandated roles as well and some of
[6:49] the things that we've talked about in
[6:50] our comprehensive plan. Uh now just to
[6:54] kind of get into the details um these
[6:57] rules and regulations will be uh able to
[7:00] be used in our urban village zones, our
[7:03] commercial zones and our residential
[7:04] multiszones. Um we are not allowing
[7:07] these largecale buildings to go into our
[7:10] residential single zones. um at least
[7:12] not at the the the size and scale that
[7:15] we are we're kind of targeting these
[7:17] rules for. Um and then you know what
[7:20] what the ordinance really entails is
[7:22] it's just reduced development standards.
[7:25] um and
[7:27] trying to make those processes a little
[7:29] bit smoother so that we can get these
[7:31] houses uh or these housing units built
[7:35] and constructed fastly um and get them
[7:37] through our regulatory process uh
[7:40] quickly um so that we can get those
[7:42] units out there and people in the units.
[7:45] I'm going to kind of walk through um as
[7:49] Tara mentioned, we've got a couple
[7:51] changes uh that we want to sec or that
[7:55] we recommend moving forward. Um one is
[7:58] just the definition of low-income
[8:00] housing and what that meant. Um we we
[8:02] have we were doing some scanning through
[8:05] our code and how we define low-income
[8:08] housing. Um, the city actually defines
[8:10] it a little bit different in about four
[8:14] different spots. Uh, the IRS defines it
[8:16] a little bit differently. The state
[8:18] defines it a little bit differently and
[8:19] HUD defines it a little bit differently.
[8:21] So, we're trying to find the appropriate
[8:24] definition for what we were really
[8:26] targeting at. Um, and so we put our
[8:30] heads together um, and we came up with
[8:32] this a little bit longer one. Um, but we
[8:34] believe that it's the most appropriate
[8:36] definition and we would recommend uh a
[8:39] change to the
[8:42] the draft uh for your consideration. Um,
[8:46] what it really gets at is again we're
[8:49] we're targeting those lowinccome folks
[8:52] um below the 80% of the area medium
[8:56] income.
[8:58] Um and where we wanted to clarify was
[9:01] exactly what um you know getting you
[9:04] that 30% income and where that comes
[9:07] from. Uh
[9:12] the the second place that we wanted to
[9:14] make a change uh the current draft
[9:17] requires private usable open space um at
[9:21] 100 square feet everywhere. And again,
[9:25] this is another one where we were
[9:27] looking through our code. Um, we've got
[9:29] multiple areas in multiple
[9:33] levels of private usable space
[9:35] throughout our code. Um, in some of our
[9:39] multif family zones, it's 250 square
[9:41] feet per unit. In some of the zones,
[9:43] it's 100 square feet per unit. In our
[9:46] most of our urban villages, it's it's
[9:48] zero. Um so what we wanted to do is
[9:52] really kind of focus those larger scale
[9:55] um units again into our urban villages.
[9:59] Um part of our urban villages there are
[10:03] opportunities for um other recreational
[10:06] uh facilities as well. A lot of them are
[10:08] located close to parks and trails and
[10:10] things like that. So um we didn't want
[10:13] to inadvertently overburden
[10:16] um these developments in urban village
[10:19] areas where they already don't have to
[10:21] do that.
[10:24] So those are the the two changes that we
[10:26] are recommending that you um make a
[10:29] motion to amend if you so choose to
[10:32] tonight.
[10:34] Um now to the development standards. Uh
[10:37] these are the kind of the the things
[10:39] that were the meat of it the ordinance
[10:42] tonight. Um height rules and
[10:45] regulations. There are no height limits
[10:48] except within designated view corridors
[10:50] or near historic historic features. Um
[10:53] got a couple graphics that may show that
[10:56] here. U this is the old town area where
[10:59] we is through those planning processes
[11:03] uh we defined certain views that we
[11:05] wanted to preserve. um such as through
[11:08] the Aster corridor towards the museum.
[11:11] Um we wanted to make sure that new
[11:13] buildings didn't overpower the
[11:15] territorial courthouse or um the train
[11:17] station there. Um and then also through
[11:20] our waterfront district urban village,
[11:22] we had specific view corridors that we
[11:26] wanted to make sure we maintained
[11:28] through that development and we didn't
[11:30] want to inadvertently um affect those
[11:35] those designated corridors in either the
[11:37] waterfront district or the oldtown area.
[11:44] uh density and far uh floor area ratio.
[11:48] As you know, most of our residential
[11:50] areas have specific density requirements
[11:52] and density refers to how much land you
[11:54] need per dwelling unit. Uh in a lot of
[11:57] areas such as the downtown um and some
[12:01] of our our commercial areas, there are
[12:02] no density limits uh already. Um, and
[12:06] for this proposed ordinance, we are not
[12:09] suggesting any sort of density or floor
[12:11] area ratio requirement. When it comes to
[12:14] setbacks, we wanted to make sure that
[12:15] the buildings that are being constructed
[12:17] are at least consistent with the other
[12:19] types of larger scaled uh buildings in
[12:22] that area. So, uh, for example,
[12:26] in a residential multiszone, there may
[12:30] be a like a a 10-ft setback off of the
[12:33] the property line. And we wanted to make
[12:35] sure that these buildings were
[12:36] constructed consistently with other
[12:38] large scale buildings there. So setbacks
[12:40] are the same regardless of the type of
[12:43] housing unit you're bu you're building
[12:44] there. Lock coverage um we do not have
[12:48] any sort of lot coverage and lot
[12:49] coverage you may recall is really about
[12:53] how much impervious surface that goes on
[12:56] on the property. Uh we felt that if
[12:58] you're meeting the storm water rules and
[13:01] regulations um and trying to maximize
[13:05] the the the site area for the housing uh
[13:09] we felt no maximum should be in place.
[13:13] Um usable space again we do believe that
[13:16] it it should be appropriate in some
[13:18] places um except for those urban
[13:21] villages. Uh, one unique thing that
[13:23] we've added here, and it's something
[13:25] that we've been talking about for a
[13:27] while, um, is having an alternate
[13:30] alternative in here, uh, when you're
[13:32] located within a quarter mile of a park,
[13:36] uh, you do not have to provide that
[13:38] private usable space. So, our assumption
[13:41] is that folks still have access to that
[13:43] usable space um, if they are within
[13:46] this, you know, walkable distance to a
[13:48] park. Um, parking, uh, as you're very
[13:52] familiar with, uh, there's no
[13:54] requirement. You passed or made a
[13:56] recommendation on that ordinance just
[13:58] recently. Uh, that's going to the city
[14:00] council on Monday night for their
[14:02] review. Uh, so no auto parking required.
[14:05] Um, ADA and electrical vehicle would be
[14:08] required when parking is provided. Uh,
[14:11] that's consistent with the ordinance
[14:13] that you recommended approval for. Um
[14:16] and then also part of that parking
[14:18] ordinance uh was consistent standards
[14:22] across the city on on bike parking. So
[14:25] we are requiring that. Uh landscaping is
[14:29] something that we believe can help uh
[14:31] soften some of these larger buildings,
[14:33] the scale of some of these buildings. Uh
[14:35] and so again, we're keeping that with
[14:37] the underlying zoning. And then design
[14:40] review. Uh we do feel that design review
[14:42] has gotten more streamlined with our
[14:45] interim ordinance. Uh we've taken that
[14:47] the subjectivity out of it and it is
[14:49] very objective. I believe a few meetings
[14:53] back we we talked a little bit about
[14:55] this here. Um and what we are finding
[14:59] from a staff review perspective um and I
[15:02] think you could probably ask developers
[15:04] as well is that our new objective
[15:06] standards are much easier from staff's
[15:09] perspective. they're um the projects are
[15:12] moving through the process a lot quicker
[15:15] than they were before. Um we don't get
[15:16] in that back and forth u again because
[15:18] we've taken that subjectivity out of it.
[15:21] Um so we believe that these buildings
[15:23] should still go through design review.
[15:26] Our community still believes in design
[15:27] review but the objective standards
[15:29] should be in place.
[15:32] Um beyond that these projects would trip
[15:35] SEPA review as well. So, you know,
[15:38] again, the height, the density, um kind
[15:41] of that lot coverage are the ones that
[15:43] we're really trying to alleviate in
[15:45] hopes to maximize the amount of housing
[15:48] that we get there. Um beyond that, the
[15:51] the processes throughout the city are
[15:54] going to remain kind of the same.
[15:58] » Sure. Go ahead.
[15:59] » And yeah, that's all I had.
[16:00] » One more. Uh I just wanted to make a
[16:02] comment on scale. Um, first of all,
[16:06] we're talking about land use um,
[16:08] regulations here. We're not talking
[16:09] about the safety of these structures and
[16:11] building code for those I know you know
[16:13] that commissioners, but just for those
[16:15] that are watching. Um, all of these will
[16:19] still all these developments will still
[16:21] have to to adhere to the building codes.
[16:24] Um,
[16:26] just to talk to you about scale when we
[16:28] talk about height and density and such
[16:31] these developments. Um, and I'm talking
[16:34] the the ones that are the the largest,
[16:36] not this not the single family or the
[16:39] town home developments, but the largest
[16:41] developments. Um, apartments are
[16:45] typically
[16:46] somewhere between four and five stories.
[16:49] It would be very rare for us to see them
[16:51] go to six. We do have architect that
[16:53] will be speaking, but um, right now I'm
[16:57] seeing mostly fourstory construction in
[17:00] that arena. So
[17:03] for for those that are concerned that
[17:05] all of a sudden we're going to open up a
[17:07] 10, you know, the ability to go to 10
[17:09] stories or 15 stories because there's
[17:11] not a height limit is not um something
[17:14] that we should be concerned about. That
[17:17] the cost of going into that realm is far
[17:20] out out of these developers are not
[17:23] capable of finding the resources to put
[17:26] that something like that together. So, I
[17:28] just wanted to make sure that that was
[17:30] on the record. Thank you. Turn it over
[17:32] to you.
[17:37] » Thank you. Uh, we'll start out with the
[17:38] public comment on this topic. So, if you
[17:41] have comments that you'd like to share,
[17:43] please come on down and limit those to
[17:45] three minutes. Thanks.
[18:08] I think we're on. Yes.
[18:11] Good evening, uh, Chair Belaloo,
[18:13] commissioners, planning staff, and
[18:15] neighbors. Uh, my name is Pete Day. Uh,
[18:18] I'm a longtime Birchwood neighborhood
[18:19] resident, and I'm currently working with
[18:21] Compass Housing Alliance,
[18:24] which is a regional nonprofit affordable
[18:25] housing developer. Um, and I'm I'm
[18:28] supporting them on feasibility and
[18:30] pre-development of an affordable housing
[18:32] project here in town. I'm speaking in
[18:35] favor of the ordinance before you, and I
[18:37] wanted to offer a few thoughts from a
[18:39] developer perspective.
[18:41] So, first uh developing affordable
[18:44] housing in our region is costly and as
[18:48] um some in this room may know finding
[18:50] funding uh is difficult even in the best
[18:53] of times. Um this ordinance improves
[18:57] efficiency and lowers cost by
[18:59] streamlining process and reducing
[19:02] uncertainty for affordable housing
[19:05] developers like I represent.
[19:09] um it still maintains important
[19:11] safeguards on uh on development.
[19:14] However, uh a tangible example of one
[19:16] way in which this ordinance um can
[19:18] reduce development costs as in the
[19:21] building height allowance. As Terra
[19:22] mentioned, uh it's it's nearly always
[19:25] more economical to add a add an
[19:27] additional story to a building. um
[19:30] rather than building those same 20, 30
[19:32] or 40 homes on a separate parcel,
[19:36] everyone benefits from that efficiency,
[19:38] cost savings, and the additional homes
[19:41] built. Uh secondly, this ordinance uh
[19:44] doesn't cost taxpayers in the city
[19:47] anything. It's essentially an efficiency
[19:50] measure that functions as a nocost lever
[19:52] that the city can use to help address
[19:54] our community's housing needs without
[19:57] requiring unpopular
[19:59] tax levies or putting additional strain
[20:01] on an already stretched city budget.
[20:04] And finally, I want to remind us of who
[20:07] this ordinance ultimately serves on the
[20:10] continuum of housing.
[20:12] Uh it targets city-f funed affordable
[20:14] housing projects which by definition um
[20:17] is targeting folks earning 30 to 80% of
[20:20] area median income or AMI in Bellingham.
[20:24] 80% AMI is just over $95,000 a year uh
[20:29] for a household of four. So, this
[20:32] ordinance aims to serve not only our
[20:34] neighbors who may be exiting
[20:35] houselessness,
[20:36] or is the 30% end of that AMI spectrum,
[20:40] um, but also working families, teachers,
[20:43] first responders, and many in service
[20:44] and caregiving roles in our community
[20:47] who are struggling to afford to live
[20:48] here.
[20:50] For these reasons, I would urge you to
[20:52] recommend approval of this ordinance to
[20:54] our city council. And I want to thank
[20:56] the planning staff, Miss Sundine, and
[20:59] Mr. Navfeld for a balanced proposal. And
[21:01] thank you commissioners for your time
[21:02] and consideration.
[21:16] » Good evening. Um I'm Jeff Mccclure with
[21:19] RMC Architects. Uh
[21:22] um our firm has been involved in many
[21:25] many affordable housing projects. So, I
[21:27] want to talk a little bit about what
[21:29] this particular proposal allows us to
[21:31] do. Um, I want to thank the commission
[21:33] and staff for thinking creatively about
[21:36] affordability in our community. Um, I
[21:41] would say in a word, what this provides
[21:44] is efficiency. And of course, efficiency
[21:47] leads directly to affordability. I guess
[21:49] that's two words, efficiency and
[21:50] affordability. Um but if we have the
[21:53] opportunity through
[21:56] um reductions on restrictions to height
[21:59] and to uh density, we can get obviously
[22:03] more units on the site which helps us
[22:05] defay the cost of site and then also the
[22:09] typical very large cost of the parking
[22:11] deck that that uh supports these
[22:14] buildings. And I'll give you a real
[22:16] world example of this of how this uh by
[22:19] relaxing these requirements helps us
[22:21] deal with more challenging sites. We're
[22:23] working on a project right now where we
[22:26] have a pretty good slope from the front
[22:28] the access street down to uh the back of
[22:31] the site and because of the way we have
[22:33] to measure the 40ft height restriction
[22:36] from the lowest part of the building it
[22:38] restricts us to only three floors of
[22:41] affordable housing above that parking
[22:43] deck because the parking deck daylights.
[22:45] So in this particular case that's 72
[22:47] units. If we are able to add a floor
[22:51] that's 21 extra units. If we're able to
[22:53] add another floor to a five floor, which
[22:56] is what Terara said, which is what is
[22:57] typical that we see in most of these and
[22:59] and is typical in the surrounding
[23:01] buildings were just kind of penalized
[23:03] because of the because of the
[23:05] topography. And all of a sudden, we can
[23:07] be up to 120 units. So, we've increased
[23:10] it uh the number of units uh 30% with
[23:13] one floor, another 30% up to 60% on the
[23:16] same site with the same infrastructure
[23:18] costs. And that goes directly to the
[23:20] unit costs. And so that gives us a real
[23:23] good uh um u through line to
[23:27] affordability on this project. That's a
[23:29] direct impact for those who think that
[23:33] this is going to allow tall buildings
[23:36] throughout the city. I want to draw on
[23:39] what Terara said. Most every multif
[23:41] family project that you see around town
[23:44] has been limited to five stories. And
[23:46] that's a code restriction because above
[23:48] above five stories, we're now out of
[23:50] wood frame construction and we're into
[23:52] more expensive kinds of construction.
[23:54] Concrete, steel, possibly cross-
[23:57] laminated timber, although we haven't
[23:58] seen tall cross laminated timber in in
[24:01] our city. Those just frankly are
[24:04] unaffordable for the demographic that
[24:06] we're serving. You usually see those
[24:08] types of of higher buildings for
[24:10] condominium construction or very
[24:12] high-end apartments. that is not the
[24:15] perform that developers are working with
[24:17] in this particular case. So um and
[24:20] ultimately the trump card is in the
[24:22] design review process. The city because
[24:24] they're funding these projects has the
[24:27] ultimate say on exactly how these will
[24:29] fit into the neighborhoods. Um and I
[24:32] know from experience that they're not
[24:34] they're not going to allow that to
[24:35] happen. So, I think that there's some
[24:37] really good um
[24:41] really good methods for making certain
[24:43] that we have
[24:46] projects that fit well into the
[24:47] neighborhood. Final thing that I will
[24:49] say is the one thing that caught my eye
[24:51] was the 100 square foot uh per
[24:55] accessible open space per unit, which
[24:58] can sometimes be uh would be perceived
[25:01] as being ownorous. I'm all for open
[25:03] space for people to be able to get out,
[25:05] but but as we have sites that are closer
[25:07] closer to the urban core, that may be
[25:10] difficult to achieve when you're dealing
[25:12] with something that's being built
[25:13] directly to the property lines and you
[25:15] have other pedestrian experiences. Um uh
[25:19] an example of where that did work was a
[25:21] project we were involved in, Sandwich
[25:22] Commons, uh right across from U Boomers.
[25:27] Um whereas an irregularly shaped site,
[25:30] three buildings around a courtyard, we
[25:32] were able to, not that that we had that
[25:34] requirement, but we were able to get
[25:36] that uh a rather generous courtyard in
[25:38] there. So that's an example of what 100
[25:41] square ft per unit would yield. Probably
[25:44] more appropriate for a suburban site,
[25:47] not so much for an urban site. Staff has
[25:50] already come in with a with a proposal
[25:52] for in urban villages that that
[25:54] requirement wouldn't be laid upon that.
[25:56] I think that's a good solution for what
[25:58] we're talking about. So anyway, thank
[26:00] you for your consideration, full support
[26:02] of the ordinance in front of you.
[26:21] My name is Mary Lou White. Um, I live in
[26:23] the Birchwood neighborhood and I want to
[26:26] give you the perspective of a resident
[26:28] that's lived here for 38 years and
[26:30] living in a neighborhood that's one of
[26:32] the lower income neighborhoods in
[26:34] Bellingham, Washington. Um this proposal
[26:38] valiates planning goes for RCW26.7A020
[26:45] specifically with regard to number 10
[26:47] protecting and enhancing the environment
[26:49] because there can be cumulative effects
[26:51] based off of the larger um imperous
[26:56] areas created by this and the reduction
[26:58] in overview of um environmental
[27:02] regulations.
[27:03] uh citizen pre precipit participation
[27:07] number 11 same RCW
[27:10] um with regard to ensuring coordination
[27:12] between communities and jurisdictions
[27:15] um our neighborhood for sure the
[27:17] neighborhood there was no talk about
[27:19] this with the neighborhood um
[27:21] association
[27:23] and it's very hard um I know you guys
[27:26] post on a notice site but unless you're
[27:28] looking at the notice site you don't get
[27:29] these I received this notice on June 2nd
[27:33] just before July or July 2nd just before
[27:37] um the holiday and then had to work all
[27:39] week. I actually had to um take off
[27:42] today to write any comments.
[27:45] Public facilities and services. This is
[27:48] the most important part. I think we have
[27:50] an aging infrastructure and Bellingham
[27:53] has not right at this current moment a
[27:57] plan for replacing our storm water. Yes,
[28:00] in 20 years over a 20-year period, but
[28:02] with regard to the specific impacts of
[28:06] this ordinance and how the surges may
[28:08] happen on these infrastructures, they
[28:11] don't have a plan. And that violates
[28:14] that means that you can't do an a
[28:16] citywide ordinance um under the uh uh
[28:22] growth management act. Um climate change
[28:25] and resiliency, again, less open space.
[28:28] um to foster resiliency, less um native
[28:33] vegetation.
[28:34] Um it allows for cumulative significant
[28:37] environmental impacts which I mentioned.
[28:39] Um
[28:41] and uh BTC 16 requires environmental
[28:44] mitigation for development without
[28:46] passing this cost on to local community.
[28:49] And somebody mentioned taxes, but if you
[28:52] look at the development um benefits
[28:56] already the for infill they're getting
[29:00] um breaks already with regard to utility
[29:03] up to 80% with regard to funding that
[29:06] they get from capital investors also um
[29:10] from local citizens who are when you
[29:14] look at it paying a higher part part of
[29:16] the tax because they're investment is
[29:19] not pro probably part of the $1 million
[29:23] which are exempt from funds from their
[29:26] um retirement or whatever they have
[29:28] invested in. Um they're paying for taxes
[29:31] with regard to new infrastructure
[29:33] already. We know that. But when you put
[29:35] you compound that with these other
[29:37] projects, they're going to be paying
[29:40] additional um taxes on that
[29:42] infrastructure. And they're also the
[29:44] ones that take the hit when there's
[29:46] going to be packwater sewage, which has
[29:48] happened in the letter streets. It's
[29:50] happened in Birchwood. I believe it
[29:51] happened on Meridian. It happened in
[29:53] Birch Bay. And so I'm just saying let's
[29:57] get the infrastructure put in place
[30:00] before we build these large buildings or
[30:02] reduce the regulations we have for these
[30:04] large um buildings. And the other thing
[30:06] I really want to address before I run
[30:08] out of time and I have many things and
[30:10] you can look at what I wrote um is the
[30:12] hazards with regard to the LA the old
[30:16] mining which the city has consistently
[30:21] overlooked partly because the uh tetrate
[30:24] reports are inaccurate and if you go to
[30:26] the um actual report you'll find that
[30:30] the initial um gentleman who did the
[30:33] mining report said that he has no
[30:36] confidence in the information he he
[30:39] supplied to the city and that um the
[30:43] city needed to do a couple of things to
[30:45] build in that confidence. So I also
[30:48] recommend that if this were to go
[30:50] forward that there anywhere there that
[30:52] there's building these large buildings
[30:54] on top of a mining area which is
[30:57] substantial throughout um Bellingham not
[31:00] just in the Birchwood neighborhood. um
[31:04] but that there has to be some kind of
[31:07] very good geological assessment and that
[31:11] should go deep enough to find out if
[31:13] there's voids because those voids can
[31:15] hold gases. um you're putting dense,
[31:19] heavy housing on areas that aren't that
[31:23] have subsidance already that potentially
[31:26] can. And if you look in the report, it
[31:28] will tell you some areas that are more
[31:30] likely than other areas to have that
[31:32] subsidance. Um but if you make a
[31:34] broadwide ordinance that doesn't address
[31:38] these factors, you're putting people at
[31:41] risk. not only the the current residents
[31:43] or adjacent residents, but the residents
[31:46] in the buildings that will be living in
[31:48] those buildings. Um, and that's that's
[31:52] not acceptable. I just think it needs to
[31:55] we really need to concentrate on our
[31:57] infrastructure in Bellingham before we
[31:59] reduce the um impacts for additional
[32:03] development. That's pretty much it.
[32:06] » Thanks.
[32:06] » Can I leave these with you?
[32:18] Anybody on Zoom?
[32:34] » No Zoom comments. Okay, I guess we'll
[32:36] move on to our discussion of this topic
[32:39] and just uh have a conversation about
[32:42] our thoughts on it. Um, anybody itching
[32:45] to start?
[32:48] Feel like this is your baby Rose.
[32:51] » Well,
[32:53] um, yeah, thanks uh, so much for putting
[32:56] the work together to to take this
[32:58] initiative forward. Um, I think mostly
[33:02] it's like about time
[33:05] Um and and really glad to see that um
[33:08] the city, you know, uh when when we
[33:11] think about the the investment that the
[33:13] city's making that our communities are
[33:15] making in in the home fund um to help
[33:18] these projects move forward. Um what we
[33:21] don't want to see is that the projects
[33:22] are harder and more expensive. Um so
[33:25] this really makes an efficient use of
[33:27] not just the land um but the resources
[33:30] that um our taxpayers are putting into
[33:32] it. So um
[33:34] I don't have anything specific that
[33:36] wasn't already mentioned um in terms of
[33:38] like things that I I think we should u
[33:41] modify or change. Um the my only request
[33:45] is that we start thinking now about how
[33:47] what kind of incentives can we put
[33:49] towards the MFTTE projects that are not
[33:52] 100% affordable, but how do we take
[33:55] those those other incentives that we
[33:57] have and and make sure that they start
[33:59] getting utilized more.
[34:08] definitely agree with the modifications
[34:11] to the open space uh usable open space.
[34:13] We were just chatting about that before
[34:15] uh we started this meeting and so that
[34:17] makes a lot of sense. It's good to not
[34:20] be more restrictive than the underlying
[34:22] zoning on things like that. Um, in
[34:25] particular, I was wondering about, um,
[34:28] since we're basically going away from
[34:31] residential single zoning. Um, is it
[34:34] correct that basically
[34:36] most of the city is going to allow this
[34:39] type of development because really just
[34:41] the Watcom Lake watershed is going to be
[34:43] limited to uh, traditional single family
[34:47] zoning.
[34:48] » Yeah. I was just wondering how this maps
[34:50] to the new residential low, medium, high
[34:53] that's coming soon.
[34:54] » Exactly. Coming soon. I think that's the
[34:56] that's the key word, right? There's a
[34:58] lot of debate that's going to happen in
[34:59] the next year about what our residential
[35:01] zones look like. Um and we will we've
[35:04] been started starting that work and um
[35:06] we'll be coming here with to you very
[35:09] soon on that. So, um, our thoughts on
[35:12] this is that we didn't want to wait for
[35:14] that process. Um, because it's likely
[35:17] going to take this entire year before we
[35:19] get through all of that. Um, maybe even
[35:21] into next year before we have our new
[35:23] residential zoning. And so, we didn't
[35:26] want to preclude any potential units or
[35:29] uh, developments that may be in the
[35:31] plans or may be working this year. Uh,
[35:33] so we felt that let's get this done now.
[35:36] Um, because as Rose mentioned, it is
[35:38] time. it's about time for us to do it.
[35:41] Um, and as we go through the the
[35:45] residential zoning, there will probably
[35:47] be discussions about density, how many
[35:50] units, um, what the scale is, maybe even
[35:53] height increases. Uh, then not far along
[35:56] behind that, we've got our, um, transit
[35:59] corridors that we're going to be looking
[36:00] at as well. So, um, we figured we need
[36:05] to get this done now. let's move it
[36:06] forward and if anything comes out of the
[36:09] residential reszone or not reszone but
[36:12] update we can incorporate this into that
[36:15] as well.
[36:16] » Would it be fair to guess that like this
[36:19] ordinance is applying to RM that might
[36:21] map to medium and high in the future and
[36:23] not to low
[36:24] » Possible? Yes. Yeah.
[36:30] given extra density in areas that may
[36:32] not be as dense um potential for that. I
[36:36] would assume that some of these you know
[36:38] what are residential single
[36:41] are there planned residential single
[36:43] areas that would potentially become
[36:45] residential medium or are multifamily
[36:48] medium districts or is that kind of I
[36:50] know we're kind of pushing forward into
[36:52] the crystal ball but is that is that an
[36:55] anticipated thing? I'm I'm more curious
[36:57] about how this might apply to single
[37:00] family districts once we make the zoning
[37:02] change.
[37:03] » Well, I think, you know, as you
[37:05] mentioned and as state law and our local
[37:08] ordinances have come into effect, we
[37:10] don't have residential single zoning
[37:11] anymore. Um or single unit zoning
[37:14] anymore. Um now that you can do four to
[37:16] six units on every single lot, um that
[37:19] that scale and that thought process is
[37:21] just no longer there. Um so we will
[37:24] continue to evaluate what the
[37:25] appropriate zoning uh thresholds or
[37:28] levels are in that that low, medium, and
[37:29] high um wershed. We've been kicking the
[37:32] idea around with um you know something a
[37:36] little bit different as well in there.
[37:37] Um we know that the the transition
[37:40] between the residential medium and the
[37:44] some of the residential single zones um
[37:47] they're almost compressing and so it
[37:50] it's too early to really get into the
[37:52] weeds on that. Um but we've got a year
[37:55] ahead of us to do it. So
[37:59] I make a an a comment. Um, I will I
[38:04] would think that most of our nonprofit
[38:07] housing development projects won't
[38:09] necessarily benefit from this because
[38:12] they're already choosing with our urging
[38:16] of going into our urban villages. Um,
[38:20] our pipeline projects right now that are
[38:22] being built in Oldtown and nearby on
[38:25] Unity Street. This won't do anything for
[38:28] them. But what this will do is those
[38:31] projects like Jeff mentioned where the
[38:34] the way we measure height on that slope.
[38:37] I mean, that's really what we're talking
[38:39] about. When we
[38:42] help our nonprofit developers purchase
[38:45] land, we're looking for places that make
[38:47] sense. We're looking for places that
[38:49] already have transit or in urban areas.
[38:51] So, I just wanted to I want to throw
[38:54] that out there that I don't want you to
[38:56] expect that every project all of a
[38:58] sudden is going to be changed by this
[39:00] this ordinance. Um the we've been the
[39:05] parking thing came along recently. We've
[39:07] been talking about that, Kurt and I,
[39:09] like we wish brought this to you like
[39:12] five years ago because those developers
[39:14] are constantly
[39:16] running up against that uh requirement.
[39:19] And then also um commercial requirements
[39:22] for these nonprofit housing developers
[39:25] that is more problematic for them than
[39:28] almost anything else. So that's that's
[39:31] kind of more I know we're talking about
[39:33] a lot of height today, but I don't think
[39:36] that's going to be the the big gift
[39:38] necessarily.
[39:43] Um and and I know that that this is not
[39:46] what we're talking about, but the um
[39:49] demonstration ordinance or the um
[39:51] innovative affordable home ownership
[39:53] ordinance when we start thinking about
[39:56] um our
[39:58] formerly residential single zones. um
[40:02] that ordinance has made a really big
[40:04] difference in projects for the land
[40:07] trust and um knowing with all these
[40:10] changes like what are the things that we
[40:11] can do um one to help get to those six
[40:15] units where they make sense um and then
[40:17] also um making sure that um with all
[40:21] kinds of new rules that those get
[40:23] updated maybe in parallel with um so
[40:26] that it's not a five years later we
[40:28] start thinking about that Um
[40:33] » Yeah, when we first started talking
[40:34] about this, um we had we had a lot of
[40:37] discussion about the uh innovative
[40:40] affordable housing um demonstration
[40:41] ordinance uh and how this would fit in
[40:45] with that. And um I I think we came to
[40:47] the conclusion is let's keep that in the
[40:50] residential single zones for now, right?
[40:52] And with the increase going from because
[40:56] what that the in innovative ordinance
[40:58] allows is essentially a 50% density
[41:01] increase um on the site um if you go
[41:04] through a certain review process. It
[41:06] also allows more flexibility and
[41:08] development rules as well. Um and that
[41:11] was really
[41:13] um created for ownership projects,
[41:16] single family ownership projects. Um
[41:18] where this is really shifted kind of
[41:20] that larger scale development. we just
[41:22] had that gap, right? And so that's why
[41:24] we said let's leave the demonstration
[41:26] ordinance there in place. Um if there's
[41:30] if the the four to six doesn't already
[41:33] help on that site, there's always that
[41:34] to fall back on. And as we're going
[41:38] through our code um update, um we will
[41:41] be looking at other places that we can
[41:43] modify and change the code, make it
[41:45] better. That's that's the goal, right?
[41:51] I'm quiet, but I just want to let you
[41:53] know that I like the work that has been
[41:55] done. Um,
[41:58] it's there's a lot of thoughtful um
[42:01] wording in here. Uh,
[42:05] I'd like to thank Jeff for his comments.
[42:08] Um,
[42:10] I feel like explaining kind of what the
[42:13] handcuffs are uh for developers.
[42:16] Um when people hear height they think oh
[42:19] my god you know there's going to be all
[42:21] of uh these big gross buildings and um
[42:25] also Tara your your definition of um
[42:29] what typically is built and uh within
[42:32] the the price parameters develop
[42:34] developers have um I don't think it's a
[42:38] huge concern. I think the fact that the
[42:41] uh this is geared towards city
[42:43] partnerships and the city um by allowing
[42:48] all of the new language but still
[42:49] setting up guard rails uh with the view
[42:52] corridors uh has um people's best
[42:55] interests at heart. So, uh in summary,
[42:59] yeah, I'm I'm for it all. Thank you.
[43:03] » I think it's it's interesting. A lot of
[43:04] people don't know when we talk about
[43:06] height um our downtown core hasn't had
[43:09] height limits um for decades like and we
[43:12] don't have any tall buildings down
[43:14] there. Um we also have a lot of people
[43:16] don't realize this but many of our
[43:18] commercial planned areas do not have
[43:20] height limits. Um some of our
[43:22] residential multi-planned areas do not
[43:25] have height limits and we don't see
[43:27] largecale buildings and it really does
[43:29] come down to the economics of of
[43:31] development, right? Um and so
[43:35] Yeah, I I I think that there are other
[43:36] factors that that are going to limit
[43:38] limit height.
[43:48] » Um I guess I'm wondering why this is
[43:50] restricted to the or 100% of the the
[43:54] units. I know it references um
[43:57] affordability language for the from the
[43:59] single family um one which is over 51%
[44:03] of units and such. So I'm wondering just
[44:05] the impetus and how 100% of the units
[44:07] was was decided on.
[44:10] » We decided to start with something that
[44:13] was straightforward and limited
[44:17] and that was to the the projects that we
[44:20] fund. So, some of those guard rails
[44:22] starting out um and that's why the city
[44:28] funds 100 100% of the units are at 80 or
[44:33] and below. Now, sometimes we and 80 is
[44:36] on the high side honestly, but um that's
[44:40] why we started there.
[44:53] If I could, um I I do um wanted to just
[44:56] take a minute to respond to Miss
[44:58] Wright's comments. Um if this is an
[45:00] appropriate time for that. Um I think a
[45:02] lot of the comments definitely we heard
[45:04] heard heard what she said. Um we've been
[45:07] having a little bit of conversation over
[45:09] email uh the last couple of days on
[45:12] this. Um some of the concerns that she
[45:14] expressed um are really project specific
[45:17] or project level types of concerns. The
[45:20] all of these projects will go through
[45:22] SEPA review. Um if they're in or near
[45:25] critical areas, they go through a
[45:26] critical area review. Um the mine
[45:29] hazards that she spoke clearly of in
[45:31] order to build out in um the Birwood
[45:34] neighborhood or any other we actually
[45:35] have a couple different places in town
[45:37] that have mine coal mines or mines. um
[45:41] they all have to go through an adopted
[45:43] critical areas review, right? So,
[45:45] they're they're going through it. We're
[45:46] having professional geologists study
[45:48] these sites, biologists are studying
[45:50] these sites. So, um we do believe that
[45:52] the existing site development rules and
[45:54] regulations are in place to protect
[45:57] them. Those those don't aren't being
[45:59] changed here. Um if there is a site
[46:02] where a water man is not big enough then
[46:05] the development rules will require it to
[46:08] enlarge that water man. Um so we've got
[46:11] those existing rules and regulations
[46:13] that help protect some of those sight
[46:15] specific type concerns. Um
[46:21] uh one of the other comments that was
[46:23] raised was just this the storm water and
[46:25] you're covering up with impervious
[46:26] surfaces. uh our the code does reference
[46:29] uh it does it says no lock coverage but
[46:31] it does reference that you do have to
[46:32] comply with stormwater rules and
[46:34] regulations. So again those are
[46:36] statemandated um uh requirements and
[46:40] they have to meet every development has
[46:42] to meet those requirements. Um, and
[46:44] then, um, there were some other notes
[46:47] about consistency with the comprehensive
[46:49] plan. And I did want to direct your
[46:53] attention to,
[46:56] it's page 15 of the packet. Um, number
[47:00] five, part of the one of the things when
[47:02] we do these rules and regulations, we
[47:03] have to make sure that it is consistent.
[47:05] These rules and regulations are
[47:06] consistent with our the Bellingham plan
[47:09] and that they implement it. And so
[47:11] there's, you know, six goals there that
[47:14] it does support this. Um, the first one
[47:16] I think is the most telling. Remove
[47:18] barriers to housing creation and
[47:20] preservation by periodically reviewing
[47:23] existing and proposed development
[47:24] regulations and policies for potential
[47:26] impacts on city-wide housing capacity,
[47:28] development patterns, affordability, and
[47:30] diversity. So I mean, right there, we
[47:32] put that one right up in front, right?
[47:34] So this is something that we are
[47:37] implementing this. we are removing
[47:39] barriers to help housing. Um so it's a
[47:42] it's completely consistent with um our
[47:46] our comprehensive plan. Um so just
[47:48] wanted to um acknowledge the the
[47:52] concerns expressed. Um I do believe that
[47:54] our existing review processes through
[47:56] CEN or critical areas will help and
[47:58] other development regulations will help
[48:00] mitigate any of the potential issues
[48:02] that may arise.
[48:14] Well, I think that I could argue that
[48:16] there's a lot more um goals within the
[48:19] comprehensive plan that support this
[48:21] policy in addition to the ones that are
[48:23] listed. Um and and I would I would put
[48:26] climate goals in there as well just
[48:28] because um increasing density is is good
[48:31] climate policy
[48:35] and
[48:37] small cities take note.
[48:40] Um city of Bellingham is really setting
[48:43] um a high bar for how to support
[48:45] affordable housing. um trying to do
[48:47] projects in throughout Wakom County,
[48:49] which is important that um Bellingham
[48:52] doesn't become the only repository for
[48:54] affordable housing. Um but it's really
[48:56] difficult when you don't have system
[48:58] development charges like those fees
[49:00] waved when you don't have these kinds of
[49:03] um incentives and um so I hope um
[49:08] everybody's watching out there in Wacom
[49:10] County role.
[49:12] We started with uh the two proposed
[49:15] changes to this packet and one of them
[49:17] was the definition um of affordable
[49:20] housing and that's not in this packet,
[49:22] right? I mean, that was something that
[49:23] you just brought up. So, I'm wondering
[49:25] if there's anything that we might need
[49:26] to discuss um to kind of formalize or
[49:28] see if we agree with that. Um,
[49:33] I don't think it seemed too
[49:34] controversial, but
[49:36] » Yeah, if you make a motion or act on
[49:40] one, we would want you to um consider
[49:44] the um ordinance amended with these two
[49:48] changes that we've proposed. One is this
[49:51] definition
[49:52] » And it is complicated. You can tell by
[49:54] » Right.
[49:55] » And I'll we should let you do you want a
[49:58] moment to read it? Well, I feel like
[50:00] that, you know, it's like I this is not
[50:02] my area of very technical world here.
[50:05] » It seems like we're trying to comply
[50:06] with there are different definitions out
[50:08] there and to include the ownership
[50:10] component.
[50:11] » Yes, we ownership
[50:15] is handled differently than rental
[50:18] housing. and rental housing. And the
[50:21] simplest way I can describe it is um
[50:25] first of all, we're trying to line this
[50:27] up with other funders because we're not
[50:29] the only one. So rental housing, the
[50:33] rent is tied to the
[50:36] space. So, when that developer is
[50:39] building that unit and it's two-bedroom,
[50:42] there's an assumed rent that is going to
[50:44] be collected for that um that unit. We
[50:49] do have Pete Day here if he he needs to
[50:52] to to write me. Um and it doesn't follow
[50:55] the household as a hership model does.
[51:00] It follows the unit. And so our
[51:02] definition there was misaligned because
[51:05] it was following the h the household's
[51:09] income and expenses, not an an
[51:13] assumption. So, if you've if you've got
[51:14] a 60 unit apartment building, when you
[51:17] go into that financing scenario and you
[51:20] go line up all of these different
[51:22] funding sources, you're saying this many
[51:24] units are going to be affordable to 30%
[51:28] AMI and this many units, these ones are
[51:30] 60%. You don't know who the households
[51:33] are at that time. So, you fix the rent
[51:36] and that creates predictability of
[51:39] revenue for the developer. So if you
[51:43] earn 25%
[51:45] you that rent doesn't change you're
[51:48] paying something that would have been
[51:50] affordable to 30. It's complicated but
[51:53] this is why we've had to these our
[51:55] housing developers caught this as they
[51:57] were reviewing it and found misalignment
[52:00] with other requirements in the industry.
[52:07] I I would move that we amend the
[52:11] proposed recommendation to include these
[52:14] changes to the definition of low-inccome
[52:16] housing. I'm not going to read all that.
[52:18] » Second.
[52:20] » All in favor?
[52:22] » I.
[52:23] » Any opposed?
[52:26] » It carries. Um I think probably the next
[52:30] uh modification to the open space. Um
[52:34] that one seemed usable open space.
[52:39] My my only question I was wondering if
[52:41] there's an alternative that says
[52:42] something like you know the requires 100
[52:46] square feet or the underlying zonings
[52:49] requirement whichever is less. you know
[52:52] in the future if we do some other change
[52:55] like
[52:57] that today's that it's the equivalent
[52:58] but you know do like carving out just
[53:01] urban village isn't as flexible as
[53:03] saying you know the lesser of this
[53:06] requirement or the underlying zoning is
[53:08] that helpful or
[53:11] » I can tell you why I argued for this
[53:14] argued we didn't really argue but we um
[53:19] some of our urban villages have that
[53:22] open space requirement in the transition
[53:24] zones.
[53:26] » And so
[53:29] we felt like anything that is that close
[53:31] to our core regard our urban villages
[53:34] should just be exempt from the open
[53:36] space. Mike, does that make sense?
[53:39] » I was wondering about RTS.
[53:41] » Yeah.
[53:42] » I mean, this is this is fine. But I
[53:47] think one of the things that we have
[53:49] noticed um obviously our codes change
[53:52] over the years um and they've gone
[53:54] through different revision cycles and
[53:55] that was part of the problem when I put
[53:57] together a list of what open space
[54:00] requirements were. It was so different
[54:04] um in so many different places and
[54:07] within the last year we have really been
[54:09] talking about open space and and private
[54:12] or I not open space but private usable
[54:14] space and and we through the
[54:16] comprehensive plan planning process um
[54:19] it's acknowledged that it is it's
[54:21] important we need to have these places
[54:23] um for people um especially as you start
[54:26] to get more dense u so
[54:29] we at this point we believe that the 100
[54:31] square feet is appropriate for all juris
[54:34] jurisdictions. Our codes just haven't
[54:36] been changed to catch up with that. And
[54:39] so I I think if if we were to fall back
[54:43] on the underlying zoning, um I'm I think
[54:47] that's going in the opposite direction
[54:49] and where we think we want to go with
[54:51] it. Um I think this this hundred the
[54:55] last the last code change that we made
[54:56] was 100 square feet. So,
[55:01] » So I think what you're saying right now
[55:03] is that this code will be ahead of any
[55:06] revisions that we make to other things
[55:07] and that then we're not trying to fix
[55:10] this code later.
[55:12] » Yeah, it's it's ahead of three quarters
[55:15] of them and consistent with the last
[55:17] quarter that we just did. So,
[55:21] we're getting closer. We're getting
[55:23] closer to 100%. Well, and then have you
[55:25] mapped out with parks kind of like in
[55:28] where these, you know, multif family
[55:30] districts are like does are there a lot
[55:33] of areas that would
[55:36] not have to meet the open usable open
[55:38] space requirement just because of that
[55:40] proximity?
[55:42] » Um, not yet. I what we have at a very
[55:45] high level um in relationship to this
[55:47] proposal, no. But what we've talked
[55:48] about is um if we start to make changes
[55:52] and allow that alternative to not have
[55:55] to provide it on site when you're close
[55:57] to other um
[56:00] parks or trails. We've we've taken that
[56:02] at a citywide perspective and said, you
[56:05] know, what would this look like if we
[56:06] didn't require it within a quarter mile?
[56:09] Um, and so we've mapped kind of the
[56:11] quarter mile areas of the parks
[56:14] throughout our city, but we didn't do it
[56:16] in context with this ordinance. We've
[56:19] did it in the context of that bigger
[56:21] discussion of when do we need private
[56:24] usable space and when not do we need it
[56:26] or could not need it.
[56:33] Well, I guess so.
[56:36] If a developer chooses to use this
[56:39] ordinance, then they have to use all of
[56:42] it.
[56:45] » That's correct.
[56:46] » Okay.
[56:46] » Yeah,
[56:51] » Good point. They don't have to go for
[56:53] this. They can just use the underlying
[56:56] situation. If there was
[56:57] » Yes,
[56:58] » For example, if there was no uh private
[57:01] usable space requirement in some area
[57:05] and
[57:07] you know they could choose what
[57:09] direction to go.
[57:10] » Correct.
[57:19] » Any further discussion on this item? I
[57:21] think uh
[57:24] » I guess I'm very supportive. Obviously,
[57:27] increasing height intensity lowers costs
[57:29] and streamlining all this helps it to be
[57:31] more affordable because it's outrageous
[57:33] that affordable housing costs more to
[57:36] develop than other housing. Um I think
[57:38] my I think I've been quiet partially and
[57:42] because as you said in support but also
[57:44] wondering kind of the extension um of
[57:47] this I understand now the the 100% was
[57:50] to keep it in line with um with what the
[57:53] city funds um so that was helpful
[57:55] clarification but just you know thinking
[57:57] about how this could extend going
[58:00] forward um with other properties that
[58:03] put in an affordability covenant or the
[58:05] underlying land easements or otherwise
[58:08] uh commit to long-term affordability and
[58:11] and having a a higher income cap um than
[58:15] the 80% AMI or or things like that. And
[58:18] just thinking about the 85 or 95, I'm
[58:22] forgetting what the four person um I
[58:24] think it was 95,000.
[58:27] Um, and just thinking about 30% of that
[58:32] or thinking about what a a house would
[58:35] cost to be only 30% of that depending on
[58:39] mortgage and principal, what 250 350,000
[58:42] off the top of my head. And thinking
[58:44] about that gap um that exists for
[58:49] people still making like up to 150
[58:51] 200,000. And so I'm very supportive of
[58:55] this and just like already thinking, you
[58:57] know, what does this mean for how we
[58:59] could further use this to develop, you
[59:03] know, affordable properties when there
[59:05] is that that gap?
[59:07] » I think it is something that potentially
[59:09] we should look at next is the
[59:12] multifamily tax exemption program. It
[59:14] might be a way. The state doesn't
[59:16] require those projects
[59:20] to have affordable units for a very long
[59:22] period of time. It's 12 years. I'm
[59:26] talking 50 here. So maybe there is um a
[59:30] bigger incentive that we might have to
[59:33] work with that would entice one of those
[59:36] projects to have longer affordability
[59:38] period than than what the state
[59:42] requires. So, we'll take that your
[59:45] comments into account and bring that
[59:46] back to our our leadership team.
[59:50] We figured you would want more maybe
[59:53] then but sometimes we've learned this. I
[59:56] have Rose has definitely learned this.
[59:58] You have to take that step and maybe
[1:00:01] take the next step. So, that's where
[1:00:04] we're at.
[1:00:05] I think the the last question, this is
[1:00:07] in line with the other question that I
[1:00:10] had previously, which is just looking
[1:00:12] forward to when we don't have single
[1:00:14] family residential, and I'm just
[1:00:17] wondering more about the density and
[1:00:19] floor area ratio side of that and how
[1:00:21] you might see that that gets implemented
[1:00:23] into the zoning uh once we make that
[1:00:26] change.
[1:00:29] Yeah, we've um as a part of this process
[1:00:32] uh we've been looking at our urban vill
[1:00:34] areas and our urban village areas is
[1:00:36] where those floor area ratios really
[1:00:39] come out and play, right? Um when we
[1:00:41] first started doing urban villages,
[1:00:42] flurry area ratio was an appropriate
[1:00:44] tool. Um
[1:00:46] as we do continuous process improvement,
[1:00:49] we learn things change. Um we are re we
[1:00:53] are reconsidering whether floor area is
[1:00:55] the appropriate mechanism. Um I think
[1:00:58] we've we've had this conversation here
[1:01:00] before um in front of you um about floor
[1:01:04] ratios and um
[1:01:07] we've we've updated some of our urban
[1:01:09] ver plans over the years and like the
[1:01:12] key things that we've updated when we do
[1:01:14] update it increase floor area ratios. Um
[1:01:17] so we know that what we've established
[1:01:19] probably aren't appropriate. Uh we know
[1:01:20] that we've got to go back at some point.
[1:01:23] Um
[1:01:24] and that's definitely on the forefront
[1:01:26] of our our minds.
[1:01:30] » We were just talking with sorry City of
[1:01:33] Bend yesterday and and um they wanted to
[1:01:36] learn how it's funny having a call from
[1:01:39] the city of Bend wanting to learn how
[1:01:41] how we've done things right here. Um but
[1:01:45] we
[1:01:46] we said to them, you know, some of these
[1:01:49] urban villages were planned 20 years
[1:01:51] ago. They were planned when our
[1:01:54] community was scared of a four-story
[1:01:59] building. Um so times are really
[1:02:01] different. I think we you would see us
[1:02:05] do it differently today. So, we do want
[1:02:07] to go back through and and and look at
[1:02:10] those codes and go, did we because we
[1:02:13] were we were trying to um all of those
[1:02:16] what if scary scenarios out there, maybe
[1:02:19] we created more barrier than we need to.
[1:02:22] So, we we are recognizing we'd like to
[1:02:25] to simplify the the urban village
[1:02:27] regulations as well.
[1:02:31] » A question for you. Are all of the
[1:02:33] lowincome projects that the city's
[1:02:35] currently working on rental units?
[1:02:39] » We have um
[1:02:42] well, Habitat for Humanity does
[1:02:44] currently I think they I can't recall
[1:02:47] Rosewood would know. We do work with um
[1:02:50] home ownership as well. Coulson
[1:02:52] Community Land Trust is our primary
[1:02:55] partner in the city. Habitat does a
[1:02:57] little bit work of work here, but mostly
[1:03:00] outside of the city. Um, but the the
[1:03:03] large production is with the rental
[1:03:06] units. And I think part of the issue
[1:03:08] with the home ownership model, Claire
[1:03:12] spoke to a little bit, the gap is really
[1:03:15] big between
[1:03:17] what what we can subsidize
[1:03:21] at 80% AMI and how affordability is more
[1:03:25] like what 200 AMI to afford a home. So
[1:03:29] that gap is really big. Otherwise, I
[1:03:31] think we'd see um something I'd like to
[1:03:34] see changed is allow us to go up on that
[1:03:38] AMI to like 120. I think then we could
[1:03:41] see a little quicker production. Does
[1:03:44] that
[1:03:46] » No, that answers the question. If you
[1:03:48] were going to put a percentage on it,
[1:03:49] what would it be?
[1:03:51] » 95
[1:03:52] » Probably.
[1:03:53] » Okay.
[1:03:59] When you just said if we were allowed to
[1:04:01] go from 80 up to a higher percentage,
[1:04:04] what do you mean allowed by like state
[1:04:06] regulations?
[1:04:07] » State of Washington.
[1:04:08] » State of Washington regulations.
[1:04:09] » Um, yeah, that's the that's what I would
[1:04:13] be looking for. Yeah. I do want to
[1:04:15] comment though, like remember the rental
[1:04:18] product is serving
[1:04:22] our most vulnerable community members.
[1:04:25] um that we we need that too. As much
[1:04:29] production of 30 and 40 and 50 as needed
[1:04:33] because we remember half or below the
[1:04:37] 100 level. So um it's desperately
[1:04:40] needed. We we could we could probably
[1:04:44] quadruple our our supply and still not
[1:04:47] have enough for those incomes.
[1:04:56] I think I'd like to go ahead and move
[1:04:58] forward with a motion to um adopt the
[1:05:01] recommended change to uh the
[1:05:05] um private usable open space
[1:05:07] requirement.
[1:05:10] » I'll second.
[1:05:11] » All in favor?
[1:05:13] » I I Any opposed?
[1:05:23] Yeah, that's it. Yeah,
[1:05:27] » That's what we did, right?
[1:05:28] » Yeah.
[1:05:29] » Um I have one other clarifying question.
[1:05:33] Um parking and design review are key
[1:05:36] parts of what we're on the bullet
[1:05:39] points. Um the parking is hardcoded as
[1:05:42] saying there will not be parking
[1:05:44] requirements for these. So depending on
[1:05:47] what happens with the interim ordinance,
[1:05:48] this says no parking requirements. The
[1:05:51] same is not true for design review.
[1:05:54] So
[1:05:56] if like we're this is still subject to
[1:05:59] like what happens with the interim
[1:06:00] ordinance on design review or does the
[1:06:02] state changes cover that here?
[1:06:05] » The state changes they really do because
[1:06:08] what they've said is cities can no
[1:06:10] longer have subjective design standards.
[1:06:12] We can only have objective design
[1:06:14] standards. So, um, we've gotten out of
[1:06:17] the game of, um, subjectivity.
[1:06:21] Uh, and so, anything that comes forward,
[1:06:24] uh, we are working in an interim
[1:06:25] ordinance, design review ordinance right
[1:06:27] now that employs objective design
[1:06:30] standards. We believe we've been letting
[1:06:33] them go through letting some of these
[1:06:34] projects go through make learning over
[1:06:36] the last you know six months what's
[1:06:38] working what's not working and they seem
[1:06:40] to be working well from both the
[1:06:42] developer side um as well as the staff
[1:06:45] side. So um
[1:06:48] they're I guess the the process is only
[1:06:53] going to get easier I think because of
[1:06:55] the state and what we're realizing
[1:06:58] having the objective standards. So do
[1:07:00] you think the range of outcomes that we
[1:07:03] will see in the next near near future
[1:07:06] from our interim design changes will be
[1:07:09] beneficial to this? We don't need to
[1:07:11] » Become a streamlining process. Um and it
[1:07:14] if you if you go back to what the
[1:07:16] interim rules did, the interim rules, we
[1:07:19] went through and had just updated our
[1:07:21] urban village uh design review standards
[1:07:24] and a lot of our other design review
[1:07:25] standards. And so what we did is we we
[1:07:28] just converted a lot of those newly
[1:07:31] adopted standards from subjective
[1:07:33] standards to objective standards and
[1:07:35] made them easier to follow. Um so
[1:07:40] yeah, I I I think what's going to end up
[1:07:42] happening is we'll probably continue to,
[1:07:45] you know, just see how these rules work.
[1:07:48] Um if they if we find any issues or
[1:07:51] concerns, we'll look at tweaking them.
[1:07:53] But the interim ordinance appears to be
[1:07:55] working well for everybody. Um, and from
[1:07:58] what we've seen on plan views, um, we
[1:08:02] don't believe we're losing quality, um,
[1:08:06] design quality in these projects.
[1:08:10] » Thank you.
[1:08:27] Sounds like we probably are getting
[1:08:29] close. Everybody, anyone want to make a
[1:08:31] motion?
[1:08:33] So, we've got two modifications that
[1:08:36] we've accepted. But any
[1:08:38] » We'll make a motion to adopt the
[1:08:43] uh what are we calling it? the
[1:08:46] low-income housing development incentive
[1:08:49] » Ordinance with the um adopted changes
[1:08:52] from earlier.
[1:08:56] » Second.
[1:08:57] » Second it. All right. All in favor?
[1:09:01] » I. Any opposed?
[1:09:05] Okay. Well, thanks.
[1:09:09] » Yeah. So, do we have any uh any more
[1:09:11] news for upcoming? Um,
[1:09:14] we have a meeting next week. Is that
[1:09:16] correct?
[1:09:17] » Look to to our our great
[1:09:20] » Since you were able to finish this item,
[1:09:23] you have the month of July off.
[1:09:30] » All right. Well, meeting journ. Thanks a
[1:09:32] lot.
[1:09:37] Heat. Heat.