City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome. Thank you for being here and taking the time to engage with our city work. Your voice matters, and we are glad to hear from you. City Clerk, would you please do a roll call?

Thank you. Mayor Malkutin? Here. Deputy Mayor Hamilton? Here. Council Member Bhargava?

Here.

Council Member Breyer? Here. Council Member Newenhouse? Here. Council Member Robinson? Here. Council Member Zuma Doria? Here.

Councillor Neuenhuis, would you please lead us in the flag salute?

Certainly, Mayor. Please rise if you're able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much, Councilwoman Ewenhouse. We have two proclamations tonight. We always appreciate the passion and advocacy. community members and staff bring when accepting proclamation to help us to be on a schedule. Please limit your total to three minutes when you are on the table. We have the first one is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Council Member Bargaba will read that. I am inviting Elaine White from Bellevue Network on Aging to the table after HE'S DONE WITH READING. WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR REMARKS. COUNSELOR BARGAVA, PLEASE.

Whereas World Elder Abuse Awareness Day observed annually on June 15th was established by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 66-127 to raise awareness of elder abuse and encourage action to protect older adults around the world, and whereas POPULATION'S AGE AND LIFE EXPECTANCY INCREASES, ELDER ABUSE REMAINS A GROWING AND SERIOUS ISSUE THAT THREATENS THE HEALTH, SAFETY, DIGNITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF OLDER ADULTS, AND WHEREAS ELDER ABUSE CAN TAKE MANY FORMS, INCLUDING PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, SEXUAL, AND FINANCIAL ABUSE, AS WELL AS NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION, AND OFTEN OCCURS AT THE HANDS OF TRUSTED INDIVIDUALS, AND WHEREAS Older adults may face barriers to reporting abuse, including fear, isolation, dependency, language barriers, and physical or cognitive challenges, making community awareness and support critically important, and whereas the City of Bellevue is committed to supporting the safety, dignity, independence, and well-being of older adults through programs, services, and partnerships that help residents age safely and remain connected to their community. and whereas preventing elder abuse is a shared responsibility. And Bellevue encourages all residents to learn the signs of abuse, support older adults in their lives, and report concerns when abuse, neglect, or exploitation is suspected. Now, therefore, I, Vishal Bhargava, on behalf of Mo Malakoutian, Mayor of Bellevue, Washington, and the City Council do hereby proclaim June 15, 2026, as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day in Bellevue, Washington, and urge all residents to join in raising awareness, preventing elder abuse, and helping ensure that all older adults are treated with dignity, respect, and care.

I feel like I don't have to say anything more. Thank you. Thank you Mayor Malachuchian and Deputy Mayor Hamilton and all the council members. Thank you for this proclamation and for raising awareness of elder abuse. My name is Elaine White, and I'm a member of Bellevue's Network on Aging. Our primary goal is to advocate for the aging population in Bellevue, which accounts for nearly one quarter of the city's people. Elder abuse is defined by the National Council on Aging as the intentional harming of a vulnerable person over the age of 60. It takes many forms, physical abuse, emotional or psychological abuse, sexual abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, and abandonment. It's hard to imagine abuse of anyone human towards another And there's something especially insidious about elder abuse. According to the dictionary, an elder is a person who is older or higher in rank than oneself, an aged person, or an influential member of a tribe or community. In writing these comments, I'm struck by the nature of this type of abuse. All abuses ought to be abhorrent to civil society, so why does intentional harm happen, especially to an influential member of a community or family? There is no answer. The fact is that it does. What can be done? We can be aware of our loved ones, neighbors, and friends' situation. We can help show care by asking questions when situations don't seem right. When we see something, we can say something. We can call for a welfare check or ask for help if needed. when we can be willing to help when loved ones ask us to. From personal experience, the seeming elder abuse of my dad was hard to detect. As his dementia worsened, it became clear that a woman he was involved with was taking advantage of his failing memory. When he asked me to take over his bill paying and financial accounts, I did, and the checks to her stopped. I never met her. She stopped her relationship with my father shortly after I took over his financial business. He was lucky. He did not run out of resources before his life was over, as my father-in-law had. Elder abuse is not just bruises. It can be, but it's not limited to obvious signs. Elder abuse is real, it is serious, and we can all help. Thank you for your time.

Councillor Birriyar is going to read that. I am going to invite Apsara Chowdhury, the elementary teacher at the Eaton School. Please come and sit on a table. Absolutely, please. Councillor Birriyar, please. Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas Juneteenth marks a pivotal milestone in American history as the oldest nationally recognized observance commemorating the end of slavery in the United States, and whereas on June 19, 1865, more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the last remaining enslaved Americans in Galveston, Texas, finally received word that they were free. Whereas the celebration of Juneteenth honors the resilience, perseverance, and contributions of black Americans while remembering the millions of Africans who perished during the transatlantic slave trade and the countless others who endured generations of enslavement in the United States. And whereas Juneteenth provides an opportunity to reflect on our nation's history, recognize the ongoing pursuit of equality and justice, and deepen our understanding of the experiences and contributions of black Americans. and whereas the City of Bellevue honors the black members of our community whose leadership, achievements, culture, and service contribute to the strength, vibrancy, and success of our city, and recognizes the importance of ensuring that African American history is fully recognized as American history. And whereas the Juneteenth flag will be raised beneath the United States flag on the evening of June 18th, 2026, and will fly at City Hall through the morning of June 22nd, excuse me, June 22nd, 2026, as a visible tribute to the history, resilience and enduring contributions of black Americans. Now, therefore, I, Council Member Noreen Breyer. On behalf of Mo Malakoutian, Mayor of Bellevue, Washington, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim June 19th as Juneteenth in Bellevue, Washington, and encourage all residents to reflect on its significance and join in our shared commitment to building a community where all people are treated with dignity, respect, and opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member. Please, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council Members, and city leadership. It is an honor to receive this proclamation on behalf of the Bellevue community, and I feel that Council Member Breyer said it all. It almost seems redundant. However, the 19th of June provides an opportunity to remember that this country was built on the backs of enslaved people, and that the moral, ethical, and humanist qualities that make our country whole cannot exist without the knowledge of our shared heritage and acknowledgement of its place within our history. This holiday is a celebration of black struggle, the will to overcome, and most of all, the excellence which has been ignored for far too many generations. Thank you city of Bellevue for being welcoming and for knowing that our diversity truly is our strength. You remind us that building community is an ongoing intentional act of collaboration. Three years ago, the Eaton School campus hosted a small and sweet Juneteenth community celebration. It is now a vibrant event that is co-hosted with the Little School and the Bellevue Diversity Advantage team. This growth is a testament to what's possible when we come together with a shared purpose, open hearts, and a commitment to humanity. Thank you for recognizing this day and honoring the true American experience.

Thank you. Do you want to say a couple of words?

Oh, no.

Thank you so much. So we can come down and take a picture with you all. Thank you, everyone. We can go to the approval of agenda. Do I have a motion?

I move to approve the agenda. Second.

It's been moved by Deputy Mayor and seconded by Council Member Newhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. There is no opposed. The motion passes. City Clerk, can we start the oral communication?

Thank you, Mayor. So this evening there are 11 pre-registered speakers. So first I want to mention that the council does appreciate members of the public engaging and contributing their perspectives and supports everyone's rights to express themselves. But I want to mention that comments shared during oral communications reflect the views of individual speakers and do not necessarily represent the views of the council or the city. So I'd like to go over a few of the rules for oral communications before I start calling names. So first, the total time of oral communications is for a period of not more than 30 minutes and all topics must relate to City of Bellevue government. People speaking to items on tonight's agenda will be called first and then if time remains, people speaking to items not on the agenda will be called. The presiding officer in both of those categories is authorized to give preference to those who have not spoken to counsel within the last 60 days or who will be speaking on topics that will come in front of the counsel within the next 60 days. Each speaker is allowed to speak up to three minutes and only three speakers are allowed to speak to any one side of a particular topic. And then one final reminder that in compliance with Washington State campaign laws regarding the use of public facilities during elections, no speaker may support or oppose a ballot measure or support or oppose a candidate for election, and that includes one's own campaign. So with that, I will start calling our list, and our first speaker is Royce Yen.

Welcome, Royce.

Good evening, Mayor, members of Council. My name is Royce Yuen. I'm a pastor of Common Good Church here in Bellevue, and I'm here tonight in support of Ordinance 6926. As a son of immigrant parents, this issue is deeply personal. Like many families in Bellevue, my parents came to this country seeking opportunity, stability, and a better future for their children. They worked hard, they contributed to their community, raised a family, and helped build the prosperity that many of us enjoy today. Bellevue has become one of the most diverse cities in Washington because people from all over the world have chosen to make this city their home. Our diversity is not a challenge to overcome. It is one of Bellevue's greatest strengths. At Common Good Church, we serve and worship alongside immigrants and families of many backgrounds. We also partner with For Tomorrow Safe Parking, a Bellevue-funded initiative that reflects the city's commitment to caring for vulnerable communities. Through that partnership, we see firsthand that when people feel safe, they seek help, access services, build community, and move forward with dignity. Over the past several months, I've watched a growing anxiety settle into many of the immigrant communities we serve. As a pastor, I have spoken with parents who worry about what might happen when they drop their children off at school. Families who think twice before seeking medical care, accessing public services, or participating in community life. Fear changes how people live. It erodes trust. It discourages people from seeking help and participating in civic life. Ultimately, it weakens the very fabric of community that Bellevue has worked so hard to build. And the prospect of a detention center in our community only deepens that fear, sending a signal to many immigrant families that they are not fully welcome here. A welcoming city is not simply one that celebrates diversity in words. It is one where every resident feels safe enough to participate fully in community life. Bellevue also has an opportunity to learn from history. During World War II, Japanese American families in our region were removed from their homes and sent to incarceration camps. Looking back, we recognize that fear and exclusion led us to violate the dignity and rights of our neighbors. We cannot change that history, but we can learn from it. Tonight, this vote is about the kind of city Bellevue chooses to be. Will we be a city that allows fear to define us or a city that leads with wisdom, compassion and human dignity? I urge you to vote yes to ordinance 6926 to help ensure that Bellevue remains a place where people from around the world can build a life and are seen valued and belong. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council members. The last time that the sign code ordinance update was before you, two neighborhood leaders gave comment asking for you to exempt neighborhood associations from the registration process. And that was Loretta Lopez from Bridal Trails and myself from Newport Hills. But we were actually representing a coalition of nine neighborhood associations across the city. I was disappointed to hear staff characterize our request as asking for special treatment. That's not what we were doing. In the city's comp plan, there are multiple references in several of the elements regarding assisting the neighborhoods in community building. Most of Bellevue's neighborhood associations don't collect dues to fund their operations. And that means that signage, whether it's an A board with a handmade sign or a yard sign made of corrugated plastic, are quite often the most effective ways for neighborhood associations to communicate upcoming events, meetings, and their mere existence to residents living within their boundaries. And unlike many other organizations that put out yard signs, the neighborhood associations that use them take care to place them appropriately and remove them in a timely manner. For Newport Hills Community Club, we've invested close to $2,000 in reusable yard signs for our meetings and events. And attaching, removing, and reattaching registration information each time we put out signs is not only time consuming for the person charged with placing the signage, but it will ruin the finish on our signs and cause them to degrade much more quickly. We don't have the funds to order new signs and forcing this new rule on us will create both a time and expense burden that's unfair. Please don't say that you care about the neighborhoods and then do this to us. I also want to point out that the burden this ordinance will create for the good folks in code compliance. That division is already so overburdened and understaffed that per their own admission, they cannot even respond to city code violations of much more impact to residents than the sign code. And I'll point to the short-term rental code as an example. Please help me understand why you would penalize neighborhood associations using yard signs to communicate with their neighbors that will not penalize investors flagrantly violating this short-term rental code and changing our neighborhoods into de facto hotel motel districts. So again, I ask you, please, exempt all neighborhood associations from the sign registration requirement regardless of what type of signage the neighborhood association might use thank you thank you thank you the next speaker is tim hay mr hay i do not see you virtually if you are attending can you please raise your hand

I'm going to go on to the next speaker, who's Randy Banneker.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor Malkutian, Deputy Mayor Hamilton, and members of the council. I'm Randy Banneker. I'm here on behalf of the Seattle King County Realtors, and I'm here to urge your support of tonight's sign code update. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. The draft before you tonight complies with the Reed versus Gilbert Supreme Court decision. It streamlines and clarifies the code, and it works with the traditional use of residential real estate signage while also preserving the city's aesthetic character. When I reviewed the Stryker before you tonight, initially I thought I might just send in a letter or testify virtually, but this update has been so strikingly different from our experience in other cities that I felt compelled to come in person. Your staff has engaged sign users and taken the time to explain the breadth and the scope of this code rewrite and treated our questions and concerns seriously from the outset. Very, very few jurisdictions approach code rewrites in this manner, in a spirit of collaboration, and it matters. It matters for making a better code, whether it's sign code, land use codes, et cetera. More broadly, it represents another proof point of the city's openness and commitment to being a place that promotes prosperity, opportunity, and constructive engagement with those who live and work here. At a time when too many legislative bodies in our state are advancing policies that make it harder to invest, harder to build, harder to create opportunity, your commitment to a vibrant economy and an efficient, accountable city government is indispensable. It's the difference between drift and progress, between stagnation and a healthy future. So I ask you, Bellevue Council, Bellevue leaders to to keep on leading and others will see what a better path looks like. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hannah Floss.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Malakoutian and Deputy Mayor Hamilton and members of the council. My name is Hannah Floss. I am on the steering committee of Indivisible Eastside. We started collaborating very closely with our local immigrant community organizations over a year ago when it became very apparent that the federal government was targeting our immigrant neighbors right here in Bellevue. Tonight, we are hosting a constitutional observer training to educate community members on what is legally appropriate for them to do should they happen upon an ICE abduction in person. Indivisible Eastside is committed to supporting our immigrant neighbors and fully supports Ordinance 6926, putting a moratorium on detention centers in the City of Bellevue. The city should not be allowing the federal government to house people in our city or support the for-profit detention centers that are terrorizing our community and making money off of that terror. The detention centers already in our region are horrific places that are not providing appropriate living conditions. This is a common-sense policy that I hope you all will vote in favor of tonight to keep our city a welcoming place for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joseph Ostellar.

Welcome.

Hello, City Council. I'm speaking tonight on Ordinance 12B on the moratorium against detention centers being built in Bellevue. I'm speaking in support of the moratorium. I think it's a good thing. I think it's a pretty obvious thing to do. Especially, you know, in Washington, we already have one of the worst detention centers in the country, the Northwest Detention Center down in Tacoma, that has been terrible sore on Tacoma. It's been a blight to the community and it's been a place where, you know, people detained there have died because of the abject conditions that they're held in. So I think moratoriums themselves are good, but they often end up being band aid solutions to a problem that needs a more permanent solution, like an outright ban on these kind of detention centers in Bellevue into the indefinite future. which is something that you could do. So I urge you to make something more permanent out of this and not just pass this as a single moratorium, but use it as an opportunity this year that you have to look for more permanent solutions to ensure that detention centers of this kind could never be built in Bellevue. Detention centers like this are dangerous. And when they're run properly, they're dangerous. And when they're run poorly, they're disastrous. And we can look at the Northwest Detention Center as a model for truly how bad it can get. So I think, like the previous speaker said, this is a pretty straightforward, easy ordinance to pass. And so I encourage you to vote in this moratorium. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. That is our third and final speaker that we can hear from in support of item 12B. So moving on is Kadia Sal.

Welcome. Welcome.

Oh, thank you. Sorry. Just a little nervous. Hi, everyone. Hi, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Deputy Mayor and every in the council. My name is who just so. And I would like to speak. We have all the immigrants and Bellevue and in the Washington state as. and alumni of Interlake High School, I have been doing a lot of social work and also as a first generation immigrant also, I have a lot of experience and I have seen a lot of stuff happen when communities refused to open doors to immigrants. I am writing to share a concern and recommendation regarding immigrant engagement in Bellevue. As our city continues to grow and become more diverse, it is important that we listen to and engage all immigrant communities, not just specific groups. Many immigrant families face challenges related to language access, housing, employment, transportation, and navigating public systems. While some communities have established pathways to participate in civil discussions, others remain unheard and unrepresentative. Their voice are equally important and deserve to be included in conversation that shape policies and programs. Through my work with Africans on the East Side, I regularly meet families from a wide range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds who want to participate and contribute, but often face barriers of to engage to engagement i believe bellevue has an opportunity to strengthen its outreach efforts by ensuring that all immigrants interpretation services and opportunities to share their perspective i respectfully ask that the city continue to expand its engagement effort and ensure that immigrants representation reflects the full diversity of bellevue When every community has a seat at the table, we create better policies and a stronger, more inclusive city for everyone. Thank you for your time, leadership, and commitment to our community. I look forward to continuing to work. Sorry. I continue to work together to support Bellevue's diverse residents. And I completely agree because as an immigrant, I was... fortunate enough to know the language, but I do know a lot of immigrants who don't know the language and who would also really like to be a part of what's happening here because Bellevue is doing a lot of good work and they have been doing a lot of good work since 2018 since I graduated. So I think it's very important to keep an open mind that as immigrants, we're also people too, you know, we also deserve a voice. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Robert Champeau.

Welcome.

Greetings. Good evening. My name is Robert Shampoo. My wife Myrna and I live near Sammamish High School. I'm joined by additional Bellevue residents that share our concern with the ever increasing vehicle noise pollution. This is a citywide quality of life issue, especially in the vicinity of major arterials such as 148th, Northeast 8th, et cetera. When we first moved to Bellevue 47 years ago, we slept with the windows open. It was quiet and peaceful in Bellevue. Today, because of excessively loud vehicle, excuse me, vehicles, we can't do that anymore. Under Washington state law, vehicle noise is limited to 72 decibels. Using a sound meter, I've documented vehicle noise levels far above the legal limit. We're talking four times. Unfortunately, the Bellevue City Code on noise is focused on construction noise and is essentially silent with respect to vehicle noise. Now the emphasis patrols by the Bellevue police, they've worked for two weeks until they're done with the emphasis and then they come right back. This indicates that this is not an enforcement problem. This is a policy problem. that should be addressed by the city council. New York City imposes an $800 first offense fine and up to $2,600 for repeat offenders. On the other hand, a first time offender in Bellevue has only fined $149. If we want compliance, The amount of the fine should equal or exceed the cost of installing an illegal exhaust system. I've got five recommendations. Create a working group to develop recommendations. Update the Bellevue City Code. Increase fines so that they change behavior. Communicate that Bellevue will aggressively enforce vehicle noise laws. Evaluate the use of automated noise cameras. that have been explored by Portland and installed in 12 hidden locations in New York City. In conclusion, residents are asking Bellevue and particularly this council to restore the livability that makes this city special. Thank you for your consideration and your anticipated leadership to resolve this problem. Thank you very much. The noise level on here tonight has approached the state level for some reason.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Spanier.

Welcome.

Thank you. Mayor Malakoutian, Deputy Mayor Hamilton, and members of the City Council, my name is Dave Spanier. I live in the community of Greenwich Crest in South Bellevue. I speak for myself tonight, but more than 200 members and stakeholders in my neighborhood have signed a petition on the safe parking proposal, and many more have submitted comments. Let me be clear, I support helping people experiencing homelessness and I support the goals of the safe parking program. Our concern is not the mission, it's whether the site has been fully evaluated and whether residents have had a meaningful chance to take part before decisions are made. Greenwich Crest is a small neighborhood with a single road in and out. Newport Presbyterian Church sits in the center beside homes, wetlands, and the only significant open space we have. During the SEPA process, residents submitted detailed site-specific concerns, traffic and pedestrian safety, emergency and fire apparatus access, parking capacity, noise and lighting, impacts to the wetlands, and on-site security and oversight. We have not received substantive answers to any of these concerns. We have tried in good faith to engage. We approached the operator for tomorrow, and we were referred to the city. We approached the church and we were referred to the city. We've approached the Seattle Presbytery. They've also referred us to the city. And when we turned to the city, we were told to submit our comments and to wait. The city committed to answering questions on the May 16th meeting held at the church, but instead the format was changed to an open house and no formal responses were provided to the community as a whole. When I recently asked the acting director of developmental services for a brief meeting to discuss these concerns, his written reply was that substantive comments would be addressed only after the land use and environmental review is complete. In other words, comment now and get answers after the decision is effectively made. Shareholders keep telling us that community support is essential to the program's success, and we agree. But support is built through collaboration and transparency. That's hard when specific safety, infrastructure, and environmental questions go unanswered until the key decisions are already behind us. This would be Bellevue's first attempt to place a safe parking program of this kind within a residential neighborhood. If this approach is going to succeed here or anywhere else in the city, it should draw on the knowledge of the people who live there every day. So tonight, I respectfully ask the city council to direct city staff to provide substantive written responses to community questions before any final decision is rendered. A good program deserves good planning, and a good process deserves meaningful engagement. Our neighborhood deserves answers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. The final pre-registered speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you.

I very appreciate you so you give me another. Welcome. Yeah, my name is Alex Zimmerman and today

After three years, what does Mayor Robinson give you as a response?

As I come back, one's speaking about something that is absolutely critical. I spoke here for 35 years. So, Mayor Robinson, a pure criminal, and I explained to you why. When you have a power, You take somebody three years to trespass, so you cannot be a candidate in speaking council chamber. So in all civilized countries, you're supposed to be prosecuted. Here in Bellevue, you can be a criminal, you can be a Nazi, you can be fascist, and nobody care about this. It's very important, you know what I mean? Plus, she cut me my statement for elections. Never happened before in state Washington for 250 years. I'm joking, yeah. Another question that I have right now is about Mayor Malakotian. He's a criminal, too. And I explain to you why. A mayor cannot sign a document. You know what it means? Use not legal name. Name Mo is not legal name. His legal name, Muhammad. He can change name. 50 bucks, no problem. Yeah, but he don't want doing this. So this little bit confuse me too. Because first, it's a crime. You cannot sign by not legal name. Second, I'm totally confused. He Iranian Muslim. With Iranian citizenship sit in chamber when we have war with Iran for... 45 years, right now we have straight war. How is this possible? It's no analogy. In America, maybe in another planet, when you have war with somebody, he cannot be a mayor. You understand? I give you example. So when Soviet Union fighting with Hitler, you know what this mean? So Nazi will be mayor in Soviet Union? It's a joke. Here, it's a normal. So I demand, or he will use his Muhammad name, what is his name, legal, and take Moore out. Because everybody play a stupid, you know what I mean, don't understand. So his name Moore is no legal name. Right now he's a mayor. He's responsible for everything. How criminal responsible for something? It's a violation of crime. It's a felony by definition. So I ask you, or change name, or stop doing this. You know what it means? In consular sepsis, for four years I'm talking about this. When he come first time, deputy mayor, I talk, you cannot do this. Viva Trump, viva new American revolution, stand up slave and happy cow. It's exactly what's happened right now. In another point, what is I delivery to you? Stop and Democrats steal us money. Sound transit steal from us $35 billion. All America have this right now because Seattle Times.

Mr. Zimmerman, your time has expired. I do see Mr. Hay connected online now. Mr. Hay, can you hear me? Mr. Hay, can you hear me? Okay, I think he's unable to connect. We do have time for one additional speaker. Sir, if you can come up and state your name please for the record.

Welcome.

Hello, this is Monweg. We own the Hilton and Red Lion properties in Bellevue. We respectfully request that East Main include a fee in lieu option for the affordable housing requirement, consistent with the approach the city has taken already adopted in downtown and downtown Ballard and more recently Wilburton as unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. East Main is one of Bellevue's designated transit-oriented districts. If East Main is the only district without the same compliance flexibility afforded elsewhere, it will place East Main at a competitive disadvantage and slow the pace of development in this neighborhood. To achieve Bellevue's housing goals, East Main should be operating on the same footing as the city's other major growth areas. It is also important to also recognize the current economic reality. High rise residential towers that produce more density are extraordinarily difficult to justify today. Construction costs remain elevated and financing remains constrained. requiring that all affordable housing be met exclusively through on-site performance in East Main will make it even more challenging for any residential towers to be built in the East Main. The unintended consequences may be fewer total housing units delivered in East Main rather than encouraging the dense transit oriented development and vision for this area. The economics may instead favor shorter wood frame. buildings with fewer overall homes. A fee-in-lieu option does not eliminate city's affordable housing objective. It simply provides flexibility. and options in those objectives are, in how those objectives are achieved. In many cases, FEE and LIEU can help produce affordable housing efficiently through partnerships with dedicated affordable housing providers while still allowing mixed use and transit-oriented projects to proceed. our request is as follows please provide east bay in the same fee and new option that has been made available in bellevue with bellevue's other major growth areas and in and structure it consistently with what was recently adopted in wilburton so that all transit oriented districts are operating on equal footing If Bellevue's goal is to encourage housing production while advancing affordability, consistency and flexibility are essential. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wick. That does bring us to the end of oral communication, so Mayor, I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you so much and again thank you everyone who took the time to share comments this evening and you should be assured that we are listening and we will follow up if and when necessarily. We do have a Parks and Community Service Board Q1 2026 report and communication. It is a written one. I recommend all of you On that note, we can move to report of the City Manager. You are talking about three topics.

Thank you, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council Members. Yes, I have three topics tonight under the City Manager's report. Two are presentations, and one is related to one of the written documents. So with that, I will invite our Police Chief, Wendell Shirley, and our Assistant Chief, Andrew Popachok, They're here to deliver a report updating our current crime statistics for the city and also we'll review some initiatives that they have been undertaking over the last six months or a year and all of these help to ensure that Bellevue is providing a safe community for all of our residents. With that, Chief Shirley.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Mayor Hamilton, council members. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you and give you a brief mid-year update on public safety for 2026. Our department continues to focus on the PI philosophy, prevention, intervention, and enforcement.

Chief, would you bring the mic in front of your mouth? That would be awesome. Thank you.

There we go. All right. Um, we continue to rely on the pie philosophy. Right in terms of how we engage our community, how we address crime proactively in the city. We continue to see a significant. Decrease in public safety across the city, the overall crime rate now is is mine decreased by 28% or. Less than 739 reported crimes overall for the year crimes against persons are down 24%, as you see, and property crimes are down 30%. Society crimes there's been an uptake in about 8 additional crimes, which were drug related and we're closely monitoring those. As you can see our overall crime trend, we took a look at the last 4 years back from 2022 and you can see there's been a steady decline in overall crime in our city. And of course, there are many factors that play into that, but that's still a significant drop. And as you can see 2025 to 2026, as I stated earlier, there's a 28% decrease in crime.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of the Council. The first number I want to discuss is our calls for service. A call for service is anytime somebody's calling 911. It could be for something criminal, they need assistance, but it's our overall calls. On average, we average about 69,000 calls for service. So far this year, this is a number from January until basically June 1st, we're down about 1,283 calls. So we're seeing fewer calls as far as service to the police department. Our response time is currently three minutes and 14 seconds to priority one calls. Which priority one calls are the most serious types of calls? We've seen an improvement of over 20 seconds compared to last year. We were at 3.34 and now we're at 3.14. So digging into the numbers a little more, looking at trends. Property crime, as you know, is one of the larger crimes we have in the city of Bellevue. And we've seen a large improvement in multiple areas. Shoplifting is down 11%. Motor vehicle theft is down 48%. And motor vehicle prowls, which is the theft of items from the car itself, is down 64%. We're also seeing improvement in multiple areas in persons crimes, which is an overall positive for the city itself. We're seeing crime being produced in multiple areas. So one thing I want to talk about tonight is traffic safety. It is a subject we hear a lot about from our community, and we want to make sure that we're addressing it with all of you. So overall, the department has issued 11% more citations so far this year, and that's in all categories. The categories to the left, you can see here we've issued 1,204 citations for speeding, 63 citations for modified exhaust. We've also seen an 11% decrease in traffic collisions. So in doing that and what we're doing and focusing out there is we're trying to focus regionally and trying to make sure that we have adequate resources on the street to address this and to issue these citations. And part of that is working regionally and having a regional approach as well as using our data appropriately. We've started a dashboard internally where we can see where we're issuing citations, both parking and driving violations, and then our officers can see that and use a data-driven approach to try to make sure we're doing enforcement in the right areas. Another thing we're doing is we're working regionally with other partners. For example, this Thursday and Friday, we're hosting the 100 Safe Days of Summer here in Bellevue to focus on DUI enforcement both inside of Bellevue and regionally. So we'll have officers from all over the area come here to try to increase the safety in our roadway by doing the enforcement of individuals who have been consuming alcohol and driving.

A few of our specialty units continue to show a positive impact for the community. Our community crisis assistance team better known as, which was funded in 2023 has. Made over 2700 total contacts, 1600 individuals contacted with 64% of those continuous contact continuous in a treatment plan. If you will. I can tell you, I definitely want to thank the council for funding this back in 2023. we firmly believe that it was needed and I think it was great insight for the city to stand this up. And I believe it's having the impact that the council in this community wanted. So, thank you. Secondly, the Bellevue library unit, once again, I want to thank the council, because you had the vision and the faith that to think ahead and stand up this unit our own unit in our city, because. When light rail came through our city, we knew that we were going to have to respond and take care of our situations on our own. And so I'm pleased to say that this year they've made 90 officer initiated direct patrols, five arrests. But it's been a good, steady increase in ridership. And with FIFA coming, I can imagine it's going to only increase in the next week or so. Speaking of the World Cup, I know we have a lot of soccer fans here. We certainly have been preparing for it while we have no matches here in Seattle. We certainly believe there'll be a number of different watch parties, et cetera. So the department, the department has been coordinating with our regional law enforcement partners to ensure safety. And we certainly will be deploying additional officers through the duration of the World Cup to make sure things are safe.

Looking ahead, the department is exploring and looking to invest in technology for a drone as first responder program, also called DR. What this does is send a drone ahead of emergency resources or emergency services to certain calls. And with this program, we're looking at a one city approach. While the primary utilizers will be the police department and the fire department, this resource is available to all departments. So if there is a transportation department or another part of the city that needs to use a drone, by having this resource, it is available to all departments of the city. This technology will allow the police and fire department to have a drone to respond to over 71% of our calls. And in 54% of them will be less than 120 seconds. So by getting the eye in the sky, it increase our officer safety for both the police officers as well as for our firefighters. And with this program, we make sure that there's going to be transparency and accountability to the community as well about how these drones are used. This is really the future of law enforcement, public safety, of having that eye in the sky when our officers and firefighters respond to these calls.

So, in closing, I want to thank the Council. I do believe our progress in crime reduction, crisis response, traffic safety, and innovation is a direct reflection of the hard work of the men and women of the Bellevue Police Department and our strong relationship with Council, city government, and our community. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. The second report is on the Keep Bellevue Beautiful program. This program also began in 2023 and since its inception has really grown into a very much a community supported program, helps to contribute to building civic pride and has significantly contributed as well to keeping the city clean. Tonight, staff will share some of the accomplishments of the program and the future focus of the program, and also how people can get involved. I would like to welcome for the first time to the council, the neighborhood outreach manager, David Isaac, and the Keep Bellevue Beautiful coordinator, Evan Reed. This is their first presentation for both of them. So with that, David.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Malekutian, Deputy Mayor Hamilton, and Council Members. We appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on Keep Bellevue Beautiful. Before handing it over to Evan, I would like to say how grateful we are for Council's guidance and participation in Keep Bellevue Beautiful activities and look forward to your continued engagement. Keep Bellevue Beautiful is only effective through its partnership with the community. And we are grateful for every volunteer's time and effort to show up and to help make Bellevue a more beautiful place to live. So over to you, Evan.

Thank you, David. My name is Evan Reed and I serve as the Keep Bellevue Beautiful coordinator within the Community Development Department's Neighborhood Outreach Team. Tonight, I will provide an informational overview of Keep LV Beautiful, focusing on our program metrics, volunteer engagement, operational trends, and future areas of focus. Before beginning, I do want to thank a couple of folks. I want to thank Serena Miller for giving the program strong legs from 2023 to present. I also want to thank David and Mike and Kara for their mentorship and support. Before I begin, I do want to know that tonight's presentation is for information only. To ground us in how we reach this point, let's look at how the program has evolved over the last three years. Keep LV Beautiful launched in 2023 as part of the city's Safe, Clean, and Vibrant City Initiative. What began primarily as a litter cleanup effort has successfully evolved into a broader stewardship program centered around resident engagement and city-wide coordination. Today, the program consists of three primary operational areas. The Adopt-A-Street Program, Abandoned Shopping Cart Retrieval, and our Signature Streets Program. Together, these complementary efforts support cleaner public spaces and foster a shared sense of ownership across Bellevue. Of course, building that shared sense of ownership requires strong community buy-in. This work simply would not be possible without the steady, enthusiastic support of our volunteers, community groups, businesses, and their workers, and neighborhood partners. This year alone, 14 local businesses coordinated cleanup events in celebration of Earth Day. reflecting growing corporate volunteerism across our city. This includes major employers like Amazon, alongside other local organizations that stepped up to support large scale efforts. The momentum we are seeing really highlights the deep civic pride Bellevue residents and employers share. Nowhere is this momentum more tangible than in our grassroots resident led initiatives. My, okay, my. One of the clearest examples of this momentum is the steady expansion of our Adopt-A-Street program. This year, we have grown to 60 active adopters, including community groups, local businesses, and individual households participating citywide. Since January, these adopters have completed 115 volunteer-led cleanups, removing more than 311 bags of litter, and covering over 52 miles of Bellevue neighborhoods. These recurring efforts are invaluable for sustaining long-term neighborhood care. Because these participants give so much of their personal time, I want to explicitly recognize their impact. Simply put, our residents are the backbone of this program. A large portion of our success is directly tied to the neighbors, businesses, and groups who show up consistently. Thank you to all of our volunteers who treat Bellevue's public spaces with the same care they give their own backyards. None of this could have happened without their passion for our city. While our community volunteers focus on localized litter, our program also manages more complex, resource intensive, right of way challenges city wide. So far in 2026, we have already retrieved 1,185 shopping carts from 164 reports through the My Bellevue app. Our data shows that accumulation patterns appear most heavily near transit hubs, multifamily housing complexes, and retail areas. Field observations also suggest some residents rely on these carts for the daily transportation of groceries and personal belongings, including older adults, single parents, and unhoused individuals. This adds a layer of human complexity to our operational response. Managing this effectively requires continuous coordination between residents, retailers, property managers, code compliance, and our contracted vendor. To balance this complex reactive side of our operations, we also drive proactive outreach through city guided volunteer efforts. So in addition to Adopt-A-Street, the city directly organizes signature streets cleanup events. So far in 2026, we have conducted 11 city sponsored events involving 137 volunteers and removing approximately 279 bags of litter. Much of this energy is driven by our new 26 for 26 initiative. Our goal is to bring cleanup events to every single Bellevue neighborhood at least once, increasingly using direct resident feedback and recurring litter data to guide exactly where we deploy our resources. To give you a snapshot of these neighborhood events in action, let's look at our recent cleanup. This slide highlights our recent signature streets cleanup in West Bellevue. It was a great morning and volunteers even brought some donuts to supplement the coffee we provided. Our goal here is two fold, maintaining a highly visible clean up presence and building stronger face to face relationships with neighborhood groups and local volunteers. Seeing this neighborhood level of engagement demonstrates how far the program has maturely advanced. Since launching three years ago, Keep LV Beautiful has successfully transitioned from a temporary pilot initiative into a highly coordinated citywide operational program. Each year has allowed us to build stronger internal structure, increase community capacity, and streamline our field operations. This established foundation allows us to look toward the future with a clear strategic roadmap. And as we look forward, our core areas of focus include expanding recurring volunteer participation, refining our resident-informed deployment strategies, strengthening our lines of communications with retailers, and maintaining proactive, empathetic shopping cart response operations. Overall, the program is moving toward an increasingly coordinated, data backed, and community supported approach to keeping Bellevue's public spaces pristine. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this informational update.

Thank you so much.

related to the cougar mountain annexation written report in in the packet this evening this annexation effort began in 2025 it was initiated by two property owners in the cougar mountain potential annexation area through a notice of intent and the council accepted this in april 2025 That began a process with the staff to analyze the zoning scenarios for the potential development and also conduct significant outreach to the affected property owners. That included direct contact, community meeting, website information, and a mailed petition packet in November of 2025. The support from the property owners has not been met. The statutory threshold requires 60% support. That has not been achieved in any of the potential annexation areas. And so this annexation cannot proceed under the direct petition method. The information is in your packet. This annexation process will now wind down. It doesn't require council action to do so. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much. I really personally enjoyed your city manager report today. I think we can move to our council business. We have a new person that appointed to the Parks and Community Services Board, and I would love Council Member Briar as a liaison introduce this topic to us.

Certainly. Thank you, Mayor. We had a rigorous application process this year for the opening on the Parks and Boards Commission. Several candidates applied, and I personally wanted to select, I think, maybe 15 of them. Unfortunately, I was only limited to one. And after deliberation, I'm really proud to share that we've selected Stephan Hobb. who knows geospatial analysis better than anybody else and is someone that is perhaps too qualified for the position. And so without further ado, I'd like to make the motion. I move to appoint Stefan Hopp to full term on the Parks and Community Services Board, expiring on May 31st, 2030. Second.

It has been moved by Councilmember Briar and seconded by Councilmember Robinson. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. There is no opposed. Congratulations. The motion passes. Do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar. Second.

It has been moved by Deputy Mayor Hamilton and seconded by Councilwoman Ewenhouse. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. There is no opposed, the motion passes. We are now at our first study session. City Manager, would you please introduce that to us?

Thank you Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council. Regularly staff do take a look at our land use code and update it to clean up items and address legislation that may come from the state. This year there was quite a significant list of those items. um and council staff brought this to council recently and requested you to provide direction on the scope of this effort that would also include some policy items that were minimal and seem to not have too much controversy associated with them so that's gone through the planning commission and you have a recommendation nick whipple our code and policy director is here with Chair Conlu of the Planning Commission to review those for you and to seek your direction this evening. With that, I will hand it over to Nick.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members of the Council. I'm excited to be joined here tonight by our Planning Commission Chair, Nikki Nkonlu, to present the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2026 Omnibus Land Use Code Amendment. And so for this evening, we are seeking direction from Council to finalize the LUCA Land Use Code Amendment and BCCA Bellevue City Code Amendment ordinances for final action at a future meeting. And on consent is also an option as always for you all. So for our agenda, we'll cover just a refresher of what the 2026 Omnibus LUCA includes, the scope breakdown, and then get into some of the details. And then we'll have Chair Conley walk through the planning commission discussion on this and their recommendation. Then we'll touch on our outreach approach and timeline, and then turn it back to you all for discussion and action. So to first start with the scope of what is the 2026 omnibus project, first starting with the term omnibus, just so we're all familiar, it really is referring to a way for the city to cover a lot of items in one single package. These are kind of what is included in that package before you tonight. We've got cleanup as a category of items. This one may be less exciting for folks in the public or on the dais, but really staff are really enthusiastic about cleanup amendments because it does address a lot of the cleanups in a relatively efficient process and they wouldn't necessarily get their own land use code amendment. So we get to package them and bring them forward for your consideration. I would say that that comprises about 30% of the code changes that are before you tonight. A majority of the code changes before you tonight are state law conformance amendments. That's about 60% or so of the package is what we estimate. This is where we are really trying to implement direct compliance with some of the state law changes that are low in controversy. So we'll kind of walk through a sampling of what those look like. And then about 10% of the changes did warrant some policy consideration. I'd say that's also where the commission spent most of their time in their discussion. So going through some examples of cleanup amendments, generally these are scrivener's errors, some clarifications in the code, formatting changes, correcting cross references. We also took an opportunity to clarify some of our extended vesting language just to match our existing practice. Wasn't a policy change, but just took that opportunity to make that language a little more clear for folks. and then also consolidate some of our permitting processes. They were pretty scattered throughout our overlay district, so we decided to create a consolidated section so that it's a little more streamlined for folks if they're trying to understand if design review is required, what's needed in that application, rather than having to look to if they're doing a design review in downtown versus Wilberton, for example. The other category of changes around state law compliance, so we were really tackling 7 bills as part of this package. So, some examples of this, there was the house bill around residential redevelopment. The council already implemented House Bill 1042, which allowed those conversions of office to residential. This was a trailer bill to that to clarify that we have to allow that anywhere that we allow for or anywhere that there's an existing non-residential building. Initially, we were targeting our mixed use areas and our commercial areas where we know there's office buildings. This bill said actually just look at wherever you have a non-residential building and allow that to be converted to residential. So pretty minor change. Childcare reform had to allow that in a few more districts. So that's been updated here. And then there's two clarifications around how you divide land. Bellevue has been a bit ahead of the curve on allowing for unit lot subdivisions. There were just some minor updates on our procedures. And then there was a new change that was enacted last session on lot splitting. So this basically allows folks to have a simpler process if they're just going through a two lot short plat process. So this is just defining a new streamlined process that's been guided by the state. And then a couple other items just to call out building cladding, the state would like for us to refrain from directing buildings to use certain materials. And so we've only had to update the code in a few areas to address that specific bill. There's other bills that wanted some better processes defined around binding site plans, so we've done that. And then there were some other items that were looking to supporting passive housing, mass timber. A lot of this work, actually, we had implemented in Wilberton. So it was pretty easy to just make that applicable elsewhere. But it limits where you can require upper level step backs or facade modulation if someone's doing mass timber, for example, or if they're doing a 100% affordable project. So pretty straightforward in terms of implementation and view kind of policy considerations. Some of the areas where there were some policy scope amendments, these were pretty limited in nature. So we'll start with the top, the single family exclusion from our high density areas. This was really to align with that future land use map. The future land use map as a refresher is the designations that say what the policy intent is for that land area. Um, as you're aware, we have a lot of land throughout the city where we allow single family and middle housing and then we have our transit corridor and some of our high density residential areas where we really want to see denser developments that we can help meet our housing growth targets. And so we're really just trying to align with that policy choice by not allowing single family in those districts. Um, we weren't seeing single family being built in those districts. So this wasn't going to be a major shift for folks, but we didn't want to clarify that in the land use code. So it did match the policy. There were tree code adjustments as well. Um, a couple specific ones that I'll call out here. These were pretty targeted just to begin with as council's aware. We did update our tree code, um, did a comprehensive kind of rewrite of the tree code moved to a credit approach. At that time it was understood we probably didn't get everything perfectly right. We were going to need to continue evaluating that as we were getting permits in the door and make amendments where it made the most sense. So these were pretty targeted and they were based on some of the lessons learned from implementing the tree code over the past year and a half. Some of those items were around property line trees. What should we do in the case of a property line tree? Right now, the way that the code is being applied, you don't get any credit if your tree is on the property line. So that removes any incentive to keep that tree. so what the commission had a lot of discussion around was whether we should allow partial credit for that tree so ultimately that's where that recommendation landed we had another use case where area in eastgate was wanting to add in electric vehicle charging and do some reconfiguration of their parking stalls they weren't adding any impervious surface they weren't adding building coverage they just wanted to restripe and then add some ev parking stations That resulted in triggering full compliance with our tree code, which was going to really change kind of the calculation on that project. So we took a closer look at the threshold there. We felt that reconfiguring parking areas, if you're not adding stalls, you're not adding impervious surface, you're not adding building area, is likely not the time to trigger tree code requirements. So that was another item there. And then another topic on tree code related to the tree credit requirements in our residential districts. So we had initially in the draft or in the tree code. Had required a different credit allowance for our suburban residential 1 district. These are districts that are typically the lot sizes around 13,500 square feet. And we were assigning the same credit requirements of our large lots in the city. And the large lots are defined as anywhere from 20,000 to 35,000 square feet. So this was a question of whether it was grouped with the right lots. And what we found through three different permit applications in the SR1 district, that because they were held to these large lot standards, they didn't necessarily have a lot of space to land the trees that were expected of them through the permit process. The examples we were seeing in some cases, 90 trees were actually being required of them by the code to be planted on their lots. If they weren't able to absorb 90 trees on their property, then they would be available or they'd be able to do the fee in lieu option. And in some cases that was upwards of $150,000 in fee for trees. So what the policy change was, was to group those with the other SR districts, the other suburban residential districts, so that it's more consistent with the lot sizes in that category. and be able to, I guess, better plan for trees around their lot size that's more conducive to planting at the ratio required of the code. There were some minor process changes. This was, again, just to consolidate into one single chapter and then clarify what the purpose of a master development plan is versus design review. And then the other item, and you heard public comment on this tonight, was the fee in lieu option has been added or is recommended by the Planning Commission to be added to this omnibus package. The Council decision, at least when the code was adopted in 2021, was to allow a fee-in-lieu option for commercial development, but the expectation would be for residential to build affordable housing on-site. We have had some projects attempt to go through the permitting. They've at least raised this as a challenge, expressed their concerns with the Commission around this topic. The Commission did direct staff to include this change and simply match the fee that is available for commercial development, which is around $38, which is the same fee that you would have to pay if you were doing residential fee-in-lieu in downtown Bellevue, so also comparable to that area. I'll turn this now to Chair Connolly for the Planning Commission.

Mayor Malakoutian, Deputy Mayor, Hamilton and Council. As Nick was mentioning that we hold our first session on April 8th and we heard from the public and after that we hold a public hearing on May 13th and the area that we really talked about the tree regulation and fee in lieu for East Main. Those are the ones that most of the time the Planning Commission just spends time on. And that's the recommendation they sent to Council. And thank you so much for having us here.

All right, a few other items included within this package. There were some city code amendments. These are strictly within the purview of Council, so these were not reviewed by the Planning Commission. These are also pretty minor in nature. Updating some cross-references, the HOMA, Housing Opportunities and Mixed-use Areas legislation, introduced a new affordable housing chapter. So we needed to update our references in the MFTE code, for example, to point to the right chapter. We also took the opportunity to align some of our local definitions with state law. We're seeing state law begins to evolve and redefine terms that we have to comply with. It's sometimes easier rather than writing out the term, just referencing that RCW so that it stays more in line with state law as those updates happen. Also made some changes, excuse me, to our clear and grade code to smooth out the process when a property owner has to deal with a hazardous tree on their property. This allows them to really kind of take care of the situation and follow through on the permitting afterwards, so making some clarifications there. And then as we've begun to implement middle housing, our utilities department identified an opportunity to improve a process in their utilities code around middle housing. We were subjecting duplexes to a similar process that we subject some of our large multifamily projects to. So this is providing a process change that would help reduce some of that unnecessary permitting costs and complexity for these smaller scale projects. Engagement approach has really been to consult and review with our staff and then inform community through a web page and through those planning commission meetings. And then we presented to planning commission and to you all and yeah, provided a lot of information to the community. Our timeline here, Council did initiate this back in February. We moved through our outreach and planning commission process and are here tonight with that recommendation seeking action. And we do have one of the bills that has a compliance deadline of July, which is why we are targeting July for Council action. And with that, Mayor, we'll turn it back to you.

Thank you so much, Nick, Jake. I think he's here and the whole team for amazing work. I appreciate it. Maybe you said it's not exciting, but you still enjoy it. But keeping the code current, clear, and consistent is very, very important. The better the code reads, the fewer surprises people have when they are trying to use that. I also appreciate you separating the cleanup items from the actual policy items in the, I think, slide one for us to understand what is simply maintenance versus where there is an actual policy choices being made. I think it was 90% cleanup and a state law. versus 10% policy consideration. Chair Khalil, thank you so much for being here. Thank you to the whole Planning Commissioner. I miss my time with you all, and as always, great job. On this, I think we can go to our liaison of Planning Commissioner, Commissioner Bargaba.

Council Member, yes.

Thank you, Mayor. Oh, Councillor Bhargava, sorry. I was really deep into the commissioner language.

Well, thank you so much, Mayor. Appreciate it. Also, first of all, thank you, Nick and the entire team, for always being so diligent and especially pragmatic about the solutions you build and the recommendations you bring forward for the planning commission. And then thank you very much to the planning commission, Chair Khanloo, and the entire commission for being as diligent as ever and really making sure we have a thoughtful set of recommendations to consider here as part of the omnibus locus. So just first of all, gratitude for that. I really appreciate the staff bringing these amendments forward through a single omnibus process. Maintaining a clear, consistent, and legally compliant code may not be the most visible work we do sometimes. It is exciting for me. I'm a land use geek, as you know. But it is essential to be predictable in terms of permitting and to build public confidence in the land use system that we have within the city. I also appreciate the focus on usability, as you have stressed. Small inconsistencies, duplicative processes, and unclear definitions can create increased cost and consume staff time. Improving clarity benefits applicants, residents, and staff alike, so thank you for doing that. And the work you have put in to implement the recent state legislation and the compliance with that, while remaining consistent, is actually very aligned with Bellevue's adopted policies and community objectives. And so as I went through them, I see no issues at all. I do support the proposed removal of the single family residential as a permitted use in the high density residential and mixed use zones. This is largely a zoning alignment measure and better reflects what we have already put out as a vision in the comprehensive plan for housing growth in these areas. So I don't see this as any conflicts to what we have done in the comprehensive plan. It's just an update. I'm also supportive of the fee-in-lieu addition to East Main. In addition to not just to the housing and economic development opportunities that this represents, the fee-in-lieu contribution helps advance our broader affordable housing objectives across the city. So I am supportive of that. And finally, in the tree retention, The tree code refinement appears to be very thoughtful and responsive to implementation issues. I generally support the adjustments that provide additional flexibility for property owners while continuing to incentivize meaningful tree retention and canopy preservation. I have two quick questions for you. Many of these amendments are intended to improve clarity and permitting efficiency. Going forward, how would we measure whether they are achieving those outcomes? That's my first question.

Yeah, so I think during the permit process is where we really get a lot of that feedback. We always hope and aim to get clear code from the jump. That's always our goal. But it's untested until you start to get people using the code and applying it. Good news is that we have land use staff that's highly engaged and is not shy about sharing when they hit some rubs in the code or they've got feedback from applicants. And we do have a really good internal process to track some of those changes that need to happen. Sometimes they go through code interpretation first and then get on our list for needing amendment. Sometimes that's when we also identify where there's a clarification needed or where maybe a director's rule could help support that code clarity. We do have a lot of tools, but we also have a lot of processes to help us kind of manage that administration of the code.

Yeah, I would just I would say it'd be great. That's great. And it'd be great to just understand the reduction in that workload and coordination tax that comes with it as we go through this ominous process. Because I would be supportive of doing this on a continued cadence so that we can maintain clarity of our codes and policies and processes. It's a win-win for everyone, I think. The last question I have is, What criteria would staff use to determine whether a change belongs in something like an omnibus lucre versus a standalone process? Because those standalone processes can have broader public engagement, more council review, you know, maybe more robust analysis and planning commission. So how would we set that threshold? Because you've included a few things, 90% of that is compliance and cleanup, great. But those 10%, those three or four things, how do we make sure that they're putting them in the right bucket of work here, omnibus versus a standalone process?

Yeah, it's I mean, it's not an exact science we did when we initiated with Council at share, at least that we'd be looking for low controversy items that were just trying to get better alignment with policy. And so if there was a stated policy, but through implementation, we realized we didn't quite kind of hit the mark. That's where we thought there'd be opportunity for some minor policy consideration because we'll want to still kind of. discuss that and bring that to alignment but really i think the the low controversy part of that is because of our outreach approach with an omnibus package is a little more high touch and so if something we believe needs more involved discussion with community that's another criteria we'd be looking at of whether it's appropriate to slot it within the omnibus package or if that needs a standalone code change that would have more of that outreach process defined for it

Yeah, and the suggestion I would have there in sort of the frame of equity and clarity would be to simply document those criteria so that they're visible and they're available for inspection and audit from anybody who wishes to. Because there can be instances where it might seem low quality not controversial, not difficult, but it may not seem like that to everyone in the community, and so having that clearly documented makes sure that we are assessing the threshold equitably going forward. That's it. I'm supportive of no modification recommendations, so that's my stand.

Thank you so much, Council Member Bargaba. Council Member Brouillard.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief to avoid the redundancy, but ditto on my colleague Council Member Bhargava's point regarding tree code refinement and general reconciliation of the code. I appreciate that there is a delay between code alignment and implementation. Because of this, I'm excited to hear about some of the code clarity needs and how certain anomalies might be compartmentalized according to what comes up during implementation, for example. That being said, I want to sort of understand our... Perhaps it's total reduction in latency or what access specifically we're measuring against. I know that you had mentioned it's not an exact science. And as implementation happens, we learn more because, you know, you're navigating known unknowns. And you don't have to answer that now. But in general, I think just having some data metrics that sort of display the work would be fantastic. And I also have no further modifications. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much, Council Member Brouillard. Council Member Robinson.

Thank you mayor. I want to thank chair con Lu and the Planning Commission and Councilmember Bhargava for all your work on this and staff as well and councilmember Bhargava. I appreciated your question I kind of wondered about that too. So I have a lot of questions forgive me and you can The first one is do you think these? Tree codes are going to get us closer or further away from our tree canopy goals. I

So the tree code adjustments are really trying to achieve a balance. We still want to be able to support some of the housing growth, but also support getting to our tree canopy goals as well. And so it's It's hard to say if these changes alone are going to pull us back from the goal. I would argue, at least on the change, some of the comments that we had received expressing concern that this might pull us further from our canopy goals. In those specific cases, a lot of those properties are also within our critical areas are near Kelsey Creek. have pretty extensive buffers that are going to require trees to be retained. Often more trees than what our land use code for trees, tree code is going to require because they have another layer of protection. So hopeful, you know, because our critical areas ordinance, the council also updated is looking at how can we expand our tree canopy. This isn't our only tool to get there. So that should help us as well.

Great. And then what keeps someone from designating their tree as dangerous and taking it down when it maybe isn't actually dangerous?

Yeah, it's a good question. And hard to prove, you know, after the fact, right. But oftentimes, so there is a very technical process to be able to declare a tree hazardous in arborists that are licensed have to provide that documentation. And generally, that happens that assessment before the tree is removed. Um, that's usually what sparks that property owner's fear, um, that that tree needs to be addressed immediately. And so we asked for that documentation. It's a very prescribed process to rate the risk. Um, typically there's a target, um, that's nearby that's going to be creating that risk, that target being a house or, um, some structure. Um, so there's a, there is a defined process. So it's not just take their word that something's hazardous.

That sounds good. So, um, Regarding the property directly across the street from East Main, is it right across the street from a transit station? East Main transit station?

I'm sorry, which property?

So the hotel property.

The hotel. So the East Main TOD, it's comprised of the Hilton Hotel, the Red Lion Hotel, the LV Athletic Club, and then there's one other property in the East Main TOD high block.

but there's one property directly across the street from the transit station and that's a hotel property.

Yes.

Okay. Yeah. And it's considered TOD, as you just said, and for the benefit, well, are we trying to get affordable housing in TOD? Is that one of the goals?

That is a goal. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So for the benefit of the council members who are not present during our allow her long discussions about East Main. I'm going to ask you a few questions just to bring everybody up to speed. Was there an effort to include housing on that site directly across from the East Main Trails Rail Station?

The code does have a requirement actually for housing when that site is redeveloped.

And was there an effort to guarantee onsite affordable housing at this property?

Because there was no fee-in-lieu option provided for residential in all of East Main, that was the policy expectation to be affordable housing built on-site.

That was done for a reason. That didn't just happen. That was something we discussed and decided on. Did we grant that property benefits in exchange for these requirements? Did we give them increased height? Did we give them increased density?

Yeah, so all of the East Main area was massively up zoned, or I guess massively is not very, it depends on who you ask. But they did receive a pretty significant up zone, all of that East Main area.

That site in particular.

That site also, yes. I believe the FAR was set somewhere around 5 or 5.2 or something like that.

Yeah, which was more than we normally would do, but it was in exchange for on-site production of affordable housing. So why would we remove the requirements for affordable housing but retain all the benefits that we gave?

So the requirement for affordable housing isn't removed per se. The fee in lieu option is now available if the council were to direct that change to be retained.

Well, that's a requirement for, I mean, fee in lieu takes away the requirement for on-site affordable housing, right?

And it takes away, yes, the obligation to deliver on-site performance. I would also just clarify, there is an incentive zoning approach in East Main. So even so, that is only... only triggered if someone exceeds the base FAR, that's when you need to start providing affordable housing. And that's where it has to be built on site under current policy. This policy change would allow them to have a choice of either fee in lieu or build on site.

Right. So it's no longer with this policy, if we voted in, no longer required to have on site affordable housing if they trigger that. That is correct. So what does the city do with our fee-in-lieu dollars? What's our plan for how we spend that money?

Yeah. Well, fee-in-lieu is collected over time and now through a lot of different kind of overlay districts. And the fees are used for a multitude of reasons or ways. Typically, it will go to fund some projects. It'll be used to buy down units. It is used for the purpose of delivering affordable housing, either through retaining affordable housing or constructing new affordable housing.

And we have actual policy for how we use the fee in lieu?

We do. And there's a lot of state law that governs how we use money collected for that purpose.

Okay. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Robinson. Council Member Smodeverio.

And I really appreciate Council Members Robinson's questions, like add more clarity and also history about the policy. Thank you. Also my colleagues too. I don't have any questions, but I just want to make a pretty brief comment. I do want to thank staff on that and also the Planning Commission. enjoy this process because it's not just housekeeping. It defines how the state law compliance defines how the family can build and stay in Bellevue. That's my biggest passion. I think that's really crucial to make it clear and more streamlined. I am ready to moving forward to the final action. And there's two things I want to look really closely. is there's two things. One of them, the MFT cross-reference part. I want us to be mindful about not shifting the floor on the affordable units quality standards, because I think that while we want to provide affordability, the quality and surrounding that we're providing for the family really matters. And then the second one is relating to the East Main fee-in-lieu option. I think it's clearly scope in a study by the Planning Commission. I agree, but I do want to make sure that we are advancing affordability rather than substituting it because I think it's really important that more while we're meeting the goal, we are actually doing the work to able to follow and hold that accountable as well. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Smodeveria. Council Member Nieuwenhuis.

Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Nick, and thank you, Chair Conloo, for the presentation this evening. As always, stellar job. You know, I don't have a lot to add. I really appreciate, though, the fact, and all my colleagues have said it already, just in terms of the approach, the thoughtfulness, the cleanup, the amendments, making sure that we're within compliance with state law, all important things, as council member Bargava mentioned maybe not the the sexiest type of Updates but very important ones. Nevertheless regarding the small policy scope amendments the the tree code adjustments I'm curious is is the the immediate action to be able to remove hazardous trees, is that one of the kind of the key learnings out of like the bomb cyclone, for example, when I know that some people really wanted to move quickly, they were scared that trees that were maybe half fallen could damage their property or a neighbor's property, was that one of the outcomes of that or were other residents having issues, maybe it was a single tree but nevertheless a tree that hadn't come down yet but needed to,

and they weren't able to move quick enough before that tree may again fall and damage property yeah uh that was a lot of kind of the impetus behind it on both of those sort of situations i know with the bomb cyclone we did respond with some relief for community on how our permitting can change just to shift and meet that sort of incident but certainly we don't want to be in the way of someone addressing an imminent risk and so this is clarifying that in policy that's great so

That's great. Is there a fee reduction if it's a tree that's hazardous? Is there a reduction versus someone who just wants to do it for aesthetic purposes, for example?

Yeah, I can get back to you on that. My recollection is we do not have a fee distinction if something comes in as hazardous.

But isn't it to the benefit of our city and our residents to take care of a tree that is hazardous, that perhaps is dead or diseased and could cause damage to property or even human life? Wouldn't we want to incentivize action in that case?

Well, hazardous trees are very specifically defined. They need an imminent risk. Right.

I'm assuming they meet the criteria. Yeah. Right.

But oftentimes deceased trees are not hazardous per se, but they do need to be addressed just as equally. But there's different kind of time that we have to address that kind of situation. I can follow up, though, if there's a fee difference and kind of some of the rationale behind that. Please. As to what the fees are.

Thank you, I'd be curious about that. But then supportive of the single family exclusion, what you mentioned there, the process changes there in terms of the master development plan, et cetera, all good. The fee in lieu option for East Main, I appreciate Council Member Robinson bringing that back. or bring us back to what, 2021, we had numerous conversations about that. I'm in favor of this because I like the flexibility that this provides. Look, at the end of the day, we want housing, more housing. I think that flexibility to be able to pivot, you know, given the market conditions now too, you know, from 2021 versus what it is now, it's very different. as well and look, we've got great housing partners when it comes to affordable housing and that money going to be it, what, Habitat for Humanity or Archer or whoever it might be can really create even more affordable housing for us in very specific ways and very specific parts of the city that we have already deemed where it should go. So I'm okay with that as well. although I really, again, really appreciate Council Member Robinson bringing that up and her passion around creating as much affordable housing. I think we all share that goal, certainly, but I also like being able to provide that flexibility as well. So I am good as is and look forward to moving this forward. Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you so much, Council Member Newenhouse.

Deputy Mayor Hamilton.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Nick, for the presentation. I see Jake here as well. Chair Conlow and the Planning Commission have done a lot of good work here. Really no questions or comments. I appreciate the questions that have been asked and the points made by my colleagues. I especially appreciate Councilmember Bhargava and align with the comments that he made. Other than that, I'm good to go. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much. I also don't have any additional questions. If the council is ready, can I come from the Robinson? Yeah.

I'm not gonna ask to pull it out because I don't think my vote's gonna have any difference in the outcome. But I'm just all in favor of everything except the fee in lieu. I've spoken with our affordable housing advocates and they don't feel like a fee in lieu replaces the requirement for onsite affordable housing in any shape or form. Affordable housing does not happen on its own. It takes policies that require it to be put in and we already removed a requirement for 65% AMI, which is really what we need to be building. And here we're weakening our affordable housing policy again. So I just, I cannot support this. So just so you know, everything else is fine.

Thank you, Councilmember Robinson. Do I have a motion?

I move to direct staff to finalize the omnibus LUCA and BCCA ordinances for final action at a future meeting. Second.

It's been moved by Deputy Mayor Hamilton and seconded by Councilmember Nguyenhouse. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

The motion passes six to one. Council Member Robinson said nay. Thank you so much again. I appreciate you all. It is 7.42. We will come back in 13 minutes, 7.55.

Thank you.

We have two ordinance. City Manager, would you please introduce the first one?

ordinance for your consideration tonight is an update of the sign code this is a proposed code amendment to update the update the sign code consistent with legal requirements provide some streamlining of regulations but it also is responsive to councils questions issues and concerns as well as the communities And Nick Whipple, our Code and Policy Director, and Charlie Engel, our Senior Planner from Development Services, have been shepherding this through the process with a significant amount of work with council and the community. And so they are looking for your consideration of adoption this evening. And with that, I'll hand it over to Nick.

Thank you, and good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members of the Council. So we are excited to be here tonight seeking Council action on the sign code update, which was really a rewrite, an almost two year process the Council first initiated in August of 2024, which really kicked off our outreach. Around this, and so we are here tonight at the conclusion of that process seeking council action to adopt the sign code update ordinance number 9625. For our agenda, we're going to just recall the project goals and some of the background, our outreach approach for this code update. We'll review just at a high level some of the draft components. And then at the April 14th study session, the council did provide feedback on the code. So we'll want to recap that conversation and how we've responded to that feedback. And then we'll touch on our process because we are going to be entering now our phase three, which is our education awareness campaign. So we'll kind of talk you through what we're envisioning for that phase before asking for council action. So with that, I'll turn it to Charlie Angle, who's been managing this project.

Good evening, everyone. Just to refresh and bring us back to where we all started with the project goals. We knew that since there are so many different stakeholders and interests with the sign code that we would really need to strike the balance between the business needs for signage along with maintaining aesthetic desires to ensure that there isn't too much visual clutter. Another goal we heard during council initiation, a desire for a forward-looking code that didn't fall immediately behind the times. And so out of that, we wanted to encourage contemporary sign design and technology within this update. We also heard both internally and externally a need to simplify and streamline regulations. And as a reminder, it's a complete rewrite of the existing sign code, and it has been reorganized for clarity and consistency to meet that goal. Lastly, we are working to align with some key court decisions that provided a guiding legal framework throughout this process. That Supreme Court decision decided that cities cannot regulate signs based on their content, but can still continue to regulate based on location, form, size, those types of elements instead. To give a little overview of our outreach thus far and where we're headed, we started in phase one in August of 2024. The goal here was to really expand awareness of the project and also gather community priorities and perspectives for the update. Once we used a variety of different outreach tactics, including targeted stakeholder sessions as well as more broad approaches like surveys. Once that feedback was gathered, we were able to move into phase two, share an engagement summary report, highlighting the key themes and priorities that came out of that phase one, and also putting the pen to paper and getting toward a first draft, which was released publicly and started to begin the process of revising based off of that feedback. until we got to the version that you all see of the draft in your package today. Looking forward with phase three, we know that the sign code update will have a lot of changes and want to make sure that everyone is aware of those and will focus on a community education and awareness campaign after adoption with a delayed effective date of February 2027 to allow us enough time to implement that community education and awareness campaign and ensure everyone is up to date about the changes and their impacts. At a high level, to give an overview of the organization of the code, again, this is a rewrite and trying to simplify and streamline the standards. As you move through the sections of the code, you can see they start to gather into natural sections. This should help with ease of use and readability for anyone reading the code or applying it. And then to remind some of the context-specific standards that have been included to increase flexibility and accommodate unique signage needs, such as with the new standards to support the pole banner program throughout downtown, and then also additional standards to support iconic signage, such as with Dick's Drive-In, ensuring that there's adequate signage allowances for hospitals and wayfinding, and new sections for digital kiosk signage to support tourism and wayfinding in specific areas like the Grand Connection. And while there are many new exciting standards, there are also many aspects of the existing code, such as area-specific standards to Old Bellevue for limited sign size and form that exist currently today and have been carried throughout. in the proposed code as well. And the last time we were before council with this project was on April 14th, and there were three main points identified for additional consideration that staff have addressed in the revised draft. I'll go into more detail on all three of these, but the first was simplifying the temporary sign registration form. The second was looking at updating some of the temporary sign registration requirements. And the third was an ask to exempt neighborhood associations from all registration requirements. So to go over the first one for the temporary sign registration form, at the last study session, we brought an example similar to one you see on the right there that showed the applicant's name and phone number on the registration as well that would be attached to the face of the sign. And after discussion, there was an idea to display less personal information on the face. So this revised example shows just the registration number and the associated dates. That personal information could then be stored in a database that would be subject to public records request. It would just not be as visible placed on the sign face. And this is just an example of what that registration could look like for illustrative purposes. Once we start getting into implementation and figuring out the details, this could take a different visual form. We had one example suggested that maybe this is a QR code with this information that could be displayed on the sign. So the fine details are... going to be worked out during implementation, but this is just for illustrative purposes. And then we also have an example there of the issue date and expiration date. If a temporary sign with noncommercial speech was issued today, it would expire in 120 days, which is that October 6th date, just as an example. For the second point from the council discussion on the 14th was looking at some of the registration requirements. So we have these three main categories. First, a temporary sign permit is required for larger temporary signs that includes city staff review. This is an existing process that will continue to remain, so there's no change there. New proposed element is the temporary sign registration and the update has the draft has been updated to exempt yard signs on private property so if you have your yard sign for your high school grad in your front yard that would not require a temporary sign registration and then also the additional exemption would be for yard signs placed in the right-of-way for less than 48 hours. Initially, that was proposed at 24, so we looked at increasing that to add some flexibility for weekend events. Then that would leave the only time that a city would require registration is if it's a yard sign placed in the right-of-way for more than 48 hours. Really narrowing down the requirements there. And for the third item was asked to exempt neighborhood associations from the registration requirement entirely. I'll bring us back to our guiding legal framework that says that we cannot regulate signs based on their content or treat signs differently. This photo on the right here is from that court case that shows the homeowners association sign with different standards than other types of temporary signs. And that was used as an example of regulations that are not content neutral and not compliant with that. Supreme Court decision. So instead, we've looked for other ways to add flexibility into the code to provide support to our neighborhood associations, which include, you know, removing that registration requirement for yard signs placed on private property and increasing that exemption to 48 hours. And this is in addition to the draft feedback and previous iterations of the draft. When we first published The draft version, it had all of the smaller temporary signs under the registration requirement. And we heard a lot of great feedback from the community that that was too arduous of an ask and that wouldn't align with their need to advertise events. And so we revised and removed it to just be for yard signs. And now we've gone even further to just yard signs in the right of way for more than 48 hours. With that, it brings us to our sign code update process. In between the last study session and tonight, we've made a few edits and have highlighted those in the strike draft. Some of them are minor updates for clarity and consistency. Also included are the few elements that we talked about on the previous slides for changes to the temporary signs. And then also we heard from some of our stakeholders about in some of the industry best standards and best practices for electronic message center signs, which is our digital signage. And so we've updated to conform with that as well. And with that, we're seeking direction for consideration to adopt the sign code ordinance and I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you so much, Charlie. I bet by now you are experts in whole sign code and everything. Thank you, Nick. Jake, again, changing his seat probably, and the whole team that worked on that. I do believe you guys did an amazing job on both the substance and the process here. This is one of the topics that Basically, everyone had a different perspective. You guys spend lots of time, as we heard from a person from the public, you engage with sign industry professionals, businesses, neighborhood association, and community members. many listening sessions, conducted multilingual outreach, coordinated across departments, and came back several times with revisions based on what you've heard. I appreciate the proposal didn't stay static. You listened, adjusted, and improved the draft as concerned were raised by the community and by this body. The changes around the temporary sign registration is a very good example of that. The final product reflects lots of work, lots of feedback, and a genuine effort to balance legal requirements, community input, and practical implementation. So I appreciate you all. On that note, Council Member Robinson, we'll start with you.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so the thing I always hear about our campaign signs, that's the biggest complaint. So, um, I was wondering if you could just review how these new sign rules will affect campaign signs. Um, and will it limit how many of those signs you can have in a certain area?

Yeah, those standards are outlined in the code itself, separate of the temporary sign registration. And then most often, those campaign signs fall under the category of yard sign. And so they would, if they're placed in the right-of-way for more than 48 hours, require that registration as well.

So do you limit how many signs you can sign up for in a certain area? You still put a hundred of your own signs in one small area if you choose, as long as you register them?

It's not based on the registration, how many in an area, but there are code standards limiting how many per linear feet are allowed. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Robinson. Council Member Newenhouse.

Thank you, Mayor. I know that a lot of work went into this. So first and foremost, thank you so much for bringing this back and addressing a lot of the concerns and comments and questions the first time around. So thank you both, Nick and Charlie, on that. So I think a lot of my questions are around the temporary. Going back to the question you just answered about the political signs, so Political signs would need to be registered if they're out in the right-of-way for over 48 hours, correct? Correct. In any way, does this go against free speech, political speech, that we need to register, go through that process of having to register those signs to actually... I don't ever see one less than 48 hours. I would think all of them would be over that 48 hours, so that will be. So is that a concern at all, or have we had a legal review there on that?

Yes, so the code has been reviewed with that lens and with the framework that Charlie was describing in mind. And so because the regulation is content neutral, it's looking at what is that sign type, and it treats that sign, a political sign, the same way it would treat a sign up for soccer camp sign. It's really agnostic of what the message is or who the applicant is. So that if it's placed in the right of way and it's a yard sign and it's there for more than 48 hours, regardless of that message, it's going to require registration. And so that essentially is in compliance with what the legal framework is.

And then for political signs, once they register those signs, how long is the registration good for? For the lifetime of that sign or that it's out?

Yeah, it can be out for 120 days is what that's allowed for. And then people can renew registration as well. That is possible. It's really a great tracking mechanism for us. But yeah.

So if they renew registration, which a lot of campaigns would have to do because they put them out early or multiple times, what does that entail then? Is that simply just going online to update that we want to extend for another 120 days? Or is there an actual requirement to go back out to the signs and attach an additional registration sticker or whatever on it?

Yeah, so the, they would have to go back online and register for that again. And it really depends on how we are going to operationalize this policy. So, if we are requiring a sticker, for example, to be affixed to the sign, then that would be the expectation. If the sign is now been renewed that that new sticker goes on the sign. Otherwise it would show as expired and you might run into some other issues. So. But there are certainly ways that we can look at trying to ease that as well. That's why we've also given ourselves until the end of the year or until February to help figure out what's the best way to implement this.

I would say that would be very difficult not only to maybe implement or to police or to – I think it would be much cleaner if it was a one-time registration, if the sticker or what have you fell off. for whatever reason or it's not visible anymore, maybe then they would need to attach that registration sticker on it again. But to ask not only a business but political campaigns as well to go back a second time maybe even a third time to reattach stickers, I think that's a bit of a burden on campaigns, and I think a one-time registration should really suffice. On the neighborhood signs, so if they want to sign, in the right of way, even the neighborhood signs would have to register then, correct? If it's gonna be over 48 hours, do I have that correct? Okay, okay. So when, during my time on the Lake Hills Community, our neighborhood association, usually those signs go out about a week. maybe sometimes two weeks before an event, a candidate forum, et cetera. So you are going to put that burden on them because I don't think 48 hours is going to be enough time really to kind of get the word out about whatever that might be. Are we able to, which I think we kind of asked last time, but are we able to allow neighborhood associations to bypass that? Or if I remember reading in the packet, does that put us into the realm of, I guess, equity that we're treating neighborhood associations different than everybody else? Is that the argument?

Yeah, that would be the concern if they were being treated differently and not having to go through registration.

And the concern stems from what?

The framework that was established through those court decisions where we are required to be content neutral in how we apply our regulations. And the example that Charlie shared is from that court case that was showing preference was given to homeowners associations and that they got larger signs than political campaigns. Okay. And that was deemed unconstitutional, or at least running afoul with that decision.

Well, it still concerns me for those neighborhood associations that have very little budget. As we heard, getting out the word about their event, usually they're using signs. And that just might put a bigger burden on them. I don't know what other options we have, Nick. I know they could go with the A-frame, right? And then they could bypass it. But those are much more expensive than these types of temporary fines. So I'm not sure we're quite there yet. And I want to give these neighborhood associations every chance that they can to. get the word out about what they're doing. And I think that's something we want to encourage too, right? I mean, there are partners in the community. We all show up at the different community events, and we all know how important they are. So I just don't want to put an additional burden or expense on them if we don't have to. I understand what you're trying to achieve, but I'm just not sure we're quite there yet. So when someone submits the registration, You said content neutral. Who determines what's content neutral? And would we ever not allow registering a sign if the city, for whatever reason, felt that the sign was offensive? Are we going to make judgments as a city in terms of what is or is not offensive speech?

I might invite, we've got Robbie Seppler here from the city attorney's office that can maybe speak to that more directly. But the content neutral reference that we are making is how the regulation should operate. And so we are not trying to read the sign and apply a regulation to it. The regulations in and of themselves need to be content neutral. So we'll be looking at the sign type, which is easy to decipher. And then in terms of if there's a message on the sign that might be offensive, I think Robbie might be able to address that aspect.

so first to uh greeting council rodney settler assistant city attorney um to second what nick said uh council member we'd be looking at the sign type when it comes in for registration we'll be not looking at its content okay we're just looking for the material the form of it in order to categorize it under the new sign code so the content is not part of our registration process it's just the physical characteristics of the sign okay then in terms of whether or not there was um I guess some sort of sign in the community that had content that was not appropriate. I think that would be something having to look through what was the sign type on what's displayed and whether the sign type had gotten whatever registration or permit that was required for it. And then If that was not the case, then code compliance could go forward. If it was in a location where it wasn't allowed to be or on a public facility or something along those lines, I think that would be a different consideration. So I think the kind of short answer to your question, council members, the context is really important there to understand how to go about regulating it.

Okay, I appreciate that. Kind of where I'm going with this line of questioning too is my fear of either a business or a candidate potentially being targeted as well. How do we prevent if it looks as if Again, a business or a candidate is being targeted or unfairly being reported to the city for sign removal. How do we address that to ensure that there's fairness all around? Again, I feel like it's going to put the city in the position where we're going to have to make a decision in terms of either the content, the business, or the candidate. I mean, hopefully, from a candidate perspective, that would be pretty straightforward. It should just be a name and a website. But still, I think people are potentially, it could be someone who tries that. So how are we going to deal with that?

Council members, certainly it's the legal balance of trying to figure out how to maintain an orderly right-of-way. That certainly is a hard balance to meet. So certainly if there was a circumstance where our yardside regulations in the right-of-way were leading to a huge burden on code compliance, that might be an opportunity then to reconsider the approach. or to think through other ways of going forward. But to the extent of trying to figure out how to place limits on yard signs in the right of way, I think that's a difficult balance to make.

Okay, I'm not really sure that answered my question, but I know you're trying to achieve a balance, but I really want to make sure that there's some type of lever in place that will kick in if it becomes clear that someone or something, again, a candidate or a business, someone is targeting their signs.

Yeah, and I think the enforcement response for any complaint is going to be, is that sign registered or is it required to be registered? We are not asking who's behind the sign. We will simply be looking at, is this sign legal under our code? Less interested in kind of the message it's trying to communicate, unless it's something extremely obscene. And then we might need to call Robbie to see if we have any other tools to use to address that.

Because it takes money, effort, time to put these signs out, right, and then have someone continue to report and then to adjust or whatever might be needed. Heck, it could even be a competitor between two barbershops, right, to take their signs down. So, okay. And then lastly, we're putting on a lot to code compliance to enforce this, correct? What is their capacity to actually do that right now? We lean on them a lot for a lot of different things in the city. So do we need to make some, I don't know, budget allocations for this? Do we have the staff to actually enforce this?

Yeah, it's certainly a consideration as we're drafting new regulations. We had that in mind as well in trying to make the registration information more clear to the public so that that also helps the community kind of have some role in this piece as well. So it's not just falling straight to our code compliance officers. And right now, basically, if there are complaints received, we will have to manage those based on our resources. Those are complaints that apply under even kind of our current code. You heard folks noting maybe rental registrations or. Short-term rentals, I think, was the example. Graffiti is another example. We do not have a shortage of complaints in community. And so our response is really looking at how do we prioritize our response to those complaints based on the capacity and the resources we have available. We do think about that as we form our budgets as well. And I know council is going to be looking at budgets in the coming years.

Okay. So I think you answered my question. I think in terms of priorities, probably signs is probably going to be

near the bottom so therefore enforcement is going to be very challenging unless we add some additional budget to code compliance yeah uh if there's a hazardous situation um that you should right of course that would go yeah yes i don't think you're incorrect in that assessment okay thank you so much appreciate it thank you councilman robinson councilman

I just have one question about the phase three engagement. Can you share with us what does it look like for the phase three engagement?

Yeah, part of that is looking at coordinating with our land use department and going from the policy side to actual application and what that handoff looks like. So I know we're looking at previous projects and what we've done for public information session. What kind of materials can we develop with our graphics department for easy access especially when it comes to temporary signs, what needs a permit, what needs a registration, what's exempt, very clear visuals. Those are all sort of ideas that are floating around, and we have a great group of internal people working on what should those considerations be as well.

Okay. Is there any external engagement going on with that part, too?

Yes, I should clarify, sorry. That's all planned external engagement, but we're working with across the department internally to kind of coordinate what is our best strategy and how can we come up with the best engagement plan.

OK. Yeah, because I feel like the signs, sometimes for the neighborhood association or small business or company, it could be the only way of marketing. their message, right? So I think that talking to them and then we'll get idea how, and also that was gonna be the enforcement part way more effective as well as we can work together with the users and also the audience of the sign too. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Smadavaria. Council Member Bhargava.

Oh, thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Charlie, Nick. Appreciate the work, the legal point of view as well. Really good job on making the changes. I appreciate the work that you've done to bring the sign code into compliance with evolving case law, but also to modernize the code and to make it more clear for folks to use. I really want to appreciate the fact that you have the work you put in for the temporary sign requirements, particularly narrowing the scope to signs in the right of way. reducing the burden for private property owners. What we had previously felt really onerous and was difficult, I think, for individual rights. And so I feel like you've achieved a much stronger balance this time between, you know, manageability and the use of your own property for yard signs and things like that. So I appreciate that a lot. On the neighborhood signs, I know that there are some legal constraints around content neutrality and why exemptions for organizations may not be very feasible. I think what I see is that you've tried to partially address this in the revised draft by extending changing the duration and also narrowing the registration scope that you have put out, which I think partially helped but not, I don't think, completely address some of the input that we've heard from within the community. I also appreciate the fact that you've introduced the limited non-commercial digital signage in specific districts like the Grand Connection, Bell Red. Seems like a targeted way to support wayfinding and you know, bringing broader community standards into play. So that's very helpful. I just have a few questions. One of them actually is very simple and not clear to me. So starting with the very basics, talking about things like campaign science, I appreciate Council Member Nguyen-Haas has pushed in some of these things which are sort of Just things I think we should clarify. When a person has a sign, and supposing there are 50 signs that one needs to put out, and they look identical, and they're all going to go in the right of way for more than 48 hours, you have to register each of those 50 signs. Or do you, that's what would content, I mean, would that be required? Let me ask that first.

Yes, what we are looking at on the operations side is can we batch, can we do a single registration?

That's kind of where I'm going, is that if you have an identical sign and you have 100 signs to put out, can you batch register? Because it feels like a lot of work for someone to go in, first register 100 signs, then update them for an extension, and then, of course, the operational tasks of stickering them again and again. And so I think that's something that I would strongly, you know, suggest you consider including and making that interface easier to use not just for political science that actually applies to folks who have identical signs in different parts of the community whether it's marketing a business or anything else would apply the same way content neutrality the other thing is I think extensions which you just addressed but One of the things that I want to check on extensions is the example you had on your slide showed your registration date and expiration date need to be posted on the sign, which means even if you extend, you need to make physical changes to the sign itself. I do like the thinking that you just suggested, maybe off the cuff, of a QR code-like approach where You can now, on the back end, extend somebody's timeline or make changes to a sign and its various attributes, and the QR code would update, and you don't need to make physical changes. That said, I think QR codes have equity issues in terms of who can access and who can't. So it's not the ideal solution, but I think those are nudges in the direction in which I think solutions would be more workable over time, and I appreciate you have some time to work out the tactics on this. And then last question was really around where enforcement was, which I think is something we talked about, so I'm not gonna go much deeper, but the administrative burden and the process of enforcement, I think we should be thinking heavily about and making sure that we have a process to manage that and scale this as our city gets more complex and grows.

Thank you, Council Member Bargaba. Council Member Briar.

Thank you Mayor and thank you for the incredible work conducted by everyone here today and those who are not here. I'd like to re-emphasize a point brought up by my colleague Council Member Bhargava regarding scalability in terms of the program and re-emphasize some of the comments introduced by Council Member Nguyenhouse regarding whether or not this needs a budget. Obviously everything needs more money right now. But if we're talking about the enforcement piece and sort of relying on civilians to provide a complaint and then perhaps remove a sign or something like that, if memory serves me correctly, it worries me a little bit there. So I would be interested in seeing that program scale, understanding what puts and takes that that might take. I appreciate that we gave a 48-hour exemption to the neighborhood associations, but it sort of just breaks my heart a little bit. Anecdotally, I live in Lake Hills as well, And it was a week before the why is my water bill so high meeting that I saw the sign on Third Street. And I was like, what a great way to get people engaged. And it was a week out. And so I understand we can't provide preferential treatment, and there's constitutional laws in place, and perhaps falls under providing preferential treatment, but perhaps they can apply for an appeal. If the end goal is civic engagement, for example, we'll allow a week if it's a meeting where we're talking to city staff. I'm being creative here, and perhaps you ought to shoot this down, which I can understand if you have to. But I just really wanted to talk about how important that piece was to me and to some of our residents as well. And sorry, reviewing my notes. Those were the only comments that I had. And thank you again for the complex work that you're doing. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Briar. Deputy Mayor Hamilton.

Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the presentation. Also, thank you for addressing the concerns that were raised by Council back in April. I think the concerns have been very well addressed. I appreciate that. I think this is really good work. It makes a positive, impactful change to current code. I think the code update brings about changes the community wants to see and certainly brings about the changes I would also like to see, and I'm ready to move forward.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much. Again, to me, this is a great example of how public engagement should work. People, community, a stakeholder raised concern, you listen, and the final proposal is better because of that. Can I get a motion, please?

I move to adopt... No, I'm sorry. Where am I here? I'm on 12. All right. Thank you. Excuse me. I move to adopt ordinance number 6925, relating signs, repealing chapter 22B.10, BCC, adopting a new chapter 22.10, BCC, amending chapter 14.30.070, BCC, providing for severability and setting an effective date.

Second.

has been moved by Deputy Mayor Hamilton and seconded by Councilman Robinson. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? There is no opposed. The motion passes. Thank you so much for your work on this. We do have another ordinance. Our city manager is going to introduce that.

Yes, and Nick Whipple will be staying for his third session for the evening. And joined by Matt McFarland, supervising civil attorney. This ordinance is asking for council to consider adopting a proposed Ordinance that would impose an emergency moratorium on detention center uses in the city. It also includes consideration of a work plan that would address gaps in city zoning and land use controls while the moratorium would remain in effect. And so with that, I will hand it over to Nick to introduce the item. Nick.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members of the council. I'm Nick Whipple, Code and Policy Director, and Matt McFarland from our city attorney's office. We are here tonight to discuss the potential ordinance for council consideration detention center moratorium ordinance. The action for council consideration is to consider adopting an emergency moratorium ordinance on detention center center uses in the city of Bellevue and then establish a work plan to study and evaluate updates to zoning and land use controls regulating detention center uses in the city of Bellevue. So we'll provide some background and context around this item. Matt McFarland will walk through the proposed moratorium. Then we'll talk about how we would address this in the work plan and Because this is a moratorium we're discussing, there's a separate process that applies to this. We'll talk about that before turning it back for council discussion. So to start out with some of the background, the Growth Management Act and Code City provisions do authorize cities to adopt moratorias, provided that a public hearing is held within 60 days of that adoption. Adopting a moratorium essentially allows the city to pause that land use activity while the issue is addressed that was the center of that moratorium. And so what we are seeing is that the establishment expansion and citing of detention centers has increased in various parts of the country. Similar facilities are beginning to emerge in the Puget Sound region. At the same time, we also know that there is federal interest in potentially citing additional detention facilities in the region, including jurisdictions located within King and Pierce County. This is one of the reasons why Council may want to consider proactively evaluating our local land use regulations before a proposal for a detention center may be submitted at the City. Several jurisdictions in the region have recently adopted moratoria on detention center uses and detention facilities to provide that time for policy review, public engagement, and consideration of those long-term regulatory approaches for this use. And that will give us some land use context on this item.

Thanks, Nick.

So the city's current zoning and also the land use controls are, as we frequently call them, development regulations in the land use code. They do not regulate detention centers as a distinct or specific use. So there's a gap that's in the land use code and the city's zoning. And detention centers, by their very nature, because of their intensity, their occupancy, the scope of the use, can have very real impacts on surrounding land uses, transportation, and the environment. So the goal of the moratorium, if Council were to adopt it, would be to pause any detention center application review or siting in Bellevue while the city has time to update its zoning and land use controls to address those potential impacts associated with that type of intense detention center use. So what would the moratorium do? As I mentioned, it would pause the acceptance or processing of applications for these detention center or detention facility uses. And it also would declare an emergency. The ordinance declares an emergency in order to allow the moratorium to take effect immediately and to prevent any potential harm associated with the detention center uses. And then it includes a legislative work plan, which Nick's gonna talk about in more detail in order to review, study, and potentially revise the city zoning and land use controls while the moratorium stays in effect.

So in terms of the work plan, what we would propose is staff begin to identify those gaps. As Matt noted, this is a novel land use at the city, and so there is one gap there. So also understanding what the regulatory approach might be, which land use districts is this appropriate to potentially allow within, and then what are the right development regulations to apply and permit process to subject this use to. We would evaluate those potential amendments and we could incorporate those into existing or planned council legislative work program items to help minimize any of the impact this might have on other priorities that the council has directed us to work on. This would also result in us developing findings and a recommendation for you all to consider what that long term approach would be to regulating this use. And like I said, the approach here would be to integrate it into our proposed two year loopy work plan. That's the land use planning initiatives work plan and to take an opportunity as we are looking at code updates in red, for example, or downtown to address this use as we are working through that work program. And so with that, it takes us to the schedule slide. If council chooses to take action and adopt a moratorium ordinance this evening, that would essentially start the clock. So we'd have 60 days where we would need to hold a public hearing. So that is a hearing that needs to be held before August 7th, 2026. And then we would have one year from the date the council takes action for us to study and evaluate those gaps and propose any code changes for you all to consider. So with that, Mayor, we will turn it back to you for any questions.

Thank you, Nick. Nick, do you know what is hat trick?

I do, yes.

Your congratulations. Thank you. Your hat trick arrived tonight. That's an achievement that I don't think that many people and staff has. Thank you again, and thank you, Matt, and the whole team for amazing work. I think what I'm understanding we are considering tonight is whether our code adequately address this type of use and whether we should take time to study before any application could move forward. Thank you for that. We'll start with Council Member Somadevaraya.

Actually, the staff, maybe, answered all my questions.

Thank you so much. Council Member Borgavo.

Yeah, thanks. I don't really have questions, but I do have some comments. I do want to start by acknowledging the public comment and written input provided on this item, including concerns about potential community safety, public health impacts of detention facilities. I appreciate the engagement and the emphasis on developing a clear regulatory framework for this. Bellevue is home to residents from around the world. I'm a first-generation immigrant myself, and I want our immigrant and refugee communities to know that they are valued members of our city. This action is about land use policy, but it is also consistent with our commitment to being a welcoming and inclusive community. This process is an opportunity to ensure our land use framework reflects thoughtful planning, transparency, and meaningful community engagement, including continued dialogue with community organizations and stakeholders. Specifically from a land use perspective, I understand and support the rationale for a moratorium as a way to evaluate whether our current zoning and regulatory framework appropriately address this type of issue, this type of use. These are complex facilities, and it is appropriate to ensure we have clear, consistent, and durable standards before moving forward. If a moratorium is adopted, I would want it to lead to clearly defined work plans, including identification of gaps in the current code, clarity on policy objectives, engagement with relevant stakeholders, and a clear timeline, which you have done. Before it comes back, the recommendations post that. So I appreciate that.

That's it. Thank you so much, Councillor Mubarak. Councillor Robinson.

Thank you, Mayor. I just have one question. If the city needs more time after the one-year moratorium reaches its limit, can it be extended with a council action with a vote?

Yes, the requirement would be that council could potentially extend the moratorium for up to six months per extension, but also the requirement would be that council would have to have additional public hearings in order to satisfy the procedural requirements for each extension.

Okay. All right. You're pretty sure we can get this done in the one-year time period that's allotted with this initial moratorium?

Yes, that is the plan.

Great. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Robinson. Council Member Nieuwenhuis? I'll defer for now. Thank you, Mayor. Of course. Council Member Briar?

Thank you, Mayor. I think that this really just boils down to land use code policy. There is a gap. It's been addressed accordingly. So I appreciate the work that you've done. I'm in support of this. And I would be remiss not to mention that my mother came to this country as a refugee who fled an authoritarian regime and raised a proud American. And so I think this is consistent with our values of ensuring that Bellevue remains safe and inclusive for all residents. Thank you, Mayor.

Of course. Deputy Mayor Hamilton. Great.

Thank you. Appreciate the presentation. I think the timing for this moratorium is important because it addresses a very concerning gap in our current land use code. We have always wanted to be sure that we make our own land use decisions and do everything we can to avoid having them imposed upon us. Also, I really think that the goal of the moratorium was laid out well in the agenda memo. As a result of this gap in city zoning and land use controls, the establishment, expansion, or development of detention centers within the city could impact surrounding land uses, transportation, and the environment, as well as the health, safety, and welfare of City of Bellevue residents. Our timing is important also here because nearby municipalities, as has been mentioned, have already taken action to prevent the siting of detention facilities within their borders. Those limitations may make it more likely for such a facility to be sited in our city before we are in a position to place certain requirements and set appropriate standards for them. Timing is good too because it fits into current work plans. Our staff is already in a position to study potential revisions to our city zoning and land use code. I look forward to seeing your findings and considering any recommendations on how we can close this regulatory gap. There are many practical considerations for us to move this moratorium forward tonight. It seems pretty obvious to me that a detention center would have significant impacts on neighboring land uses and on our city transportation system and impact our environment in ways that we need to be able to control for. But the impacts on the health, safety and welfare of city of Bellevue residents is the most concerning. While this moratorium applies to any kind of detention facility without regard to the reasons for the detention, we have all heard the recent stories that have come from the Tacoma detention facility. According to media reports, there have been over 3,500 complaints about the for-profit privately run detention facility. The state has been forced to sue just to gain access to investigate the complaints. And even though the state has been successful in their legal efforts, they have yet been able to enter the facility to investigate. There are allegations of medical mistreatment, including a lack of access to medicines, abuse and neglect, and concerns about water quality and food safety that include complaints about finding metal string, hair, worms, and rope in the food. There have been complaints about overcrowding and sanitation. And medical records highlight numerous suicide attempts and mental health crises. We need to take time to make sure that our city code, zoning, and associated land use control ordinances do everything possible to prevent a repeat of what is going on in Tacoma. I think there is broad community support for moving this moratorium forward and giving us the time to make sure we do all we can to protect our community and stand up for our values. I would like to see us consider additional steps in the future to continue and to expedite internal policy review, training, preparation, and legislative actions related to federal immigration enforcement activity. I think we are taking a significant and impactful step tonight, and I fully support moving the moratorium forward. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm going to ask you a question. Is there other types of facilities or emerging land use where you see similar gaps in our code today? The areas we may eventually face the same situation and need to clarify our land use regulation before potential application arrives.

I appreciate the question, Mayor. With the land use code, it's really hard to predict and define any use that might be out there, might emerge in community. I think that's just one of the challenges with the code. The process that we have in our land use code is if there is a use that is considered unspecified, meaning that our code does not actually have a definition for it or regulations that apply, We do have this exercise where the land use director looks at the application, how it's being presented and tries to slot it to something that's most similar that can result in maybe insufficient regulatory approaches for that specific use. Because again, it's trying to apply something that. maybe isn't 100% similar to what we have on the book. So not uncommon that we run into situations where we just don't have the right regulations in place. And so when those situations happen, we do try and get a policy response in place. The timing of that policy response I think depends on kind of the situation too and whether it's something we think needs to be addressed immediately or something that we might be able to get work through depending on the impacts that we're talking

Thank you for the clarification Anyone else you want to go come from anyone else?

a couple of questions And yes to no will actually suffice perfectly so has the city received any application an inquiry a Pre-application meeting request or informal outreach regarding the detention center in Bellevue. Yes or no?

Not to my knowledge.

Thank you. Is there any evidence that a detention center is being planned, cited, or considered by any public or private entity in Bellevue?

Not beyond that. Thank you.

Has the federal government said that they want to put a detention center in Bellevue?

Not in Bellevue specifically. Okay, thank you.

If the federal government wanted to place a detention center in Bellevue, Do we have any mechanism that we could actually stop them from doing so? Yes or no?

This moratorium is one mechanism.

Really? To permanently stop them from putting in a detention center in Bellevue? My understanding was that we couldn't. And from our briefing, I thought that's what you had said to me.

I believe the GMA provides authority for counsel to adopt the moratorium.

Mm-hmm.

whether or not at the project level, that moratorium would prevent a project from being approved is a project level question and a fact-based question, which I believe is consistent with what we discussed in our briefing. But the moratorium is certainly a tool that council has in order to temporarily prevent a detention center from being cited.

So temporarily, so once the moratorium is over, then they would have license to do so?

It depends on the policy decision that council makes with respect to permanent zoning and regulations.

So if the federal government looks at our land use, will that really dictate to them if they can or cannot put a detention center in the city of Bellevue?

I think that will depend on the regulations that council adopts.

But won't federal law trump city?

That's a question for the court system, I believe.

OK.

But that's a preemption question and a very good question, council member. But that is within the court's jurisdiction, not the council's jurisdiction.

OK. All right. Well. Yeah, this is a tough one. I'm all for looking at this land use. I'm glad we can address this gap. It's something that we haven't addressed previously. I also don't want to see detention centers in Bellevue, but I think these are important questions. Maybe some of these can be addressed during the moratorium timeframe. It was a good question about is a year enough time to actually have this fully addressed, these questions, these concerns, these comments addressed that time in order to have a land use policy that is more than just dare I say more performative but actually has teeth When it comes to what could or could not happen, we don't know because, like I said, there is no application or even a whiff of an application forthcoming right now. So are there additional tools that we can implement or, I guess, infuse into that land use to make it even stronger or more to our benefit going forward?

Well, I think the goal with regulating any intense use is to try to adopt zoning and policy that appropriately mitigates the impacts for that use. So what the city has control over is local land use zoning and local land use regulation. So at least personally, what I think as a land use attorney would be a successful result would be to adopt permanent zoning and code that does everything in its power to mitigate the impacts associated with not just a detention center, but any use in the city.

Last question. This came up during a similar discussion at King County. What if there is a natural disaster, for example, and we have detention centers that are not usable? They're no longer safe for individuals to be in, and that forces either the county or the city to create temporary detention centers If we are forced into that, hopefully not, but into that situation in which we had to create temporary detention centers because of a natural disaster like that, could we do that under this moratorium or would we not be able to do that?

Well, once again, if that were to arise at a project level later, council would certainly have tools. I mean, we could come in immediately and revisit the moratorium if needed, and council could take action to amend or repeal it if needed. Okay. That's one of the advantages of this process under the GMA, is that you do not need... to have a public notice or public hearing beforehand until you can act quickly to do that. I will say this, the scope of the moratorium, we did try to tailor to the way that these type of uses are described in the Growth Management Act. And then we also tried to make sure that we were mindful of detention center type of uses that are already established or that BPD, for example, may detain people, sometimes for the health and safety of the person who's being detained. And so we tried with the scope to tailor it both to the Growth Management Act definition and also to the local scope. um kind of services and also the the type of detention style activities that the city does engage in and we excluded those from the definition of moratorium okay i'm sorry definition of detention center i gotcha thanks for that thanks for answering my questions that's perfect thank you thank you councilman newhouse anyone else anything else can i have the motion please

I move to adopt ordinance number 6926, imposing a one-year moratorium on the acceptance or processing of applications for the establishment, expansion or development of detention centers in the City of Bellevue, establishing a work plan, declaring an emergency, providing for severability and establishing an immediate effective date.

Second. It has been moved by Deputy Mayor and seconded by Councilman Robinson. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? There is no opposed. The motion passes. we do have two written reports one of them the cougar mountain annexation that our city manager already addressed read it again for more information the second written report is intergovernmental affairs monthly update as of may 31st 2026 Before we adjourn tonight, I want to remind everyone that the regular council meeting scheduled for June 16 is cancelled. Our next regular meeting will be on June 23rd. With that, we are adjourned.