Land Use Chapter

As with the Community Design section, the additions to this section appear to add more complexity to permit review times. There needs to be an overhaul in the permit processing system to adjust the backlog of development applications. How can "Equitable mix of uses" be structured or monitored? What does that actually MEAN? If we are talking about true equity, why did it take so long to get a park in the north part of Bellingham, but SO easily get Greenways money to buy the 100 Acre Wood? Where is the equitable land use for the Edgemoor, Southill or South neighborhoods? Where is the multi-family density in those neighborhoods? So often there is the talk of equity and inclusion yet an immediate negative reaction of NIMBY-ism for anything proposed in those neighborhoods.   Learning that James Street is being considered as an Urban Village only makes me happy! I also have to add as a Sunnyland resident that I am excited for the development potential of townhouse style development along this corridor. James St is already so busy, and southbound Canadians heading to Trader Joe's will HAVE to slow down. There are already trails through here, the new school, Memorial Park, and other amenities that make it rip for Vancouver BS style redevelopment and lot consolidation. Transit availability, sidewalks and bike arterials are already in place. The new state regulations for allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are intended to build more units in areas that have larger lots, lots that can accommodate those units and residents. ADUs have the same life/safety requirements as any other housing type. and can be rented to anyone or converted to a “condominium” and then sold separately allowing for the start of ownership and building of equity.

When we naively supported “infill” and “affordable housing” within the city, we imagined that a variety of cute, small homes built on formerly vacant lots or to replace derelict buildings. And that might have been what it was like in the beginning. However, we now realize that these new regulations are being used by greedy developers for maximum profit. They buy up nice properties in desirable neighborhoods and replace them with a tight cluster of as many unappealing living units as will legally be allowed. With one stroke, any developer with a good real estate attorney is able to change the character of any of our neighborhoods. In the process, our property values are destroyed as are the life-long investments of families in the surrounding properties. The overcrowded development theoretically adds housing to the city, but the reality is that the density, rapid and slipshod construction, bargain materials and finishes, make for a house and a neighborhood where nobody wants to live. The units are bought, or more likely, rented, by transient residents. The additional noise, traffic, and asphalt makes our neighborhoods unappealing to everyone. Anyone who can afford to move out will leave.

The new regulations for allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were intended to make a place for grandma or an adult child to live. Yet opportunistic developers use these ADU laws to build yet more units in their developments. And conveniently, the ADUs have more lax codes for building and parking. These ADUs can be rented to anyone or converted to a “condominium” and then sold separately for yet more profit. It’s a goldmine for developers.

This is happening in my neighborhood right now. The neighbors are distressed, frustrated, and angry. We seem to have no recourse against the developer who is abusing the system for personal profit. We neighbors and taxpayers are paying the price, yet we have no voice and no power to protect our neighborhood or homes. This is a travesty. What will the city do about it?

When we naively supported “infill” and “affordable housing” within the city, we imagined that a variety of cute, small homes built on formerly vacant lots or to replace derelict buildings. And that might have been what it was like in the beginning. However, we now realize that these new regulations are being used by greedy developers for maximum profit. They buy up nice properties in desirable neighborhoods and replace them with a tight cluster of as many unappealing living units as will legally be allowed. With one stroke, any developer with a good real estate attorney is able to change the character of any of our neighborhoods. In the process, our property values are destroyed as are the life-long investments of families in the surrounding properties. The overcrowded development theoretically adds housing to the city, but the reality is that the density, rapid and slipshod construction, bargain materials and finishes, make for a house and a neighborhood where nobody wants to live. The units are bought, or more likely, rented, by transient residents. The additional noise, traffic, and asphalt makes our neighborhoods unappealing to everyone. Anyone who can afford to move out will leave.

The new regulations for allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were intended to make a place for grandma or an adult child to live. Yet opportunistic developers use these ADU laws to build yet more units in their developments. And conveniently, the ADUs have more lax codes for building and parking. These ADUs can be rented to anyone or converted to a “condominium” and then sold separately for yet more profit. It’s a goldmine for developers.

This is happening in my neighborhood right now. The neighbors are distressed, frustrated, and angry. We seem to have no recourse against the developer who is abusing the system for personal profit. We neighbors and taxpayers are paying the price, yet we have no voice and no power to protect our neighborhood or homes. This is a travesty. What will the city do about it?

The city is not planning to facilitate new housing that meets everyone's needs, despite what it says. I'd be curious to see the exact numbers, but my impression is that we're getting tons of new studio and 1-bed apartment units very quickly, but that it's not helping for a few reasons. First, it's my impression we're not seeing rents come down in any significant way. I doubt it's a simple supply/demand relationship. Does the city have any ideas what factors are preventing rents from coming down? Second, the growth we're doing now, and the growth that's currently proposed, does not meet the needs of people who need something other than a studio or 1-bedroom. The city's emphasis on densification and missing middle housing is not going to address this. We're seeing single family house and townhouse prices continue to skyrocket. People seeking these homes have to move out of Bellingham, including into rural Whatcom County where they need to use wells for water and septic for their sewer. It's better for the city and the the environment to fit these people in city limits. I want to see the city expand its boundaries in a responsible way. Let's remove the UGA designations from places that will realistically never be annexed, and add UGA designations in places that are good for potential development, like north up Meridian or King Mountain. That way, there will be room for construction of all types of housing, and transit and public facilities can be designed to meet the needs of these growing communities. Expansion is not in and of itself a bad thing. It's worse to drive what ought to be urban residential growth into rural areas.

I also have to add as a Sunnyland resident that I am disappointed that James Street is being considered for an urban village. James St is already so busy, and traffic is going to be even slower when it's converted into one lane both ways. If we needed to upsize sewer or water mains to accommodate ne multifamily growth, it would be extremely inconvenient when James St is down to two lanes. Plus, those oak trees are a real treasure and must be protected from damage. Instead, why not rezone all the random half-empty warehouses in south Sunnyland to urban village? They're all within blocks of Ohio or State Street and would be closer to downtown. There are already trails through there. The only reason that industrial area exists is because the train used to go that way before it was decommissioned in the 1970s. I just think it's a no-brainer to rezone that area. If it's a matter of transit availability, work with WTA to plan a new route through there. Frankly, Iowa St east of James is also an eyesore and could be rezoned to urban village, at least in parts.

Expand the North Bellingham UGA Reserve in order to provide a variety of housing at affordable levels. There is a need for the King Mountain and Samish Hill water tanks to complete system connections, provide proper storage for emergencies and maintenance. Infill housing strategies are also needed in existing neighborhoods. We need solutions for housing which will reliably provide variety and affordability so they remain in Bellingham.

We known that homelessness is a housing problem and Bellingham has a shortage of affordable homes. Housing supply and affordability are critical issues that need solutions beyond just infill housing. Remove areas in the UGA that are not buildable for homes and where residents do not want to be annexed into the City. Include the UGA Reserves for a variety of affordable housing opportunities and permanently supportive housing for our community.

I am in support of adding the Caitec and south Yew St areas into the UGA.

I am in support of middle housing and lot splitting to allow smaller lots and therefore smaller homes (~1000sqft) which will be more affordable for my friends and family making a reasonable salary.

I support annexing some more parcels of land, and adding more housing density. We are growing and people need a place to live. As an avid trail user, I have concern about all of the housing taking the form of expensive, large single family homes on big lots. For example, I notice that a parcel near Yew and San Juan might be annexed. This area is adjacent to Galbraith and there are a lot of trails (both unsanctioned and approved by WMBC). Deer, bobcats, birds, large old trees, wildflowers, and a creek all coexist in this area. Instead of clear cutting a parcel to put in, say, 30 single family homes, I'd be curious of planners could consider a denser neighborhoods with townhomes and maybe even condos, and leave more trails preserved, housing more people but leaving more open space.