Blog

City Council Members council@bellevuewa.gov and
Planning Commissioners PlanningCommission@bellevuewa.gov

Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the draft LUCA.

I am writing to you today to voice my strong objections and concerns over the proposed Middle Housing Land Use Code Amendment (LUCA) that goes grossly over and above the changes required by the state in HB 1110 AND 1337.

According to the Comprehensive Plan 2044, which was just passed, Bellevue only needs 35,000 housing units over the next 20 years, and that was what the community gave input on.

However, LUCA, as it is written, does not align with this plan. Instead, it allows an excessive amount of housing, including a proposal to allow six units “by-right” in many areas, so that we can’t reduce the pace of growth if it happens to exceed our expectations.

Neighborhoods cannot reasonably absorb this kind of density, nor can the City’s infrastructure support it. Under the new laws, the City has options to mitigate the increased density, such as
conducting a parking study to help maintain safety for pedestrians and cyclists; and requiring the same regulations for the proposed new development that already exist for single family homes.

Mitigation strategies are not optimized in the draft LUCA. This poses a threat to the safety of residents, to the quality of life, and to the “livability” of Bellevue. Suddenly the agenda has shifted to “we need more capacity”, even if it overwhelms residents and single-family neighborhoods.

The current draft LUCA disregards key elements of the laws. Allow me to highlight a few critical points:

1. Keep Development Regulations Simple Middle Housing code changes are intended to make housing projects at the scale, speed, and complexity of single-family homes (Ref 1). It is not a substitute for the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). PUD’s offer a mix of housing, but they require significant planning, negotiations, and complex management.
   Current regulations for SFH allow developers flexibility, and reduce costs, compared to a PUD. Simplification, clarity, and ease of use, needs to be incorporated into the LUCA, and keeping the same envelopes, footprints, and other standards for Middle Housing that already exist for single family homes, is simple.
   
2. Walk-ability The City’s LUCA should adhere to the requirements of HB 1110, which encourages in-fill “within 0.25 miles walking distance of a major transit stop… A major transit stop is defined as a stop on a high-capacity transportation system, commuter rail stops, stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, and stops on bus rapid transit routes.”
   The proposed radius maps do not align with the state law’s expectation, as they fail to illustrate “walking distances”, and add density where there are bus lines that may soon be rerouted. They fail to recognize that even if there is a neighborhood center, there might not be any major transit stop. They increase the state’s 1/4 mile distance to 1/2 mile, so this proposal will put density in much larger swaths of the city and guarantee that many more people will end up with a car-dependent lifestyle, whether they want that or not.
   The City’s LUCA treats all neighborhoods the same; does not reflect the individual limitations of each; and therefore, overburdens some.
   
3. Key Requirements Under HB 1337 LUCA should meet, not exceed, the key requirements under HB 1337, which state:
   “Cities must allow up to two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per lot.”
   “The allowed ADU/DADU size must be at least 1,000 sqft.”
   The height limit for ADUs/DADUs should be 24′.
   “No off-street parking is required if the ADU/DADU is within half a mile (walking distance) of transit.”
   “Setbacks for ADUs must be no more restrictive than those for primary residences…””
   
   It is also allowed under HB 2321 that we count the ADUs toward the overall unit density. In an area which allows four units, that could mean 3 middle housing units and one ADU, which would provide options for future residents.
   
4. Protections for Existing Neighborhoods: The legislature has provided protections for existing neighborhoods, which LUCA should incorporate. These include restrictions on short-term rentals, parking requirements, adherence to public health and safety regulations, and limitations on construction in environmentally sensitive areas (Ref. 2).

I respectfully request that the City adopt policies that support the minimum density increases and offer the maximum protections for neighborhoods allowable under 1337 and 1110. Bellevue can and should do better than the proposed draft LUCA, even if it means the City needs to install “interim official controls” while a more balanced and thoughtful LUCA is developed with input from residents.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

NAME
May state whether you’re a Bellevue resident

Reference 1: Washington State Department of Commerce Final Middle Housing Ordinance- JANUARY 23, 2024, Page 5
“F. The city shall not require through development regulations any standards for middle housing that are more restrictive than those required for detached single-family residences, but may apply any objective development regulations that are required for detached single-family residences, including, but not limited to, set-back, lot coverage, stormwater, clearing, and tree canopy and retention requirements to ensure compliance with existing ordinances intended to protect critical areas and public health and safety.

Reference 2: EHB 1337.PL, (5) (a) – (h)
These include restrictions on short-term rentals, parking requirements, adherence to public health and safety regulations, and limitations on construction in environmentally sensitive areas.

The Middle Housing Implementation effort will apply to areas that have single family homes and add density in the form of duplexes to sixplexes, cottages, courtyard housing, flats and townhomes. This Land Use Code Amendment (LUCA) is required by HB 1110, which passed in Olympia in 2023, and will add about 100,000 housing units to Bellevue based on the state requirements. Bellevue has created a special implementation proposal that goes above and beyond and will add roughly 100,000 more units. The implementation draft also includes changes to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, rules for ADUs, the definition of multi-family housing, Tree Code, and more.

The HOMA (Housing Opportunities in Mixed Use Areas) effort is also a LUCA, but entirely separate and happening in parallel. It will add apartments and affordable housing in areas like Downtown, Factoria, Eastgate, and the Neighborhood Centers. It is part of Bellevue’s Next Right Work effort and will help us align with the Comprehensive Plan, but is not being done to meet any specific state requirement. 

(more…)

From a letter sent to the Planning Commission:

In the Staff Report issued on March 20th, it was noted that a notice and a copy of the strike-draft was provided to Commerce that day for their comment. 

(more…)

Hello! 

There were some surprises in the February/March meetings about Missing Middle Housing. Bellevue is planning to go above and beyond the requirements of HB 1110. In many places where HB 1110 requires that we allow 4 units, the planners are hoping to increase that to 6 middle housing units.

The state law allows us to count ADUs toward the 4 or 6 unit total, but Bellevue’s current proposal does *not* count them. That means a location “near” Major Transit (within a 1/2 mile radius) would be able to have 6 + 2 = 8 units. You should know that developers are writing in and making oral comments to the Planning Commission asking that the cap on ADU size be increased so that they each can have 3 bedrooms (over 1500 sq ft), and some commissioners seem amenable to that. 

Anywhere that 6 units are allowed by right is a place where the developers will not be required to provide affordable housing in exchange for that density.  It will also allow co-housing/boarding houses/SROs as large as the lot allows, in accordance with 2023’s HB 1998, which applies to all lots that are allowed to have 6+ units. With Bellevue’s proposed map, some of the parcels are 0.8-1.0 miles walking distance to the bus stop. An example of this co-housing in Seattle is The Karsti, which has 52 units on a 5,000 square foot lot (average unit size 216 square feet). 

(more…)

The tree code currently expects fewer trees to be retained if the parcel is multifamily than if it is a SFH.

We are choosing not to count ADUs as part of the unit density, though that was clearly not the intent of our state legislators, who  included wording that ADUs could be counted as part of unit density in both HB 1110 and HB 2321.

(more…)

Develop responsive development incentives based on housing production the previous year.  

Develop incentives for building forms that are better for neighbors and new residents.
– Skylights, sunrooms, and balconies
– Enclosed garages, which cannot otherwise be required per (SB 6015)
– Mudroom/entryway capacity for bike storage
– Space for larger trees on-site

Create a senior housing incentive with age restriction and at least one unit that is ramp-accessible.

If we offer fee-in-lieu, possibly control the number offered each year and target them at particular unit sizes.

Identify locations with both access to transit and proximity to neighborhood/growth centers that would be good places for us to extend sixplex and co-housing zoning in the event housing production falls below targets.

In addition to the storymap created by Bellevue, create maps showing the areas which will be affected by transit service changes in 2025 (East Link Connections) and 2028 (RapidRide K). Show these maps to the public along with the “current” maps, both online and at informational sessions. The East Link Connections routes 220, 240, 245, 250, 270 and ST Express 550 will be providing frequent service according to the city’s definition.

Create an explainer like Seattle’s to provide education about planning terminology and depict potential middle housing configurations.

Send out a mailer about the process to every household, including apartment dwellers, as all Bellevue residents could be affected by water shortages, school crowding, traffic congestion, urban heat islands, tree loss, etc.

Seattle is proposing design standards for pedestrian entrances with weather protection, street-facing windows, and materials that add interest. Have we included these considerations? De-centering pedestrian access encourages developments to be very car-centric, and could reduce residents’ friendly interactions with neighbors. It is likely that these would also have to apply to principal units.

There are great items in model ordinance about sprinkler requirements, vehicle access (so the frontage is not all garage, see page 18), and not counting the parking area as a court (page 17, E.1.d).

(more…)

To the Planning Commission and Staff:

I appreciated very much the updated March 20th strike-draft, in which the proposed nine middle housing units has been taken out. Thank you for listening to the commissioners and the public who believe nine units would be too many for Bellevue.

We have an ambitious goal for middle housing in our state. We are being asked to implement four units over most of the city, with as many as six in very small areas that are a five minute walk from Link and RapidRide bus lines where permanent infrastructure has been built.

In other cities and regions we have seen examples of middle housing policies for duplexes and triplexes (Minneapolis) and up to fourplexes (Portland, Sacramento, Vermont, and Salt Lake City). Minneapolis was recently in the news because rents there fell while they were rising in the rest of the country.

(more…)