Middle Housing was on the agenda at this week’s City Council meeting. This was the first time staff presented the results of their work to the council, but I think the councilmembers have been getting an earful on this topic for months now. The council asked tough questions about potential unintended consequences that might be possible with the staff’s recommendations. We now have an opportunity to do some research in response to the things the councilmembers have indicated that they’re thinking about, which is why I’ve included so much detail below.
Many people talked about the emails they’re writing, but unfortunately not that many showed up in person. From the introduction by the Planning Commission’s Chair Goeppele, and my observations at that meeting, it seemed that the Planning Commission’s vote was shaped by the fact that they didn’t discuss the topic and conduct their vote on the same day as the public hearing was held. The people who were in the room when the discussion *did* happen were a different group that mostly spoke about their desire for more housing.
Here are the recording and slides from the meeting. It was so interesting to see that each councilperson had their own unique take on the issue, and I am optimistic we’ll have a very productive meeting next time as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sw12rrqm40 (see timestamps below)
After the presentation on Middle Housing, the City Council expressed their thoughts and had some questions for the staff.
[1:40] Mo Malakoutian spoke with deep appreciation for the staff and their work and thinks very favorably of the LUCA as written for affordability and increased access to housing. He pointed out that we have tools to study our infrastructure capacity (Slide 7). He also had concerns about lessons learned from the public outreach process and questioned whether the handbook that will be developed should be created and used for education earlier in the process, since it’s complex code and we need to explain it to normal human beings. He also had ideas for getting word to everyone by using the In Your City newspaper, so that we reach more people, and was even open to things like radio ads. He asked why ADU aren’t counted toward the limits (FAR and unit count) when DADUs are. He also asked staff how we can prevent 38 feet height from allowing four stories, since that may be possible for a developer. Staff said that it’s very difficult to count stories, especially if there is an exposed basement, and it’s unlikely to happen, and he responded that it needs to be a zero chance of happening, since he has talked to developers who say they can make four stories with the proposed height limit.
Mayor Lynne Robinson is taking a very thoughtful approach when it comes to such a monumental decision for Bellevue. She values this opportunity for people to live in neighborhoods and have more kids in our schools. She said that she was onboard with the presentation until the cottages, since she had envisioned something that would be friendly for older adults (slide 4), not buildings quite so tall. Among the points that she wants to thoroughly address: Fee-in-lieu, Setbacks, Radius (where 6 units by right would be allowed), Types of middle housing (whether to have 6 of 9, specifically looking at cottage housing, fiveplexes, and sixplexes), Height (and how developers dig down to get the building height they want), FAR, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Density unit count (whether to include ADUs), Tree Code, Lot coverage, and what it would look like in all the different neighborhoods specifically. Fortunately, the mayor expressed her desire to pass the HB 1110 required density and then review the results, taking the time to educate the community about this, and to see the impacts of the co-living state legislation. She asked for clarification that the 28′ for an ADU would be measured from the bottom of the garage (answer was yes), and mentioned the need to true up the rules with the Comp Plan. It was a very impressive summary that shows she’s listening to a lot of different voices in the community and alludes to potential creative and neighborhood-specific ways to go beyond the state minimum once we can take the time to stop and think and discuss it as a community. She also mentioned the importance of understandable language. She has great optimism that young people will be able to come back to Bellevue after college and afford to raise their families here as a result of the additional housing. She also had a question about parking from slide 20.
Dave Hamilton is ready to proceed with the staff recommendation. He characterized the proposal as a strong recommendation, and says our policies have resulted in inadequate affordable housing. His vision is that smaller homes on smaller lots, or a converted basement or garage can build a strong foundation of stability and opportunity for residents and their children. He personally thinks we can go beyond the Planning Commission recommendation, and has heard that input, but points out that we can always revisit the code if we’re not getting the housing that we want. He believes the best judgement of councilmembers is needed to include the concerns of people who were not able to speak, perhaps because they do not yet live here, into the final LUCA. He strongly believes that this will not open the floodgates to new housing. He asked if other jurisdictions have adopted similar regulations, and the staff pointed to Redmond, and he also asked how many housing units we are likely to get. Other than that, he did not have any input for content in a future study session (does this mean the Council will have two more meetings about Middle Housing?).
[2:08] Conrad Lee appreciates everyone’s efforts on an age-old problem – he recalled how Bellevue was hard to afford when he originally came to Bellevue. He recognizes the generational differences in the housing market. Wants to keep looking for the right solutions, look at the big picture, and consider other areas of increasing costs to the community like sewer treatment and tariffs that create a floor on housing production prices. He raised the possibility of doing a pilot, focusing the changes in one neighborhood, and seeing if people like it, and then want to get the same thing (a cottage for their grandkids) on their own lots in additiional neighborhoods. He mentioned that some people don’t mind the four stories, and pointed to the fact that we are innovative people, but said that young people don’t talk about what they want enough.
Vishal Bhargava mentioned the increased input he has received from the public now that he is a councilmember, and he described his thought process for making a sound decision. First, when it comes to the things that make Bellevue special, he intends to be risk averse. This is a one-way door and difficult to walk back, and he wants to get the positive outcomes while minimizing risk. Infrastructure keeping up is a possible risk, since it relies on implementation in addition to making a plan. The speed of the growth itself can be a risk. He supported the idea of revisiting some complex housing typologies: cottages, sixplexes, and stacked flats. He agreed with the mayor that we need to take a closer look at the fee-in-lieu and make sure we get that right. True walkability is very important to him, especially since Bellevue is steep and hilly in many areas. He pointed to the question of 1/2 mile vs 1/4 mile as one of the biggest decisions we have to make, and pointed to the option to start with quarter of a mile and go to half a mile a couple years later once we are sure everything works. He thinks it was the right decision to remove neighborhood centers from the increased density areas, but doesn’t think there’s a high risk in the regional and countywide growth centers because many of those places already have that denser character, and are truly walkable and truly mixed use. He thinks going to 300 sqft for the garage/unheated storage bonus area is a low risk option. When it comes to parking, he believes in being cautious and revisiting it over time. Agrees with Councilmember Malakoutian about building height, and he believed that the 38′ was to allow pitched roofs for a range of building typologies, not 4 stories. This is something he wants to be super careful about. We should think hard about the tree retention policy and either monitor the outcomes or start slow and test and learn.
Councilmembers Nieuwenhuis and Sumadiwirya were away this evening and will likely have questions too.
In wrapping up this topic, Mayor Robinson asked staff to come back with the three options that reflect different points of view on the council; moving forward with the staff recommendation, moving forward with the HB 1110 policy and then coming back (possibly right away, Bhargava talked about real traffic and infrastructure analysis, tree canopy, and affordability that could be studied over the next 5 years [2:36] and Mo pushed back on how long the window for reevaluation should be, and Mayor Robinson said she isn’t planning on waiting two years), or passing the staff recommendation with some caveats. For each of the three options, there would be performance parameters added.
Leave a Reply