A familiar story is playing out in Kirkland’s Houghton neighborhood. The Houghton-Everest Business Center is a collection of strip malls and small offices, mostly over 40 years old. Retail spaces are antiquated and undersized. The pedestrian environment, dominated by curb cuts to parking lots, is unsafe. But it is just a block from Google’s office, less than a mile from downtown Kirkland, and served by every major bus route in the city. The area is primed for reinvention into a prosperous mixed-use neighborhood if the zoning allowed.
After years of discussion and delays, an obtuse proposal emerged that probably prevents any redevelopment. The current 30’ height limit will be selectively raised to 35’ on a few properties. The added five feet would only be available to developers who create a new grocery or drug store over 20,000 square feet. Even then, the economics of new buildings will be constrained by added design review, 10% affordable housing rules, residential density limits, a rule that no more than 20% of the upper floors can be office, setbacks of 15 feet above the second floor, added road access requirements, and more.
The Kirkland City Council has yet to review the proposal, but can only rubber stamp it (a first study session is scheduled for Tuesday). The undersized zoning changes are the creation of the Houghton Community Council (HCC). The HCC has veto power over land use changes in most of Kirkland south of 68th St, and will block any Kirkland Council action that differs from their proposal.
Community Councils (“municipal corporations” in state law) were authorized by the Legislature in 1967 to ease annexation into larger cities, and were generally viewed as transitional arrangements. There were never many, and most were dissolved over time even though state law does not require a sunset. Just two remain. The Houghton Council dates to the annexation of the city of Houghton to Kirkland in 1968. The East Bellevue Community Council (EBCC) was created when unincorporated neighborhoods were annexed to Bellevue in 1969. No recent annexation has included the creation of a Community Council.
East Bellevue Community Council has a contentious history with Bellevue. The EBCC is currently in litigation with PSE over the routing of a transmission line. The EBCC wants the power lines moved away from 148th Ave SE which they characterize an “urban boulevard”. Even though the City of Bellevue has already approved the project, the EBCC’s appeal is funded by Bellevue. In the past, Bellevue has had to fund lawsuits even against the City. Elsewhere, the “Energize Eastside” project, a key PSE trunk line, may be routed circuitously through more densely populated Bellevue neighborhoods, including the Spring District, to avoid permitting risk within the EBCC area.
There are two paths to abolishing the remaining councils. Voters must reauthorize the councils every four years or they disappear forever. In 2001, the Sammamish Council (another neighborhood in Bellevue) was voted out. The council had attempted to block rebuilding of a local school because a new gym might bring more cars to nearby streets. They also appeared to consider blocking a nearby mosque for the same reasons. Concerned parents organized and voters rejected the Sammamish Council.
East Bellevue had a close call at the same election when the EBCC survived by just 75 votes. The EBCC had refused a mixed use development in Lake Hills after it was approved by the City of Bellevue. A much reduced version was finally approved in 2005. Recent elections have been more favorable with approval votes over 75% in both East Bellevue and Houghton.
The other path to removing the community councils is through the Legislature. Bills were introduced in 2011 and again in 2012. On both occasions, bills passed the House before fading in the Senate. After that, conflicts between community councils and their cities were muted and the urgency of reform seemed to have passed.
Community councils are inequitable, “protecting” one part of a city from development. Because their authority is to disapprove land use changes enacted by City Councils, their role is strictly obstructionist. As with the PSE lines, their impact often spills over into other neighborhoods outside their jurisdiction. When Kirkland updated residential parking minimums in 2015, Houghton deliberated on the citywide rules before the Council did, and yet could have opted out of the final rules within Houghton. In the end, the high parking requirements Houghton asked for were applied citywide.
Imagine how much less developed the region would be if similar neighborhood vetoes were institutionalized everywhere. Consider if every neighborhood could prevent new housing that generated additional car trips. The added bureaucracy alone would slow progress even if the councils were not so adamantly parochial.
About 10,000 people live in the area of the East Bellevue Council, and some 6,300 in Houghton. In each case, it is fewer than 8% of the population of their respective cities. The Councils have no responsibility to the broader city, or to anybody not already a resident in their neighborhood. By historical accident, they have a particular voice in their cities’ affairs not granted to other residents. It’s time the Legislature revisited their anomalous and anti-democratic position.
I’d be happy to see the EBCC eliminated. All five seats are open in this year’s election–I hope this signals a lack of interest in the council’s existence but unfortunately it seems more popular than ever. The history of the council is here including the results of votes on continuation: https://www.bellevuewa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_4779004/Image/City%20Clerk's%20Office/EBCC/Election%20History.pdf
The best example of the EBCC’s governance is the site at 148th and Main St. After the K-Mart closed, Costco proposed a new style of grocery store called a “Costco Fresh”. It would include all grocery-like items from Costco without any of the other stuff.
The EBCC screamed and moaned about how a Costco-owned store would ruin the “character” of the area. They put in a requirement that Costco daylight a stream that’s in the parking lot before they open a store. Predictably, Costco determined this wasn’t a reasonable investment and gave up on the idea.
The shopping center remained empty for a few more years. Finally, someone proposed a store: a Wal-Mart “Neighborhood Market”. Now that they were desperate for something, anything, the EBCC welcomed Wal-Mart.
TL;DR: Instead of a Costco Fresh grocery store, they got a Wal-Mart. And the stream has *not* been daylighted. Congratulations, NIMBYs, on turning your neighborhood into Hicksville.
The races are rarely contested. Houghton had to hustle this year to recruit a candidate for one of their seats when the incumbent chose not to run. East Bellevue has one contested race this year, and it’s intriguing. The chair decided to switch positions and run against his vice-chair.
A role where your only function is to say no to stuff is of limited interest to many people. Not why most people run for office. Yet the Councils themselves keep getting reauthorized.
Surprised to hear this. I always thought that community councils were just ‘advisory’ in nature, having no real decision-making power.
It’s different in different cities. Seattle had neighborhood councils that I think were technically advisory but in practice the city listened to them rather than the broader neighborhood. Murray changed the policy so that the city no longer gives special preference to these councils, in the belief that they overrepresented a certain subset of residents (single-family homeowners, mostly white and upper-income). In Kirkland and Bellevue these councils were formed on a different basis, as part of the deal to annex these areas. Annexation deals often include a promise not to impose significant growth or changes in the area, and the neighborhood councils are to ensure the area retains a voice and some control over the area.
Yeah, the Seattle Community Councils were created by the City, and had only as much power as the city chose to delegate (which wasn’t much; they were basically advisory).
Houghton and East Bellevue have specific powers authorized by the Legislature, which only the legislature or the area voters can take away.
Sometimes an extra approval step is good. The US Senate is theoretically wiser and more deliberative than the House, so it can slow down or filibuster or refuse to pass hotheaded ideas coming from the house.The British House of Lords has a similar function over the House of Commons. And the president has a veto step beyond that. But these institutions are elected from the entire country, and even if the districts aren’t always equal they represent the entire constituency. In contrast, these neighborhood councils represent only their own neighborhoods. [1] the fact that they can veto things that then affect the entire city is troubling. This is the same area that opposed any kind of transit on the Eastside Rail Corridor, and probably the same people that advocated repealing tolls on 405, changing ST’s MVET formula, and they would probably like to opt out of ST’s taxes if they could credibly argue that when they’re in the middle of the service area rather than at the edges. At most they represent existing homeowners in one neighborhood, which gives them more power than residents in other neighborhoods or would-be residents in their neighborhood. The city needs to balance the needs of all residents and would-be residents, and also needs to balance housing with a full range of other issues. If one neighborhood has special veto power over a subset of issues, or intervenes only on issues it considers important, then that is acting against the rest of the city both in breadth (in-people vs out-people) and depth (different issues).
[1] Another question is how well these neighborhood councils represent their own neighborhood’s residents. I forwarded this article to a friend who lives in the neighborhood to make sure he’s aware of what the neighborhood council is saying in his name.
Mike,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are many “would-be residents” who have no authority in a particular municipality. Those are the people who don’t already live in that municipality. Those who do already live in the municipality but want to move into one of the protected neighborhoods are represented in municipal elections.
There will never be representation for the former class of “wanna be” Kirkland residents. To have a seat at the table, you have to live within the city limits somewhere already.
The author seems to relish the opportunity for big companies, like Puget Sound Energy, to have an easier time getting poor land use decisions approved. The proposed power lines on 148th are a travesty as is the so called “Energize Eastside” which is anything but. The community councils, being closer to the neighborhoods they represent, appear to be more independent of the big business influences that have captured the Bellevue City Council.
Power lines are a minor issue. The major issue is that a rising population needs a place to live that’s close to jobs and the rest of life’s needs. Forcing people to live in Woodinville or Issaquah because Kirkland won’t make room for them increases car dependence, sprawl, and a lower quality of life for them.
[OT] On a side note, I’m amused and pleased to see that STB is looking more and more across the lake. The front page right now has stories about the region rather than just the city proper.
Here’s the lineup: Kirkland/Bellevue, LA, Seattle, Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue, News Roundup.
Putting in a mandatory sunset provision at the state level would seem to be the thing to try again. I can’t imagine how any leader would fight to keep them because they add cost and needless additional regulation. It would be a vote for local government efficiency!
That said, it’s primarily a job for Washington cities to push — not transit advocates. We can merely sign on.
I’m surprised that there isn’t an effort to stack the boards with more density-friendly people. It appears easy to run and win. A stacked board can then propose higher density, so more of their neighbors will either want to terminate the council or support their more density views.
Density advocates and multifamily dwellers are waking up to their latent power. The recent Seattle district elections where mostly urban candidates won even in mostly single-family north Seattle reflects this. It may not be a revolution but their influence is still rising. And as growth marches on in multifamily areas but doesn’t in single-family areas, multifamily dwellers will become a greater percentage of the population. They recently went above 50% in Seattle. Totem Lake will have thousands of residents who aren’t there yet. South Kirkland has little enough multifamily housing that it may be able to prevent more except along the view-laden Lake Washington Boulevard, but it probably has some pro-urban residents who heretofore haven’t been involved in advocacy.
I expect that to run and even vote in the election you have to live within the boundaries of the Council. Most of the people who live in historic Houghton are of a mind that their one and a half million dollar property valuations are right up there with the health and safety of their children as a priority.
I doubt there are any “density advocates” in Houghton.
There’s lots of multi family housing in the HCC boundary area. The latest being the development at S. Kirkland P&R. It’s one of the few parts of the Lk Washington shoreline not taken up by single family. Plenty of apartments/condos along NE 68th (aka Old Redmond Road). The area in question however is not a good location for high density. There’s a thing called concurrency and there is no way the road system can handle more traffic. Kirkland is having a devil of a time just trying to deal with what’s there. The fact that Google located there is not a good reason to double down on dumb. I think they located there to provide an alternative for those that didn’t want to live in Seattle. They got old industrial park land for cheap when they never should have been allowed to build there in the first place. If you want a prime spot for new mixed use development look no farther than the acres of blacktop surrounding the Kenworth headquarters adjacent to the S. Kirkland P&R.
Bernie,
Thanks for the clarification. Didn’t Google build where it did at least in part because it thought the CCC was going to be a transitway?
How are neighborhood councilmembers chosen? If nobody really wants the job, any chance that the grandchildren of 1967 residents might do a Houghton Spring by democratic means?
Does the law really say that these neighborhood groups can overrule the elected City Council? Doesn’t sound Constitutional to me. But….
When the old nobility passes on, what kind of a place will Houghton be to live in when the de facto Neighborhood Council becomes the Google corporation?
To avoid the whole rest of the region having to vet everybody fleeing Houghton, might be good time for some lines in the sand, well shrubbery, to forbid dropping franchises on civilians.
Mark Dublin
The specific disapproval authority is in RCW 35.14.040.
Basically, if the Community Council doesn’t like a Council land use action (comprehensive plan update, zoning, conditional use permits, subdivisions, planned unit development), they get 60 days to disapprove. The ordinance goes into effect for the rest of the city, but the prior code remains in force within the community council area.
In practice, what happens is that either (a) the City Council gives them what they want citywide, or (b) writes a specific section to the code that sets different rules for the community council area.
The warpath against EBCC and the HCC reminds me of the Federal Government promises to the Native American tribes. In the specific case of the Houghton development, that intersection is a mess.The 255 can take 30 minutes to get through there when there’s a weeknight event like a Seahawks game. The fact that it’s close to the Google campus only highlights what a bad location that was for a company that is thinking of serious expansion. Why didn’t they locate in the Bel-Red corridor?
Agree. bad location for google to begin with. it is almost like google built here in anticipation of the surrounding area being razed, and magically open up a commuting corridor for 20,000 or more when the space is actually pinched between 405 and a sleepy waterfront community with one road going through it. Has the author stood at this location at rush hour? As for the association with the tribes of the region, I am afraid i may need more of an explanation, but I can say first hand that steams and waterways that were protected salmon habitat have all gone missing, and the city of Kirkland is either turning a blind eye to the environment or riding the wave of development simply ignorant of the issues. The long and short of it is that without a light rail stop at houghton, there is simply no more room for additional single vehicle residents unless a big dig commences, and the scale of development required to urbanize would be in the hundreds of millions if it is to follow the bellevue model, with underground parking and the like.
Until last September, I lived a block from that intersection. Your characterization is hilarious. Traffic is bad enough to create significant delays for maybe an hour each day (although during that hour, which is roughly 4:45 to 5:45 p.m., the delays can be major). If a few people time-shifted even a bit, like they do in every other city in the world when congestion gets excessive at a particular time, many, many more cars could fit through. Houghton traffic fears are parochial and ignorant, and are destroying the great potential of the neighborhood to be a beautiful urban place.
I am confused. Are STB and its supporters in favor of local decision-making or not? Many here bemoan the state government’s ability to thwart City of Seattle or King County initiatives/desires, but now bemoan a neighborhood’s ability to resist a city’s power to do the same. Commenters here often talk about the public interest, the greater good, etc. Well, why should a City’s interest(s) trump a larger state interest but a neighborhood’s interest should not trump a city’s interest? This is especially true when one considers that had the neighborhood power not been granted, it would probably still be a separate city.
Let’s try to be philosophically consistent here. What’s good for the goose must also be good for the gander. Otherwise, credibility will diminish.
We have to look at whole communities: a city-sized group of people that covers the full range of job types, income levels, and demographics that the local population has. Units like “Kirkland” and “Bellevue” are reasonably-sized divisions. When a residential neighborhood asks for autonomous control, it effectively means excluding people of a lower income and social status than them. That’s exactly what zoning and private covenants have done in the past, and what this de-facto rejection of an urban village at 68th & 108th will accomplish. When these residents are wealthier than the community as a whole (both because they were able to afford a house, and because it’s increasing rapidly in value, and because many of them have supersized their houses to McMansions), it’s unfair to let them make decisions that affect the whole city. In some cities it may be reasonable to decentralize power to district authorities, but only if these larger issues can be addressed in a cooperative and fair way, not by every district being NIMBY against every other district. What if the issue were siting a homeless shelter, and the one district with a council said no, or every district says no. Then we can’t have a homeless shelter anywhere?
What Mike said. Cities have responsibilities. Kirkland and Bellevue must plan for more housing. They have to, within reasonable conditions, permit power lines necessary to deliver reliable electricity. They have a whole panoply of regional and intergovernmental obligations. Because we are, morally AND legally, more than a neighborhood.
Houghton and East Bellevue have none of these things. They simply have the power to say “go somewhere else”. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between local control and institutionalized NIMBYism.
Also, this is not new annexations. Houghton was annexed in 1968, and 148th in Bellevue was annexed sometime around that decade. It was a completely different world then. The population was half the size, and housing was cheap until the 1990s. So even if one neighborhood was particularly restrictive it didn’t matter as much because everybody could find something within the Bothell – Redmond – Newport Hills -Renton suburban ring. That also meant they had a short commute by today’s standards. What’s changed is that the housing supply has become critically short, and moving to the edge means a 30-mile commute to a Kirkland job or activities, and we can’t feasibly put as much transit in those areas as in the inner Eastside. The negative consequences of the state policy in the 1960s were minor and it probably seemed innocuous, but it’s having a significant negative effect now. If that bill were introduced now it probably wouldn’t go anywhere because the cities would argue it infringes on critical public interests and fairness and the legislature would listen to them.
You know? We don’t have a rodent’s hindquarters what you think, troll.
Unfortunately, there’s no “block” option for STB.
>>Tears well up in her eyes as her husband pats her for support. “I’m sorry. Too much density,” she adds.<<
ROFLOL!
Wait, are we seriously saying houghton has any room at all, upwards, outwards, or downwards to add more housing ob the scale of say Bellevue, which it mostly does not, or is this article simply saying that neighborhood councils are an inconvenience to development? And it’s not fair because… why? There are many compelling and intresting opinions here, even the trolling, but really? Houghton?
It is a major lost opportunity that all four corners of the 68th/108th intersection don’t have six-story apartment towers. That location has ample services, easy access to no fewer than six bus routes covering all major employment destinations, and wonderful amenities. Houghton has all the room in the world and the only thing that is preventing it from living up to its potential is a group of mostly older residents who are obsessed with the idea that their cars need to be able to go anywhere, any time, with zero delay whatsoever.
I moved out of the neighborhood last year partly because of that attitude and my increasing realization that it would be decades, if ever, before the neighborhood developed. I moved to a Seattle neighborhood that is currently less developed than Houghton but that has far more neighborhood support for residential and commercial development. It’s a welcome change to see several commercial buildings currently under construction in and near my neighborhood center.
Neighbors should have a say in upzones that happen in their neighborhoods. They invested their money in that neighborhood, sometimes a home can equal someone’s retirement. They want to be able to sell it for a good price and when upzones happen, livability can go down the tubes. Parks and open space, things that make a place nice to live in disappear. If you just let developers do whatever they want it won’t end up being a place people want to live.
I’ll let Mike Orr and Dan Ryan answer for me:
“We have to look at whole communities: a city-sized group of people that covers the full range of job types, income levels, and demographics that the local population has. Units like “Kirkland” and “Bellevue” are reasonably-sized divisions. When a residential neighborhood asks for autonomous control, it effectively means excluding people of a lower income and social status than them. That’s exactly what zoning and private covenants have done in the past, and what this de-facto rejection of an urban village at 68th & 108th will accomplish. When these residents are wealthier than the community as a whole (both because they were able to afford a house, and because it’s increasing rapidly in value, and because many of them have supersized their houses to McMansions), it’s unfair to let them make decisions that affect the whole city. In some cities it may be reasonable to decentralize power to district authorities, but only if these larger issues can be addressed in a cooperative and fair way, not by every district being NIMBY against every other district. What if the issue were siting a homeless shelter, and the one district with a council said no, or every district says no. Then we can’t have a homeless shelter anywhere?”
”
What Mike said. Cities have responsibilities. Kirkland and Bellevue must plan for more housing. They have to, within reasonable conditions, permit power lines necessary to deliver reliable electricity. They have a whole panoply of regional and intergovernmental obligations. Because we are, morally AND legally, more than a neighborhood.
Houghton and East Bellevue have none of these things. They simply have the power to say “go somewhere else”. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between local control and institutionalized NIMBYism.”
And me:
Stopping upzones are basically a way of keeping poor people and others that can’t afford a home out of the neighborhood. Housing prices will still be good after the upzone, so there is nothing to worry about for retirement. Upzones in Seattle don’t have the livability problem. Parks and open space won’t disappear because they’re owned by the city. There are regulations that tell developers what to do. We need more density; otherwise, no one will be able to afford to live here except for the rich.
“Neighbors should have a say in upzones that happen in their neighborhoods. They invested their money in that neighborhood,”
The best answer I’ve seen to this is, “But they don’t own their neighbor’s properties.” Zoning and covenants are a limitation on your neighbors’ property rights. The courts have allowed it within limits (and some say that zoning proponents have been avoiding a direct court case that might overturn it), but it’s still imposing the most restrictive residents’ preferences on the surrounding properties. Lax zoning itself does not directly cause growth. It merely allows willing homeowners to make deals with developers or develop the land themselves. Some homeowners want to do that, and some want to or are willing to live in a denser neighborhood. Many people are living in lower density than they want to because demand for neighborhoods like Ballard and Wallingford outstrip the supply (33% of Americans demand vs 15-20% of housing supply it) — and single-use unwalkability exacerbates it. (Meaning that mixing in some businesses and shortening blocks and pedestrian pass-throughs can improve things even if density doesn’t increase much.)
“sometimes a home can equal someone’s retirement. They want to be able to sell it for a good price”
What about the people who don’t have that nest egg, or the fact that an ever-decreasing percentage of Americans have that opportunity? I have more sympathy for people who just want some kind of housing in an inner city near frequent transit, than those who are becoming a shrinking elite class.
“when upzones happen, livability can go down the tubes.”
That’s in the eye of the beholder, and it depends on the particular situation.
“Parks and open space, things that make a place nice to live in disappear.”
Nobody is converting parks. There are better ways and worse ways to design open space. It should either be “active” or a nature preserve. “Active” open space is inviting, people gather there. A nature preserve has native plants and shrubs, like the recent bioswales, and may serve as a habitat for birds and critters and things. The opposite of these two is a wide empty lawn or other windswept dead place that nobody uses. We have too many of those, and many suburban open spaces and front yards are like that. So let’s consolidate and improve the open spaces we have. Lowrise or midrise density is not mutually exclusive to that.
Oh c’mon. Taxes are a limitation on EVERYONE’s property rights. But that doesn’t bother you.
Call me a troll. I don’t care. The fact is that almost every time I post, at least a couple of others back me. I know Richard wants to censor everyone who disagrees with him. Fortunately, the 1st Amendment hasn’t been eviscerated yet.
Members of community councils are elected by the residents of the council area. They are elected every four years and operate under STATE LAW. the power line down 148th in Bellevue is a redundant transmission line which is unneeded due to new AI technology. It’s construction over 6-9 months will make traffic along 148th (50,000 cars per day) horrific for commuters and businesses alike. In the last 25 years it would have avoided 5 outages out of nearly 100 that occurred. It will allow PSE to earn 10% per year for 40 years on the capital employed which will flow to FOREIGN owners in Canada and Australia. To do this they will raise rates across their entire system form bellingham to Centralia. The same can be said for the order of magnitude larger’ Energize Eastside’ project. There is little to no growth in electrical demand in this area despite the increase in population due to improved technologies at all levels of electrical generation, transmission and distribution. Big electrical companies across the nation have the same problems in a slowly dying industry. More technology is on the way including the combination of solar and batteries. PSE is using 50-100 year old technology to solve a non existing problem. You should be grateful that the EBCC and CENSE are doing all they can to stop these projects …. totally without compensation of any kind.
CENSE (Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy) is an all-volunteer organization of well-informed citizens who are using facts to dispute a marketing campaign by a multi-billion dollar corporation. PSE is one of about a dozen US utilities that are owned by foreign investors. PSE is the only foreign-owned utility west of the Mississippi. Its owners are encouraging PSE to build infrastructure, even if it may not be needed, because it earns higher revenues for the company than electricity and gas revenues, which have been falling for years.
Some have called CENSE and the EBCC “NIMBYs.” That isn’t accurate. We don’t think these unnecessary projects belong in ANYBODY’s backyard. There are better solutions available that are less expensive and less damaging to the community and the environment.
Critics of the EBCC might be more inclined to trust a foreign-owned company to make decisions about their community than friends and neighbors, but we still have some faith in local control and the democratic process.
A Community Council represents the members of a Community. They are especially important when a City that is growing so fast becomes disconnected from the interests of its more distant citizens. The EBCC Council members represent the residents within their boundaries. One interest of those residents is to maintain the urban boulevard for which residents of the past sacrificed.
It appears this entire blog is intended to discredit a fifty year old institution where unpaid volunteers have served the interests of their constituents. All in the interest of adding density, unnecessary power lines and possibly light rail.
I hope EBCC residents are paying attention and vote once again to renew this important body.