Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Lodging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council member withdraws motion to reconsider May short‑term lodging amendment after executive session; no action taken
Summary
A motion to reconsider a failed May 6 amendment to Port Angeles’ short‑term lodging rules — which would have grandfathered six Type‑1 license holders — was moved then withdrawn after council took a brief executive session; no change to municipal code was made Tuesday.
A motion to reconsider a May 6 amendment to Port Angeles’ short‑term lodging regulations was withdrawn Tuesday after a brief executive session, leaving the code changes from the May meeting in place and no new grandfathering resolution adopted.
Background: At the May 6 council meeting commissioners debated changes to Port Angeles municipal code that clarified Type‑1 short‑term lodging eligibility. Some previously licensed detached sleeping units did not meet the updated dwelling‑unit definition in the 2024 code; a motion to exempt six affected Type‑1 license holders failed. Council members on June 3 proposed reconsideration and then withdrew the motion after an executive session with legal counsel.
Why it matters: Owners who had Type‑1 licenses but whose detached structures no longer meet the code’s dwelling‑unit definition face changed licensing status; public commenters at Tuesday’s meeting urged the council to grandfather affected operators, saying loss of rental income harmed households and local businesses.
What council did: Council member Amy Miller moved to reconsider and directed staff to return an updated ordinance that would grandfather the six specific licenses and include them against the city’s license cap; after a procedural discussion and a 20‑minute executive session to consult legal counsel about potential litigation, Miller withdrew the motion. No council action or vote followed.
Public comment: During two public comment periods Tuesday, short‑term lodging owners and other residents urged council to protect existing operators or to consider mitigation; other residents argued that the March code change was intended to reduce speculative housing conversion and to free housing for long‑term residents.
Ending: For now the May code revisions stand; staff will not implement a grandfathering ordinance unless the council reintroduces and adopts new language at a future meeting.
