Bellevue Commission Recommends Watered-Down Middle Housing Code

The Bellevue Planning Commission made a final recommendation last week on a draft middle housing code, taking an initial proposal to allow additional types of housing across Bellevue’s neighborhoods and scaling things back in some significant ways. The recommendation now heads to the Bellevue City Council, and it will likely have a big impact on final deliberations over the code, ahead of a deadline for adoption later this spring.

The middle housing code update was prompted by the passage of several major housing bills approved at the state legislature in recent years, including House Bill 1110, which requires cities like Bellevue to allow for the construction of at least four housing units on all residential lots and at least six units close to light rail and RapidRide bus stops. A proposal from Bellevue City staff presented to the commission earlier this year would have gone much further than the new state-mandated baseline, a move that was applauded by many housing advocates on the Eastside.

That staff recommendation would have allowed nine units by-right on all lots within a half-mile of light rail and RapidRide stops, going beyond the required quarter-mile. The staff proposal would also have allowed nineplexes within a quarter-mile of other frequent buses, as well as throughout the city’s regional, countywide, and neighborhood centers — areas with existing commercial amenities within walking distance.

In March, ahead of the formal public hearing on the plan, the commission took the idea of allowing nine units in any lower-density zones off the table, scaling back to six units. But last week they went even further, dropping both neighborhood centers and frequent bus lines — other than RapidRide — from the areas where sixplexes would be allowed. They did vote to maintain the half-mile distance for allowing sixplexes around light rail and RapidRide stops, along the larger countywide centers that include Factoria, Eastgate, and Crossroads.

The idea of going beyond the state-required baseline has received some pushback within Bellevue. But in a strong contrast with the commission’s public hearing on the proposal in early April, last week’s meeting saw a majority of public comments in favor.

“Bellevue’s growth needs to be managed in a way that fosters a diverse community and allows for those who work here to live here long-term, and going beyond the state minimum for mental housing is an important piece in achieving that,” Bellevue renter Liz Boggs said. “I want to see Bellevue come a leader in transit, housing, and environmental policy. And changes like this really excite me, because they are steps toward a better Bellevue.”

“Building middle housing increases housing supply while preserving and enhancing the family-oriented character of neighborhoods. Even without building Manhattan-style skyscrapers, we can increase the number of housing units greatly in our city,” Arielle Davis said. “This means more families will be able to live here, making the area safer and more welcoming. Without increased housing supply, middle class families will continue to leave our city, and school enrollment will continue to drop.”

In deciding to scale things back, planning commissioners voiced concerns around the lack of amenities in place around the existing neighborhood centers — something that likely won’t change without more residents living nearby and the increased activity they bring.

“I just feel like the neighborhood centers are too small and the frequent transit is too uncertain for me to feel like pushing that amount of density is is the responsible thing to do, given infrastructure requirements,” Commission Chair Craighton Goeppele said.

Commissioner Jonny Lu also stood by the choice to include the larger countywide centers but drop the neighborhood centers. “The neighborhood centers are a little bit more scattered, in my opinion,” Lu said. “Especially, I look at Lakemont, and that’s visceral for me, because I grew up around there, like that’s a tough spot to call a neighborhood center.”

As for shirking away from frequent bus routes other than RapidRide, commissioners pointed to the unreliability of Metro service and the potential for future service changes down the road. With the launch of the full Sound Transit 2 Line between Seattle and Bellevue late this year, King County Metro will be beefing up service on routes that connect to Bellevue and Redmond’s light rail stations, but numerous commissioners didn’t see frequent transit service as something to base a decision to allow additional density on.

“I think hearing from some neighborhoods that they are really struggling with transit services. And I took [the] bus a lot,” Commissioner Negin Khanloo said. “I’m just struggling that nine months, six months of the year, it’s dark, it’s raining, and the bus is not coming. And again, for the minority of the group of people who are not capable of walking and all of those, it’s gonna go be a big struggle.”

Commissioner Vishal Bhargava, who was appointed earlier this month to fill the vacancy on the Bellevue City Council that will be left by the resignation of Councilmember John Stokes in early May, was on the fence when it came to these decisions around where to allow sixplexes. Bhargava voted against the recommendation to scale back the transit corridor rezones, but ultimately sided with the majority of the commission to scale back around neighborhood centers. But he will get a second bite at the apple when he votes on the final proposal later this spring.

“This is a large-scale densification of Bellevue, however we apply it and however we do the magic of making sure that it’s very thoughtful,” Bhargava said, voicing concerns about the city’s ability to provide infrastructure along with development. But those concerns seemed to be assuaged somewhat after City staff explained that development won’t occur where developers aren’t able to provide utility upgrades — a fact that will act as a natural limiter on development.

The commission did vote to allow all nine of the proposed types of middle housing throughout Bellevue’s neighborhoods, though some of those types will be restricted by the number of units that are allowed on the lot. Cities only have to allow six of the nine total types — cottage housing, courtyard apartments, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, and stacked flats — but the commission wanted to allow the flexibility for developers to make middle housing work in Bellevue’s residential zones.

In the face of charged emotions from Bellevue residents pushing for the commission to take any steps beyond the state minimum off the table, one commissioner tempered expectations around the middle housing changes, which will likely only result in modest changes across Bellevue’s lower density neighborhoods.

“I sense there’s a lot of fears about growth, and these fears are very vocal and have been in the last couple meetings,” Commissioner Andres Villaveces said. “And I think there might be a disconnect between what we’re imagining this will be and what it could be in reality. And even today, we talked about McMansions and flattening houses to build giant houses. And last [meeting], there was somebody talking about building a monstrosity next door. I just want to highlight this is what’s happening now. If we change this, the size of the buildings, they’re not really going to change that much.”

But even as middle housing changes likely won’t have a big impact on the size of the houses popping up across Bellevue, they would start to make a dent in the city’s affordability crisis by allowing types of homes that have long been banned. The question now is whether the Bellevue City Council is on board with the modest proposal recommended by the planning commission, or if they’re ready to go bolder.

Bellevue’s Bold Middle Housing Plan Faces Uncertain Fate at Planning Commission

Bellevue Primes Wilburton for a Potential Urban Transformation