Housing Chapter

I'm eager to see Bellingham's plan for doing what House Bill 1220 says - making sure homes over the next 20 years are affordable for all economic segments of the community. I'd like to make a friendly wager that the City's Community Development Advisory Board had a good idea for that back in August 1990 when CDAB's citizen volunteers proposed a City Council Resolution for an idea they called, "Growth Management Housing Affordability Program."  The program's purpose was, "To provide an adequate number of affordable homes for every income group in Bellingham and at the rate of population growth that public spending, services and facilities can accommodate gracefully without burdensome taxation."  I would like to provide the City with a copy of the program's methodology. It might be workable if there's political will to meet the goals of HB 1220.  Thanks for considering this.

Housing
• Require all multifamily housing developments larger than three units to have a designated and compensated site manager to ensure that there is a responsible person on site for all major multifamily projects. This will increase accountability around garbage, traffic, excessive noise or lighting, etc. Post this manager’s name and number prominently in several places on the exterior of the facility.
• Come up with ways to limit the spread of corporate landlords who constrain tenant freedoms (like prohibiting guest parking in a neighborhood) artificially. Require a tenant response person or department at each company to ensure accountability.
• Promote ADUs where the main housing unit is owner-occupied. Discourage ADUs as a way to pack additional non-affordable housing into corporate landlord-owned facilities.
• Create a ceiling for the maximum number of housing units that can be managed by a single company at perhaps 500 or 1000; larger companies cannot possibly maintain responsiveness to tenants past a certain point.

COB should consider results oriented building code rather than specifying excessive detail. Allow architects, builders and property owners to get the same quality of housing perhaps using new technology to obtain the same result or better or at a lower cost.
COB should have sufficient staff to review and inspect the building of homes by not causing delays that end up costing more interest and other expenses.
Reduce the conflicts of different goals. For example we want to reduce hard surfaces, but the fire department does not allow medians on private fire lanes serving several homes. The COB interpretation of the Western Washington storm water manual has the effect of restricting development of housing. For example, it counts a pavement patch in the city paved street as part of the 10,000 square feet of allowed hard surfaces. COB is inflexible in attempts to reduce runoff by using permeable pavement and planted medians.
The present parking requirements for SFR when added to the Ecology manual and the fire lane dramatically decreases the footprint of houses when the project includes two or three houses.
Perhaps the city could be more lenient about the definition of a project in relation to the Ecology manual.

I appreciate the different, creative, and specific approaches for housing affordability being considered. However, I don’t see what will be done to combat the investment model and predatory nature of residential real estate, especially with the new state law permitting up to four ADUs on a single property and not requiring owner-occupancy. As long as our houses (aka housing) are used as investments, either personally or as part of a portfolio, we will never have true affordability. Affordability is not simply a matter of quantity of housing units but access to them. Hyper-capitalism in this very appealing corner of the world should not continue to drive our unlivability. When house owners have no interest in people or the community, then housing is just a dollar number, not a home. While we individuals may not be able to fight big money, especially invisible money, our local laws and regulations should protect us and our neighbors.

Home unaffordability is at record high levels in Bellingham. In October 2024, the Washington Center for Real Estate Research published The State of the State’s Housing Report 2024 (“Report”), available for download at https://wcrer.be.uw.edu/. The 2024 Report notes: "Home buying affordability decreased significantly across Washington's major and regional cities. Bellingham, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, and Yakima all declined in affordability from Q 2021 to Q2024 (Figure 19)." Report, p. 26 Of all these cities studied, the data shows based on median household incomes and homes sales, that Bellingham is by far the LEAST affordable city in which to buy a home. Report, p. 27. All cities examined were rated as unaffordable, but Bellingham was the worst of the worst. There are likely several reasons for this state of affairs, but one may be because Bellingham has been focusing its efforts in recent years on adding more multi-family units, which are generally available for rent, but not purchase. Bellingham must find a way for developers to build new housing for sale instead of just for rent. The law now requires that Bellingham provide housing for all income levels and a variety of housing, which must include not only low income, multi-family and missing middle townhomes, but also more traditional single family developments. Expanding the UGA to include the North Bellingham UGA Reserve will be necessary to accomplish these objectives. To solve the home affordability crisis in Bellingham, more supply is required for all household income levels. In the 2016 comprehensive plan, the city chose to focus on infill, defer infrastructure investment, and failed to add the additional UGA that was also needed. The city no longer has this luxury if it wants to maintain a healthy and diverse community. All avenues at its disposal must be pursued, including low income housing investments, infill took kit and missing middle housing, infrastructure construction, and UGA expansion. The North Bellingham UGA is large enough to supply well over 1000 units of various types of housing, and provide the level of commercial development for a north town center.

The Infill Toolkit is useful for adding density but the loopholes in the green factor and estimations for tree canopy need to be fixed. We CAN add density and more housing, but prioritizing parking and not making site level adjustments to retain trees will result in more areas with poor tree canopy. The livability code should have mechanisms for tree retention, and mini parks where heavy development is permitted. While Bellingham has been known for its livability, the increase in population is challenging our ability to develop rules to keep it that way. London has 7,000 parks - and the tree canopy is large, native and provides significant health benefits to residents that live in dense areas.

I have watched the building of very large apartment buildings which is changing the character of our city. They seem soulless and are just big and blocky. One is indistinguishable from the other. I like that you have incorporated design standards into this update comp plan but it is too late for these buildings. And, why do all the new school buildings look alike?

I think before we destroy the character of our diverse neighborhoods, we need to use abandoned properties in the downtown core for construction of new housing. I like the idea of small homes clustered around a community kitchen/meeting area like some co housing communities have. Not everyone wants or can afford even 2000 square feet. Smaller units like 500-1200 square feet are ideal for single adults or a couple who want to live in a house, not an apartment .

I think the idea of “middle-size” housing makes sense as a way to infill. I worry though, that the rush to build will be at the expense of the aesthetic characteristics that make our older neighborhoods attractive places to live. Please include design standards that respect the scale and style of surrounding historic assets.

Traffic infrastructure has not kept up with growth that has already occurred with serious and dangerous bottlenecks on I 5 and other locations around the city/ county. Please consider these limitations before adding more housing. I see Bellingham being congested like Seattle and quality of life decreasing considerably if projected growth is encouraged without infrastructure investment.

Housing is complicated. Building more housing is only part of the answer. Another part is determining who is buying houses. When folks move here and can pay cash for a house because they were able to sell a home they bought 20 or more years ago for 4x (or more!) what they paid, that automatically changes the nature of Bellingham. We’re not the only community where that is happening, of course, and it’s an old story. Water finds it level. But I don’t see in these plans measures to mitigate or even deter opportunistic buyers (e.g. someone who buys a house simply to park their money, or as an investment; corporate developers; etc.). And the truth is, large apartment complexes, while providing homes, don’t always lead to the formation of community. We do need more places for people to live, but building with abandon isn’t the answer.

My household is very low i come but i have always dreamed of buying my own home and have thoroughly researched all possibilities for us in whatcom county. We dont have enough income for kulshan land trust and because we have a tenant based housing voucher we dont qualify for Habitat for humanity.Also Bellingham Housing Authority does not have a housing voucher for homeownership program as some H.A. do. It would be great to have any opportunities for low income disabled people like myself to buy a small house .

In everywhere I've lived across five states and numerous towns, higher density areas have more trash, more weeds, and more vagrancy. It seems to be a numbers phenomenon related to the increased anonymity of residents and higher turnover. This is Bellingham's goal?

Create a town center in North Cordata in the UGA Reserve, it will provide a sense of community for the existing neighborhoods and an anchor for the City to the North. The UGA Reserve can provide a significant volume and variety of housing options, mainly workforce housing for people who live here.

I support the planning department's plan to increase availability of affordable homes by expanding the infill guidelines across the entire city. We need higher density; more flexible design options; and the use of an urban village approach to include walkable services, accessible public transportation, green spaces, and public gathering places. Another important component is opening up the UGA areas such as the land north of Cordata to provide more open land as well as the infill options.

When we taxpayers supported “infill” and affordable housing within the city, we imagined that vacant lots and derelict buildings, such as on the property at the NW corner of Sunset and I-5, would be converted to small homes. So I am astonished that these regulations are now being used by greedy and opportunistic developers to buy up lovely, single-family homes within quiet neighborhoods and replace them with a walled ghetto of as many units as can possibly be allowed under current law. With one stroke, a developer is able to change the nature of a rural neighborhood, destroy the property values and life-long investments of surrounding families, and make this a neighborhood of transient residents, noise, traffic, and asphalt where no one will want to live.

The new regulations for allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were intended to make a place for grandma or adult child to live close by. Yet opportunistic developers use these ADU laws to build yet more units.

In our neighborhood (which my husband and I spent years saving for, selecting, and improving), a wealthy developer bought a nearby home this year. He immediately started cutting down trees (without permits) and is planning to squeeze 18 units (9 infill toolkit homes and 9 ADUs) on the one property, which can potentially be rented or sold separately. He is unwilling to meet with us. The neighbors are distressed and angry. It seems that we have no voice and no power to protect our neighborhood or homes. This is so wrong!

The city has made a great start with getting lots of studio and 1-bedroom apartment buildings up, but we're not seeing larger units being built. Families need 2+ bedrooms. The city cites the housing preference survey, saying that urban residential and small-scale residential are the most preferred housing types. But suburban is a close third - in fact, it's basically tied with urban residential, and I wonder if the difference is even statistically significant (there isn't an analysis of statistical significance here, but 1% doesn't feel like it would be). In order to get in these small scale residential and suburban homes, the city is going to need to expand its boundaries. Add more UGAs to the north side of Bellingham, in the King Mountain and Cordata areas. These areas are less ecologically sensitive than the areas east and south of the city. To me, it's simple. We need housing, we have land north of the city that can accommodate that housing with a little investment, so let's put houses there. We could meet the city's other goals too by adding in small-scale commercial and other services.

More affordable quality housing for residents and families. Housing for residents to buy and stay in our community and city, not housing that will be purchased by companies to rent out at exorbitant prices or just prioritizes students. Include housing and supports for our unhoused residents, not sweeps. Quality housing for all of residents that is built well, not cheaply thrown together. Invest in people wanting to stay and live in our community, not just students because of the increased enrollments at WWU and students moving off campus. Provide affordable options to residents who want to stay here and not get pushed out. However, this should be done in harmony with our beautiful surrounding environment and nature and our community. The Barkley Urban Village is ugly, devoid of any personality; it looks like the aesthetics of gentrification.

More home ownership opportunities for 30-50% could be possible if the "Incentive Program for Innovative Affordable Housing Projects" code was revised to allow participation for small-scale developers. As the process stands, it is far too complex for your average citizen to take advantage of the benefits intended to support affordable housing projects.

High up on the list is to encourage homeownership opportunities. How can we create ownership for those in the 30-50% AMI bracket? Code should be revised to allow for co-housing development without the current restrictions of minimum lot size and minimum number of units. Acquisition of a parcel large enough to meet the minimum requirements is cost prohibitive as land values increase.

I would like to see tiny home/park model home villages added to the list of affordable housing
The ultra-expensive tiny home community on South Lake Whatcom is formidable for most

Co-housing communities with a shared kitchen/common room are currently privatized, but could provide very reasonable options for the city if well-designed/managed