Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the February 25 meeting of the city of Bellevue Planning Commission. This evening meeting is held via hybrid format with both in person and virtual option via Zoom. Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity for public comments during the oral communication portion of agenda. All written comments that have been submitted prior to 11AM today, Wednesday, February 25 will be summarized into a record. We have two study sessions item tonight on the agenda.

A checking on the parking reform land use code amendments and the further discussion of the 2025 annual process improvement survey. And now let's move on with the roll call. Commissioner Ferris has notified me that she will be absent and our liaison council member Michelle Bargava will be absent too. Commissioner Geppau?

Here.

Commissioner Valavesses?

I'm here.

Kennedy? Present. Commissioner Nilchian?

Here.

Weister Lu?

I'm here.

And this is Negin Chair Hanloop. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So moved.

Is it a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Kate,

are you having any reports from boards and commission?

Reports from boards and commissions.

Would you mind to provide us with the updates for meeting schedule for 2026?

Yes. I would love to. But before I get into the updates, I wanted to share an upcoming event with you. Oops. Share.

There it is. Here we go. So on Saturday, we have a urban design workshop for the Eastgate and Victoria neighborhood area plans, and that will be at the Hyatt House in Eastgate from one to 4PM, and it will cover both the Eastgate and the Factoria neighborhoods. One side will be Eastgate, and one side of the room will be Factoria. So there is a QR code there, if you would like to register.

Oh, now stop sharing. I also wanted to note that our next meeting, March 11, is canceled due to quorum issues. I think on the, calendar that was shared in your packet, it was a little unclear. It was the eleventh or the twenty fifth. It is the eleventh.

And, thank you to everyone who has shared their avail availability for the additional or alternate dates. It looks like we'll have quorum for the first and third Wednesdays in November. So the second Wednesday falls on Veterans Day, so we wouldn't hold a meeting that day. And it looks like we will not have quorum for the fourth Wednesday in November regardless. So, it would be great to hold, the retreat either the first or third Wednesday.

We're working on, reservations, space for the meeting because, there are other commissions here at the city of Bellevue who also use this room. But we'll between Mary, Joe, and I, we'll figure out where you guys will meet. And I think that's it. Yep.

Thank you. Back to you, Kate. Do you have a summary of the written communication that we received?

Sure. So I forwarded one comment that came in since the packet was published, and that comment was asking for clarification on HOMA. So, she has been referred to staff for for clarifying. I also received another, comment this afternoon, from the Masters Builders Association, and that one was is in regard to the parking reform, Luca, that you'll be reviewing. So I'll make sure that you get a a copy of that comment as well.

Thank you. Do we have anyone registered for oral communication? If no, I can skip and not read the section.

We do not have any preregistered folks. We do not have anybody in the room besides staff, but I do see some folks online who've indicated that they would like to comment. So Perfect.

Yeah. We have a total of thirty minutes for oral communication. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. A staff liaison, Kate Nesli, will call and speak in order, which they have registered either in the person or online. Sorry.

If anyone from the public has missed a 6PM registration deadline, you may still provide public comments. If there is a remaining time, please use the raise hand function in the Zoom if you are attending virtually or motion to the staff in the room. There are rules adopted by city council limiting the topic about the public may speak during our meeting under ordinance 6,752. The public may only speak during public comment about subject matters that are related to the city of government and are within the power and duties of the planning commission. Please check online for additional information. Kate, can you please call for the first speaker?

Sure. We don't have anybody signed up to speak, but if you are attending virtually and you would like to speak, could you raise your hand? Alright, Jesse. I see you. Can you hear me?

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Yep. Go ahead.

Hi, everyone. It's Jessie Clauson. Sorry. I can't be there in person. I just wanted to give some comment regarding the parking code discussion.

I think you all read the packet. I was a little shocked also to to note that many of the codes have not been updated for parking since the nineteen sixties. I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old. So I'm hoping that as you discussed tonight, you can bring the code into the twenty first century and think about some of the tools that some of the other jurisdictions use, like, you know, being able to reduce parking minimums based on parking studies for a citywide application or thinking about existing nonconformities for parking being able to continue if you're just a building just so that it's easier for small businesses to thrive and and relocate. We've had a lot of issues lately in Bellevue with businesses being able to even go into buildings in downtown just because of parking minimums.

So, hopefully, it's a fun conversation, and thank you for your time. Goodbye.

Thank you.

If anybody else would like to speak, could you raise your hand?

I don't see anybody else. Thank you. In twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five, the Washington state legislature adopted three bills which collectively standardized parking stall dimension and certain other development standard for parking lots and structure. Establish minimum parking requirement caps for certain residential and nonresidential uses citywide and limits, circumstances when minimum parking requirement can apply within light rail and bus rapid transit station areas. Bellevue must comply with these requirement before 01/27/2027.

Council initiated this work and directed the staff to conduct analysis and engagement on several option to expand amendment beyond the state mandate. This is planning this is a planning commission first to study session on this land use code amendment. We have, planning manager, Christina Gallet, and senior planner, Sean Edgal, will provide, sorry, presentation on the parking reform Luca.

Thank you, chair Khan Liu, vice chair Liu, and commissioners. So this evening, we're here to present the project scope for the parking reform Luca, which was initiated by council in January. So while much of the scope is driven by state legislation, the cities recognize the risk of requiring excess parking and multiple planning documents, including our draft affordable housing strategy update. It's also not a new area for us. We have started to chip into our parking standards in a number of areas, including my my own first Luca back in 2021, which brought in some initial reductions in parking near station areas.

So the cost to to build parking in underground garages can easily rise over 50,000 per space, with certain factors driving that much higher. The practical need to think about parking in terms of levels, means that it can be very difficult for the geometry of the project to line up well with parking requirements even when those requirements are calibrated well. So the end result can mean that projects might build less space for housing or other uses that the the public would like to encourage and that based on the amount of parking the project can afford or physically accommodate, meaning a need to design towards the parking rather than perhaps the public benefit or what might be most interesting for that site. So we can't deny that there's some risk with looking towards market based approaches for parking, but there are significant trade offs to consider. We also know understanding these potential impacts to better understand these risks will be a key component of this project.

So tonight, we'll be walking through the details of that core project scope, which includes meeting the standards of several pieces of recent legislation through a rewrite of our parking standards. This also gives us the opportunity to consolidate and streamline our parking code. During that January initiation, council also provided staff with direction on a number of options to explore, to to think about thoughtfully expanding beyond that minimum mandate. So over the coming months, staff will be, conducting robust outreach and research to inform decision making on these options. So this evening, we'll share that guidance from counsel with the commission and take in any, early guidance and questions that you may have at this stage.

So with that, I will pass to Sean.

Thank you, Christina. So as she mentioned, my name is Sean Edgefield, senior planner with the code and policy department. Tonight, we are gonna be providing an overview of the parking reform, Luca, why it's needed, what's required under recent state legislation, and how this project aligns with council direction and our community engagement process. So quick road map. We're gonna start with talking what is minimum parking, why is, or how did it come to be.

We're also gonna talk through the new state legislation in-depth, what it means for Bellevue. From there, we're going to cover over proposed scope of the Luka, our outreach and schedule, and the direction that we have received from council. Of course, we will leave plenty of time for questions and discussions at the end. So minimum parking regulations have been a foundational land use tool for decades. In the simplest of terms, they are rules that require development to provide a certain number of off street parking spaces, usually tied to land use, number of units, or a building size.

Traditionally, these standards were designed to prevent spillover parking to neighborhoods and ensure parking was available at peak times. They were rooted in engineering manuals and worst case scenario assumptions, often assuming every household owned and drove multiple cars. As we'll see, those assumptions don't always match current level or, I'm sorry, current behavior, or our long term, planning goals. As we had heard earlier during, our common, period, Bellevue, has had very similar, minimum parking requirements stemming back all the way to 1962. Note that we are talking about the base minimum parking requirements largely the same.

The development pattern at that time was very different. It was much more auto oriented, suburban, and built around an expectation that driving would be the dominant mode of travel. Much of that regulatory framework has stayed in place even as the city has grown denser, more mixed use, and more transit accessible. Our comprehensive plan recognizes those changing conditions. Our, it supports increased housing near transit, flexibility in how parking is provided, and removing unnecessary barriers to development.

We also know that parking is not free. Structured parking is costly. Those costs ultimately show up in rents, home prices, and commercial, leases. For some businesses, minimum parking requirements can pose challenges to opening or expanding. Because many of our standards do date back more than sixty years, they often exceed today's actual parking demand.

That leads to higher construction costs, less efficient land use, and reduced flexibility, especially, for housing mixed use and redevelopment projects. More broadly, strict parking minimums reinforce auto dependence at a time when Bellevue is moving towards a more urban transit oriented future. So here's the state legislation. Over the past two years, the state legislature has passed three significant bills that we are taking into consideration through this code amendment, senate bill sixty fifteen, housing bill fourteen ninety one, and senate bill fifty one eighty four. Together, they do establish new limits on minimum parking that cities can require and apply broadly to residential, mixed use, and commercial developments.

These changes are not optional. Many of these are impacting cities across the area, anything above 30,000 realistically, but the sooner, compliance deadline of January 2027 impacts anyone above 50. The Luca that we're developing here is going to address, four key areas. Location based parking requirements, use space requirements, development standards, and exceptions. These form the minimum scope for compliance, and we are gonna walk through each of them in more detail.

First off, location. Bellevue may not require, we can no longer require, parking for either residential or mixed use development, that are located within a half mile walking distance of light rail stations or quarter mile walking distance of rapid rides. These boundaries are prescribed directly within state law, and we don't have very much in the way of, wherewithal to alter this requirement. There are also several land uses that cities have to take into consideration where we cannot require minimum parking. These include small residential units under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces below 3,000, affordable housing, senior housing, child care centers, ground floor commercial uses in mixed use buildings, conversions from nonresidential to residential, and changes of use between commercial space.

The legislation also impacts maximum I'm sorry, caps, basically, for minimum parking. So effectively for all other cases, cities can't require more than half a space per unit for multifamily, a single space per single family, and commercial uses are limited to two spaces per thousand square feet. To put this in perspective, many of Bellevue's, current requirements do exceed those gaps, except in localized areas, largely in downtown. The legislation also affects development standards tied to parking. Cities must allow tandem parking and must count both enclosed and unenclosed parking towards any minimums that remain.

Parking spaces can no long, can, no longer be larger than eight by 20 feet, which is going to impact current, dimension requirements that are within the LUC. This is not to include ADA stalls, which, of course, are, dealt with through federal law. Additionally, there are minor limits to what materials must be used, for parking services. This does include an allowance for up to six spaces of gravel parking. Additionally, we are not permitted to require, as stated earlier, garages or carports as part of an approval process.

There are a few exceptions where there is flexibility, for municipalities and county governments. We can still develop standards for certain operational or time restricted parking. This word this includes visitor parking, drop off areas, loading zones, or carpool and vanpool spaces. So these are kind of areas that we're hoping to do a little bit more in-depth analysis, to understand kind of Bellevue specific specific needs and how we can tailor it more appropriately to the community. It is important to note here both, S P 5184 and H P 1491 do have a, quote, unquote, off ramp.

If a city can demonstrate requirements would significantly reduce safety. Effectively, we would have to go through an empirical study, and safety studies themselves are not well listed as to what those actual requirements are. It's a very high bar, that is not assured. So it could take time. It could cost money, and it could, in the end, effectively shorten the timeline that's already we're counting down at this point until next January.

So given Bellevue's transition to more, urban transit support community and the importance of consistency with neighboring cities, staff is not recommending, pursuing this option. City council, as mentioned, we met with them, on January 13. They did provide us some project guidance. They provided showing of support where it comes, for flexibility, market responsive approaches, and continued reform near transit. They also emphasized the importance of grounding the work in data, ensuring robust engagement, especially when it comes to local businesses that may be most directly affected.

They asked us to, effect this is more of a they greenlit this, research into these items. There are, for example, we're looking at yes. We have to be able to require those buffer areas of half a mile from light rail and quarter mile from, wrap ride. But they also said that we could look into standardizing it between both types of transit to having half a mile as well as looking into expanding beyond that for frequent bus service. This is a unit that was utilized through middle housing.

So trying to find these common spaces that, happen between the legislation, has been difficult. So we're trying to see where we could have, like, wise, or common terminology between a lot of these requirements. So that is one of the reasons why we did bring that forward to, counsel for consideration. They did ask that we look into, ensuring that there's a safer environment. So, obviously, not the safety study at itself, but ensuring that whatever code we do provide takes into account the street level itself and safety for pedestrians.

Also, had asked that we look into how to handle change of use situations, where parking constraints currently create barriers, for incoming uses. And importantly, they did also say that we could research elimination of minimum parking requirements citywide. So we will bring back findings on these topics, during our future milestones. Next up, since this is a process for amendments, there are formal public notice and hearing requirements. Beyond that, we are committing to a robust, engagement program.

We've already conducted a public information session earlier this month on the ninth. We did have a virtual public information session where we did get to at least broach the topic with many individuals of the public. We are also in April on April 20, are planning to host a an in person data walk to help community members engage with the research and kind of provide inputs and discuss possible trade offs. We're also hoping to meet directly with residents, neighborhoods, developers, and, we are also, engaged with the the technical advisory committee, myself as well as one of our transportation employees, John

Murphy.

Murphy. Thank you. I apologize. Both of us have been, talking with other, municipalities, as well as county governments and the Department of Commerce, in regards to really kind of fleshing out, some guidance, from everybody to and and asking detailed questions where there might be a little bit less definition from the legislation. Information will continue to be available on the city website as well as on infosheets and FAQs and in publications like It's Your City and Neighborhood News.

Here's our current draft schedule. We as we move kinda towards January 2027, council did initiate the project, earlier this year. We are currently in our first outreach phase. We anticipate developing a draft, Luca, between now and this summer, where we are planning to bring forward kind of a first draft for your review, as well as getting the input from the public, both within the spring and again in the summer. Finally, we are looking, hopefully, to get approval from this body, in fall, and have the council approve no later than the end of this year to make sure that we meet that deadline.

With that, love to hear your questions, any comments, areas you'd like some further detail, and thank you very much for your time tonight.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I'll skip it to one question. Then when we go around, maybe the next person ask for a second question. Commissioner Velavises?

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Can can you, I'd I'd like to ask some clarification about the maximum, I don't know if it's maximum allowed or maximum required. Can you go to the Yes. I don't know which slide this was. The one that was talking about the maximum size, which was eight by 20, and the slide be before that as well.

So

And and this one is that the maximum you can ask for? What what is this?

Yeah. So what this is is it is a cap that has been, applied by the state. So effectively, any residential or commercial use per these specifics cannot we cannot require more than these set established max.

So so just to clarify further, because I know parking maximum can mean something specific, we're not imposing any new maximums or touching those. So if projects want to provide more parking, they still can. So this is just

Request your Yes.

So single family, you can only request maximum of one space.

Mhmm. You could But they could provide

more if you wanted to. Yes.

Yeah. This is from a regulation point of view. Yeah.

And then the the next, slide, eight by 20, size Yes. That's also maximum required. Is the maximum that you can That we can in the call.

Yes. Okay. And they are permit they can always provide a space larger than that. We cannot ask for more.

Okay. Eight I'll give some feedback here right away. Eight feet is really narrow. Mhmm. Seattle is very narrow. It's eight eight and a half feet wide by 16, which is very short. Costco is 10 by 20, which is a good reference point. But aid is very narrow. If you cannot request more, you should encourage it somehow. And, also, it would be very helpful when you spell out the code that the driving space is very clear.

Because if it's a one way driveway versus a two way driveway versus an alley versus an internal road, like, all these things in the coast are very confusing, and sometimes they use measurements like you need, like, 16 feet from the landscape strip all post to the house where you're gonna park. And it's like, it doesn't make any sense. So if if if you're parking, you have 90 degrees, sixty, forty five, or parallel, and those have a minimum dimension, that should be pretty easy to spell clearly in the code. That would be super helpful.

Yes. Agreed. And and that is one of our intents is that part of the consolidation would impact I mean, immediately, the eight by 20 does effectively render moot any of our dimension tables. So it is going to help facilitate strong streamlining Mhmm. Efforts. So I thank you very much for your input on this. I will make sure to include, aisle widths and be clear with my

Great. Thank you. And then on the so the eight is very narrow, but the 20 is really, really generous. You could request 18 or even 19. Most most large cars will fit a 19 stall. Like, maybe, like, just giant cars will need a 20. But, if there's some flexibility there, like, something like nine by 19 is a reasonable parking size. This is just from experience. But Yeah.

Yeah. Unfortunately, that is one of the things where this is preempted. So, unfortunately, we're not allowed to request more than the eight by 20, but it is certainly something that I will look into.

But but you could request less than 20. Right?

No. It's a firm eight by 20 for the minimum parking. Yeah. So but, like, those other parking dimensions, we there there weren't any other things introduced there. So, unfortunately, eight by 20 is that that, like, hard cap. But, yeah, agreed. I wish we knew where that number came from. Mhmm.

Yeah. Does that include encroachment by columns, or is that between between columns?

That's a good question. Well, we we can

I'll look into that

for sure.

Yeah. That's it for now. Yeah. Thank you.

Wish I did.

Yeah.

Thank you both. This may be a very basic question that I should know the answer to, but how will the process I I know I I'm I'm looking specifically at the requirements of there was a half mile from light rail stations and a quarter mile from rapid stops. How does the process work once those may be expanded in the future? Do we have to then come back and re amend, or is it kind of baked into this, or are we kind of planning for that now?

Sure. So the good news here is that this is also not a new concept for us. So we do have some regulations today that regulate based on transit service. And the way that it works is the code is set up just to speak to the transit service, not the specific locations on the map. So when an application comes in, the applicant has to demonstrate that they have that walking distance between their property and the stop so we don't have to necessarily keep the maps updated all the time.

And one key note there too is that the legislation does give us the ability to look at walking distance. So those cases where, you know, your buffer here might, like, jump over the freeway and you know you can't walk that distance, we're allowed to take that into account.

And just to follow-up then on that, to what degree are we allowed to take that into account? What's the is there, like, a set walking distance that that the legislation has?

Or So the walking distance is just within a half mile or a quarter mile. You know, I think our initial take is that it's it's looking at public rights of way, but that's gonna be one of the ongoing areas of clarification.

So then it's it's not just you take one point at wherever the housing is. You go all the way.

Exactly. It's whatever the No no cutting through random private property. Yeah.

Okay. Cool.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy? Thank thank you for the great presentation. I also really appreciated the pictures of the nineteen sixty cars, so that was helpful for me. Sounds like we're due for an update. I'm really glad to hear the work that's going into it.

I wanted to follow-up on the pedestrian line of thought that we were just going through. And and you mentioned that when council in January went through some of the things that they would like to consider in this parking update, that safety for pedestrians was one of the key concerns. How are we considering that? How would we be funding efforts to ensure that? If we're not requiring landowners to put in parking, that's one thing, but how would we be paying for a sidewalk that does not exist today that would enable those pedestrians to have more fluid access through neighborhoods to replace the vehicles?

That could be pretty expensive. You mentioned that you had spoken with the transportation commission. I'm curious how we would be funding those initiatives. It would be fantastic if we can, and it seems essential if we're going to be reducing vehicle access.

So there's kind of a couple related points there. Within the council discussion, the notes on pedestrian safety and that quality of the walking environment were offered up as a layer to think about in analyzing these options for going beyond the minimum. So perhaps we consider looking at lowering that threshold for transit, but in those cases where we know that there is a sidewalk in place and perhaps even thinking about things like the grade of the sidewalk. So maybe if there's that steep grade, we're gonna dial down the the def the distance a bit further. But for the the the the minimum under state law, in order to take some of those pieces into account, it would take that full empirical study route.

And, yeah, like we've noted, that'd be a much, much different kind of consideration. So I'd say the the thinking was more about for the optional considerations, understanding what we can for what's in place today. So, you know, not not going beyond what might be there at some point in the future. Got it. Yeah.

And there it should be stated as well. There are design standards within current code that can be fleshed out to offer opportunities for, safer pedestrian options, that can go through these parking areas. I know there's some language that's already in there that can be looked at.

Okay. Great. Thanks. I think it's an important consideration, so appreciate your time on it.

Thank

you for the presentation. I'm gonna start with with my initial reaction and bias, and then I'm going to ask you a question. So my initial reaction and bias is the statewide standards are very ambitious, and they're gonna mean a big change. So my concern is, you know, the idea of us going beyond those standards, especially initially, is that that's a bridge too far. And one of the things I wanted to ask about was the, the experience that's been had at, you know, Plymouth Crossing porch light development in Eastgate, where I think it's kind of, you know, a good example of some of the challenges and trade offs.

Because on the one hand, I mean, I think all the people here, we we would like to see more affordable housing. We'd like it to be built well. But, you know, as I understand it, the amount of, on-site parking that's available there is quite limited, and that's had a lot of spillover effects on, you know, neighboring areas. And I'm wondering if if that's something that you're taking into account when you're thinking about how big do we go.

Yeah. That's a great question. And, the affordable housing piece of this is is challenging because there there isn't any nuance in the legislation for location. And we have been hearing that, you know, with market rate development, we see the kind of economic pressure working pretty effectively towards projects thinking about how much parking their site truly needs and finding that market based approach to be pretty effective. But you're right.

That same lending pressure doesn't necessarily exist when it comes to affordable housing, and costs can be a major barrier there. So it's a challenge. I I mean, we're we're working to understand, you know, learn more about what those impacts are. And part of this too is thinking about tools that we can use to help potentially offset some of that impact. So thinking about Bellevue currently has some really limited application of residential parking zones, thinking about if that might need to might have a benefit in more places.

So there's no easy answer there, but it is an issue we're tracking. And while I believe that there's a lot here that I think we could do this analysis and come back to finding the similar conclusions of the state, I also wish that it they weren't all coming together so quickly, but it is what it is. I think we can we can make them we can do this in a way that is really mindful of our circumstances to some degree. So

That that's helpful. I have a one idea that, I guess, I'll I'll wait till the till the next I think I

have to ask 10 questions. Go ahead.

Okay. No. Okay. I mean, We have a

big One one

thing I I wonder about as we're thinking about how to make this work because I I'm just thinking about my experience in in Amsterdam and about, what they do there. In Amsterdam, there's about 40% of the garages that are owned by, the municipality, in Amsterdam. And there are arrangements that, you know, Amsterdam has for providing some subsidy for some residential, you know, residential use by people in the city of Amsterdam, you know, as as as a way of subsidy. It's it's not so subsidized that, it makes people wanna go out and buy, you know, three large vehicles, but there is some, there is some subsidy there. And I I just find that works because I as much as I would love to turn in my automobile and take mass transit and go everywhere using that, I don't have time.

And that's the truth for, I think, most people. You know? And and oftentimes more, you know, people who are, you know, challenged economically and and working multiple jobs, they don't have time to be able to, you know, take buses everywhere in order to do all of the jobs that they're doing. So I wonder if there are some solutions that we could look at that would, involve not, not necessarily requiring, on-site parking at every location, but providing some shared parking facilities that could not only be available for commercial uses, but also for, you know, residential subsidy in some way.

Yeah. And I know we did have some discussion about shared parking with the council initiation too. So we're looking into kind of expanded use of shared parking and kind of creative options there is is is in the scope too.

Good. Okay. That's it.

Thank you. Vice chair, Lou.

It's a fun presentation, so appreciate that. I'm kinda curious putting yourself maybe in the I don't know if you'll have the answer to this, but I'm kinda curious what the mechanism for first responders and fire will be if because I I think there was a slide where you listed a bunch where you cannot require minimum parking. I know there is gotta be some way that we build a mechanism for, you know, a fire truck to be able to show up. I was just wondering if you could just kinda take us through that.

Yeah. Yeah. I I I can kinda I I know enough to get into trouble, but in general, fire review is a critical part of land use review, and that's not necessarily regulated through the parking code. We have provisions that speak to when you need to require a turnaround for a fire truck and what wits you need to get a fire truck through. So plea yeah. Rest assured that access for fire trucks, fire hoses will remain untouched here.

That slide with the with, like, the the businesses where they're exempt.

Oh, yeah. Over

here. Oh, this one. Yeah. Was this the slide you were looking for? Yeah.

Yeah. This is

what was looking for.

Okay. It's interesting choice. Do do you know the reasoning behind these?

As the legislature I mean, some of these, you know, there's there's a pretty solid legislative basis. I mean, we have seen quite a few pieces of legislation around conversions from nonresidential to residential, so I expect, you know, that's that's been a continued policy.

Maybe I'm just wondering why, like, childcare is up there, where I feel like that's a

Kind of a random add on. Yeah.

Almost seems like one where you'd probably see a lot of

Yeah.

Automobile volume. So Yeah. But these ones, we where our hands are tied, and we can't do anything.

Yeah. But, you know, I will say that for for when it comes to, like, childcare center uses, thinking about, like, loading zones, that's that's an area we can still think about. So, yeah, those of us here who deal with drop off. Yeah. Alright.

Perfect. Thank you.

I think for me, it's a lot come to my mind. Funny that my unit that I live in, it probably won't have it because it's 500 square feet. It will not have, like, parking. But in my building, like, constantly people ask for parking. Like, everybody's keep asking, any parking? Can I rent a parking? And that's gonna go be worse, obviously, because we have one parking per unit regardless of the square feet. One of the question that I have, and it's about small commercial space slash, I believe, retails. Right? Because what I'm hearing from some of my friends who are small business owners, they have enough parking, but they need to validate the parking.

Mhmm. And it's super expensive, that validation for them, that it's not feasible for them even to do the validation. And then on the other hand and they're only in downtown to losing customer. Then they became creative to say like, hey. If you buy $15 something, we can validate for you because it costs, like, for example, dollars 4 for them to validate or $3.

I don't know what's the thing. I feel that's one of the really high operational costs on small business. And again, like, this is like a business that I know forever in downtown, and it's lockable. But it's still it's a big burden on the small businesses. And I understand we cannot do anything, but I feel somehow we need to be creative for those small businesses who's gonna go kill all of them. Because I don't think any small business go bigger than 3,000 square feet. But, yeah, at least maybe we have, like, drop off and pick up or curbside or something that at least

yeah. Anyways,

should we go stick around? Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner.

Thank you. I'd like to plus one, commissioner Gopal's comment about shared parking. I actually had some some prints today that I that I actually forgot, but I wanted to share with you because this might be an interesting approach. These are just wait here. These are shared parking structures. This is in Lincoln Road. These are all mixed use parking structures. This turned out so great that they actually host weddings and concerts and events in there, And it becomes a wayfinding item to a place where people go park and then they go walk on a big pedestrian space.

Do I email now and then move to somebody else?

Back to you. That'd be good. Great.

Commissioner, do you have any question? Meanwhile, we are taking care of that.

Yeah. Sure. This is first of all, I also wanna plus one comments and ideas there. I think those were well thought out. My question is and we touched on this a little bit before. I know we can't these are the requirements from the state, but I'm assuming that we're looking at potential ways to encourage more parking as part of this process, even if we can't require it. Is that is that right?

I think we don't have a firm plan yet. But That's something we can't do. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. You know? So I I think thinking about, you know, how could we perhaps help projects to think about their parking demand. But yeah. Yeah. We're thinking on it.

I'm not fully convinced that we need it for some of these, but, you know, for senior housing and child care centers, I I'd maybe I'd be interested in seeing if there are are feasible ways for us to do that. I'm not married to that idea, but it's something I'd like to see some kind of research on.

Thank you. Koshen Kennedy.

Yeah. I I thought I saw an email I'll get through, but or are oh.

Okay. Right. We're good. We're good. Okay.

Two questions. One is nonconformities. Are we looking at the same process that we just went through the consolidation of during the CAO process for buildings that may have one phase that they've completed or a second phase, and they wanna make a change. And now they the parking is completely different, and they wanna take advantage of that. Like, what what is the can you walk me through what happens? What are we gonna do with? Or am I am I making sense? Being, like,

if someone is through the process right now and building the phase one, is it phase one? Okay. If there's someone building the phase one and then we change the parking requirement, what's gonna happen in phase two?

Yeah. It'll go through the same process, I assume, that we just revised and put into section.

So, yeah, The

I can look in my notes.

But Yeah. That's the nonconforming code is that that citywide nonconforming code is remaining.

Okay. So Yeah. If it's if it's just a parking change, it'd be the same process. Okay. Just wanted to confirm that. And then the other was you mentioned that you have already done a public info session. I was curious to hear what comments you may have received and how you're dealing with that. And

Yeah. So we did receive a few comments in regards to a lot of it really dealt with, local issues that individuals are running into, including visitor parking is a large one that a lot of people have concerns on. And as we've mentioned through this presentation, visitor parking is actually something that we actually we have some more leeway with. So as such, we can kind of build something that encapsulates visitor parking or time restricted parking to help deal with many public concerns that could arise for any new projects that come forward following this. Additionally, we did also hear a lot of concerns of spillover and current issues that people are facing when it comes to on street parking.

Some of the issues brought forward are more enforcement focused, parking in front of a mailbox or parking in front of a fire hydrant, items that aren't necessarily dealt with through the the land code, land use code. But I would say that, as Christina had mentioned, we are taking the impacts on on street parking that this off street parking is going to have. So

Yeah. Well, yeah. And I'd say that's also informing, I think, some of the public material that we plan to share on the website and such, getting a lot of questions about, like, how long can someone park on the street? What do I do?

Where Yeah.

You know, we're we're anticipating those will be the type of questions that keep coming up. But, yeah, in terms of format, the meeting was mostly q and a, so didn't get too far into comments. But I think Sean summed it up pretty well. A lot of concerns about spillover in particular. So we're we're also gonna be working closely with our transportation and code enforcement staff to help, even if we don't have the hard data, getting some of that qualitative, where are you seeing these friction points around the city.

That's super helpful. And and given that it's a statewide legislative change, it seems like it may be the data from our own transportation commission and department would be helpful also, it seems like shared best practices between cities. Have you been speaking with other cities that are working through implementing these revisions, and what kind of lessons learned?

Yeah. No. We have actually we did a few weeks ago, We actually spoke with the city of Tacoma, who are currently doing their own analysis, and they have very kindly offered, once they complete, to provide us any data that they do, procure from that.

And Sean's also, I think you mentioned this briefly, but, there's a state technical advisory committee, which it started last year, but, that's convened a number of representatives of different, cities that are going to be impacted by the legislation to help kind of walk through some of these more nebulous items in the legislation, and the state's gonna be developing some additional guidance on some of those.

That's fantastic. I think even the suggestions that we've been doing talking through here today seems like they will be discussed at these meetings and and maybe help form some best practices around, so shared parking, etcetera. So that's great. Thanks.

Kate, are you ready to share the screen? Commissioner, to you again. Sorry.

So these are I

have to share one at a time.

Yeah. That's fine. So there's four examples here. This is, the parking at Lincoln Road in Miami. Lincoln Road is a big pedestrian street. So this anchors one of the ends of that street. And you go there, you park, and then you can walk around. This is it's actually the length of Wilburton, the the length of the pedestrian street. That's where the Tesla dealership is. Like, there's a lot of activity there in a city that is primarily, ruled by by cars.

Right? But then all of a sudden, have this big pedestrian area. And this acts as a wayfinding element, but it's also it's a mixed use building because, as I said, it turned out so great that they use it for events. The the image is not very clear, but the one in the bottom, left is an event. There's weddings.

There's concerts, etcetera. You can go to the next one. This is in Copenhagen, and it's called Park And Play. And it's a parking structure in a busy neighborhood, and it's gonna park in the top. And then you have the access on the on the stairs. You have the green facade. It's for the kids. Like, the the parking on in Miami, and there's a couple other examples. Those are for profit examples. This one is not.

This one is developed by the city. So the city developed these parkings this parking building for the city, and then the they also provided that park for everybody. So this is a really interesting model that, I mean, I guess, the larger point I'm trying to make is no parking works if the supporting infrastructure around it is sufficient and is working well. And that is I mean, we have light rail, and there's buses, and there's all these things. But parking is an important component because where are all the cars gonna go?

Right? If you could go through the other two quickly as well. It's just two other examples. Okay.

Do you want to email us?

Yeah. Like so this is another one. This is museum, park, and it's also a parking, space mostly this is mostly for parking, but their idea is that they would create spaces for interaction throughout the building. So you have the parking for the kids, the rooftop. You have the sliders.

You have the you have all these things. So so there's there's something to be said about, parking structures as mixed use buildings that could be really, that could really contribute to the to the city. So I think this is important. And and to complement this, I I think, if we're talking about minimum parking, requirements or or eliminating parking minimums, it would be really important to look at what other jurisdictions are doing. There's a lot of documentation now about success case studies.

I I think the biggest one that I've heard is Buffalo in New York, Austin. Port Townsend in Washington is doing this. Smaller scale are like Hartford, Connecticut. There's a lot of cities that have been doing this, and what I hear so far is it's successful. All of these jurisdictions say it's rivitalized downtown. It's like spurred development. It's lower housing cost. It's a little scary, but, also, when we're looking at what what type of city do we want, Bellevue was a strip mall, and we want a pedestrian vibrant city. And and those two are competing. Right?

So we don't wanna have that much parking. We wanna be able to come here and walk and enjoy the city. So, I guess the the the two takeaways from my comment is let's seriously consider shared parking structures and kind of have an open mind about what these can be because there's other success stories elsewhere. And if we're gonna consider elimination of minimum parking, which is clearly a huge driving cost to affordable housing. Let's take a look at what's been done elsewhere and what is working and what is not working. It would be good to see what is not working. So that's that's it. Thank you. Thank you,

Kate. Thank you.

Sharing that.

Can we share, Geppa?

I love those pictures. Really good. Thank you for sharing that. One thing I was gonna ask about was, one of the exceptions in under the state law, and I'm I'm wondering how you're thinking about it and and how it might be utilized. Because one of the things that the agenda memo indicated was that there's an exception where cities are not prohibited from requiring temporary or time restricted parking.

Is that something how are you interpreting that, and is that something that you're thinking about in terms of the planning here for how we might manage some of these requirements? And, you know, potentially, you know, that's another form of, in a way, shared parking is if you have, you know, time restricted parking.

Yeah. The the legislation is frustratingly vague, which we're taking to be we could perhaps interpret this in our favor. I mean, we're thinking about some of those provisions for capturing needs, like loading zones, delivery drop off, visitor parking, kind of working through the definition there. And we'll be coordinating with, staff who have developed the curb, the curb pricing studies and others to understand more about what should we be building into the code, especially given now that there's going to be less required parking. So we know there's probably gonna be some increased demand for some of those temporary spaces.

So we're thinking about it broadly and wanna think about getting some more explicit standards into the code.

Good. Okay. More questions.

Thank you. Weiss, do.

Mine's tangentially tangentially related, but I think could help inform some decisions. I think there was a study on I think it was just downtown for paid parking. Are we gonna get kind of results or anything out of that before we go into the decision making for or before this before this process concludes, I guess.

Because I

intend I attended a study session

for them.

Use a specific parking study. We'll we'll we'll we'll check-in on that. At the top of my head, I'm not sure exactly which study. But

because I've been curious on, like, the restriction of, you know, existing parking spaces, especially downtown, and if we're also adding on, you know, do we need more time spaces, or, you know, do we keep them permanent? So I think that'd be really helpful for us as we go through this. Absolutely. Thanks.

I think for me, I'm I'm with you. I think Copenhagen is one of the best one. I know half of our former council in couple years ago, they went to Copenhagen, and they're all in love at that parking lot, by the way. I have heard that from every council members in last ten years. And I was always hopeful that Lincoln Center that we have at, city of Bellevue, turn it to something like that, affordable housing, parking, and something creative. Hopefully, cancel. Hear my voice now. But I agree with that one. I think we should be creative about it. But I just wanna mention something like somewhere like Copenhagen or Netherlands, because my cousin lived there and I spent, like, months there.

When you walk out of your street, there is a train. There is a public transportation. This is not like this even for me. I'm in Downtown Bellevue. I need to walk fourteen minutes to get to the station, which is not typical in Europe. In Europe, like, in less than, I think, three minutes, you get to something that comes regularly. I appreciate if the state was considering that, which they didn't. Then that was the only thing I wanna say. I'm with you. We should figure out something.

A mom who has three kids and two jobs cannot wait for the train and the bus to delay. I took train I took bus for, like, I think twelve months from here to Ballard. It was four hours round trip. Painful. Like, the most painful thing I have ever done, I think, for public transportation in my life. I think that those are the challenge that's beautiful that we think about Copenhagen and Bellevue, but we are way far. They have, like, I don't know, 12 train lines or something, and we have 1.1. Two is coming, maybe. Right? Anyways but thank you so much.

Should we go round three, or we're good? We're good? We're good? Oh, really? And

thanks. I I I agree with Cherry Condo. And but there's there's ways around this too. Like, there's a there's a missing part between the train and your house, which is what we're talking about, especially when you get to the to to downtown. And parking is one of them, but also there's there's alternative like, in my hometown, they build this huge rapid transit, bus line.

And, like, for my house, it was, like, maybe twenty five minutes walking, and sometimes it pours. And, organically, these things started happening, but they like, the all of a sudden, we had, taxi bikes. So it's like a bicycle a guy in a bicycle with a with a what is it? Like, a little cart Yeah. That is covered so you could just get in there for a dollar, and they would just drive you in five minutes. What would it take you to do twenty five minutes? So that bridges that gap. So that's that's just, one item, and I forget the other thing that I was gonna talk about.

So And scooters. Scooters is good too.

Yes. Scooters is Yeah. I I forgot. I lost my train of thought. Maybe if I I remember, I'll let you. Thank you.

Okay. If there's no more question oh, oh, okay. It is more questions. Couldn't wait. Go ahead. No. Like, it's like, okay. Last time we finished it with a really, really serious subject, we finished at 08:30. It's 07:40 forty. Okay. Let's do it. Let's keep questioning. K. No pressure.

Yeah. I I I wanted to plus one the chair's comments as well that related to, you know, mass transit. I I found it a little bit funny reading the, you know, the house and senate bills and the state mandates, which talk about the groundbreaking investments in public transit and the like as a basis for, these minimum standards. I'm excited about all those investments. Don't get me wrong, but comparatively speaking, it's only a start to trying to create, you know, a walk a more walkable pedestrian friendly urban environment in our cities.

We've way underinvested, you know, as a community, as a state, as a country, and all those kinds of infrastructure developments. And, you know, to think we're gonna have to think creatively, and that's why I I'd love some of the ideas about shared parking to try and, bridge that, transition because our built environment is not is not suited to that right now. We're hoping to get there, but we need a transition plan that's gonna help make that bearable, I think, for people. That's all.

Thank you. Thank

thank you. I I remember, and it was related to both what you were saying and what I was saying early. Like, I guess the the question is, this code reform or park reform, like, what is the time frame for this? What is it long the span that we want to use this for? Are we looking at ten years, thirty years, sixty years? Like, what's

Well, with when it comes to the state mandate, we we do have to be in compliance by January. So there's that. But are you getting at, like are we are we thinking ahead in terms of a timing time horizon for those other components?

Like, what what how far out are we planning for?

Last one was 9062. Probably, like

That's that's where my question

more years ago.

And we're in a very unique moment. Right? Like, nothing is too crazy right now. And Yeah. Bellevue is this AI epicenter now, which is is becoming more and more recognized as such. We're getting all these, like, high-tech companies. Like, maybe we're not gonna get the the taxi bikes, but maybe we're gonna get the self driving scooters or self driving cars that are gonna take you from your parking spot to to your work or to your park or whatever. Masdar City in Abu Dhabi works exactly like that. And it was kind of a test city for this. And you would go, you park there, and you walk, and then a self driving car picks you up.

You get in, then it takes you to the city. And then it's a completely pedestrian city. It's a small core. The initial plan was much more ambitious. But this was ten, fifteen years ago. I am pretty sure things are gonna move very, very quickly. So we should be kind of preparing ourselves as much as possible for something like this. But the possibilities to come up with a creative solution that can support this type of interaction and pedestrian activity in downtown, they're much better. So that that was the point.

You. Then last thing I add, Copenhagen, every two minutes, there is a public transportation coming in Bellevue. It's fourteen minutes.

The airport in Copenhagen is just cheating.

I know. Bye bye. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. And see you in spring. Yeah? Yes. I think so. Okay. Yeah. Okay. The agenda from follow-up on the conversation of the planning commission conducted at in in the during the annual retreat held on 11/05/2025 related to the result of the annual planning commission survey on continuous improvement. Since that time, has had internal discussion about how to best address the recommendation and feedback from the survey results. Staff request direction on implementing the process improvement at this time. Our staff liaison, Kate Nessie, will provide a presentation on the annual process improvement survey discussion.

Hello.

I moved chairs. Do you still recognize me? So I you guys had a really great discussion at the retreat in November, about process improvements. We took those back, had a discussion with staff, and now I'm bringing them back to you. Here's what we can do.

What I'm gonna do is go through, all of the suggestions, and then I'll turn it to you, chair, if you wanna go through them one by one or if you just wanna talk about all of them at once, whatever you think is the best. So we're requesting direction. You don't need a vote. You can just sort of nod your head. We don't need to vote on, you know, memo formats.

As I said, we did the the survey in October and, summarized it at the November planning commission retreat. And don't we all look handsome? So oh, yes. Sorry. I was like, we didn't take any public input on this.

No. These are the the things that you, that you suggested at the retreat, and I'm just gonna go through them one by one. So one of the areas that there was a lot of discussion around was, how, staff respond to public input, to make it easy for planning commission to digest that public input. We have

excuse me.

Baseline requirements for engagement in the, GMA and in the land use code you saw in the parking, reform presentation that, they had one area that said process, for requirements. So there's some basic thank you. Some basic requirements. The engagement pay plan is also part of, usually, it's part of the council initiated scope. And the commission's role is, not so much to direct the the input, but to weigh the comments that, do come in.

So some of the, I think a number of people had mentioned the table that was used for, middle housing to kind of consolidate all of the, comments that had come in, especially at the end, and how easy that was to use. So, we we can create probably just use that as a template or something very similar to that and have that available to staff to use. Of course, it's not appropriate at all stages of the process. This would probably be something that would come more at the end of the process, than at the beginning, but we can have it available for staff to use as a suggested, template. We can also right now, the the memo format is pretty loose, and there's some advantages to that because, many of the projects are different, but you also, you have process for, types of proposals, and so there is also some consistency.

So we could create, some sections in the memo, and one could be for engagement and have kind of a suggested way of addressing engagement in a memo for process for, actions. The other thing that, there was discussion about is, response to last minute comments, and, it's very hard to respond to, comments when they come in. I mean, of course, if it comes in at 05:00, there's no way we can address it by 06:30. But, even if they come in, the last week of the process when it's, you know, the it's been out for two weeks, many of these things go through iterations. And so coming in at the very end, it's really hard for staff to respond to that.

So, one suggested one suggestion is to consider limiting response to those last minute comments, when there has been, time for people to review. So we're required to for a public hearing to publish that fourteen days in advance. And so if it's for a code amendment, then the proposed code would be published along with the public hearing notice fourteen days in advance. If it's for a comprehensive plan amendment, it's you know, whatever the proposed amendment is, it's published fourteen days in advance. And that is, to give people time to review it because, you know, e even within a week when the planning commission materials are published, you know, people have other things to do.

So that, longer time period is, so that people can have time to review it and respond. Another suggestion was the pre meeting briefings. I'll say that, all of my conversations with staff, everybody finds these helpful as well. It's helpful to understand, where you guys are coming from so that staff can tailor the presentation and be able to, answer questions, you know, have some, you know, check on numbers and that type of thing. They of course, they have to remain, information only.

And as we discussed, it would have to be below quorum. However, it's totally possible to set a recurring meeting. It would just sort of depend on what your schedules are when you want, to have that. We would need to require an RSVP. So even if it's on your calendar, we need to know in advance if you're coming or not, for that quorum issue.

And, of course, we would always have the option to schedule a briefing at another time. There's a lot of discussion about the planning commission role and requests in the response to the survey to clarify, you know, what is the scope of the planning commission for any particular project and understanding, like, what was council's mandate, and are we stepping outside of what they asked, for this particular proposal? And there it's as I discussed this with staff, we noted it's also helpful for the community to understand. Like so they're not asking for things that are outside of, the council scope. The another thing that staff noted is that the specificity of the scope varies between proposals.

So sometimes council is very specific and says, yes. Look at well, for example, with the parking reform, they said, yes. We want you to look at expanding the the walk sheds. So make sure you look at if everything is half mile and make sure you look at I can't remember all of the specifics. But and other times, counsel is not, as specific, so that would be something that we would need to address.

The other thing to to note is that all process for actions have very distinct decision criteria in the code. Usually, staff, bring those up at the very end of the process. But in the suggested changes, we can, look at the memo, and sort of streamline how we address the scope in the memo, and, we can also introduce the decision criteria earlier in the process. So that's something that you're thinking about, before the you have to make the decision. Visual aids, staff, I think, there was response in the survey and the discussion in November.

People all of you really appreciated the visual aids as a way to sort of understand complex topics. Having a toolbox staff thought that was a a good idea. In general, they they like to have, visual aids, maps, and, diagrams and that type of thing. There was some concern that it can some of these processes are quite complex, and it can lead to oversimplification. I can, as you note, things that are particularly helpful, I can develop a toolbox because we for one thing, we return to similar topics year after year.

So if there's a particular way of understanding the CPA process, we can, reuse that, the next year. And, also, if there's examples of, you know, a particular way a map was symbolized or something like that, I can, add that to our our toolbox for, staff to reference. Commissioner mentorship. I was really excited about this one too. I talked to the clerk's office.

They're, also excited about this. I'll say that. They are, currently reviewing all of the onboarding experience for all of the boards and commissions. So I had a long conversation about onboarding for planning commission, with the clerk's office. So they don't want us to get ahead of them.

So maybe in the future, we'll have a mentorship program. They wanna make sure that the experience that you know, all of the commissions have a similar opportunity. I can compile a list of past past commissioners that are willing to be contacted for a a coffee chat chat. And the city attorney's office also wanted me to let you know that they are available if you have any questions. And I know, some of you, have, taken advantage of that. So, they yeah. Matt's here because he is I know he was a smiling Consulting attorney. Yep.

That was my one added to the memo.

Glossary of acronyms is the last item. Everybody thinks acronyms a glossary of acronyms would be useful. It's kind of a, I don't wanna say hazing, but, like, a a ritual for new staff members to develop their own, list of acronyms until they understand all of them, and then they're like, okay. I did it myself. We note a staff noted that it would also be helpful for the public as well as the commissioners so that we're all on the same page.

I I would say rather than, like, trying to to develop a comprehensive list all at once, we I can work with staff to generate this list over time based on the memos and other agenda materials. I'm still working with staff to figure out where it should live. I I'm not sure exactly where the best place it it for it is, but, yeah, staff was very supportive of having this resource available, to the commission and to the public. So I will end it there. Council member doesn't show up, and we take him out of the picture.

Should we go one by let's keep it to one, please. I will cut you off if you ask follow-up question or second question. Should we go one by one or should we go with the one that you prefer to talk about it? Maybe we can go one by one. If you have a comment, we can add it. For item one, is it okay if we go with item one? Does anybody has any comment about response to public inputs regardless that if they want to provide a template for us? Please go ahead.

I do.

Okay.

Thank you. I just I I appreciated the recognition of this. I do think it would be helpful to have I don't know if engagement section in memo. Yeah. It is on this slide. I I do think that that would be a helpful consistent addition to the memo formats for issues in which it's appropriate to have a table that outlines the comments received and how they were dealt with. So appreciated that being brought up and wanted to support it.

Does anyone disagree with this or have a comment adding to this one? Okay. Oh. Do we have anything added to here? On this on topic? Yeah.

I have one thing.

Yeah. Okay. Please go ahead.

Okay. It's the limited response to last minute comments. I agree with that wholeheartedly. And I'm wondering if there's some way to signal to the public that if you don't get your comment in twenty four hours in advance of our meeting, don't expect that we're all gonna be waiting to look at them. I mean, I I mean, we're volunteers on the commission. We have full time jobs, you know, separate from what we do here, for the most part. And and of us.

I No pressure.

I I I think that I think that's, you know, that's I would just really appreciate if people took that into account and thought, that they can't just submit something at 05:00 the day of our meeting and expect that we will have all read it.

Yeah. And we already said 11AM. We it's almost two years that we have set the bar about 11AM. Right? But so we see that someone comes 5PM.

Yeah.

Yeah. Agreed. Any other comment about the templates and all of those? We're good. Next item. For pre meeting briefing, I do have a comment here. I feel I personally see a lot a lot of struggle about process in place, the where are you standing, what is the vote for, and all of those. And chair and vice chair, for the people who have been there, we have a regular meetings. Then we are totally on board. We get all the knowledge that we needed, what we should do, and all of those.

And I think for commissioners, really good opportunity to know the process and then ask any question. Then it save a lot of time for us sitting here and going through those. And do we have any comment about should be recruiting meetings or should be something that people initiate by themselves? Any comment there? Any preferences? Yeah. Go ahead.

I wanted to support the recommendation or suggestion that that Keith brought up. Having a regularly scheduled time that eventually will be on all of our calendars, and we know when that is, I think, would be very helpful. What we can RSVP and ensure we don't have quorum, it would definitely take advantage of that. And and as soon as it's possible, would welcome it.

Yeah. Yeah. Anything,

Yeah. I I agree with that too. I know it's probably very hard because there's you know, you have to take quorum into account, but maybe two recurring meetings or however you think it's best to to kinda figure that out. I'd I'd like the idea of a recurring meeting.

Anything else? Anyone? We're good?

Yeah. Hey. I agree with that.

Okay. Yeah. I think for me, it's really helpful. Like, I have meetings on Monday. It was when Friday, we moved it to Monday, and it's really helpful for me because I know, like, four to 04:30 on Monday, I will have one more review about what is happening. I think that's really nice. Yes.

But does this mean that if we don't come to a meeting

Yeah. You cannot ask questions.

Then we cannot ask for clarification question?

No. For prod.

Just kidding. Like, I've I've we've had a, you know, a couple of meetings, maybe three or four meetings overall since since I started. Those are helpful. Mhmm. But they're they're not they're they're they're the exception of them. Right? And, I just don't wanna be into a place where all of a sudden, we all feel obligated to attend this meeting on a weekly basis because there's there's even more time. So but I understand that if there's a recurring time, kind of a set aside time. So if you can make it a time, that's great.

That I think it's the office hour. And if if Kate or anyone doesn't hear from you guys, it will be get canceled. And then it's responsibility of us to for me, eventually, in couple months, I'll be responsible to say I need to have a clarification and attend that office hour.

And and, I think, Kate, you also mentioned that we would have the opportunity to meet outside of that time Yeah. Set up Yes. Set up those periodic.

Yeah. And I would say that you should I'll probably put an hour on your calendar, but count on it actually being half an hour. Because if I have an hour on and we have more than four more than three commissioners that want to, then I can just split it. Yeah.

And, Kate, maybe if you feel you you send us the email that we say what time of the day we prefer. For example, like Yeah. For me, personally, after three is better than 8AM. Like, maybe that helps for for scheduling. I don't know.

I I've I figured we could probably do the scheduling outside.

Yeah. Exactly. That's on you. Are we good here? Okay. Next one for planning commission role. I think I wanna add something here. I remember I was I was keep asking, can we do best practices of study? And I remember one after, like, years, some some one someone in one of my meetings said this is out of the scope that that council asked, and I'm like, why you never told me this comment is out of a scope? Right?

Like, for me, I didn't know about that. And I was just like, I wish I knew it earlier because I could prewind myself to say that million times. I think that was one of the thing. I don't know if someone else mentioned that or no. But for me, I was just like, I didn't know that in that specific cases, we were not supposed to add something that is gonna go out of scope to what already counsel assigned to the staff. Any comment here?

I have one one comment. I I wanted to support that we consider adding this as a standard section of our form memos ahead of time and appreciate your comments, Cherkan Liu. Yeah. Think it's incredibly helpful,

the

CPA amendment that we just went through last week, knowing what the criteria decision criteria are. We're looking at geographic scope and x, and I know that's in the memo, but but it it would be really helpful if it is every time. And then the council scope isn't necessarily always in the memo. What what they said as far as what they were looking at in particular and asked for, which some kind times could be qualitative, is helpful guidance. So having that as a set piece of the form that needs to be filled out each time.

And just to say the engagement ad table where appropriate and the visual aids that are coming up next, having just a spot for that, I think, would be would be helpful. Thanks. Great.

Anyone else? We're good. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. I was just gonna add. I I wanted to plus fund commissioner Kennedy's comments on this. And I I think when it comes to the variability with what the council provides, for SCO, I mean, it it kinda is what it is, you know, for us. So, I mean, as as long as we know that going in, you know, and it's stated in the agenda memo. I mean, I think that's helpful for context for us. So I I I support what commissioner Kennedy was recommending.

Okay. Vice chair?

Just a quick comment. I think this also stemmed from us occasionally making requests or, like, of staff that maybe are not that we are are not supposed to be doing. So I think also just a staff practice of very being very clear of, like, this is not something that, you know, we can do or should be doing. I like, in that moment would be really good. Because sometimes I think there's a tendency from staff to say, like, oh, we'll look into it, but then that kinda, like, goes off into the I'd rather just have a very upfront, like, you know, this is not really something that we'll be

looking for. I was going to add that one too. I agree with you. I think I want I know our staff are amazing and always kind to us and professional, but I want they tell me this is gonna go be additional scope compared to what council, like, determined for us. Like, I think hearing that, I'm like, oh, okay. I'll be fine. But maybe it's it's nice to hear that for me personally. Okay. Are we good here?

Perhaps I can work with staff to assist them

Yeah.

If they if they're not feeling emboldened to say Yeah. I'm sorry, vice chair Lu, but no.

Because sometimes we even hear something from the public, and we feel that we need to mention that. But I think I I need to lean on expertise of the staff to tell us, for example, or remind us that this is totally out of the scope. Like, for example, for HOMA, right? FDA was out of the scope for our study. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Good. Next one, Visual aid. I think we all agree on to having visual aids. Right?

I agree. I have one short comment on it to clarify. I mentioned on my last comment that it would be helpful to maybe have a consistent section in in forms. Just a reminder, just to cue. Hey.

If there is something you could provide that would be a visual representation of this, it would be helpful. I think he so so would support having that in the form. The second was you mentioned when you were walking through this slide that it would be helpful to consider examples of things that we have found helpful in the past. I have consistently found it helpful to walk through an example of how a developer or a landowner would do this new process. Here's how they did it before, or it was impossible.

Here's how they would do it today. Recognizing the limitations of such an example, You mentioned we don't want to oversimplify, but it's really helpful to see how that would walk through to make sure that we understand it, that the commenters understand it. So having that be a potential EG parenthetical on the reminder of could you walk it through how we would use it, I would I would very much support along with the maps that you mentioned. So thank you.

Go ahead, please.

I'd like to plus one, and I like to bring, the example of, Robbie explaining the nonconforming code, how to calculate that. That was very clear during the presentation. It was very hard to understand as we were reading, and people that did not attend that meeting were sending comments after that. Very confused, but that walkthrough was very helpful. I would also like to encourage the use of visual aids, like maps and diagrams. Those are helpful in general. And not only for the meeting, but also if they go into the actual code, they're they're super helpful. So yeah.

Got it. Just gonna add maps maps in particular because when I started thinking about the practical impacts of the decisions that we're making, maps are so helpful for me to visualize what it is we're doing. I mean, that was true in the context of, like, the critical areas, ordinance. You know? And so I I think that in particular is the one area that is is hugely helpful in terms of visual aids.

Okay. Great. And the next one. For mentorship, we're just gonna go have a weekly coffee with Matt all of us. Schedule on his calendar. Great. Seven days, one of us. Okay. I think we're good. We got the message clearly. The office is working on it. We move on. Okay. For this one, does okay. We all agree we won't do that. Do you have anything that is gonna go be really helpful to add here and has been missed? Yes. Go ahead.

One comment. I you were saying that, Keith, that we're still considering what the format of that would be, and you had recommended that we develop it over time. I wanted to support developing it over time. And when we consider that format, I wanted to provide just one thought I had on this is that I think it would be helpful to keep it as an informal document that is not codified and that would be something that could be regularly updated. And I think that would be the most useful tool from my perspective.

Anything else? I think I wanna add something. I personally have an AI agent that is a city planner. I'm not joking. I have already shared with Sarah and Kate, has access to entire data in the world because it's a Gemini agent. And it really helps me. And I was thinking, do you want me to give you a basement of those acronyms? How far do you want me to go? I can create tenures of them in any public record of the department in less than a second for you guys. And I think I want us we do that.

It's like I use the Notebook LM, upload a document, start a conversation, and ask all my questions that nobody knows I'm asking those. I highly recommend. Anything else? Okay. Kate, thank you so much. I hope we answered all your questions. And Yes. And thank you so much for doing that. I know it's it's we pushed this out of the agenda for a while. Thank you.

Great job.

And then can I have a motion to approve the January 28 meeting minutes?

Moved.

There you go.

Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. And commissioner Ferris is not here. Someone needs to adjourn the meeting.

I move that we adjourn the meeting.

Can I have a second? Yep. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Thank you all. Almost a record.

Yeah.

Okay. Alright. Let