Affordable Housing Strategy

It looks like this page needs to be updated

Bellevue should consider removing the owner requirement for Dadu's so that they may be converted to condominiums and sold separately as to increase the access to home ownership within Bellevue, just as Seattle and several other cities and counties have done.

The city of Bellevue continues to show its disregard, even contempt for existing neighborhoods with this proposal.

This scheme is another backdoor method of jamming more and incompatible housing into existing neighborhoods. Is it not enough we have our neighborhoods being destroyed project by project with these megahouses? They take two years or more to build, house no more than the previous house and tie up builders who could otherwise be building affordable housing in suitable areas, such as along the light rail corridor.

The character and livability of long-established neighborhoods continues to be degraded by Bellevue's embrace of construction, demolition, high rises and the pursuit of reckless, needless numbers of new residents and jobs. No regard for those who have helped make Bellevue what it is can be found in city policy or practice. Except, of course, in neighborhoods in which city council members live....

Bellevue has embraced a false and foolish "answer" to whether cities grow or die. Try "Enough" for a change and quit building over everything that does not move. You are creating a city of snarled traffic, degraded, incoherent neighborhoods and a plummeting quality of life for your residents. The only difference between downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue today is the graffiti. The gridlock and misery of traffic is the same. The long lines of cut-through traffic in our neighborhoods is testament to the overbuilding you are permitting, even encouraging.

This latest backdoor method to allow churches to become landlords boggles the mind. Kill it.

I have lived in the Wilburton neighborhood of Bellevue for nearly 50 years. "Affordable Housing" sounds good, but it is just political hype from the City of Bellevue.

(1.) How can the City claim to support 'affordable housing' when they are giving (seemingly limitless) building permits to contractors like MN Homes to tear down 'affordable homes' to construct $3+ million homes?

(2.) Houses that are being torn down 'were' affordable ... great starter homes, single story homes for the elderly and disabled.  The houses are NOT that old; could have been remodeled or updated!

(3.) TAXES are part of the problem #1: The City benefits from 'tear-downs' by making substantially more tax$$ on a $3 million re-constructed home than the older home. 

(4.) TAXES are part of the problem #2: Homeowners and apartment complexes are paying OUTRAGEOUS taxes... that makes it part of the 'affordable housing' problem. A rental owner, for example, just RAISES the rent to cover the increase in taxes! My taxes are almost $10,000/year, and the buck stops here! ... That's almost as much as I paid for my entire mortgage when we bought this house 44 years ago! Let's get creative on alternate ways to increase the tax revenue.

(5.) More about taxes being part of the problem: Considering how big Bellevue's industry/commercial tax base has grown, there has not been much of a break for the residential property owners. 

(6.) Sustainable Environment: I have enjoyed the recycling classes that the City has provided. BUT... how can I take the need to use a bamboo toothbrush seriously (instead of a plastic one) when TRUCK-LOADS of the demolished houses in my neighborhood are going into landfills?

Community Rooms, Gym playgrounds are nit part of a tenants's rent, and it's legal. It's not part of your rent. It's an enhancement of the landlord. If Affordable Housing is going to get denser, the few common spaces should be part of the tenant's rent and alway's accessinble unless closed temporarily for repairs. If my taxes are going to crowd people into small properties any greenspace, community room, playground is created to offset living in such confined properties so the amenities should alway's be available so tenants can socialize, parents and children meet up for playdates etc. Otherwise people will just live in boxes with no landscaping and green open space. Imagine has done nothing for the children who live in those small units. Go see Francis Village climbing wall and the bike rack that is suppose to be the play structure? 30 Bellevue has no playground for the children. Please don't let affordable housing create sensory/nature deprived children, and allow more open common areas for the adults mental health.

With the above statement of the city of Bellevue increasing affordable housing and on the other hand the City allowing uncontrolled housing demolition in our area with no community input and no consideration of what is being replaced or built ! I find it very patronizing for the city to make the above statements . Again I am at a loss at how the city of Bellevue thinks these are improvements !! Any one only has to go to our neighbors in Kirkland to see that a much better considered house, with architectural input is being built, with sustainability and carbon foot print also a criteria . The path the city is on is only increasing the city's coffers, not considering us the community as residents.

Bellevue needs more buildings that have application processes accessible to people currently experiencing homelessness. I'm working with a client who has KCHA Housing Choice voucher and he can't find a building that will approve his application due to lack of rental and employment history.

Mkayanda,
King County has stopped building subsidized housing. There is a seven-year-plus waiting list for the subsidized properties they currently have.
What is AMI for King County?
You must have an annual household income at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).

Subsidized Housing Eligibility.
Family Size 30% AMI 80% AMI
1 $24,300 $63,350
2 $27,800 $72,400
3 $31,250 $81,450
4 $34,700 $90,500
Families who earn near 80% of the AMI rent elsewhare. Families below the 30 % of the AMI are allowed to move in if they have a gross income of 1.5X the rent. That should not be allowed. If citizen's taxes and other taxes waived to support affordable housing we should require developers to provide a product ( property ) where people in the income ranges would actually want to live there. Make the properties desirable without extreme density and 1 parking spot for each unit. Parking also needs to be provided for home health care etc. Otherwise, affordable property owners will allow tenants to move in extremely rent-burdened to fill up the units and get the bonuses involved in leasing up new properties. Religious Organizations and non-profits should not be manipulated in offering their property unless the City of Bellevue has an amendment that tax credit properties can not sign a lease with a household unless they have a gross income of 2.5 X the affordable unit rent. This was a common practice even before the pandemic. As A society we need to look at funding Shallow Rent Subsidies. Affordable housing is not solving the problem

I have read the C-1 density proposal by staff and followed the conversation at the Planning Commission. The C-1 proposal by staff is disappointing; it does not serve the goal to prevent land owners from having to get a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to obtain density sufficient to make a financially viable project.

Under the staff's proposal, any similarly-situated church seeking density already awarded to St Margaret's and St Luke's would have to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Likewise, it would not have prevented DASH's extremely time consuming efforts to obtain increased density on their property.

Also troubling is that during the Planning Commission meeting on April 14, Staff made NO COMMITMENT to Commissioners to re-evaluate their density proposal in future study sessions, despite a clear majority of Commissioners expressing disappointment in this proposal and calling for more density.

The staff's apparent reliance on a "demonstration project" to showcase one additional project with more density is unnecessary, and appears to be a dodge. There are two existing projects, St Luke's and St Margaret's, which already demonstrate that additional density beyond what is proposed by Staff is not only possible, but is a practical path for providing needed housing.

Council has repeatedly asked for Bold initiatives. Commission flatly stated on April 14 that this C-1 proposal is Not Bold. Recommend that Staff consider awarding density on par with St Luke's and St Margaret's for all qualifying properties and thereby take a positive step towards ending economically discriminatory zoning policies.

Greetings.
I believe affordable housing does not mean residents will not own and drive cars. Reduced parking out side of transit nodes of 1/4 mile and serviced by multiple types of mass transit will increase on street parking and create congested neighborhoods.

A 10 minute walk to and from transit in the dark and rainy weather is not pleasant and does not improve the quality of life. Perhaps added street side walk lighting and covered sidewalks would help and should be required. Corporations such as Boeing have done this or many years to their remote parking lots.

This is almost the same goal as set 10 years ago. DEFINITELY NOT an increase in Bellevue goals for affordable housing units. So much excess city property, non-utilized Parks Department lands and rigidly zoned land locations that could be utilized, NOT JUST "faith properties" to build on.

Old, outdated and poorly planned "Master Plan" for Downtown Ashwood Park still shows "Workplace Housing" to be constructed in the middle of this tiny 2 acre Downtown Park. What is wrong with our Bellevue Parks Board? Let's make a professional, ethical and transparent review before we do re-zoning. The Mayor has also expressed interest in building a Community Center
in addition to Affordable Housing in the Park. Our last remaining Ashwood Neighborhood green space for recreational public use would be destroyed. What is going on in Bellevue's Planning Department? Where is the "Planning"? Where are the Professionals anyway? Any Code review process must make common sense. Let's get real. Please! Any new policy must maintain Ashwood Park as green space for public use. Dwight Schrag - Ashwood Neighborhood Resident

I have seen multiple units being developed in the area and marketed as affordable housing.

It very concerning that the prices for these units are nothing affordable to the forgotten class of those who are "not rich" enough to afford, and "not poor" enough to qualify for the subsidized housing.

What is the city doing to address this issue of young proffessionals who wants yo start family and set roots in Bellevue but are priced out?

Not everyone in Bellevue works for big techs and can afford the higher prices. How about teachers, police, nurses, etc. who all wants to live in Bellevue?

Fewer mega mansions! You are taking down affordable homes and trees! You are taxed bf diversity out of our city!

Housing and transportation are intimately linked. Bellevue's economic profile claims the city had 150K jobs in 2015, but only 22% of Bellevue employees lived in the city (2010 number). We cannot afford to have everyone commute into Bellevue by automobile every day. We must build housing that's available and affordable across the entire economic profile of Bellevue workers: retail, health care, and even the underemployed.

Amazon alone is positioned to bring 25K tech jobs to Bellevue over the next four years. Facebook and other tech companies easily will bring that number over 30K. Each of those jobs creates more jobs in retail and other service sectors. How will those employees get to work? Wouldn't it be great if they could walk or bike to their jobs instead of adding more SOV car traffic to our downtown core?

We must remove barriers--both zoning and code--to building housing that targets all levels. It was encouraging to see support from Amazon and the Chamber of Commerce at this week's City Council meeting to eliminate some parking requirements for apartments, given that parking drastically raises the cost of affordable housing. We must do more to upzone and open up new ideas.

Bellevue prides itself on being a city of neighborhoods. Neighborhood representatives often complain that the "character" will change if we rezone, or that "people will park for free on my street" if we don't require parking minimums. But the city is nearing a future where we're all stuck in our cars, edging inch by inch toward the freeway entrances so we can crawl our way out of the city to our exurban homes. We have to make it easier to build housing for people (without necessarily including parking for cars) in Bellevue. We need to act now.

I am concerned about Ashwood Park. An earlier proposal dated over 20 years ago
called for building a structure on the Park that would include a Community Center
and Affordable Housing. If this happened, it would destroy the Park which is the only
open green space for outdoor recreation north of N.E. 8th Street. I hope any process
of drafting a new policy will include saving Ashwood Park. Susan Nelson

In many of the single family residential neighborhoods around Bellevue, residents would like the option to build out DADU rental space in the form of a tiny home. This would help to diversify neighborhoods, allow longevity into retirement and old age, and augment the affordable housing stock in Bellevue. Good resources from our own Runstad Fellows Program... get connected. https://www.naiopwa.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&year=2018&month=01&day=25&id=75:development-that-empowers-january-2018-breakfast-recap-

I am very pleased to see Bellevue making real progress facilitating affordable housing. As we are eager to say - our diversity is our strength - but we have to acknowledge that means socio-economic diversity, age diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity. The unfettered real estate market place will deny us the very diversity we see as our strength. We need government to help us achieve our already-stated goals.
Thank you for this important work.

Policy and zoning code comments regarding the current Affordable Housing C1 Strategy 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Thank you for initiating the actions found in Bellevue Affordable Housing Strategy C1, this is a much needed strategy to enable affordable housing development on these underutilized properties. At the time the AHS was adopted, Bellevue’s affordable housing priorities were somewhat aligned with King County’s affordable housing priorities. That alignment appears to have changed in 2020 where King County priorities appear to have diverged from Bellevue’s base priorities behind strategies C1 and E.

Up until 2020 King County had been prioritizing capital funding to homeless and very low income projects like 30Bellevue and Andrews Glen. The divergence occurred with new policies released in the King County 2020 Capital Funding for Affordable Housing Projects RFP. The new policies exclude very low income projects like 30Bellevue and Andrews Glen from receiving project based vouchers and will only make project based vouchers available to projects with;

“site based Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) serving 35 or more low-income households experiencing chronic homelessness”, and “to serve veterans and their families eligible under the HUD-VASH program and/or non-elderly (age 62 or under at time of leasing) disabled households eligible for support under the Mainstream voucher program.”

This new policy almost eliminates all opportunities for very low income projects on faith based properties like 30Bellevue and Andrews Glen. These two projects are considered Permanent Housing with Supports and they are distinctly different from the County’s site based Permanent Supportive Housing priority. The County definitions for the two housing types are;

• “Permanent Supportive Housing” (PSH) means non-time limited Affordable Housing for a household that is homeless on entry, and has a condition or disability, such as mental illness, substance abuse, chronic health issues, or other conditions that create multiple and serious ongoing barriers to housing stability.

• “Permanent Housing with Supports” (i.e. other permanent housing). Means non-time limited Affordable Housing for households experiencing homelessness with a high to medium level of service needs.
The project based voucher funding partnership had been a traditional key component to enable development of affordable housing projects to serve families and senior with very lower income levels. With the loss of leveraging King County funding options for projects similar to 30Bellevue and Andrews Glen on Strategy C1 properties, I recommend the City should also examine how Strategy E can respond to the new County policies.

In response to specific zoning code adjustments, I offer the following suggestions for Strategy C1 properties;

1. Allow building floor height increase based on building adjacency to arterials and buffer distances adjacent to R-5 zones.
a. Instead of allowing height increases based on dimensions, allow height increases based on additional floors.
b. Increasingly greater buffers should allow additional floors, i.e. if current code limits a building to 3 floors;
- A buffer of “x” width could allow 4 floors
- Additional buffer of “y” width in excess of “x” width, where “x+y” width could allow 5 floors.
- Where right of ways, easements, at grade setbacks, and upper level setbacks are included in buffer widths.
2. On properties where a church and affordable housing are proposed uses, allow residential density based gross tax parcel area(s) without subtracting church floor areas and critical areas in the density calculation.
3. Where an affordable housing project encompasses multiple and adjoining church tax parcels, allow increased densities based on gross area of all adjoining church tax parcels.
4. Allow all affordable units less than 600sf be considered ½ units.

Thank you

Allen

Allen Dauterman
Senior Real Estate Developer
Imagine Housing

I am in complete agreement with the proposed strategy to use an already existing bonus program to encourage the development of affordable housing through partnerships between faith-based/non-profits, City and, potentially, the private sector. The City should also make every effort to streamline the development process to reduce costs in money and time. With the problem so acute the City must act with boldness and speed.