Correction: This week’s Council meeting is on Wednesday because of the holiday. Apologies for the mixup on dates!
There will be two opportunities for the public to comment – First, on anything that’s not budget related during the 30 minutes for Oral Communications at the start of the meeting, and second, on budget-related items during the Public Hearing later in the meeting. I especially hope people are paying attention to the Critical Areas Ordinance changes and how they might harm Bellevue’s environment!
Here is a slightly modified excerpt from this week’s newsletter:
Public Hearing on the Budget and CIP mid-biennium update: This budget update includes Adopting the 2026 funding recommendations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Adopting the 2026 Pay Plans, Setting School impact fees, Setting Development Services 2026 Rates, Setting Sewer Utility 2026 Rates, Formalizing Wireless Communication Fee Schedule, Preserve the full banked levy amount available to the City, Adopt 2026 property tax levies, and Adopt “umbrella” budget ordinance which includes appropriation approval by fund, 2026 pay plans, and summarizations of grants and donations accepted that are less than $350,000. The proposed changes add $39.8M to the budget, for a total of over $1.9B. The increase for the General Fund is actually more than that, but there’s almost a $13M reduction in the Human Services Fund and other reductions that decrease the total).
Council is looking at other ways to meet Human Services needs and might expand agreements with existing providers. (Note: There was a recent announcement of $235,000 for nutrition services which will come from operating contingency funds and donations – over 3000 Bellevue households are eligible for SNAP. There was a mention of $17M that Bellevue has already spent on human services, but I’m not sure why it doesn’t show up in the budget docs for this meeting.)
Council discussion of the Critical Areas Ordinance update, which is required to be updated by the end of this year. In the memo, the current proposal includes a larger number of units for the reasonable use exception, upzoning near critical areas by removing the Density/Intensity calculation for development yield, and stream buffer standards that were strongly protested by WDFW because they ignore the Best Available Science and put salmon at risk. There are also buffer reductions around “degraded” streams that will be very useful for increasing development in the BelRed area, and exemptions for construction work near some steep slopes. There are also some new protections for critical aquifer recharge areas and wildlife corridors.
Co-living is also required to be implemented by the end of this year, in accordance with HB 1998. There is a typo in the agenda memo that says it’s within 1/2 mile walk of Major Transit, but it is correctly 1/4 mile walk in the map and community handout (which also shows the 1/4 mile walk bubbles around centers like Downtown, Eastgate, Crossroads, East Main, BelRed, Factoria, and Wilburton).
In the info session that was held about a week ago, it was stated that there would need to be a change of use permit if an ordinary home is being converted, and fire code requirements will also apply, so the building would need to have sprinklers or fire-resistant walls between units, and therefore perhaps most of the buildings used for co-living will be purpose-built rather than converted.
It also seems likely that short-term rentals will not be technically allowed. Co-living will be a subdivision of rooming house, which is distinct from boarding houses (that do allow short-term rentals) in city code. The plan is also to only allow 24 units where 6 units are allowed (without the fee in lieu). This policy did not appear on the Planning Commission calendar, as would typically occur with a new policy, so it should be scrutinized now.
You might have a 9999 sqft lot that’s allowed to build almost 15,000 sqft by the FAR (but the lot coverage percentage may mean less is feasible), that could have 24 units that are on average 450 sqft each and 4200 sqft of common areas, in a three or four story building (only three stories on a flat lot). These would be called sleeping units even if they have multiple bedrooms, and these would not be allowed to have kitchens, but they otherwise might feel like apartments. I think the Council could still choose to clarify standards for on-site building management presence, etc., but that’s unlikely unless they hear a good argument from city residents. Co-living was one of the two aspects for the Middle Housing decision that I created a petition about, so if you have more questions, I’m happy to talk about them more.
A past post on co-living is here.
Leave a Reply