Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the July 22nd meeting of the City of Bellevue Planning Commission. This evening's meeting is held via hybrid format with both in-person and virtual options via Zoom. Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity for public comments during the oral communications portion of the agenda. All written comments that have been submitted prior to 11 a.m. today, Wednesday, May 13th, will be summarized into the record. We have three public hearings on the agenda tonight. The first public hearing is for the Evans Plaza Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA. The second one is the public hearing for the Transportation Conformance Comprehensive Plan Amendment. And the third one is the public hearing for the Parking Reform Land Use Code Amendment. Now let's move forward to roll call. First, Commissioner Conlu and Commissioner Villavazas have both informed us that they will not be attending this meeting. Commissioner Ferris will be remote. And Commissioner Geppel? Here. Commissioner Nielshian? here commissioner kennedy present and council liaison council member bargaba here and i am chair lou all right can we get a motion to approve tonight's agenda so moved is there a second i'll approve the agenda say aye aye aye all right council member bargaba do you have any reports for us

Yeah, I just want to provide a quick update on the council meeting this week. There were three important elements I just want to call out. The first is we had a quick park naming recommendation from the Parks Commission with a lot of community input. Staff recommended a name for a park on Main Street and 112th Avenue Southeast. after a comprehensive process they went through and a unanimous recommendation from the park's board. And the park name they chose was Isan Park. And the council was fully in agreement as well. The name honors Bellevue's Japanese American heritage and supports the future Japanese American legacy project that is planned on the site. So that's the first one. The second, we had a study session, which was kind of interesting. I want to call out a few things from there on the Transportation capital needs and growth strategy. Staff provided an update on the transportation capital needs to support Bellevue's planned growth, including a new portfolio project management approach that they put together. and potential for a possible transportation benefit district to be funded either through a councilmatic action or through a vote of the people. The discussion was very much focused around multimodal infrastructure, safety improvements, and allowing investments needed for the comprehensive plan growth. But there was also a couple of key changes. One, the TBD is now not part of the baseline budget that was going to come through later this year. And the second thing is the TBD funding will... They proposed right now a different split from a 60-40 split with a 40% to the Grand Connection now to a 10% to the Grand Connection versus what it was before. So that was a couple of things on the TBD that we were calling out. And lastly, there was... quick update on the mft updates for advancing homer housing goals um it was just sort of a follow-up from the earlier session that council had on this with the changes incorporated into a possible update to the code with the four-year mft catalyst supercharger and um two-year look back they also changed we also had a proposal for expanding the fee in lieu option um to be able to get to participate in the mfda program if folks weren't doing on-site performance for affordable housing instead of we're doing a fee in lieu and of course there were some clarifications around the permit issuance and filing date etc so those are the key uh updates from council this week any questions for the council member

Great. Kate, are there any reports from the boards and commissions?

No boards and commissions, but I just wanted to acknowledge that Commissioner Ferris is indeed remote.

Great. Thank you. All right. Kate, could you also help provide us with some updates to the meeting schedule for 2026?

Yeah, I wanted to know that the calendar that was included in your packet is very draft. And just looking ahead to November, this body voted at the beginning of the year to shift the meeting dates in November because of Veterans Day and Thanksgiving. So now it is the first and third Wednesday of November. I'm working to secure a location for the retreat, and that will determine whether the retreat is on November 4th or November 18th. Also, we often have a theme for the retreat. And one of the suggestions I heard earlier this year was a review of development that has occurred, or a more extensive review of the development that has occurred. But if you have other suggestions, please send me an email and I would be interested to hear them.

Great, thank you. Are there any questions for Kate? I will say, I think the topic on the theme was also the development process itself. I think that was a bit of what came up. But I think an overview of development would also be super helpful. Great. Let's move on to oral and written communications. Kate, could you provide a summary of the written communications we've received after you grab the list of signups?

Yes. You received the latest group of comments at about noon today. Since that time, we've received, I think, five comments. Most of those people have signed up to give oral comments. I think all of them have signed up to give oral comments. So I'm sure they will explain what was in their written comments better than I will. And those comments will be published in the next packet. So you'll be able to read those as well.

Thank you, Kate. All right, let's move on to oral communications. So we have a total of 30 minutes for oral communications. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. Staff liaison Kate Nessie will call on speakers in the order in which they have registered either in person or online. If anyone from the public has missed the 6 p.m. registration deadline, you may still provide public comment if there is remaining time. If you're on Zoom, please use the raise hand function or motion to staff if you're in person to indicate that you would like to speak. Keep in mind there are rules adopted by the City Council limiting the topics about which the public may speak during our meetings. Under Ordinance 6752, the public may only speak during public comment about subject matters that are related to the City of Bellevue government and are within the power and the duties of the Planning Commission. Additional information about the rules of decorum governing conduct of the public during our meetings can be found at Ordinance 6752. Also, for members of the audience, if you're here to speak about the Evans Plaza CPA or the other CPAs, please reserve your comments for the associated public hearing rather than the general public comment. So with that note, Kate, can you call our first public speaker?

Yes, just let me set up the timer. This touch screen will work. While that's thinking about working, our first person signed up is Marcel Van Houten, followed by Eric Brand. And we have, I think we have five, because I think some of the folks signed up here actually signed up for a hearing, but I'll verify when we get to that. Thank you. Just a moment. The timer is... Give me more time. Okay, I think I got it.

Go ahead when you're ready. Okay, good evening. My name is Marcel Van Houten. I live in Woodridge, treasurer of the Woodridge Community Association. I served eight years on the Planning Commission, including two terms of chair, and I've served on several citizens' advisory committees. Before retiring, I worked as a permitting consultant for Puget Sound Energy, the City of Redmond, Seattle City Light, Pierce County, and other public and private entities. So I'm very familiar with the permitting process. Woodridge is experiencing a growing disconnect between Bellevue's new middle housing permitting process and the longstanding neighborhood covenants that homeowners relied on when purchasing their properties. Multifamily housing is just now permitted on single family lots in our neighborhood in violation of our covenants, despite the fact that other areas in the neighborhood are designated multifamily. Bellevue has a responsibility to implement state housing laws, and I understand the city does not enforce private covenants. However, those covenants remain legally binding. When permits are issued for projects that may conflict with recorded restrictions, homeowners often discover the conflict only after significant time and expense has been invested by developers often leaving neighbors with costly and divisive litigation is the only practical means of protecting their property rights. We're not asking the city to force private covenants. We're asking for a better process. Bellevue's already demonstrated that growth in neighborhood character can coexist. Through ordinance 6929, the council adopted neighborhood specific standards for old Bellevue to ensure new development is compatible with its established character. That approach offers a useful model for considering how established covenant governed neighborhoods like Woodridge and others can accommodate growth while preserving the qualities that define them. We respectfully ask the Commission to direct staff to evaluate three improvements and return with recommendations. First, clarify and permit materials that city permit approval does not override recorded private covenants and require applicants to acknowledge their responsibility to determine whether private restrictions apply. This could be as simple as a checkbox acknowledging awareness of recorded covenants affecting the property. They're always on the title. Second, improve public notice for middle housing projects on single family lots through visible on-site signs, mailed notice where appropriate, and clear online project information so neighbors become aware of projects early. Third, explore neighborhood level planning process for communities. Having worked on planning issues from both the public and private sides, I believe this practical process issue with practical solutions. We support thoughtful implementation of state housing policy. Our request is simple, provide greater transparency, better communication, and earlier public awareness so conflicts can be resolved before they become burdensome lawsuits.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Make sure you hit the button in front.

Good evening. My name is Eric Brand. I live in Woodridge and serve as a board member at large of the Woodridge Community Association. I'm also a physician, so I think a lot about aging, mobility, and disability, and the kinds of homes that allow people to remain safely in their communities. I support thoughtful housing policy. Belle, you should plan for growth, but growth should be coordinated, transparent, and respectful of infrastructure, aging in place needs, and recorded neighborhood expectations. Woodridge is a long established neighborhood with many recorded plats and covenants. The concern is not no housing anywhere. Woodridge already has multifamily areas. The concern is that city permits can collide with recorded private covenants. When that happens, neighbors may be forced into expensive litigation after plans are already far along. Because private covenants are often more restrictive than city zoning, the practical solution is early notice and early communication. Developers should identify and address applicable CCNRs first before investing heavily in plans that may later create conflict. I also ask the Commission to consider aging in place. If blanket upzoning makes it more profitable to demolish existing single-family ramblers and replace them with taller, stair-dependent, market-rate expensive units, Bellevue may unintentionally reduce practical housing options for older residents who need accessible, single-level homes. We're asking for a better process, clearer disclosure that city permits do not override private covenants, better public information and covenant-restricted neighborhoods, visible on-site notice for proposed middle housing projects, mailed notice where appropriate, and neighborhood-level planning that accounts for infrastructure, parking, sewer capacity, sidewalks, views, and aging-in-place housing. WCA does not enforce covenants, but WCA can educate and communicate by posting CCNRs, permit search tools, permit maps, public records links, and helping residents understand which plat applies to their property. Thoughtful housing policy should not require neighborhoods to resolve every permit covenant conflict through private litigation. Bellevue can do better. Please help create a process that balances housing goals with infrastructure readiness, private recorded covenants, early communication, fair notice, aging in place needs, and neighborhood trust. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have David Lee, followed by Carol Schiller.

Good evening. My name is David Lee. I've been in the commercial development and building industry for the last 40 years. I recently permitted a remodel on my home, and I just assumed I would have to put a sign up and let everybody know. In commercial development, you're required to... Notify landowners within a half mile area. It's $500 for the title company and they send out notices. It's a requirement. I'm sure Bellevue does the same thing on commercial. There's been four litigation lawsuits in the last two years in our neighborhood. A simple requirement. notice when a developer or builder submits for a building permit and gets pays for your complete submittal, then you would have to just notify owners within a four block area, simple thing to do. And also post a sign communication to let everybody know. And this would help so much with there's so much angst going on in our community. It's a great community. And we hate to see this kind of thing happening. So that's what I like to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Carol Schiller followed by Alex Zimmerman.

Hi, everybody. Good evening. I'm going to share with you some comments that I also made last night to the city council so you'll be aware of the conversation going on in our community. My name is Carol Schiller. I live in Woodridge and I've been a Bellevue resident for 24 years. And I'm here to talk about the issues that have arisen between middle housing and existing covenants and to ask for your help. I'll start with the permitting. The city recently accepted and processed permit applications for a multifamily project in the middle of our single family neighborhood on a lot governed by covenants, limiting it to one detached home. These covenants are well established and professional developers have built dozens of homes in compliance with them. When the city processes permits on covenant restricted property with no mechanism for resolving conflicts up front, the practical effect is that residents are forced into court at their own expense to protect property rights. that they relied on when they bought their homes. That means legal fees, stress, uncertainty, and conflict, all of which could have been avoided. And money that is far better spent improving homes, supporting schools, maintaining trees, and strengthening the community is going into legal process. I'm not here to oppose multifamily housing. Bellevue has major multifamily housing in its high density areas. But I'm here to tell you where your constituents think it belongs. which is where parking, roads, transportation, and stormwater capacity can actually carry it. Anyone who has driven through Wallingford knows what parking, traffic, and road safety looks like when multifamily development is squeezed into a neighborhood that was built for single-family homes. So I'm asking for three things. First, build a better permit process that respects existing covenants so residents are not forced to resort to the courts. When the city is notified that a conflict exists, permits should not be issued until it is resolved. Second, revisit the parts of last June's code that went well beyond what the state required in mental housing. Bellevue should be pushing back on these policies, not doubling down on them. And third, as you're building housing policies as part of this commission, please communicate honestly and frequently with residents about the practical impacts of what is being discussed and planned. We're counting on you to do what is promised. And this is directed at the council, but I want you to be aware of how we feel. We're counting on the council to do what's promised in their voter pamphlets and protect our beautiful community. Policies that shoehorn multifamily development in the middle of single-family neighborhoods miss that mark. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alex Zimmerman, followed by Julie Kopp. Are you signed up for Evans Plaza or general comment or both?

General comment.

Okay, great. Okay.

Sorry. Able life, not so good. Old disabled life. Yeah. Ze heil my Nazi fascist bandita. My name Alex Zimmerman. I want to speak about something, but as I speak many times. Number one, why you never show us faces? Can you explain to me? There's too many people right now. Look, they're all quiet. They're all slave. You understand? It's only one place. What is I know? And I speak from Tacoma to Everett every week more than 5,000 times. I never saw this trick before. You're doing this for many years. Same trick that has come from 2012, from Robinson, 10 people for 30 minutes. Why these changes? Because Alex Zimmerman, bad boy, come and talking something. How many time I talk to you, you react? No. You are bandita. Look, Rahava, he's a criminal. Why? Because he come to this position not legal. Can you pause this really quick?

Mr. Zimmerman, this has to do with the planning commission, and your current comments do not have anything to do with the planning commission and the duties that we have here. So I'll give you one warning here. and I'll ask you to leave, but please treat this as a time to talk about the planning commission and the things that we are doing here. Thank you.

Yes, exactly. Talking about your planning commission duty, what does we have? We have 40 apartments for senior citizens like me who have social security less than $1,000. 40 apartments for $20,000. Look how many buildings right now built around. Why for many years I talking about this? So you possibly give something what is exactly normal to see a senior citizen in low income percentage. 40 apartment from 20,000 in dozen building start every week. I know I live here for 40 years. I know you very well because I talk here for 30 plus years. Why is this only for the apartment? For people who have, like me, less than $1,000 SSI. Can you explain to me? And I talk to city about this for many years. Nothing changed. Yeah, look who here. It's a corporation. Corporation. We need help. People. How you can feel people when we have only 40 apartment? What is I can afford? Legally. You understand? It's always busy. I cannot find. You understand? It's your duty. 40 apartment, I repeat, right now for idiot who sit in this chamber and who sit here. You know what I mean? Bellevue, number one fascist city in America now. They totally not care about this. Make a plantation, 120,000, what is pay every year price up, up, up for housing. You suck blood and money from people. This you, what is you doing every day? So can you change from 40 people apartment to 400 apartment for senior citizen you cannot change ever from 40 to 50 because you nobody you understand you are clerk a slave yeah i give you classic example viva trump viva new american revolution stand up slave and happy cow stop enacting like a bandita suck blood and money from us and you support everything thank you very much

Next we have Julie Cobb.

Nice people.

And that's the end of our pre-registered oral comments.

I'm Julie Cobb, lived in Bellevue for over 50 years. And I went outside my door when I heard a tree being cut down and I checked to see if they had a permit. Little did I find out in calling the city, they had a permit to clear cut one single resident lot, which they've already cleared the house. And they are building four townhouses. This is on a city block that has 10 houses. It's deeded for 10 houses. And this is what a developer is doing. And this is what this middle block, permitting has done. Not only that, the permitting office said, oh, and the lot right next to you, they're building eight cottages. This is a 10 houses, single residence. We are not as big as Woodridge. We're not as big as the encroachment that Bellevue College is going on. We're not as big or as profitable as the Maiden Bower people who don't want them encroached on. Well, our neighborhood we bought because of the uniqueness of the property. We bought there because of the livability. This middle housing is not going to make Bellevue livable. It's not going to make this national thing the most livable house. The transportation is overridden, and it's overridden because you have built too many apartments, too many tall buildings. I don't even come into Bellevue. I go to Redmond where it's a straight road.

Excuse me. Please do not. We'll give you your time back. Please refrain from making sounds like that.

I mean, I feel like I'm living in a dictatorship. I feel like the state has now dictated how we get to use our property. That I find disgusting. That is not why I put my greatest value into my house to now live next to eight cottages and four townhouses in a single residential block. When the development went behind us with seven houses, the five houses that border it, four of those people sold their homes. And guess what? I'm the only one here. I have spent over $100,000 in court with litigations. We lose. I can't do that anymore. This city has got to protect us, the people who chose to build in this house, to live in this neighborhood. And I've called Riley Pittman three times since I found this out, June, July 6th. He's never returned my phone call. I've called Trevor Gillis, who is in part of the right-of-way. He was very informative. He said, not only that... Each of the townhouses will be 1,700 square feet to over 1,800 square feet. This, they will have no, on one lot, forget the greenery, forget the canopy that Bellevue keeps saying, how can we save the canopy?

Thank you so much.

It's wrong.

Chair, we've come to the end of the people who have signed up, but we have some time for two or three more speakers. If you'd like me to open it up to the room or to online.

Yeah, we can open it up for two more.

If there's anybody in the room who would like to speak, could you raise your hand? If there's anybody online who would like to speak, could you raise your hand? I don't see any hands.

Great. Thank you. All right, then let's move on to the first topic on hand. So the Evans Plaza comprehensive plan amendment, uh, proposals staff recommendation is to amend the applicant's proposal from low rise to mixed use to low rise one mixed use and approve the proposed Evans Plaza comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate future mixed use residential development in a neighborhood center in line with the growth strategy for Bellevue as outlined in the comprehensive plan and to support the health and vitality of residential areas by planning for neighborhood centers. Um, Did we open the public hearing before calling out the speakers? Okay. Can I get a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I don't see any. Motion carries. The hearing is open. So we will start the public hearing on the 2026 Evans Plaza Comprehensive Plan Amendment with a presentation from staff. After that, we will have a presentation from the applicant. The public comment period will come at the end. Everyone who wishes to speak about the proposal will have an opportunity to do so during that period. So we'll welcome Tara Johnson, Planning Director, to introduce it and Tune Dooling, Senior Planner. Thank you both.

Good evening, chair Lou, uh, planning commissioners, council member, we're here this evening to, um, continue with 26 annual comprehensive plan amendment, um, plan amendment cycle for, uh, for this year. um the first topic of course is evans plaza um so tonight we're here for your final review public hearing um this process has continued since council initiation um and then of course the threshold review process which uh came before the planning commission and now we're at the final stage which is the final review public hearing so um i'm joined by tun um we're going to be tag teaming tonight's presentation uh we have a short overview for you City Council Chambers, Short overview for you and following that will will provide an opportunity for questions. City Council Chambers, So tonight we're asking the planning Commission to conduct a public hearing for the Evans plaza comprehensive plan amendment. City Council Chambers, Following that there'll be an opportunity for discussion and then should the Commission be prepared we're requesting a formal recommendation to city council tonight. So we'll start off, provide an overview of the comprehensive plan amendment process. We'll touch on the final review criteria, which the Commission utilizes in making your recommendation. We'll present our staff recommendation. We'll also go over some of the Commission questions and feedback from our last study session with you on this topic. We'll summarize the public comments and then finally conclude and ask for your direction tonight. So, with that, I'm going to turn things over to Tan.

Thank you, Tara. And good evening, Chair Liu, Commissioners, Council Member Bhargava. So, privately initiated amendments like Evans-Flaza CPA are reviewed through a two-step process per the land use code that spells out what the process should look like. The first step is threshold review, to evaluate whether a proposed amendment should be included in the annual work program. And the second step is to evaluate the merits of the proposal. And they are planning commission studies evaluates and holds a public hearing and recommends what our proposal should be adopted to city council. And then city council lastly takes legislative action on the planning commission's final review recommendation. and during each step of review the planning commission holds public hearing to gather community feedback and make a recommendation so that is of course what we're here for tonight is the final review public hearing there are a few other cpas or comprehensive plan amendments on this year's work plan the eastgate and victoria neighborhood area plans were in front of you a study session items recently and the transportation element conformance cpa is another public hearing item tonight here the final review criteria provided by the land use code so staff developed a staff report including a final review recommendation ahead of tonight's public hearing was also included in the public notice that ran at the very start of this month And that is based on an evaluation of the criteria that are on the screen here. So there are five criteria here consistency with the comprehensive plan that the proposed amendment addresses the interest and change needs of the entire city addressing significantly changed conditions. General conformance with adjacent land use. And then lastly, demonstrating a public benefit and enhancing the public health, safety and welfare. We'll discuss these criteria in more detail later in the presentation when going over the staff recommendation. So just a little bit of background on the proposed amendment. The Evans Plaza CPA is a proposed plan map amendment that entails a requested change from the general commercial land use designation to a low-rise to mixed-use designation on what is an approximately 10-acre site. And the proposed amendment site is located immediately north of 520, west of 140th Avenue, and to the north is bounded by Northeast 24th, as you can see on the screen. The Bridal Trails neighborhood area, the site is part of that, and the rest of the neighborhood area stretches out more to the north. Evans Plaza is currently occupied by several commercial buildings, and the current uses range are a range of large and small commercial services, retail, and restaurants. In red on the screen, you can see the originally proposed amendment side, and then per previous planning commission direction, the geographic scope was expanded to include the corner parcel outlined in sort of a greenish. Call me. Here you can see the future land use map as it exists today. And the future land use map is policy-oriented and represents the community's long-term vision for a specific area. And the future land use designation links the comprehensive plan's vision and land use strategy to specific zoning classifications or land use districts that implement that vision through the land use code. The site's current designation is general commercial, as you can see in red on the screen. General commercial is a designation for areas that have the purpose to provide primarily office, retail, and surface uses. Residential uses are generally not permitted within that land use designation. And then the staff recommendation. The staff recommendation, as also outlined in more detail in the staff report and the agenda memo that were published ahead of the meeting, the staff recommendation is to consider an alternative low-rise one mixed-use land use designation for the proposed map change. And that recommendation is based on staff analysis and sort of a few key pointers there is that Pine View, which is a neighborhood center identified in a comprehensive plan that this site is a part of. is a more office-focused neighborhood center with limited retail options, especially beyond the proposed amendment site, and limited community gathering spaces and transit access to support higher residential densities. Only three of the identified neighborhood centers, and there are 13 across Bellevue, Kelsey Creek Shopping Center, Lake Hills Village, and Lakemont Village have the low-rise to mixed-use designation that the applicant applied for, which would allow for greater residential densities than the staff's recommended land-use designation. J. access to nearby frequent and reliable transit service can be a rationale for allowing higher residential densities but, considering the size limited transit access. J. Future development could not be considered transit or in development as a site is not within. one half mile walking distance from Bellevue's frequent transit networks. There are two light rail stations. The light rail line runs sort of parallel to 520 there, but the nearest light rail stations are about a mile away from the site. Here is just to provide a quick sort of side-by-side comparison of the staff's recommendation and the applicant's request. Very similar land use designations in terms of the type of development, so that is, mixed-use residential development, so housing over sort of retail or service offices. That's like sort of what you're looking at. The difference between the two is sort of the scale and density that goes with that. So the staff recommendation is for a lower scale and density than the applicant's request. These two land use designations also translate into zoning districts or land use districts. Neighborhood business and community business are the land use districts associated with the staff recommendation, so low-rise one mixed-use, while mixed-use eight-story land use district is associated with the low-rise two mixed-use land use designation or the applicant's request. The recently adopted HOMA, or Housing Opportunities in Mixed-Use Areas, LUCA, or Land Use Code Amendment, created the Mixed-Use 8 Land Use District, but also amended the existing Community Business Land Use District. And then going on the staff recommendation in terms of the final review criteria that are in the land use code and are sort of the focus of sort of the public hearing and the recommendation to council is an evaluation and assessment of whether those criteria are met. So, in the staff report that is outlined in more detail, So it's in staff's evaluation. Sort of the conclusion is that the staff recommended land use designation meets all the final review criteria. And just to give a brief summary, the first criteria is consistency with the comprehensive plan. And there are both a stated need and established policy for accommodating Bellevue's housing and job growth within areas designated for compact mixed-use development, such as neighborhood centers. And Pineview here is an example of one of those neighborhood centers in Bellevue. And with that, allowing that type of development, mixed-use residential development that is proposed and goes with Darlene's designation is considered consistent with the comp plan. The second criteria addresses the interest and change needs of the entire city. The proposed amendment would accommodate, again, mixed-use development in neighborhood centers, which is in line with Bellevue's growth strategy, which is outlined in the comprehensive plan that was last updated in 2024, or more comprehensively updated in 2024. And lastly, to support the health and vitality of residential areas by planning for those neighborhood centers, again, in line also with the comp plan. And then the next item, and here we'll focus a little bit more time on also because of the questions from the commission at the last meeting on June 10th. So I think here it's important to note that the significantly changed conditions definition is sort of a three-parter. One part is because of changes to the pertinent plan text, so that is referring to policies in the comprehensive plan. And that one is central to the staff's evaluation. Also important to note that this criteria also was previously evaluated and discussed at threshold review back in, I believe, February at a similar public hearing and study session. So important to note here is that with the 2024 adoption of the comprehensive plan, Bellevue now has a growth strategy that encompasses 13 neighborhood centers throughout Bellevue, including Pineview, where the proposed amendment site is located. And the plan text provides policy direction to support continued investment in all 13 centers and allowing them to become mixed use. Various planning efforts since updating the ComPlan in 2024 have focused on neighborhood centers since then, including the recently adopted HOMA LUCA, but also several neighborhood area planning efforts that addressed and created policies, developed policies addressing neighborhood centers. Privately initiated CPAs can also be part of those implementation efforts in line with a stated need and establish policy for accommodating Bellevue's growth in those areas designated for mixed-use development, such as neighborhood centers. And because of that broader policy framework and the existing character of Pineview, staff calibrated the proposed CPA by recommending a lower density mixed use designation, just in other words, to have a consistent policy framework throughout for all neighborhood centers in Bellevue. So here the proposed CPA would make the plan function as an integrated whole, allowing residential uses where the existing land use designation creates a constraint on realizing that land use vision also in line with policies that are outlined in the plan that was updated in 2024. The fourth criterion can be a little bit shorter about that. The site is surrounded by a mix of low-intensity commercial office and mixed-use residential districts, both north of 520 and to the south in what is the Bell Red neighborhood area. And lower-density residential districts are located further away to the north and northeast as part of the Bridal Trails neighborhood area.

Okay.

Lastly, demonstrating a public benefit and enhancing the public health, safety, and welfare. Here, the proposed amendment seeks to encourage vibrant and walkable neighborhood centers. And lastly, to promote affordable and general housing production in areas designated for that. A few comments from the Commission that staff responded to in the agenda memo that we'll go over briefly now. One element or one comment was Or sort of the question whether the CPA could be handled through an existing work program and then specifically the Great Neighborhoods program. Is this something that came up during threshold reviews? Actually, one of the criteria is to consider, is there another existing work program that we could consider? sort of use for this proposed amendment. During threshold review, there was no council direction to include bridal trails in any of the upcoming iterations of Great Neighborhoods. And also, the Lane Use Code provides a specific mechanism and a process, a review criteria to consider proposed amendments, sort of what we're doing here. Another request from Commission was to show examples of comparable developments that were located further away from transit sort of like because that's relevant here for this particular site is not close to frequent transit network. So the growth strategy in Bellevue before 2024, but also in the current plan, really focuses most of the growth in mixed-use centers. So downtown, Wilberton, Bell Red, Crossroads, those are all areas that are characterized with good access to frequent transit network. In 2024, the growth strategy was expanded to also include neighborhood centers, and not all neighborhood centers in Bellevue are located within proximity to the frequent transit network. And therefore, because the growth strategy in 2024 that includes neighborhood centers has been so recently adopted, there are no examples of developments built in neighborhood centers that are further away from transit. So what staff did is provided some examples of comparable developments to give a better sense of the scale that we're discussing here of development under either the applicant requested designation or the staff recommendation. but those are then like near transit. So, the above two, sort of one and two, those are of a scale or comparable to staff's recommendation. And then the two at the bottom are more comparable to the applicant's request. So, Tom Preston- Top left lake village. Tom Preston- Our lake hills village sorry and top right is a Bella condos, which is a you can see sort of on the very left, you can see city hall actually so that's like one block over here to the south. Another development mixed use, sort of seven stories, bottom left, and then the bottom right is a development in Bell Red, just across the street from the Bell Red light rail station, which is eight stories. These developments were, of course, sort of built under different zoning, so not exactly the zoning that is here in place, but it gives just an example of the scale. It's not... exactly built per the code requirements that would be in place for either option here another request or a comment was about air quality considerations for development and The comp plan provides policy direction, encouraging developments to limit exposure to air pollution in new developments, for instance, through site design or through building design. But while redevelopment here could address the location of sensitive uses, so sensitive uses are uses like residential uses, childcare, where people stay for a prolonged period of time, it would not be required under the current land use code to, site buildings away from 520 here. And then for the second item on the screen, Planning Commission asked staff if the approval of the proposed CPA could potentially be conditioned on requiring additional affordable commercial space. And uh cpas and other approved similar approvals are typically not conditioned uh that way instead it's more established practice to develop policies especially the comprehensive plan to provide the basis for implementation through regulations or programs or services provided by the city and business retention is actually a good example where it is a council priority. And an example where policy development and implementation has taken place. For instance, the city has specific initiatives to help at risk businesses and also Homa, for instance, provided land use incentives to retain or locate certain uses on site. So including affordable commercial space, but also other uses like childcare and grocery stores. In terms of community engagement, as you can see on the right-hand side, signs have been up since the end of last year. Notices went out, notice of application, notices ahead of each public hearing. There's been early outreach, mainly also with the Bridal Trails Community Club, and staff has used citywide publications to raise awareness. So there's neighborhood news and other newsletters that we use to get the word out and raise awareness. And there have also been a few meetings with membership from the Bridal Trails Community Club. And then for people who have been community members who have been engaged in the process, they received proactive updates from staff to just sort of give them a heads up on the public hearing, making sure that they understand how to participate in the meeting. And then lastly, per comprehensive plan policy, staff encouraged the applicant as well to engage with the community. Stav has not been a part of those conversations, but I've heard from both community members and the applicant that conversations have taken place about their proposal. The comments are all available on the City website. The tally that is listed here on the screen is a little bit outdated now. We've received another eight comments since I finalized the presentation. So that puts us at 33. And most of the concerns are about a loss of existing businesses on site, the scale of future development here, impacts on the transportation network. and also the limited transit access, something we discussed earlier. The evaluation criteria, so the final review, but also previously threshold review criteria as outlined in land use code. And then lastly, sort of pointing to unused development capacity elsewhere, especially in the Bell Red area, since that is near to this proposed site. And that is the end of the staff presentation. So just to outline sort of the elements for planning commission action.

Great. Thank you both. I think next we're going to have a seven-minute presentation from the applicant, Steve Malsom. And Steve, if you could introduce the folks that are presenting with you, that'd be great. Uh, if you could tap the, uh, the speaker button in front of you.

Yep.

There we go. Thank you.

Um, my name is Steve Molson. My, uh, my address is 1457 130th Avenue Northeast in Bellevue, 98005. Um, I've been partners with, uh, business partners with the landowner for over 30 years. We're both in the real estate. We have a real estate development company called Evans Wakefield. So, um, I wanted to quickly run through just a couple of points I have to make is generally I agree with the staff's recommendation. I have felt that they've done a really good job of outlining the issues there. The two points that I just disagree on are it's the first has to do with basically the When it comes to the transit services, we've seen developments go anywhere from Marysville down to Tumwater on both sides of I-5, both sides of 405. And look at the transportation corridors and all that. And our site... If, as a developer, we look at, you have, you're adjacent to a state highway in 520, you have 405, which is just a stone's throw away. You're sitting between two light rail stations and you have light rail that almost runs adjacent to it. In any other area, like I said, between Tumwater and Marysville, those are fantastic transit-oriented services. I can't, you know, we have a project up in Linwood and it's two miles from the light rail station. And many of our residents use that as a 500-unit apartment project. So I feel like that was one of the issues that, you know, could have been handled a little bit better. And also for the retail services, you know, you're within walking distance of grocery stores. I've lived in an office for over 40 years in this area, and I never had a problem finding retail services. What I wanted to show is that because I've been in this area for a long time, I'm well aware of the Bridal Trails neighborhood. We all know what Bridal Trails is and the type of housing it is. It's very fortunate for people to have large lots with lots of trees and that around. But I feel like the Evans Plaza is kind of an anomaly in the Bridal Trails plan. So what... we have existing right now is that we have an existing commercial center. And I believe that there are probably as a developer, there's probably three options for this site. The first option is just going to be to maintain it as a one story, um, older commercial center with kind of an eclectic group of tenants in there with lots of parking and, uh, which is really seems kind of out of place given that light rail runs adjacent to it. And we have all the other, uh, services around it. So this is a couple of pictures of the type of buildings and the parking that it currently exists. To the north, you see an open space area, or I mean, to the west, an open space area, and then onto a park right there. And then to the north, we have an existing office development. So again, if you look back to the pictures that Tuna has shown on the over, it really is surrounded by either open space or commercial uses. So I think it's one of the rare sites in Bellevue that you have the ability to have housing without impacting the neighborhood. This is another picture of the office. The second option you'd have on this site is you're seeing a lot of sites in Bellevue develop as townhouses, and they're competing with the multifamily apartment mid-rise developments. And you'd probably end up with 120 to 150 townhouses, somewhere between a million and a half and $2 million. And I don't know what my partner will do with that type of use, but I don't know that that meets the goals for the city of Bellevue and their housing. And so we're just looking like showing some pictures of just generally standard mid-rise development. The retail services hopefully will have a lot of the same type of services on the main level. You try to hide the parking, so you end up with a parking structure, and then you put five stories of wood frame above it. So These are just developments in the Bell Red Overlake area, and we're not really proposing anything different. Here's a copy or two pictures of our woods project if people want to go look at it. It's just between the Alderwood Mall and Costco up in Linwood. It's got both retail and multifamily, and it provides a lot of amenities. So I would propose that we stick with the original project zoning that we had applied for, the low-rise two, and not the low-rise one, but generally I'm comfortable with the presentation and the staff report and recommendations.

And I don't know how much time we have, Kate. All right, I'll do it fast. OK, and I'll try to speak to the things you have in front of you. I'm sorry I didn't have my act together, Commissioner Ferris, so that you could see. But the map in front of you on page one shows the neighborhood centers in Bellevue. And the comp plan doesn't distinguish between the neighborhood centers. We heard that there are three that are designated as low-rise two, and then the rest of them are low-rise one. But the comp plan itself does not distinguish. And these are the policies that you can see written that do encourage development in the neighborhood centers. On page two, the implementing zones for LR2, there's only one. It's MU8. And then for LR1, it's the CB and the NB. And so there are some differences I want you to see in the zoning. the fars are a little bit lower for cb and nb the heights are a little bit lower again you heard steve talk about what those heights mean to be able to redevelop a site the impervious surface is less meaning that you can't touch 15 of your site in the cb and the nb and then the biggest thing that i think the neighborhood has been talking about is they really want those retail services In the MU8 zone for the LR2, there's a requirement in HOMA to do 66% of the total linear frontage. In the other zones, it's only 50%. So you're going to get less services. The rest of the requirements are the same, affordable commercial, it's FAR exempt, and there is an affordable housing requirement for all the zones. So I just I want to talk about a little bit more context as well. This goes to the criteria for which is the conformance with the land use policies and the development patterns in the area. So for low rise one, one of the things I noticed is the there is a low rise one designation for the little store. If you guys are familiar with it down on West Lake Sammamish Parkway, it's like this convenience store. So that is what the city has determined is appropriate for low-rise one. It is surrounded by neighborhood residential and single family. Up in Lake Hills and Lakemont, which is also surrounded, it's LR2. So we believe we're much more commercial in nature.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, now we will be turning to public testimony. And as a reminder, the testimony must be related to the 2026 Evans Plaza Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Kate, could you help call the first speaker?

We have first Barbara Hughes, followed by I'm not sure the name of this person they signed up as best friends spelled view and they are signed up as virtual So if you will raise your hand at the appropriate time I can unmute you.

Thank you. Good evening. I'm Barbara Hughes. I'm a 24-year resident of Bridal Trails. I live probably about a mile north of Evans Plaza. I've got three comments really I've already written to you. The first one is I'm really concerned about the loss of space for small businesses to sort of incubate and grow in Bellevue. I'm not speaking on behalf of Bellevue Farmer's Market but I am on the board of Bellevue Farmer's Market and one of our biggest joys is when we have a tiny business starts with us and then they finally get into a premise, their own premises in Bellevue and that's happened in the past couple of weeks. So we do a lot of work around helping those businesses grow. And in the 24 years I've been here, these type of developments like Evans Plaza just disappearing rapidly. So that's my huge concern. Secondly, I'd like to comment that light rail being adjacent to this site. doesn't allow someone to leap out of their apartment onto a light rail train and somehow get to work and not need a car. I don't see the relevance of comments that light rail is adjacent when the station is about a mile away in either direction. It's extremely unwalkable. I have walked a lot in that neighborhood around there. I've walked to the light rail stations and used them. This development is nowhere near light rail. And my final comment is that this is really a spotty way to do your city planning. It's not comprehensive. It's piecemeal. And it's really not what I expect. I don't think it's to Bellevue's advantage at all. So that's it. And I'll give my time to other people who want to talk. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. The person who signed up as Best Friends Bellevue, if you are online, Oh, you're here. Wonderful. You could state your name.

Rebecca Chatfield. I'm a small business owner leasing in Evans Plaza, my business, which is Best Friends Bellevue Pet Salon. It's a dog and cat grooming business. It has been there at that site for about 30 years. I'm the third owner. We have a very large and loyal customer base. They often linger to chat socially about their families and, of course, their furry children as well. My observations today are about the vitality of these classic commercial spaces I least the corner space on the southeast side of Evans plaza with windows facing and two directions from that vantage point I can see over half. Oh, I think my time is wrong. Sorry. I can see over half of Evans Plaza, including the largest parking lot. I'm in the business's front lobby all the time, all day long, so I can see what's going on all day long. The parking lot is very well used, unlike the picture shown earlier, typically more than half full. There is a near constant line of cars for the coffee trailer. The restaurants are very busy. People come for burgers, Mexican food, Asian food, ice cream. I watch groups of friends and families with children parking their cars, getting out with a lot of smiles and upbeat energy, going into those restaurants and other businesses. I pick up a lot of bulk supplies at the grocery store, like paper towels and cleaners. There's always a line at the checkout there. The consignment store has a constant supply of new furniture and inventory. The parking lots on the sides are full with cars. It's kind of an obstacle course to drive out at the end of the day because there's rental cars and new cars and motorcycles from Harley-Davidson there too. The dry cleaning business is a constant stream of people in and out. That's right next door to me. Sometimes the daycare will wheel a cart with children down along the sidewalk, and the children look into our windows and look for cute puppies and kittens to see as they're being groomed. So that's very sweet, and it's a really charming thing that happens sometimes. So imagine my surprise when I read in the application materials that this assertion that the leases are expiring and the buildings will soon be vacant. That's just right out of the material posted on the website. It does not match my everyday lived experience of seeing Evans Plaza busy and thriving every day. I'm hoping to extend my lease past its termination date. I've personally invested tens of thousands of dollars into improving the space with lights and painting and exterior signs. So I urge the decision makers to consider the downsides of radically changing the nature of Evans Plaza. What I see now is a humming engaged community.

Your time is up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Warren Halverson, followed by Mohammed Roshan Khan.

Good evening. There's two minutes gone already. My name is Warren Halverson. I live at 13701 Northeast 32nd Place in Bridal Trails. I've lived there for about 50 years, raised our children there, and incidentally, our children both live with their families in Bridal Trails, in Cherrycrest. And they love the area, and I'm sure you do too. First, I want to thank you, some of you, if you came into Bridal Trails when the recent walk that was had with the city happened. We were really delighted to see everybody. There was a great exchange of information, and there must have been 200 or 300 people there. The city said that's one of the best walks that they've had. Bridal Trails is a very welcoming community. I think the other thing that we learned, you learned it, I learned it in business, you learned it here, is it's really important to have an interrelationship with your customers. with your customers so that we can listen to them and learn from them. And I think you're learning that tonight. I was shocked because I did watch the council meeting this last week and there were 20 to 30 Woodridge people talking to you about some of the very same issues that you're having with density in implementing these plans. Huge issues to all of those people. Brought it up over and over and over. Not uncommon to what's happening in Evans Plaza. We work, we live, we play, we raise our children in neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are a key to a successful city. So why am I here? Well, I hope you had a chance to read this. And this is called, Why Should I Care About Evans Plaza? The reason is, and the reason I do, is not this brochure. It's because the current north-south residential streets, 140th and 24th, intersection is already completely congested. Not only is it congested, it is an area that is really going to have huge issues with pedestrian traffic and just general safety. If you, and I'd refer you to bridle trails, the Bridal Trails Market on 132nd and 70th, eight stories. Look at that building and see the setbacks and you will see that there are gonna be accidents after accidents. There are no setbacks hardly. Okay, so another reason I'm interested is because of the character, the character of the community. If you go up to Overlake, You'll see these huge buildings. They're everywhere. I'm fortunate enough, and I'm going to jump ahead a little bit, that I have horses. And if you look at our lot, 15 degree difference where those trees are and where those horses are in pasture. So here's where I care the most. I question the wisdom of making significant changes to the recent comp plan until we can gauge the impact of current planning Decisions and actions, and above all, answer questions being posed, like eight-story buildings and these intersections and these huge number of people that are here. Your time is up. Answer the questions. Thank you. Listen and communicate, please. Thank you very much for your service.

Next, we have Mohamed Roshan Khan, followed by Pamela Johnston. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Roshan. I am the owner of Shahana Steakhouse in Bellevue in Evans Creek. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Five years ago, I opened my restaurant after losing my previous business in Redmond because the building was being demolished for apartment developments. I then moved to a different business in Redmond, which was also demolished for apartment developments. That experience was devastating and I tried to make sure and I told my family that I would not let that happen again. Before signing my current lease, that was one of my major plot points and making sure that that was not going to be an issue. I specifically asked the leasing people if there were plans to redevelop this property and I was told no. I was confident in a long-term future, and so I invested my entire savings into this business. Only after signing did I realize that the landlord could terminate the lease with just one year's notice if the property was sold or redeveloped. For five years, I've been a model tenant, Upon this most recent renewal that I just did, my rent was immediately hiked by 20% with an additional 3% increase every year. So that's totaling a 45% increase over five years. On top of that, strict rules prevent me from using food or drink signs to attract customers to our low visibility storefront. Despite these challenges, everything that I have, that we have, my family has, is invested here. This restaurant is my family's sole source of income. If we lose it, this will be the third time that redevelopment has wiped out our livelihood and our future. I understand that Bellevue needs housing and I support responsible growth. However, I respectfully ask the city remember behind every small business there is a family. Small businesses make Bellevue a vibrant community. When we disappear, the city loses local jobs, neighborhood gathering places, and the very people who helped build this community. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for a fair chance to survive alongside Bellevue's growth. Please consider implementing policies that provide greater protections, longer advance notice and relocation assistance for small business that is displaced by redevelopment. I'm not asking for the city to stop development. I'm only asking that when development happens, families like mine are not left behind. Thank you so much for your time and for listening to my story. And I hope that I can trust you to protect the future of Bellevue small businesses. I would like to yield back my time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Pamela Johnston, followed by Alex Zimmerman.

I would like to hear why we don't care about commercial real estate. Why do we want housing everywhere instead of having good commercial real estate? This is general commercial. It was not changed in the comprehensive plan. They looked at it several times, and they did not change it. So this is not going with the comprehensive plan. It is not what we wanted. And as far as that empty space next door, it's not an empty space. It's PSCs. so that they can make electricity for us in the future when we do grow, when we need more electricity in Bell Red, etc. Bridal Trails is about one-third apartments, one-third townhouses, I mean condos, and one-third regular housing and middle housing. It is not all that you think it is. Our one and our Low-rise one was told at the comprehensive plan that it was going to be two to four stories. It is not necessarily always two to four stories. We need to look at that. It was in the comprehensive plan. Pineview was a dot on a map. A dot on a map. And I asked, why is it there? It's a future neighborhood center. Future. Because we were going to plan it together. Engagement. The problem with engagement is nobody comes on at the first time and learns everything. There's still big white signs out there that say nothing about this meeting. It's never been updated since the very first time. And you just get email if you signed up. But what if you weren't there at the beginning? How do you know that everything's happening? And the city walk, we offered for them to come then. They weren't there. There is a big mismatch in what Evans is saying and what is happening. They're saying it's struggling. It's not struggling. We have all of the things that they said we want in neighborhood centers except for a pharmacy. We have in the top three and four numbers of neighborhood centers making the most money. We're on 3 and 4th floor, I can't remember which way it goes, as in the neighborhood centers that make the most per square foot. We're not having brown trails, having a comprehensive plan, great neighborhoods, because we don't need it. We have commercial space that we need. We want to make the center. We want to see how it grows with housing. But it's not the right time, and we're not doing it together. And we're not telling everybody to do it. When you have the great neighborhoods, you go through a whole year of stuff. This was made less than one year after the comprehensive plan. They submitted this amendment.

Your time is up. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alex Zimmerman followed by Julie Kopp.

I'm sorry. Oh, Steve. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, my name Alex Zimmerman, and I come to your meeting for many years every time. Guys, what is... Look your faces. You're not only a debile, you are a zombie. You know what this means? You cannot change what this consul did. This plan is another step for kill Bellevue. Bellevue dead now. And everybody knows this, include you. But because you debila, because you come to this place for personal interest, you cannot change nothing. You understand? People talk to you. They talking to you. You know what I mean? Look what this plan have. Seven. One figure what is make me shocked totally. One only. Seven people have opinion about this plan. Seven people have opinion about this plan. You bring this plan after seven opinion. And this only white people care. You know, 30% white people right now and 30,000 only white people right now. Now, where is 120,000 jungle slave? I never see her there. Never see this- You pause really quickly.

Where is this people? Mr. Zimmerman, this is your second warning. Please keep on topic for the public hearing.

I told you about this, how this plan can work when only seven people appeal. What is you don't understand? Why you interrupt me on this?

Because you need to stay on topic, please.

I talking about this. This plan are pure fake. Is this plan for killing Bellevue? Another bullet in Bellevue body, you know, it is for killing this. What is you don't understand? I against this plan. You possibly be stopping this. 10% each apartment empty right now. Price for studio, $1,500. I live here for 40 years before you boring. So don't give me... Opinion. What is my opinion about this? I talk exactly about this plan. You need stopping this. You need stopping everything right now. And they never talking about money. Where is money? We have a plan and not have money. How is this possible? I never see a businessman for all my life. I never see I have a plan but don't have money. Show me money. They don't show money. Blah, blah, blah, blah. And you approve this because you're a debil. You understand what I'm talking about? You don't do nothing for the people. Everything what is it doing for your personal us? And for council, what is doing this idiotic situation? More than 10% empty apartment in Bellevue. I have complexes who have for 20, 30... Empty apartment, you know what it means? Different kinds of what is staying for years. You understand what I'm talking? There's another apartment, another corporation that is bringing money for us. And she's absolutely right. We need something doing for the people. You're not doing for the people because you're a debil. You understand? You don't understand what you're doing. You don't understand. Viva Trump, viva new American revolution, send up slave and happy cow. Where is this 120,000 jungle slave? I never see her then. Thank you very much.

Next, we have Julie Kopp followed by Bernie Hayden.

Well, I guess I signed up twice unbeknownst to me. In listening to this group talking about the Evans Plaza, as I was listening to them, all I could think of was, this is the beginning of encroachment from Evans Plaza right up to... Bridal Trails. And they're under the same issues that we're in in our neighborhood about the building. And on the other side, they have Kirkland, which they encroach. Bridal Trails has it crunched on both sides. We use the Evans Plaza. We go to some of the stores there. I would hate to see that leave. When they took out Skate King, that was something that everyone... that grew up here in Bellevue used, and it was valuable to our city. And the city really, they, They aren't listening. The only ones that are the winners are the developers, the builders, and the city. We are not. For me to pay my taxes, $12,000, and if I can't apply for a low income because I invested money so I would have another $12,000 to pay for property taxes, and then I'm going to run out. Hopefully I'm still around, but what then? Because... The money just goes to the city. The more houses they build, the more developments they build, the more money the city gets, and they're destroying our city. And Evans Plaza could be the beginning, another beginning of that neighborhood. I was dismayed to hear this going on continued. That's all.

Thank you.

Next, we have Bernie Hayden, and that will be the end of our sign up, but I can open it to people online or in person.

Good evening, Bernie Hayden. I live at 2622 134th Avenue Northeast. It's about a quarter mile from the Evans Plaza site. I'm speaking about the environmental checklist, the SEPA document that was in the packet, specifically environmental health part one section B describe existing hazardous chemicals that might project the development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Immediately up the hill from Evans Plaza is the PSE transmission line right away. I think that's the preferred alternative for the energized east side, so it'll be upgraded in the near future. But also in that right away is the Olympic Petroleum Pipeline. You probably remember last December when there was a leak in the uh con or excuse me yeah in the everett area that uh disrupted fuel supplies to sea tac airport um that was in um 2025 in 2023 there was another leak near conway that leaked gasoline into the groundwater And back in 1999 was the most serious incident where there was a leak in the Bellingham area that resulted in gasoline flowing down into Whatcom Creek, resulting in an explosion and a fire that killed three people. I believe that this needs to be noted in the documentation for the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

If it's okay, I'll ask for hands. If there's anybody online that would like to speak regarding Evans Plaza, could you raise your hand? I'm not seeing any hands online. There's anybody in the room that would like to speak on Evans Plaza? Okay, we'll go in the order that I saw the hands. So go ahead.

Good evening, I'm Loretta Lopez and I live in the Brattle Trails area and I am currently the temporary co-president of the Brattle Trails Community Club. I have a few comments. One with respect to the need for public engagement. That's something that the city, the city council, when we went through the middle housing issues, the city council made it very clear that public engagement was to be improved because that process was not a very good one. In this case, given that we have Senate Bill 6026, which affects all commercial property, all commercial zones, coupled with the fact that we did not have much public engagement, yes, we had the planner who was speaking, come to our meeting, we specifically asked the question, and that was, I think, in January. We specifically asked the question, how many, how tall can these units be? And the answer was, don't know. And why don't we, not because he wasn't paying attention, but rather, he couldn't know. Because there was no answer at that time. That's a very important question. piece of the puzzle in announcing to the public what can be built there. And at that time, it wasn't known. Because of HOMA and other issues, now we have this process of Senate Bill 6026. And our position is that we should take this opportunity to plan, plan well, and plan with a robust public engagement process. The Brattle Trails Community Club has tried, but we're all volunteers. It's the city's responsibility. We pay a lot of taxes so that city staff can proceed in a robust public engagement and not just depend upon us as volunteers as we do everything else. So that's my main point, that we need better public engagement. And in addition, we've set forth in our letter, it's not transit oriented. There's no traffic infrastructure that is in place or planned. We have no idea of how we will even attempt to get through 140th and Northeast 24th, because that intersection is already very difficult and very busy. So I only have, well, I have no time left, so I'll stop. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Norm, I saw your hand next to me.

Can you hear me? My name is Norman Hanson. I've lived in Braille Trails for over 50 years. And I want you to know that our community has been engaged very much so over the last 50 years. And the city has responded to that. And now here we seem to be faced because of some 2044 housing requirements. which when they had the 2024 comprehensive plan, they were satisfied that they'd be able to meet the 2044 housing. And so we want to maintain our heritage and character, and we want to work with the developer. We're a little bit frustrated because Other neighborhoods have had priority working with the Great Neighborhoods team in revising their sub-area plan. We think it's a thriving area. The thing that bothers me the most, though, is criteria three. I can't see how anything is substantially changed. All along 20th Avenue. That's all two-story, general commercial. And for anybody that walks around, there's nothing that's changed. And so we think it's a premature to go ahead with this project at this time. We would like to, well, we'd like you to honor the criteria three, first of all. The city has come up with some text to try to get around the fact that physically there's been no change. So I think that there'd be a lot of community engagement. If we could defer to this, I don't see any urgency and Over the last 50 years, things have come out pretty good. And so I want you to really think about that and consider it. So thank you very much. Oh, the other thing is, too, a lot of people are on vacation, you know? And you talk about engagement with the community. And I just got back about 6 o'clock tonight and decided I didn't have anything else to do. I could come down here, so... I think you have to consider that too. And I noticed the planning commission may have a few on vacation. So thank you. Thank you.

I saw one more hand.

Good evening. My name is Musra Khan. My brother Roshan Khan spoke earlier. Our family runs the restaurant Shahana Steakhouse in the Evans Plaza. Our address is 2285 140th Avenue Northeast. And I wanted to address a couple of comments that I heard some people make earlier. Firstly, I would like to address the statements made by the applicants and staff members regarding mixed-use buildings. I understand that they are intending to provide some commercial space, hopefully with the project, in addition to housing. And I think that this is a huge oversight in terms of small businesses like the one that my family runs. These areas are not developed to be affordable for small businesses. A lot of the time when commercial plazas like this are demolished and reconstructed with housing developments, The types of commercial businesses that are able to afford leasing those spaces are going to be larger corporations or bigger businesses. When projects like this move forward, it only drives out small business owners, which, as my brother mentioned previously, has happened to us already twice before in the city of Redmond. We were located there for about 10 years, and both times we were forced to relocate because we were no longer able to afford staying in the area that our business had been established in. Secondly, I would like to reiterate an earlier statement somebody made that this entire process has been extremely vague and tenants have been kept in the dark regarding the redevelopment of this property. As previously stated, we signed our lease for this location in August 2021. And since then, we have renewed again just a couple months ago for another five-year lease. So if this project moves forward, we will be forced to relocate before the lease term is up. And our property management is allowed to do so by only giving us one year warning, which doesn't guarantee that we will be able to relocate, that we will be able to continue running our business. You know, my family, my parents, my siblings and I have put years into running this business so that we can support our livelihoods. And I think it is the responsibility of the city to advocate for its constituents and protect the rights of the people who depend on them like us. And so I really appreciate your time and I hope you would keep that in mind moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

If there is anybody else who would like to speak either online or in person, could you raise your hand? I think that concludes the public testimony.

Great. So we've come to the end of the public comment. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. The public hearing is now closed. I'll now call on each commissioner sequentially, and we'll do two rounds of this. So Commissioner Kennedy, would you like to start? And also just context, we keep in mind that what's in front of us is an action item for us to recommend to city council. So love for all of our comments to gear towards that.

All right. Thank you. I have a few questions. Don't know if we'll go for another round, so I might try to break it up. we'll go for another round okay yeah thank you others may have the same i think the most relevant that would be helpful to kick it off with is to understand when we're looking at this um as a commission what options are in front of us to your point chair um are we either recommending um the staff proposal uh to council or the developers proposal with no other alternatives on the table? Or is there an option for deferral, additional review? Can you just explain that process and how that would work?

Sure. What is outlined in the agenda materials provides a few options through the Planning Commission. And I think there it is central to tie it back to the final review decision criteria that are outlined in the land use code. That is central to the deliberations from the Commission. The staff report and the agenda memo that staff put forward centered around the staff recommendation for the low-rise one mixed-use designation. So that is sort of what is all based on the staff recommendation. It is up to the Planning Commission to make a decision, alternatively to make a recommendation to Council to approve the applicant's request for a low-rise to mixed-use designation. For whatever those two options, it needs to be based on the finding from Planning Commission that the final review criteria are satisfied. So, aside from those two options, it can be like indifferent of what those options are. The Planning Commission could find that the evaluation criteria, the decision criteria are not met and therefore recommend to City Council not to approve this amendment. Sort of indifferent of that is option one, sort of the staff recommendation or option two, the applicant's request.

Thank you, that's very helpful. The next kind of foundational question I just thought would be helpful to clarify. I found and really appreciate the pictures that you provided showing comparable developments. So being able to look at the mixed use or the low-rise one and see those developments involved. And can you give, I also found, I found the SIPA documentation really helpful too. I forgot to bring my laptop that had some relevant screen clips. So I was, apologies, but I was looking at them on my phone as you were going through because I found some of the information in that SIPA evaluation really helpful. It gave one of the pages in that And it was page 27 of 37 has a trip generation summary that's based on a mock up of what this development could be. And I had a few questions around that one is how did we come up given that this is not a project review this is zoning evaluation there's no project in front of us, nor would we opine on a specific project. So I found it quite interesting that this level of detail was able to be produced. for evening peak hours. I also found it interesting that in this evaluation, we were looking at the developer's proposal, RealRise 2 makes use, and it was only showing 74 additional trips. So an amount of 344 trips, I guess, on a weekday evening. to 418 from its current state of 120,000 square feet of general commercial space to what the mock-up was, which produced 30,000 square feet of commercial space and 800 residential units. That sounds actually pretty comparable, at least on the metric of number of trips going into the facility. but yet we're only getting 30,000 square feet of general commercial space. And so, with the comments that we heard this evening around two different pieces, the desire and the stated policy of Bellevue to support business retention, many commenters this evening, particularly focusing on small business, its ability to thrive. And, the ability to house people affordably and house a number of people that want housing, which also has come up this evening. And so I just want to understand, you know, someone mentioned that there is really actually, I think it was you two that mentioned that there's really kind of, I can't remember your exact words and I wrote them somewhere, but a relatively limited amount of retailers space that's being used actually in that area. Is it 30,000 square feet? Because then we would have exactly the same amount. Could we actually bring in all of that same commercial to this area in this hypothetical scenario and still get these 800 units and still have what appears to be relatively limited increase in traffic? Because that would be amazing, but hard to believe. So I was wondering if you could... explain those dynamics and and how this was analyzed and maybe you can't because you're not the SIPA reviewer and but.

Well, that is correct. I'm not a SEPA reviewer, but I did work with our SEPA review staff and discussed what is included in the packet. So a SEPA determination is made, and at this level, it's what we call sort of a non-project action. So at this level, it's fairly conceptual because you don't have a concrete development proposal in place. So then it's important for city reviewers to make sure that at a conceptual level, it sort of covers sort of the range of possibilities that you can reasonably expect here. So if you do more concrete environmental review at a later stage when you have, for instance, like, you know, development or construction permits that you haven't, like, very much underestimated what the potential impacts could be because the SEPA is meant for decision makers like city council, but also planning commission to make an informed decision about the environmental impacts that come with a proposal like this comprehensive plan amendment. So with that, the applicant or their consultant, I think the traffic generation was prepared by a consultant. They tried to look at what sort of conceptually the site could develop as, and then use that to get a better insight in what traffic generation could be, and in general, sort of the environmental impacts, granted at a very conceptual level, but at least cover what would later be studied in more detail at more like the development, concrete development phase.

Okay, that's really helpful. And can you just remind me of the 120,000 square feet of general commercial space that's currently there, how much of it is currently occupied? Do you know?

Yeah, I've been out to the site multiple times, and the last time I would say that pretty much all storefronts were occupied. I think there were maybe a few where I didn't see much or any activity.

Okay, that's really helpful. And the reason for this line of questioning and thought process, and I think you kind of went in the same vein in responding, so I appreciate that, is just to better understand when we're thinking about the criteria that we're reviewing this application under, One of them that is coming up consistently is if there has been a sufficient change material enough to justify a private CPA amendment at this time. That's really what's in front of us. And I think in considering that for me, it's relevant to consider whether or not the conditions in that site have substantially changed. In other words, we are not seeing the leases. We're not seeing people visit the center, the neighborhood has changed substantially, that type of thing. So it's helpful to look at those comparables and see if the use case could be similar and what has changed. So appreciate that. I know I've taken a lot of time. I'm going to pause there and see if others cover my other questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Nilsson.

Thank you, staff, the applicant, and everyone that gave comment tonight. This is definitely a very Complicated issue and I'm happy to have heard everyone's thoughts I had some questions I want to clarify before we get into the meat of the discussion and I guess the first thing is We heard some comments tonight about the engagement process for this CPA and a point was brought up that I actually thought was pretty compelling of It was difficult to give concrete details on Some of the aspects of this because homo had not been passed yet. Can you tell? just give me a bit more insight and more of an overview into what the engagement process has been like in the past couple of months, specifically, since those details have kind of been clarified.

Specific engagement since Homa was adopted, perhaps. yeah i think uh essentially what out what was outlined in the on the slide so continuing to use city-wide publications to raise awareness among the community continued updates to folks who have been engaged so far in the process sort of outlining how they can you know, let their voices be heard and participate in this process. And then the public meetings that we had. So we had a city council meeting in March and then the June meeting here in front of planning commission and tonight. Okay.

Thank you. And I guess just a follow-up to that, this may have been in the materials and I just missed it, but is there an estimate of around how many stakeholders or community members have actually given input into this plan in the last several months?

Yeah, sure. So, um, uh, we, I think there are like two elements. So like, like who do I, or would the staff like speak to, um, um, And there's not like a written record of that or people that don't like provide oral comment or written comment at planning commission. So it's like sort of two elements there. In terms of written comments, I think we received a little over between 30 and 35 written comments to date. So that's from the very start of the process up until tonight. Then there's also been oral comment, I would say oral comment and written comment as like the Venn diagram is pretty... Those are often the same people. That's what I try to say. And then there's folks who I and staff engage with outside of that. So that has mostly been at the Bridal Trills Community Club meeting in January. I think it was attended by about 60 to 70 people. And then our citywide publications where it's hard to say. I mean, we have like a good readership and a good like reach within the city, but it's hard to say. Like people tend to focus on the articles that are of note to them and that I don't know what the readership specifically for updates on this was. We've used citywide publications, I think in total six publications throughout the process. Yeah.

Great, thank you. That's helpful for me in my analysis of this. Another topic that was mentioned that I thought was particularly relevant given the significant testament we've had tonight from people worried about loss of small business is this LR2 versus LR1 frontage requirement. It seems like 60% is required for the applicant's recommended change and 50% is required for staff's recommended amendment. Can you give me some insight into how much retention of small business and that front end space played into staff's analysis into making the recommendation for the amendment?

Yeah, that's a good question. So in terms of business displacement and retention sort of at this meeting and last sort of pointed to the general strategies and programs that the city has for that, but also pointing to Homa with affordable commercial space incentive. For the staff recommendation and which land use designation to go for the analysis really focuses on sort of at the policy level. And of course, implementation through code is a really important part there. But First of all, it really centers on sort of the land use vision sort of outlined in a comprehensive plan and staff's analysis and recommendation of what is here, like from a land use policy point of view, the right designation. So it focuses a little less on the specifics through code because also, for instance, for the staff recommended land use designation, there are multiple land use districts that are then possible for the applicant to apply for. So it focuses really on the land use policy question. And there the staff recommendation is like looking at transit access, looking at the character of the neighborhood center there. That is what informed the staff recommendation for that lower density designation. Great.

I'll just add on, um, should this, um, should their recommendation move forward from planning commission and should council, um, make a, take final action on either, either designation, the applicant will have to go back, uh, and come in to the city and apply for a rezone. So at that point, uh, we're going to get into more details in terms of frontage requirements.

Okay. That's a very helpful comment. Thank you. And then my last and I promise is a quick one before I give up this round of questioning is we had one comment on the Olympic petroleum pipeline right of way. My assumption is that played a role in the analysis. Can you give me a little bit of insight into to what degree and if that poses any issues? I'm assuming no from the materials I saw.

Um, yeah, I have not, um, had much discussion on the exists or the presence of that pipeline. And, um, um, yeah, I, I assume it would affect development, uh, throughout that area if that was like a main hazard, but.

Yeah, the Olympic pipeline is within, I think the person that was providing comment is within the Energize East side right away or width, and probably not on this property, but that can be confirmed when they submit for an actual development application. They'll have to do a survey.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Keppel?

Yeah. Thank you for a great presentation too, Natara. You know, this is a, and thank you to the applicant and the public for the good comments. This is a hard one. I think the one decision criteria that I am having a big problem with is the significantly changed conditions one. And I'd like to just read it for the record so we can think about what constitutes a significantly changed condition. It's demonstrating evidence of change such as unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy or changed conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area or changes related to the pertinent plan map or text. And here's the important language, I think, at the end. Where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole. And I have to say here, the thing that I'm struggling with is I could see that there are some change conditions. We did adopt HOMA since the time that we did the CPA amendments. That's a change. I don't think it's a significant enough change to justify what is being proposed here. And I'm struggling with that, especially given that qualifier at the end, because I feel like that criteria means that as a commission, we have to have a pretty compelling reason to do a comprehensive plan amendment, and it's not something to be done lightly. And I'm wondering if you can help me understand whether I can get over that hurdle, because I'm finding it very hard right now to see this as a significantly changed condition. And were this a property, that was located somewhere near transit, I think I could figure out a way to get myself comfortable that this was something that overall would be would be more compelling, but given its lack of proximity to, to the light rail stations, I'm struggling. Why? Why we do this? So can you help me especially on that significantly piece?

Jens Nielsen Yes. We, of course, had that similar discussion at Threshold with some comments from the Commission too at the June 10th meeting. So some like outlined in the report, but happy to go over that. It is one of the criteria that was also part of Threshold review, one of the criteria sort of required in the code to review. So As you read the definition, it was very helpful. There are three elements. There are sort of three different types of change conditions that you could sort of apply or that you could meet or not meet. Um, there's one about sort of more like the onsite conditions where you could say like, oh, like right now, like you have a site and suddenly there's like a light rail station across the street. And it's like, wow, that really materially changed the situation here. Um, that is not what the staff's recommendation or the staff's evaluation of the criteria is based on that is focused on. another element the third element another changes related to the pertinent plan map or text so again it's not so much the on the ground realities that have changed or have not changed in evans plaza and immediate surrounding area it's about the comprehensive plan that is what plan text refers to is really about the policies that are put forward with the periodic update in 2024 and With the periodic update in 2024, there are policies now in place that make neighborhood centers, including Pineview here, much more part of the growth strategy for Bellevue and our growth targets for the next 20 years and planning for that. Some of the efforts like the peer to God date, but also Homa neighborhood area planning efforts in Crossroads, Newport, other neighborhoods, East Gate of Victoria, where it is now ongoing. They also address where relevant neighborhood centers. So our different planning efforts focusing on. what was adopted that growth strategy in 2024. So that is really what changed for this specific site is that it is now a neighborhood center with policies in place to accommodate mixed use residential development in that neighborhood center. So. I understand the criterion is, you know, you have to read it a couple of times to like to understand the neural sort of different elements in it. But I just want to be clear, like it's not The staff recommendation evaluation is not based on, like, on-the-ground reality specifically in Evans Plaza that have changed, but it's really about what Evans Plaza and Pineview as a neighborhood center that is part of, like, how they are addressed in policy in the comprehensive plan since 2020. for um the last thing i can say about that is like this is the staff's evaluation the staff's recommendation it is of course also the discretion of the planning commission to in the end make a decision also on taking everything in uh whether the criteria are all met but this is the staff's evaluation that's that's super helpful at least from my perspective

I would concede that there's been a change condition. I think what I struggle with though still is that last piece of the language, which qualifies all those three that come before, which says where such changes implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole. I mean, that goes to the significance and why we talk about a significant change condition. And I'm struggling with that piece. That's the piece that I'm having more difficulty seeing that there's a significant change condition. So I need to think a little more about this as we go around with more questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Farris.

I will be very quick. I personally am in support of the recommendation of staff to go to the low rise one mixed use. The biggest concern I have is again, the existing retail. It was very compelling to hear the cons talk about their business and what they had been through. And if there is some way that the city, if this does move forward, could work with the tenants that are currently in that space, to see if they can somehow help them. I hope not relocate. Hopefully I can stay there because it's obviously, it's a good location, but I really, really do care a lot about the existing retail and hope that they would be helped in the process going forward. And that's all I have.

Thank you. My comments actually echo Commissioner Ferris's quite a bit, but I'd love to talk through details and examples potentially of retail and transitions to a new development or anything policy-wise or city-wise programs that support that. I think the comments today are very valid in terms of preserving the spaces that small businesses can thrive. So I'd love to talk through kind of anything that we have from the city side that can support that.

So I can start us off, and Tin can add on some more specifics. We recently have an adopted economic development strategy, and so that has actions that speak to supporting small businesses, especially in these instances. I think our economic development staff have already been working with several of the tenants and have built relationships there. Can you go into any more detail on part of that program?

Yeah, I don't have much more to add. It is established policy to our programs in place around relocation assistance and especially doing outreach with businesses when more concrete development proposals are proposed. So more at the permit level when it's coming a little bit closer to Like that's when they do relocation assistance, but also in general, even if there's no sort of redevelopment, they provide services to businesses to be retained by Bellevue.

Got it. It sounds like a lot of these are kind of softer programs that are a little bit more to do with outreach. Then I guess from a more hard numbers perspective, do you have a rough estimate of what rent increases will typically look like from a transition of one of these older retail spaces into a newer one? What would we expect from a rental increase, basically, from a retail business going from an older development like this into a newer one, whether it's low-rise one or low-rise two?

I don't know. don't have like an answer to like sort of the rent differential. I think in sort of in general for redevelopment, that's also why Homa has that affordable commercial space incentive. Like I think in a general sense, like rents are higher in newer developments and that's why there is this incentive to sort of promote and provide for more affordable space in those newer developments.

Yeah, I agree. It would be helpful, I think, to have some of those examples, maybe even like what Lake Hills went through. I know it's a long time ago, but that was probably a prime example of what rental increases look like. But I think that would be helpful for decision making. But in lieu of that, I understand what you guys are saying. I'm going to do another round here. So Commissioner Kennedy, would you like to kick us off again?

Uh, sure. And I was trying to find that very helpful, uh, read out of the definition of significantly changed conditions that commissioner was able to read through. But do you have it that you, one of your slides that you could pull up on the screen?

So it's not like it's not, you just said in the slide, you had it on June 10th.

Um,

I have to I have to say I share Commissioner geppos concerns, I think I know that we talked through each of these requirements and our threshold review this particular item of significant change had a lot of conversation around it and. And as we now see additional detail, we have the SEPA review. We are able to really evaluate this post HOMA. I'm struggling with our ability to say that we meet significantly changed conditions under this materiality standard. due to the policy changes that we've made post a CPA that was just passed in the last slightly over a year. And so one of the things that I'm trying to re-read your notes and appreciated the conversation on is City Council Chambers, is just just exactly around Commissioner doubles questions of how are we thinking about a change to pertinent plan or map that rises to the level of such a change that is necessary for this zone to work as a comprehensive whole. and That that's the piece that i'm struggling with and I don't have a. Many, many questions that I wrote down, but I think i'm still just not. In why the current CPA is not allowing this to work as a comprehensive poll, can you can you remind me if we do not make this recommendation to counsel. What is the process to. have a uh change to the zoning in this area that would enable additional residential development absent this how long is that timeline i know there's a neighborhood review hey please do not cut in from the audience if you do that again i'm going to ask you to leave the meeting all right thank you coming up uh

but that's in the two years can you just remind me the process outside of this yeah i can i can address that um so there is a three-year limitation so once um once an applicant is submitted uh application to amend the comprehensive plan the land use designation and the comprehensive plan and it's gone through this formal process um whatever the planning commission's recommendation is whether it's tonight or at a future meeting um That will have to go on to City Council because it is part of our 2026 work program and then ultimately Council will take action on it and say Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation and decides that it does not need to say in the instance that Planning Commission says we feel like it doesn't meet the criteria and and and council council agrees with that um with that recommendation and takes action um there's a three year limitation so the applicant cannot come back for another three years and submit the same application there's also the other opportunity through the neighborhood area planning process We are going to be launching our next iteration of Great Neighborhoods next week, so on Tuesday. And we will be talking about the sequence of the next set of neighborhoods at that meeting. And so we are going to be requesting council direction. Bridal Trails is probably, what is it, like 3? 2829 is the staff recommendation, but we don't know what the council direction is going to be. So that is also a few years out.

And one thing to add about sort of under the current land use designation and zoning to build housing, the current land use designation, general commercial and the zoning that goes with that doesn't allow for residential. And there are sort of no, aside from a comprehensive plan amendment, there are no sort of rezoning applications that a developer could do to allow for residential there.

Very helpful. Just on that same point. When we're looking at the two options in front of us, the mixed use, the low rise one, the low rise two, what is the floor heights? Because it was interesting to me, saw a couple of different values reading through the materials. I know that the review for SEPA looked from three to 10 stories looking at the two designation. Can you give a story height?

Yeah, sure. So in the code, height is defined by feet, sort of not by the number of stories. So for the applicant's request, the MU8 land use district that goes with the land use designation that is applied for would translate into a maximum building height of 85 feet. And then for the two land use districts, community business and neighborhood business that are related to the staff's recommended land use designation, low-rise one mixed use, they are the maximum building height is no more than 60 feet. There are different options, but I just want to give you the upper range that might be easier for comparison.

in general commercial is one story or i think one or two stories but it's like low scale uh commercial buildings okay 12 12 feet 20 feet i i don't know the exact okay okay okay uh thank you all right commissioner nielsen

Yeah, thank you. I don't have any more questions, but to give a little bit of insight into where I'm at and my thoughts on this criteria three issue, particularly the language that is admittedly, it's strong language of functioning as an integrated whole. Yeah, I guess I would ask the inverse of Commissioner Gappel's question of what sort of change would actually meet that. It seems like very strong language that is very prohibitive, but given the breadth of the housing goals that we have in this city, I feel like this is in line with what the kinds of actions that we have to do in order to give effect to the comprehensive plan. So my support right now is for the staff recommendation proposal.

Commissioner Keppel.

Yeah. I am still, I'm still struggling with that significantly changed conditions language, because I, I feel like we have made, you know, we've made significant increases density throughout the city in different places. And so what happens on this one parcel, you know, relative to our housing goals, I don't think really rises to a level of having the comprehensive plan function as an integrated whole. I'm struggling to see that. I mean, and I feel constrained by this criteria and following this criteria. So I'm still having difficulties with seeing that as being, as being a significantly changed condition. So, um, I mean, I think this is a, um, there's, there's nothing I think particularly unique about this particular parcel, you know, relative to that broader objective of, um, of fulfilling the housing, um, you know, um, objectives for the city. So, um, so that's, that's where I'm at right now.

Commissioner Ferris.

Yeah, my viewpoint hasn't changed. And the reason I'm comfortable with the significant change criteria is it is because of the comprehensive plan. Pineview is a neighborhood center. It was not a neighborhood center before with all of the comprehensive plan vision for what these neighborhood centers should and could look like. So I'm comfortable with that. That's a significant change as far as I'm concerned. So I still say that I would be in support of the staff's recommendation on low-rise one.

Thank you. All right. I don't have any further questions either. So I would like to ask the commissioners if there is a motion to recommend the final review public hearing for Evans Plaza Comprehensive Plan amendment to the council.

Chair, I will make a motion that we forward a recommendation to council that we accept the staff's recommendation that we go with low-rise one for this parcel.

Is there a second for this motion? Second. All right. Is there any discussion on amendments to the motion or amendments to the motion? All right. Then in that case, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. And all opposed? Opposed.

Opposed.

And any abstain?

No.

All right. I didn't catch you. I said I, sorry. Okay. All right. Then the motion carries for the low-rise one, mixed-use staff recommendation. Thank you. All right. I think before starting our second public hearing, let's take a quick break. So let's meet back here. Should we?

Can I make a motion, Chair, that we extend the meeting until 10?

Do we have a second? Second. All right. Any opposed? No. All right. Great. Let's meet back here in five minutes at 8.50. We're back. So the next public hearing we have is the final review public hearing for the Transportation Conformance Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is proposing a city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate limited elements to ensure conformance between the comprehensive plan and specific transportation-related functional plans, reflecting recent updates to those plans. Can I get a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Can I get a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? No. Motion carries. Hearing is open. So we will start the public hearing on the 2026 Transportation Conformance Comprehensive Plan Amendment with a presentation from staff. After that, everyone who wishes to speak about the proposal will have an opportunity to do so. So we're welcoming back Tara Johnson, Planning Director, who will introduce the item, and Tune Dooling, Senior Planner, who will present. Thank you both.

Thank you. Good evening again. And one of the other comprehensive plan amendments that are part of our 2026 work program that we touched on as part of the previous public hearing is the transportation element conformance. comprehensive plan amendments. So minor amendments to the transportation element. This was initiated by city council and our city initiated actions or CPAs do not go go through the two-step process so they just advance straight to final review so this did not go through the threshold review process um so tonight we're requesting that the planning commission uh conduct a public hearing for the transportation element conformance cpa um following that um conducted discussion and then if the commission's prepared provide a recommendation to city council So, similar to the last hearing, we'll start off providing an overview of the comprehensive plan amendment process. We'll also briefly go over the final review criteria, which you should be very familiar with at this point. We'll talk about some of the staff-recommended amendments as well as what was recommended by the transportation commission uh we'll go over the public comment that we received and then conclude um with our request uh for planning commission's recommendation tonight so that i'll turn things over to turn

Right, thanks, sir. So this is a city-initiated amendment that is different from the item we just discussed, which was a privately-initiated amendment. City-initiated amendments initiated by city council go directly to the final review process. So this item was brought to Planning Commission for the first time as part of final review study session in early June, and today, of course, the public hearing. And council included this in the work plan, again, also at their March 10th meeting. So, yeah, as Tara mentioned, these are all, familiar. Now, if they weren't already, we discussed this at the study session item as well. So, just the five final review criteria that Planning Commission should keep in mind when making a recommendation to counsel on this CPA. As outlined in the staff report, staff has evaluated the proposal and concluded that it meets all the final review criteria and therefore recommends for approval In terms of the recommended amendments, I think it's really important. It's very limited in scope. It is what we call a conformance amendment and meant to ensure conformance between, on the one hand, the comprehensive plan, and on the other hand, two functional plans related to transportation, so the mobility implementation plan and the transportation facilities plan. Well, why are we making those updates? Concretely, the prior pedestrian and bicycle plan is now incorporated into the broader mobility implementation plan, so we no longer need to include references to that old plan that is no longer current, and to amend the plan to remove references in the narrative portion, as well as in one particular policy, Transportation Policy 96. And the last element is related to the Transportation Facilities Plan. There, the recommended amendment is to update a non-policy narrative reference to the prior 12-year time span for the Transportation Facilities Plan that has now been updated to 20 years, just making sure that everything is aligned. I think that sort of summarizes

the proposed amendment.

Transportation Commission reviewed these amendments as well, two meetings, March 12th, May 14th, and then made a recommendation to Planning Commission. In their review, Transportation Commission, because of sort of what their focus is, they focus on the transportation element then staff recommended some additional changes in other parts of the comp plan that are not the transportation element. So, just some additional changes that the Transportation Commission, for good reasons, didn't consider. And all the recommended changes are also outlined in a table that was included in the packet, and very minimal changes, both in number as in scope. In terms of noticing, yeah, there's a notice of application early on. There's a notice for every public hearing, probably reflective of the scope of the proposed amendment. No written comments have been received to date, so I can't report on any comment. And that brings us sort of to the final slide, and that is planning commission action, just sort of an outline of the different elements of tonight's public hearing. And that concludes the staff presentation.

Great. Thank you both. Can I get a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion carries. The hearing is open. So we, I think we just go to public speakers, right?

We have one person registered for comment.

Right.

And let me pull up the timer and I will. Right. Our one person who's signed up for comment is Alex Superman.

Thank you. Good. Yeah. My name, Alex Zimmerman, and transportation is a joke. It's a nightmare. And a couple days ago, the Transportation Committee, you know what it means, have a meeting open to public. Five people come and two idiots give two stupid questions about $100 million. They don't understand nothing. Probably only one man from another size of government, you know what it means, who understands what you're doing. For many years, like a 10th, 12th year, I'm talking so well, we do not have design what can accept so many guards. They don't listen to me. And when Mayor Robinson comes seven years ago, she's absolutely stupid, and she brings something what is a belly we don't have before, a pure fascism, and government together includes.

Okay, Mr. Zimmerman, I'm going to ask you to stop. No, please. No, no, you have veered off topic three times in addition to disturbing the meeting earlier. I'm going to respectfully ask you to leave this meeting.

No, no, this is exactly what you're doing because you are a Nazi stupid idiot. You don't give me a chance to speak. Mr. Zimmerman, please.

No, you speak about transportation. No, I've given you a chance. You don't speak about transportation. Give me a chance.

I explained to you what's going on.

Mr. Zimmerman.

No, it's have another hearing. I will go to wait for another hearing.

No, you've disturbed the peace enough. Please leave the meeting.

You are not only Nazi, you're a debil. One man to have different opinion, you don't want what he speak. Yes, you gestapo principle, Nazi hearing.

One man come for speak.

One for $100 million.

I can ask online and There are no other people in the room other than staff. Is there anybody online that would like to speak? I don't see any other speakers.

Great. So I think we've come to the end of the public comment. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nope. And I'll call on each commissioner as I give staff some time to actually make it up to the table. We'll start with Commissioner Farris.

Wasn't quite prepared. I actually do not have any questions and I support the staff's recommendation.

Great. Commissioner Keppel. I enthusiastically support staff's recommendation. Thank you. Commissioner Kennedy.

Thank you for all your work. All right.

Commissioner Neal-John. It's going to be very easy. Thank you. Yep. In that case, I don't have any additional comments either. Can I get a motion to recommend the 2026 Transparency Performance Comprehensive Plan Amendment? So move. Great. Is there a second?

I will second. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries as amended or as not amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last public hearing tonight is the public hearing. I thought we did that previous to this already. We had a motion earlier. Yes. It was.

Yeah, might as well.

Okay. Then we can just close it again. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion carries. Great. Our final public hearing is the transportation... Wait, I'm sorry. I didn't flip my page. The final public hearing is the Parking Reform Land Use Code Amendment, which primarily implements the requirements of SB 5184, SB 6015, and HB 1491. While additional parking reforms have been adopted by other jurisdictions, the proposal is limited to state-required changes to allow time to evaluate the implementation outcomes before considering future local amendments. The LUCA also reorganizes and clarifies parking regulations to improve usability, consistency, and compliance with state law. The proposed amendments include technical code consolidation, standardized ratios, and updates to ensure that compliance with state law, including parking exemptions. Can I get a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Hearing is open. And we will start the parking reform land use code amendment with a presentation from staff. After that, everyone who wishes to speak about the proposal will have an opportunity to do so. Christina, welcome and looking forward to it.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Luke, Council Member Bhargava and Commissioners. We're here tonight to present and request a public hearing and recommendation on the parking reform LUCA. This full draft was first presented during a study session on June 24th. So as noted, our main purpose with this amendment is to achieve consistency with three recent pieces of legislation regarding parking. But it also provides us with an opportunity to consolidate and streamline our scattered provisions related to parking in the code. So the specific direction we're seeking this evening is to hold a public hearing on the proposed LUCA. Following the hearing, the Commission may make a recommendation on the LUCA to the City Council. So we got a lighter presentation, starting with a quick recap of the LUCA objectives and components, and then a bit more detail on two specific follow up topics from our study session, closing with our schedule for the project. So high level objectives, this project helps fulfill, it does fulfill our parking related statutory requirements under SB 5184, 6015 and HP 1491. The LUCA also consolidates parking requirements across the land use code into one section and improves clarity and ease of use in several areas. so at a high level we can summarize the major changes in the LUCA into four general areas and with this tonight I'm focusing more on the changes there are a lot of other regulations related to parking that are in the code that we're retaining that I won't be getting into detail on so generally we have location-based parking exemptions use-based parking exemptions and limits up some changes to parking development standards and some code consolidation updates. So first are the location based exemptions. So under state law, we can no longer require parking for residential or mixed use development in station areas specifically within half mile walking distance of a light rail station or within a quarter mile walking distance of a rapid ride station. So the map shows those approximate walk sheds as they stand today. So this does not yet include the Rapid Ride K line, but that would become available to be a station area in the future. Next category here are our use based parking exemptions. So in addition to those location exemptions, the city cannot require minimum parking for the following set of uses. So residential units smaller than 1200 square feet. small commercial spaces, more than 3,000 square feet, affordable housing, senior housing, childcare centers, ground floor commercial uses in mixed use buildings, non-residential to residential conversions, or changes of use between commercial uses. So those use changes have been incorporated in the proposal. In cases where we can require parking, once we've gotten through those tiers of exemptions, there are some new limits to how much parking can be required that have been incorporated in the proposal. So for residential uses, the updated minimum parking standard is a half a space per unit. And for single family housing, it's one space per unit. For commercial uses, it's two spaces per thousand square feet. This is one area where you see a lot of change in the code. Under our current code, we differentiate between a lot of different subtypes of uses within these categories with some small differences between them. They're generally all above these minimums, so we've collapsed those standards that are higher and cannot stay higher. into these broader categories. Other existing standards that are lower or not subject to these legal changes have been retained. For example, for any non-specified use, we have a process where those uses submit a parking study to determine their parking needs. That comes up with churches, schools, that kind of thing. Okay. And then the last piece on use-based parking. So we currently require visitor parking in some limited instances. Under the bill, this is an exception that we can still continue to require visitor parking. So we maintained the existing visitor parking requirement that we currently have in downtown and East Main. That requires a minimum of one space for every 20 units with the ability to submit a parking study to change that. And we've expanded it citywide to be applicable to any multifamily project with at least seven units. So just not middle housing to help kind of strike the balance there. And then some other changes to parking development standards that we've implemented. We had to adopt a reduced minimum parking space dimension of 8 by 20 for standard spaces. We've got some changes simplifying our loading and drive-out requirements, adding a provision enabling tandem parking to be used for required parking. some changes to alternative surface material allowances, and some limited pathways to allow nonconforming gravel spaces to remain. The final portion is code consolidation. So today we have, there's almost a parking section and every kind of sub area specific section in the code. The staff went through, kind of reviewed all of those components. There's a lot of duplication. Now everything has been, to the extent it's feasible and makes sense, has been consolidated into one parking section. And this does include some citywide bicycle parking standards for the first time. Previously, those were all only in kind of our sub area specific standards. So bicycle parking is now included here as well. So really fast overview of what's in the draft now wanted to spend some time on a couple of topics that came up last session, and so we had some more discussion on shared parking wanted to start with a summary of how shared parking is treated in the code currently so. The default for a mixed use project in calculating the parking need is that you calculate the parking need for each individual use space, add those up to get at a total. But we have a couple of nuances in how that can be adjusted. So if you have a case where those uses do not overlap hours of operation, the parking can instead be determined by the greater of the individual uses parking needs. When the hours overlap, projects can seek a reduction of up to 20% of the total requirement with a parking demand analysis. And for what that shared parking looks like, the code provides for Shared parking that can be onsite within a project for uses within a project sharing parking. It can provide for offsite shared parking or a combination of the two. So there's some different options within the code now. The staff kind of looked back at this a little further to think about are there more incentives or additional incentives that might be helpful to encourage increased use of shared parking? General consensus internally was that this approach has been working really well with those higher parking ratios and kind of not causing friction, that it's also pretty practical to apply. We do anticipate as a lot of these parking ratios come down, that 20% benefit will be, you know, even more meaningful. So keeping that there. Um, again, kind of a similar thought, uh, the staff recommendation is take a wait and see approach, um, keep using the system as it stands now, um, and, and kind of keep an eye out. Uh, the next topic where we have a bit more of a change proposed, um, we had some discussion, a lot of concerns about the, the minimum widths of the parking spaces, which staff do share. And in the commission meeting, there was a comment about, well, you know, could we look at approving the spaces and then allow them to be repainted, which we couldn't do, but we could do an incentive kind of like that. So in the draft to help encourage more functional parking. We've updated to provide an incentive for projects to reduce their total parking requirement when all parking spaces are at least nine feet wide, which is the most common requirement currently in Bellevue's code. For small sites, we've proposed increasing that to 15%. So that's in the draft. However, kind of late breaking news. So, of course, that was... a pretty quick revision after the last study session. In further discussion and kind of looking at the numbers, staff are noting that that 10% reduction might not provide a really substantial offset when all parking spaces have to be nine feet wide. So if you're just looking at the total width of the required spaces to offset that change, you'd want to look at maybe at least a 12% reduction. But there's two options that we're looking at to kind of tweak that depending on what the commission would like to prioritize. And on the next slide, I'll show an example. So generally, I'd say there's a path where we could increase the reduction if we really want to prioritize wider spaces and kind of keeping all of the spaces wider. Or if we'd rather prioritize total parking, knowing that the ratios have decreased, allowing some a mixture of smaller spaces as well could help balance that out. So just a couple hypotheticals here. If you could think of here, we're thinking of a project where the default would be 100 parking spaces. So for context under the changed rules, this could be, uh, an apartment building with, uh, 200 units that are 1200 square feet or larger, or, um, a retail space of 50,000 square feet, which is roughly like a large grocery store, a newer QFC, that kind of thing. Um, so the default would be a hundred spaces. If we require all of those to be wider, even at 90 spaces, it's still gonna be technically a little wider in terms of total width. bump that to 12%, then you start to get about roughly equal area or smaller. But if we start to allow, say, 75% of the spaces to be wider and 25% have to stay the same, then you can kind of keep that 10% reduction where it is. So just something we wanted to offer up tonight to say, you know, do we want to prioritize total parking? Do we want to prioritize getting more wider spaces? And then our schedule, we are, of course, now coming towards the end of our planning commission review, following the recommendation, moving on to city council review and action with the goal of action before the January 27, 2027 deadline. So a recap of the decision criteria here. First, that the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The amendment enhances the public health, safety, or welfare. And finally, that the amendment is not contrary to the best interest of the citizens and property owners of the City of Bellevue. Thank you. Again, our direction of the public hearing. Following the hearing, Commission may make a recommendation on the LUCA to the City Council.

Great, thank you for the presentation. Now we'll turn to public testimony. Do we have anyone signed up?

Yes, yes, we do.

Okay, great. Let's get a kickoff.

All right, Nava Carlisle.

Can't believe we're all still alive. So my name is Nava. I'm the intern at the Bellevue Chamber. I'm in college and I want to go into government affairs. So I think you guys are all awesome. So I'm happy to be here. Thank you for the work you've done compared to our strike draft on January. I'm going to get right into what we still want to see moving forward. In the interest of time. So first, rather than eliminating the visitor parking requirement for residential developments in downtown and East Main, as we requested, the strike draft today proposes to require visitor parking citywide and adds a new requirement to prepare a visitor parking management plan. This requirement is unique to Bellevue. Other cities consider visitor parking to be part of the residential one. This adds significant unnecessary costs to housing development, roughly half a million dollars per 100 apartments. We believe it runs contrary to the Bellevue Comprehensive Plan's goal of reducing parking in transit-oriented development and actually conflicts with state law because it requires more than 0.5 stalls per residential unit and requires residential parking within a half mile of frequent transit. Please ask staff to remove the minimum visitor parking requirement by deleting that section from the LUCA. Second, the strike draft still requires minimum parking in Bellevue's growth centers and frequent transit areas. Please eliminate minimum parking in these areas. Third, the departure pathway for minimum parkings is currently tied to design review, but there are many cases where projects not subject to design review would benefit from the ability to obtain a parking departure. Please consider a standalone administrative, Departure process instead. We thank the commission for their dedicated work and are glad to see some things in the current draft, including the shift to a single citywide commercial parking standard. We appreciate that. And we want to say thank you for the retirement of outdated ratios like the 14 to 16 stall for parking requirements in restaurants. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there anybody online who would like to speak? Do not see any hands chair.

I guess we've come to the end of the public hearing or public comments. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Public hearing is now closed. I will now call on each commissioner sequentially. Commissioner Ferris.

Do it to me again. I have three points. I'm happy to go through all three or I can pause. You just let me know. So my first comment and towards the beginning of the conversation, Christina, you were talking about limiting parking, of course, within the high transit areas. But I get concerned because we've seen this before where we have a designated bus route that suddenly gets cut because of you know, diminished funding or whatever. And now suddenly we don't have enough parking in an area that does not have bus service. So is there a coordination within the city and the Metro, et cetera, to make sure that we're all aligned?

Sure. So to clarify, the location-based transit exemptions only apply to light rail and bus rapid transit. So yeah, previous projects, we've had some provisions that look at bus service. That was one of the areas council asked us to look into. And we felt there's enough kind of concern about the changes and kind of tension about changes, let's start with these, because these transit modes are, light rail definitely not going anywhere, BRT much more certain than standard bus service. But even in that event, it is still the, regardless of what we're showing on maps right now, the determination has to be made when the application comes in that that transit service is available. So if it does go away, before a project comes in, at least there's that correction. Yeah.

Okay, so it seems like at least you're aware of the issue, which I'm that makes me feel better. And then quick question, we talked about when you want to implement these policies, and then we're gonna do a reevaluation. What's the timeline for the reevaluation?

We, I mean, we don't have a specific set one, you know, we're always evaluating, you know, we anticipate once this code is adopted, it's still going to be a few years before we start to see projects, of course, coming in. There is a natural point when we do the rest of the work implementing House Bill 1491. That code has to be updated by the end of 2029. So that will have a natural point to kind of look at potential early impacts that we're seeing with some of these changes. But yeah.

Okay, so likely about three years. Yeah. Okay, that's great. That's great. Lastly, quick, I'm just going to mention, I do support when you're talking about the width of the parking spaces versus the quantity. I would personally support a mix of them. Kind of your third option where we're incentivizing a few of those spaces to be wider, but allow smaller parking spaces just to get the amount of parking that we need. So, and that's all I have.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner Kennedy.

Thank you for the presentation and all of your work on parking reform. I think this is a riveting topic despite the empty chairs in the room this evening and um appreciate appreciate all the time uh i think um when one question that i had is uh you know uh the the visiting park parking piece this does seem like one of the areas where it's a departure i can see why you called it out in the slides just wanted to get just a little bit additional detail on your thoughts there um what um I experienced last week going to downtown Kirkland where they have this amazing celebration right by the water. It was so nice. And parking was quite limited. And they have a city parking lot that is at like a – I don't know my grades. But it was enough that I thought my truck was going to fall off of the – And there were five slots in there, and they were there. But I was terrified, and I backed all the way back down and decided it wasn't worth parking. And so when we think about, you know, I think ensuring that there's visitor parking so that when you have events, people can go, but making sure that we have, you know, these – I like the idea in the larger spaces, but we need more of them. So I just wanted to get a little bit more thoughts on the visitor parking – How does this maybe conflict with the idea of the larger spots? Because then you end up with fewer of them and we're trying to get a little bit more of them in these spaces. Can you just...

How did you balance this? I do want to clarify first. The visitor parking standard here only applies to new residential projects. So this would be visitor parking to serve people visiting, people living in those apartments. Not, you know, just general visitors to an area.

That's helpful because I started thinking about East Main and just the...

Yeah, yeah. And it was a provision we've maintained downtown because, you know, people express a lot of challenges with, you know, when we have because we have a lack of on street parking in a lot of areas and really wanting to have those visitor spaces. So, yeah. So that's been an area where, you know, we have gotten some developer pushback over the years, but we have also gotten a lot of comments from people saying, you know, this is something I like to see to have some of that certainty.

And it is an area where the legislation enables the city of Bellevue to have some discretion to. in increasing...

Correct. This is one area where the legislation does give us some latitude to still require parking for loading, time-restricted parking, that sort of thing. So this is allowed.

So the restrictions on mixed-use buildings not being...

able to have minimum parking standards um yeah where you may have a lot of residential uh needing visitors that doesn't conflict with this yeah that speaking to um the requirement applicable to you know just those standard uh spaces for residents driven by units the legislation does have their the exemptions are pretty limited um but one of them is um does provide us that latitude yeah

Okay, thank you. So transitioning into your question regarding alternative one and alternative two or the prior iteration, I don't know if we could bring that back up, but I was curious your opinion. That's a good question. You don't have to have one. I also found alternative to compelling given this chart and was glad to hear there had been some thought put into, oh, you know what? This 10% thing actually creates an increase.

So my personal professional opinion, I also, I think what's nice about alternative to is that you know, we're fitting spaces into real space and buildings and having the flexibility to, you know, have some of those faces fudge a bit so they fit. Um, it's, it's, it's anytime we have to do a hundred percent of something, you know, we want to be really certain it's going to work. And, um, I, I think of this as having a bit of a margin of error that can be helpful. Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, well, I, I agree with you. I, I, I gravitated and, and, uh, commissioner Ferris, I gravitated toward an alternative to there as well.

Thank you. Commissioner Nielsen.

Yeah, thank you. I don't have any questions. My only question was on the legality of the visitor spaces, and you answered that. So thank you. The comment I had is I also agree that the alternative to with some not quite as wide spaces in some nine-foot spaces sounds like the best option to me, so I would support that. And I guess to clarify then, My understanding is that the current draft doesn't have that, so we would be amending it to include that then.

Yes, thanks for clarifying. Right now, the draft has that draft incentive column here. So it's just a 10% reduction, 15% for small sites, which we could, of course, keep that 15% for small sites. It just requires all spaces to be wider.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Commissioner Kippel.

I'm for alternative to to on with and the other thing I wanted to go back to was one of the other areas that came up the June meeting, which is the shared parking area, because I'm an enthusiast for shared parking. And I just I have some concerns about whether the allowances that are made are really incentivizing activity. Can you help me on that? Because especially if we're shrinking the amount of required parking overall, is this really an incentive and is it sufficiently robust in order to get people to really look at shared parking opportunities? I'm just skeptical about it. And I don't know, maybe the facts prove me wrong in relation to that.

Yeah, well, it's a good clarification because I guess... I think we were sort of thinking about shared parking differently. I mean, I think it all depends on what how we're defining shared parking, what that looks like. Is it just between, you know, are we trying to encourage them? Cause it sounds like, are you trying to encourage potentially more spaces than required or.

I guess I'm just wondering if there's, if there are other means, um, other than giving people, um, you know, credit, for example, for required spaces or, you know, 20% reduction, because to the extent we've we've substantially reduced the the parking requirements overall, my guess is a lot of builders are going to go above and beyond what is the minimum requirement, in which case are we really creating an incentive for people to do shared parking? I'm concerned about that and whether there's other levers that could be utilized to really promote that.

Yeah. And are you thinking more in terms of, say, shared parking if one existing building has excess parking that another new development could leverage? Or what would the ideal outcome for the type of shared parking you're looking for be?

Yeah, I don't know whether it's, and maybe this is a bridge too far for us even to think about, but are there other, you know, Are there other development incentives that people could have in order to support that? I mean, could they, just to throw one out there, could there be some far adjustment? Could there be something else that, you know, that could be meaningful, you know, for purposes of people to actually enter into shared parking arrangements that actually benefit residents and businesses?

Yeah.

Maybe that's too much for this, Luca. Yeah.

Yeah, I would say that's my thought. Because you're right. Like if we're starting to get into what incentive would be really meaningful, I would say it would be things like FAR incentives would be things that are attractive. But yeah, bigger than the scope of what we have in this project. Though the 1491 implementation, the TOD bill, I think that would be a really good opportunity for us to kind of think about that as one of the... options we could consider.

I'd like to see that brought up then when this is refreshed. I mean, Commissioner Ferris asked about when this would be re-looked at in a couple of years, but I think in a couple of years when we're looking at a bigger overhaul, I'd really love to see some more meaningful incentives for shared parking to try and utilize that infrastructure in a way that's going to be impactful for residents and businesses. That's my only other thing.

Great. Thank you. I'll be quick. I'm also a fan of Alternative 2, and I do like the wait-and-see approach for the rest of the LUCA. I'm going to go around for another round. Commissioner Ferris.

Nothing more from me. Thank you. I support the recommendation with Alternative 2.

Great. Commissioner Kennedy.

No further comments.

Commissioner Neal-Chan.

I ALSO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE 2 AND THE WAIT AND SEE APPROACH FOR THE SHARED PARKING, BUT I DO LIKE YOUR IDEAS ON THE SHARED PARKING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

COMMISSIONER GUEPPEL.

NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

GREAT. THEN CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE PARKING REFORM LUCA TO THE COUNCIL WITH ALTERNATIVE 2? SO MOVED.

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. Any opposed? No. I think we're good. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Looks like we don't have any minutes to approve.

Can I make a motion that we adjourn our meeting?

Is there a second? Second. Great. Any opposed? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. Thanks. That's a record.