A proposed moratorium on certain types of building within the city of Langley elicited strong feelings from city council members and citizens alike during a meeting Monday night.

Although it was not approved by council this week, the hot topic may be revisited at a future council meeting.

Councilmember Rhonda Salerno suggested pressing pause on the acceptance of permit applications for new development proposals submitted under either the city’s Planned Unit Development, known as PUD, or multi-family infill provisions. A moratorium would give the city time to consider new standards for tree preservation, climate mitigation, affordable housing and financial and infrastructure impacts of development.

Project applications with more than 80% of the units dedicated to affordable housing, such as a Habitat for Humanity project, would not be affected by the moratorium. The moratorium will also not impact any regular development from moving forward, such as single family homes and remodels, accessory dwelling units and tiny homes.

Salerno said the city should take the six-month period of the moratorium to reevaluate its open-ended form-based code ordinances, which have no requirements for affordable housing currently.

“As you know, immediately following our adoption of the form-based code for multi-family infill, an application for a nine-unit condominium development was submitted without any public or council consideration and without any affordability or climate wise requirements,” Salerno wrote in a memo. “This is one of the largest developments Langley has seen in a decade and we have missed our opportunity to include affordable and climate sensitive requirements.”

Salerno also pointed to a $67,000 grant the city received to develop a housing action plan, which will focus on creating inclusionary zoning for both multi-family infill and PUD developments.

“There’s some real things missing in this code and all we’re trying to do is get it up to a place where we look at it very carefully, see the aspects of it and then make some changes before we take any more applications,” she said during the council meeting. “It’s the prudent thing to do.”

Much of the passionate 90-minute discussion centered around the proposed development near Coles Road, which would be affected by the moratorium since developers have not yet submitted its PUD permit application.

The 40-acre parcel is bisected by Coles Road. It was annexed into the city of Langley in 2005. Development is being proposed for approximately 28 of those acres, located on the east side of the road. In addition, some of the property will be preserved as forested open space.

The project’s next step is submitting a PUD application. Following a 14-day comment period, the city’s hearing examiner will hold a public hearing and will issue a recommendation. Finally, the city council decides on a development agreement and on a final long plat.

“Once the application is put in, there’s no more negotiation and that’s where we’re missing in our code, the robust negotiations that goes along with form-based code,” Salerno said.

A member of the city’s citizen-led Planning Advisory Board, or PAB, expressed concern that the proposed moratorium was not brought up at the board’s last meeting, which took place just five days before the council meeting on March 7. He also called for Salerno’s resignation from the board as the council liaison.

“It feels like a gunshot action,” Casey Gloster said. “It feels like a circumvention of process, and it was done almost to avoid confrontation and meeting with our group.”

When asked by Councilmember Craig Cyr why she hadn’t brought the moratorium up before the PAB, Salerno responded that as a liaison her role is to listen, not comment, at PAB meetings.

“This is a council decision, not a PAB decision,” she said. “PAB is an advisory board that’s directed by the council to take up issues that we choose.”

Cyr disagreed, arguing that the purpose for such commissions is for subject matter experts to advise the council.

“I’m really having difficulty with voting in favor of this,” he said. “I think at the very least we need to hear from the PAB and have them meet about it.”

A moratorium, he added, could cause a developer to miss a building season. To highlight the urgency of the lack of workforce housing, he related a story he had heard about an employee of a local business who was living in a walk-in closet.

Salerno told Cyr that one of the things that illustrates white supremacy is “pushing things through really fast,” which she referenced in her memo. Gloster questioned how white nationalism relates to housing and said Salerno was using emotion to stir up support.

“I think demonizing multi-family infill and developers is ill-advised and counterproductive to the city’s goals of creating more affordable housing,” Gloster said.

Councilmember Thomas Gill said he found the proposed moratorium to be short-sighted and questioned its legality.

“Putting in a moratorium is just extra paperwork and an extra bulletin board to the community at large that Langley is not friendly,” he said, “and to the developers that say, ‘Don’t bother even trying to come to Langley. Go to the county and try to work out a deal to put 50 units on 50 acres,’ which is the exact opposite of the point of the Growth Management Act.”

Members of the public were split on the issue of the moratorium, with some wholeheartedly throwing their support behind it and others vehemently opposed.

Resident and architect Mira Steinbrecher said she thought the whole conversation to be in conflict with the Growth Management Act.

“There are possibilities in the pipeline right now that could really provide some of the things that we need,” she said, urging the council to reconsider the “emotionally charged, panicked feeling” of the moratorium.

Resident Leanne Finlay also opposed a moratorium.

“In frankness, I believe what you need is the opposite of a moratorium,” she said. “You need to roll out the red carpet to encourage builders to come back to Langley because they have left Langley behind.”

David Stenberg shared concerns about the Coles Valley development, in particular, growing in size to more than 200 units.

“I think the moratorium is a good idea,” he said. “It might be a little too broad but the form-based code really needs to be looked at.”

Ross Chapin, the architect for the project, said he thought the moratorium to be a blunt instrument.

“I find that the people on the development side are well-intentioned,” he said. “They’re not the big, evil, greedy developer. They’re actually trying to create something that is a legacy and something that’s good for our community.”

The Coles Valley development is required to include affordable housing, at least in part. The city council agreed in 2020 that “permanently affordable” language should be added to the agreement between the developer and the city.

Langley’s Affordable Housing Sub-Committee will determine the percentage or number of “permanently affordable” homes that the development, or any other potential PUDs, must have. Most recently, the committee has discussed earmarking 20 to 30% of development as affordable housing. Of that amount, 80% would be rentals.

Councilmember Gail Fleming was the only other council member present at the meeting to support the moratorium. She said she would like to have more public input on the matter.

“I think a lot of people were upset and felt like this suddenly came upon them, and they deserve to be heard,” she said.

With only four out of five council members present, Salerno decided to rescind her motion for the moratorium. For an emergency moratorium to be enacted, it would need a super majority of four council votes to pass.

Cyr said he would like to see the moratorium referred to the PAB for consideration. Gill said the issue will need a public hearing and more public comments.

The PAB’s next meeting is April 6. Next month, the council will be meeting April 4 and April 18.