Zoning
Multi-partner registry (B.5)
Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
Supportive (2)
At a glance
- Public comments
- 2
- Last 30 days
- 2
Discussed at 1 meeting in the last 60 days; most recently Nov 2, 2026.
Public comments (3)
MixedAnita GoswamiNov 2, 2026
She applauded the registry but asked the city to prepare guidance on financial liability for partners, praised the sidewalk repair funding, and demanded a transparency chart of all billboard development agreements.
City Council (Regular) - Nov 2, 2026 · 47:23 →SupportiveMegan KatzNov 2, 2026
She asked the council to remove subsection H and change the definition to 'two or more,' explaining that most polyamorous people practice separate two-person relationships, not triads.
City Council (Regular) - Nov 2, 2026 · 54:52 →SupportiveBrett ChamberlainNov 2, 2026
The executive director of OPEN (Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Non-monogamy) strongly supported the ordinance and echoed the two amendments on concurrent relationships and the two-or-more definition.
City Council (Regular) - Nov 2, 2026 · 57:33 →