Housing Chapter

I'm a small residential builder here in Whatcom. I've built infill houses/duplexes and an ADU in Bellingham, Ferndale and Blaine. I want to comment on missing middle housing.

First, although there are needs for housing at all income levels, I believe the sweet spot for missing middle housing is addressing the "starter home" that has become almost entirely out of reach. For young couples with reasonable incomes, say two teachers, and maybe plans for children, the traditional, small starter home would be ideal: maybe 1200 square feet, 2 or 3 bedrooms, and a small yard of some kind. This has become prohibitively expensive in Bellingham and really, throughout the county. But middle housing, say a 3 bedroom apartment in a fourplex, or a townhome on a 1500 sq. ft. lot is the perfect "modern starter home". It provides enough size, outdoor space and integration into a neighborhood with potentially other families, near walkable, parent-friendly amenities like parks and schools. There is really no other affordable alternative, and without these options, young couples and families may be forced out of the area.

Second, as a builder, I firmly believe that TWO of the missing middle categories will dominate, because they provide the greatest value while remaining understandable to builders and mostly easy to build: townhomes (in groups of 4) and fourplexes. These two types fit perfectly on infill city lots, especially with alleys, providing a natural division of 4, so that buildings are reasonably sized (width/height) with an opportunity for green space for each. And while townhomes provide easier ownership opportunities (which is important), fourplexes may even be more critical, as they are a steppingstone into family housing for people who are not ready to be owners. A 2-story fourplex can provide half a floor for each resident (with windows on 3 sides!) and a single common entry, so they look very much like single family homes, making them easy to integrate into existing neighborhoods. Great for residents, builders, and existing neighbors! The Casa Blanca fourplex at 1800 D Street is a perfect example of something that would fit very naturally in all of Bellingham's urban neighborhoods. Please make sure that these two types receive ample attention and that you take into account input from builders. If these houses cannot be affordably built by private builders, they won't be. I would love to be able to build these here in the town I love.

With regard to housing equity and health, it is important that housing in general, and affordable housing in particular, is not concentrated along freeways/highways. Studies have shown significant health effects associated with living near large amounts of car traffic, and while I-5 as it manifests Bellingham may not be as bad as some other urban freeways, to "sacrifice" people who prefer certain types of housing is unjust.
Given the amount of housing already being built along Samish as little as 200 feet away from I-5, this is not a hypothetical concern, and the Comprehensive Plan should seek to mitigate further harms in this regard.

Need to allow some exceptions to ADA /other similar rules in order to make affordable housing affordable on homes already built these could be transferred to non profits; current regulations make it too expensive to be viable.
Need to include education on safely sharing the roads /trails as we get more bikes on roads and trails
Huge problem is land so expensive that builders want to build high level large homes to make it pay for the cost but these attract only high income earners and usually bring in more people from out of town. Suggest penalties on homes above a certain size per bedroom or for more bathrooms than bedrooms or something like that to incentivize smaller homes or more duplexes instead.

I would very much like to see a greening plan approved along with the development plan. Bellingham is a beautiful green city. I would rather say it WAS a beautiful green city. Over the last ten years, many green areas have simply disappeared from the face of the city.
The city is growing, developing. It should be so. But please do not forget to preserve its local flavor, the flavor of a city in an evergreen state.
Look at the new development in Cordata. These two-story houses, one next to the other, look terrible. Let's not lose the face of our beautiful city in the pursuit of living space.

I would love to see the Planning Department focus on conversion to residential or mixed use development of existing underutilized commercial and industrial structures. This would serve the infill goal; provide a significant number of new housing units in the City center, conserve transportation resources and cut down on emissions of more dispersed development, potentially revitalize areas like Downtown where vacancies and underutilization have skyrocketed since covid, and stimulate local business development. The first step would be a comprehensive inventory of such properties. The City could adopt bond financing and other financial incentives to start this process, and update the building code and permitting processes to facilitate its growth. We only need a few such projects to show its feasible and desirable. An obvious candidate is the Herald Building, which has been struggling mightily to fill its commercial space, and which already has multifloor plumbing and beautiful windows.

I would like to see the City organize a massive effort to reuse existing unused or underused commercial and industrial structures for conversion to a variety of types of housing. A classic example is the Herald Building.

The City could use the following approaches: bond financing, financial incentives and regulatory measures.

There is a substantial inventory of these properties in the downtown area and in other parts of Bellingham. Reuse of these properties for residential occupancy could provide benefits in the form of: a significant number of housing units, revitalization of a struggling downtown, stimulate local business, conserve transportation resources and reduce transportation related emissions.

Partnering with effective affordable housing providers such as Mercy Housing, Habitat for Humanity, and Kulshan CLT can significantly increase the availability of less expensive rental and owner-occupied units. Consider including an affordable quantity of rental units in the planning for the Civic Athletic Complex as a means of helping meet Mayor Lund's housing priorities.

With the recent decision to loosen parking requirements for new residential housing construction for the next year, it is imperative to activate a more robust transit system. Not every is able to bike or walk. Transit options are going for all of us and contribute to a more vibrant community.

While I think the plan as it currently stands is well thought out for housing. However, there is a significant population of Bellingham that is entirely excluded from the plan: the chronically homeless, roughly 40% of the current homeless count. I think that more thought should be put into providing shelter for those who are homeless, either temporarily of chronically. It would be helpful to designate one or two fairly large spaces for sanctioned encampments. Developing more shelter beds, such as at the former Public Market building or other vacant buildings. A third possibility would be to develop large tiny home villages, perhaps under the administration of one of the two tiny home organizations. An ideal location for such a development is the recently cleared encampment area on Bakerview. Organizing shelter for the currently unsheltered would solve several problems, particularly sanitation, and make it easier for homelessness outreach workers to contact their clients.

Staff Note: Comments made early than this one were based on an older version of the chapter material released in November 2024.

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.