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.
If there were to be a determination at the April 9th Planning Commission Middle Housing Public Hearing that we should follow the state minimums or otherwise modify the strike-draft, we could then make changes and send the new draft to the Department of Commerce for the sixty day review (in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106) in mid-April (presuming the notice is not required to be resubmitted, the 60 day review would start April 20th). It would be necessary to have the Planning Commission vote on the revisions at the April 23rd meeting, and this slot is reserved in their calendar already. As feasible given the staff workload, we would like to provide it to Commerce as early as possible, since they’re also charged with doing these reviews for 56* other municipalities by the end of June.
If we were to have any issues with these steps, it does appear that the model code could be better than what is in the strike-draft. It creates more intensive development than perhaps was intended, because it has generic FAR and setbacks and Bellevue’s lots are larger than typical in other areas. It is much better than the strike-draft, however, because it keeps this additional density where there is permanent transit service and where Bellevue is planning to provide sidewalk improvements. I think the model code would result in family-sized middle housing that really dwarfs existing homes but is well-served by transit. There is also the possibility that the TOD changes being proposed in HB 1491 will affect these areas anyway (links below). I also like that there are details in the model code about % of facade that can be garage, etc. I think we would have had refinements like this in our code if we’d taken the time to develop the rules for one type of middle housing at a time.
The primary area that the model code really differs from the state minimum, other than the form and bulk differences, is the fact that it doesn’t count the ADUs toward unit density. There are almost 30,000 single family homes in Bellevue, so this would add 60,000 theoretical units of capacity across all parts of Bellevue, no matter how far from transit the parcels might be (although some lots will have CC&Rs or terrain where this is infeasible). If we can manage to pass our own ordinance, I will feel more confident that all property owners will have the opportunity to build to the potential of their lots before we run into RCW 19.27.097 issues. I think we will have the freedom to wait to update the capital facilities plan until 2034 (according to the second-to-last subsection of HB 2321), but it seems very likely that we will be strained by growth before that point, even if the ADUs are counted toward unit density.
I do think it is likely that we could reduce the area included for middle housing, or ask for an extension of the implementation timelines in some areas by determining that there is “lack of infrastructure capacity,” but this would be even more complicated for staff to do than the oft-requested count of parcels affected by the strike-draft, and there is again a timeframe element: according to the fact sheet linked below, city must submit notice of intent 30 days prior to the formal application, and then we would receive the decision within 60 days after the application (and they reserve the right to tell us the application is not complete, which would reset the clock). In other words, we have about one week to prepare such a notice of intent, and then would just barely get a decision back by the end of June.
I’m not sure if the part on page 18 of HB 1110 that mentions the case when a developer “commits to providing the necessary water, sewer, or stormwater infrastructure” might mean that the city could save money on these upgrades if the lack of infrastructure capacity had been identified and that parcel was included in up to 25% of lots where HB 1110 density is not implemented. Also, we are required to consider the water supply requirements for middle housing as part of the upcoming water system plan update, which we are working on now under Jim Grueber and will complete in 2026.
I am not a lawyer, but I hope the references collected here will help speed up a discussion about our options and constraints. Please do let me know if you’re aware of any misinterpretations on my part.
Thanks,
Nicole
From HB 1110, 4.(2)(b)
(b) In any city subject to section 3 of this act that has not passed ordinances, regulations, or other official controls within the time frames provided under section 3(11) of this act, the model ordinance supersedes, preempts, and invalidates local development regulations until the city takes all actions necessary to implement section 3 of this act.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.106
(1) Each county and city proposing adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations under this chapter shall notify the department of its intent to adopt such plan or regulations at least sixty days prior to final adoption. State agencies including the department may provide comments to the county or city on the proposed comprehensive plan, or proposed development regulations, during the public review process prior to adoption.
* List of other cities and their deadlines is here:
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/bv7go3x1h176hwy2lgm8chraykr8ki5o
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1491&Initiative=False&Year=2025
Current version of HB 1491 to be considered in committee on 3/26 has TOD within 1/2 mile walking distance of Link and 1/4 mile walking distance of RapidRide stops (If this passes, there will be some major fights over whether RapidRide K actually gets built as planned).
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/ne95amuim9ztxsp4svlul8r3a61b4zws
Fact Sheet for Infrastructure Extension option
Leave a Reply