Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome back from the Commission's August recess and welcome to the September 9th 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, September 9th, will be summarized into the record. We have one study session on the agenda tonight. It's the bell red land use code amendments and staff will be asking commission to set a public hearing. Now let's move forward with roll call. Commissioner Kennedy has already let me know that she is not able to attend this meeting. So Commissioner Ferris.

I am here.

Commissioner Geppel. Here. Commissioner Nielshian. Here. Commissioner Conloo.

Here.

Vice Chair Villavesis. Here. Maybe you can try that one.

I'm here.

Okay. Council Member Bhargava.

Here.

All right. And I'm Chair Liu. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Second. Great. All approved of the agenda, say aye. Aye. Aye. Council Member Bhargava, do you have any reports to us from City Council?

Yeah, I can give you a quick update. Quick update is first of all, we had the month of August off, thankfully. So we were all able to do other things for a little while. Yesterday was back at council. So there was just a couple of quick updates. One, the development agreement for bridge housing was pushed forward unanimously, which is great. So more affordable housing and Great opportunity for Bell Red. So that's great work across the board. And the second thing was there was a review or study session on the work. So thank you for representing the great work of this commission and the staff yesterday on the parking reform, Luca. And so there was feedback with general broad support for the work, the commission, the great work this commission has done on that very thoughtful and difficult and complicated piece, including all the state requirements that have come down. And there were some questions around places where more work or some options would be... would be appreciated to be looked at in the October timeframe. Some of those are including, you know, possibilities for reduced parking requirements in the, not just the quarter mile, but the half mile walk shared from frequent transit and BRT. visitor parking opportunities to see if there are things we should do differently. Seniors housing exceptions for visitor parking requirements. And I'm probably missing one or two things here, but that was generally there was broad support. So that's kind of a quick update.

Great. Are there any questions for Council Member Bhargava? Great. Kate, are there any reports from boards and commissions?

Nope.

All right. So the Planning Commission meeting schedule, Kate, could you help provide us with updates to the meeting schedule for 2026?

Sure. You will notice from your July calendar that even this meeting got a little bit moved around and both of the public hearings for the Eastgate and Factoria neighborhood area plans are on the 23rd instead of one tonight and one that day. The other notable thing is that the commission retreat has been scheduled and we have a location and a date. So November 4th, we'll be at Robbins Woodhouse and we are working on the agenda for that meeting.

Great.

Quick question.

Yeah, go ahead.

Quick question. I thought tonight we were also going to be talking about the Bellevue College rezoning, but that's not on tonight's agenda. Yeah.

It was a staff report. Okay, so it will come back to this body as I think the chair is going to talk about in just a moment.

Yeah, it's next on the agenda will be a staff report on the initiation of W college land use code. But before that, any other questions for Kate on schedule. Great. So next up, your packet also includes a staff report on the initiation of the Bellevue College Land Use Code Amendment by Council. This report provides background on the LUCA. Planning Commission is scheduled to hear more about this topic next year, and the staff team is currently engaging with the community as they develop draft code languages to bring to Planning Commission. Was that in the digital agenda? Not fiscal, right?

Or...

This says...

packet yes the yes the packet that uh is on logistic okay yeah yeah great um with that let's move on to oral and written communications kate could you provide a summary of written communications we received sure i um forwarded all of the communications that i received uh this morning um and there have been no subsequent communications since then so you have what i have

So on to oral communications. We have a total of 30 minutes for oral communications. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. And I'll just note we have, I think, 16 or 17 total speakers. I'm inclined to allow for the full set of speakers to speak just given we have one agenda topic, but maybe just a quick round of head nods to see if everyone's okay with that. All right. And we can make a motion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, to do that once I get to the end of this part. So staff liaison cadence, you 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. Please use the raise hand function in Zoom if you're attending virtually or raise your hand if you're in person to indicate that you would like to speak. There are rules adopted by the City Council limiting the topics about which the public may speak about 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 duties of the Planning Commission. Additional information about the rules of decorum governing conduct of the public hearing during our meetings can be found at Ordinance 6752. I guess we can motion to extend once we get closer to it. So the end, right? Or should we just motion to extend?

Actually, Chair, why don't I just make a motion that we extend our public comment period to allow all the speakers to give us some testimony?

Do we need to set a specific time?

You're allowed to extend up to 15 minutes.

Okay.

And so moved. 15 minutes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any opposed? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Great. Kate, can you please call our first speaker?

For our first speaker is Valentina Veneva, who said she is in person and that will be followed by Rebecca bloom.

nope. Hello, commissioners. My name is Valentina, and I'd like to talk to you about Spring Boulevard. Two weeks ago, at the community meeting about the new park in Ballarat, I was surprised to learn that the unfunded Spring Boulevard segment between 124th and 137th Avenues NE is supposed to go not around the park, but right through it. When asked what was the motivation behind that thinking, the only answer the project manager could give was that it was like that in the Ballarat-Siberia plan. And it is there in the plan, which was adopted in 2009. And maybe then it made more sense. In 2009, the first segment of one line just opened, and it only operated between Taquilla and Westlake. The future of two lines was very uncertain. Our single frequent bus line, B-Line, opened only in 2011. 2009 was also years before e-bikes and scooters became popular, and at least a decade before current widespread adoption. Lime was founded only in 2017. So it made sense to plan for what was the only reliable way for people to move around the city in 2009, especially since the city didn't even seriously study traffic safety back then, and Vision Zero would be founded only in 2020. It was also before UW researchers published a study in 2020 that chemicals from tire particles kill fish in local streams. Here I would like to remind you that that proposed road would go over a wetland and a dilated stream. It is the end of 2026 now. We have made so much progress, and our city is so different from what it was 17 years ago. We know so much more about traffic safety, environment, and even our residents' preferences. Surrey Downs residents made sure that their rebuilt park had only one access point for cars left and not via a through road. They also reduced the amount of parking there to maximize green space and amenities. Wilburton residents successfully advocated for code changes to prevent any future extensions of a road through Wilburton Hill Park. And recently I learned that downtown park expansion included the removal of a section of a road. So just because Belgrade residents have not moved in yet doesn't mean they will be different. Nobody wants an arterial road with its true traffic, pollution, noise and speeding right under windows and taking 20% of their not very big park. A multi-use path through the park is enough and will make it possible to use this green space to its full extent. Belgrade Park is being designed right now. So please make sure it is designed not for the past, but at least for the present. And please change the code. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Rebecca Bloom, followed by Matt Rowe, who is virtual.

I have a visual to pass out if that's OK. Thank you. Thanks. Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Rebecca Bloom and I'm Chief Investment Officer for Columbia Pacific Advisors and we have an active project in the City of Bellevue review pipeline now. A nine acre master plan development that includes over 1.2 million square feet of plan development mainly residential, with over 1,100 units and more than 47,000 square feet of retail and commercial office. Our project includes substantial upfront infrastructure work to prepare the site for development, including the grading of steep slopes, the provision for a brand new green street, widening of sidewalks throughout the site, provisions for new bike facilities that run the perimeter of the site, a dedicated pedestrian laneway, construction of new turn lanes on abutting city streets, public plazas, amenity areas adjacent to light rail, and the potential restoration of a portion of Gough Creek, something that has never yet been done in the city of Bellevue and is considerably expensive to accomplish. The Bell Red area also has a very high water table and no centralized stormwater management system which adds additional cost to every single below-grade parking stall that is to be built as part of any new development. I mention all this to you tonight because these are all project attributes that we want to deliver and that the city wants to see delivered, but the reality is that each one costs significant dollars to achieve. And these costs are on top of an already prohibitively expensive energy code the state's highest sales tax that applies to all hard construction costs, and mandatory affordable housing. Energy efficiency, affordable housing, public amenities, these are all sound priorities worthy of our time and investment. But every project cannot be burdened with the requirement to solve every issue. Otherwise, it becomes death by a thousand cuts, and development will not be feasible and may not occur. In the absence of cost relief, extraordinary amenities will not be delivered. I've been in front of this Planning Commission several times over the last four years talking about our project, mainly relating to our desire to restore and daylight a portion of Gough Creek as part of the development. One of the reasons that we have been such active participants in this process is because we would like to develop the project that fits into the new land use code and delivers on the City's vision. Working together with the City, we've made lots of great progress. I'm not simply coming to the commission tonight with problems, but with potential solutions. So in front of you, you have just a visual. Our site happens to be adjacent to four other property owners who are looking to deliver extraordinary projects that go above and beyond code requirements. We've conceived of Bell Red Arts with a Z, Arts Retail Transit Zone, five properties clustered around the light rail. We together share a vision to champion the Bell Red Arts District. We've had some initial communications with you and city staff, sensible offsets that cost offsets that achieve the city's goals. We hope to meet with each of you in the coming weeks to talk about how we can do this together and bring the vision to life. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Matt Rowe and I see your hand. I will allow you to speak. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Yep, go ahead.

Great. Good evening, Chair Liu and Commissioners. I'm Matt Rowe. I'm an architect and development planner, and I've studied and tested the proposed LUCA standards on dozens of properties in Bell Red, and in no case was the location of the network street grid practical or feasible because it ignores existing buildings, it ignores property lines, access easements, steep grades, and does not consider if the remaining sites are big enough to build on. Many of the sites in Bell Red are landlocked, yet they're required to build streets to nowhere as they do not connect to arterials. It takes two to 12 separate properties to be redeveloped to build a complete street segment, which could take generations. For example, Fire Station 6 would have to be relocated to complete a green street in that area. It's currently not on the CIP list. Please understand all properties will build internal streets and access corridors for their own circulation needs, and they will meet the 1200 foot perimeter block limit rule. The imposed street grid only adds more risks and complications to the feasibility of our project. It should only be a guideline. I can assure you that more organic site-responsive approaches than this grid will meet the policy intent, and I'm happy to provide examples offline if you'd like to see those. I understand that staff have offered an off-rack options to the strict grid, but in all of my studies, we would need permission of the director to deviate from the strict grid causing approval delays. That's not how a new code should work if the city is in a housing crisis today. I strongly recommend eliminating the grid. Now, short of that, consider these compromises. Map and study the steep slopes that are greater than 15% and eliminate road segments where it's infeasible and impractical. And on landlocked sites, reduce the requirement to just provide the space as a setback for a road, not the complete street build out. allowed shared use pass as substitutes for green streets where vehicle access is infeasible. And if you're bonusing street construction, which is in the new draft, the proposed six to eight points per lineal foot is not enough. It should be six to eight points per square foot of street built. Beyond the grid, I also support what others are going to say tonight. Allow development agreements for sites smaller than four acres. Imagine housing is just 2.4 acres and wants to do a two-phase project. That's the perfect example. Also, credit the cost of new street streams against the mandatory housing fee and adopt a six-year catalyst program for residential projects to kickstart housing production. Thanks for your consideration of these comments and good night.

Thank you.

next we have uh patrick hanks followed by megan webb i brought copies of this morning

Thank you, Chair Lueb and Commissioners. My name is Patrick Hanks and I'm here on behalf of the Bellevue Chambers Plush Committee. We want to thank the commission and staff for working with us on this. A lot of progress is being made. We all want Belle Red to be a thriving part of the city that supports new development and importantly, new housing that benefits from having two light rail stations. With that goal in mind, we provided targeted feedback and suggestions that would help make the code ready day one. Unfortunately, economic conditions are extremely tight and unlikely to improve in the near future. This means that for projects to be feasible under the current code, rents would need to increase drastically. This is not something we want to happen. We recognize and appreciate that the current draft of LUCA is making significant progress. To help build on that progress, we have provided several suggestions to reduce unnecessary costs and help incentivize development immediately. There are two items that I want to highlight tonight. Street requirements are one of the largest cost drivers under the code. Moving away from prescriptive street grid and expanding exemptions for steep slopes is critical to improve feasibility. Requiring streets to be built where they physically cannot or don't integrate with other streets don't make sense and add costs without worthwhile benefit for residents. Development agreements are a crucial release valve for challenging sites. The LUCA is making improvements to DAs. We suggest expanding the types of sites that qualify for DAs, which will help them meet the intent of the code while finding compromises for areas that would inhibit projects from moving forward. We support the city's vision for Bell Red and want to help bring that vision to life. Market conditions are making that harder, but we shouldn't assume things will magically improve. We have to create those improved conditions ourselves. With these suggestions, we have a bell-read, Luca, where projects pencil out on day one. We look forward to keep working with the city on this effort. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Megan Webb, followed by Leila Kademi.

Hello, I'm Megan Webb, and I'm with King County's Department of Natural Resources and Parks. I want to thank you, Chair Liu, and Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak tonight. Bella Red's draft amendments articulate a vision for a neighborhood that attracts growth, remains affordable, and supports a healthy community. To help achieve this, the city is considering several incentives in its amenity system. King County encourages the Planning Commission to prioritize Transfer Development Rights, or TDR, because it delivers multiple benefits for Bellevue and its residents. TDR is a market-based tool the County has used for over 25 years. Through voluntary transactions, we remove development potential from areas with high conservation value, forests, farms, and open space, protecting places where growth shouldn't occur. Developers and partner cities can buy these TDRs to gain additional density in areas where growth is planned, like Bell Red. Revenue from these sales allows the county to conserve more land that matters to city residents, places to recreate, farms that produce local food, and open spaces that reduce flood risk. The result is growth where we want it and conservation where it benefits everyone. Bellevue's planning documents already supports the use of TDR. Sub-area plan policy SBR50 calls for considering Bell Red for renewed TDR use. Citywide policies LU6 and LU39 support incentive systems that create public benefits and align with countywide planning policies. Under a new partnership, Bellevue would prioritize use of TDR in Belle Red, award amenity points for buying TDRs. In return, the county would pursue a conservation futures grant on the city's behalf to help acquire open space in Belle Red, effectively a match-free grant of up to a million dollars. The county would also return 25% of Belle Red TDR revenue to the city for flexible investments, such as affordable housing, parks, streetscapes, transit, and other infrastructure that supports growth. Over time, this could amount to several million dollars. King County appreciates that Bellevue is considering many options for its amenity system. TDR is the only incentive that directly pays the city to advance other priorities in Belle Red. We ask the Planning Commission to provide direction that meaningfully prioritizes TDR, helping achieve multiple goals and overall vision for the Bell Red neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Leila Khademi, followed by Morgan Shook, who is virtual.

Hey. good evening chair liu and commissioners my name is leila kademi i'm a land use attorney at hillis clark martin peterson providing comment tonight on the proposed bell red luca we appreciate the city's continued work on the bell red luca and in particular the proposal to use development agreements as a tool to provide flexibility for complex sites we strongly support the inclusion of this option but we have a few revisions to suggest First, we encourage the commission to broaden eligibility for development agreements. As currently drafted, development agreements are only available to sites that are both larger than four acres and subject to the street grid. We believe this option should be available when either of those circumstances exist. Large sites present unique opportunities for master planning that can provide significant public benefits and help implement the city's long-term vision for Bell Red. At the same time, the street grid can create substantial burdens on properties of any size by reducing developable area, increasing costs, and complicating site design. Development agreements are a useful tool for addressing either of these situations. Importantly, development agreements are not an administrative shortcut. They require iterative negotiations between the applicant and the city, approval by city council, and a highly discretionary public process. As a result, we do not expect them to be widely used. Rather, they serve as an important backup option for uniquely challenging sites where the standard code framework may not provide sufficient flexibility. We encourage the commission to consider additional flexibility to the public benefits provided when projects seek modifications to development standards. The current requirement to provide three of five prescribed benefits may not be proportionate in all circumstances. A more tailored approach would allow the city to secure meaningful public benefits that are realistic and appropriately scaled to the size, context, and constraints of an individual project. rather than requiring the same set of benefits in every case. We also suggest removal of the provision stating that transportation impact fees cannot be modified through a development agreement. If the purpose of a development agreement is to recognize and address the burden imposed by public street requirements, then all relevant factors should be available for consideration as part of a negotiated site specific solution. And as a reminder, our primary request remains removal of the street grid entirely. However, if the Commission elects to retain the grid, development agreements will be an essential tool to mitigate the site-specific impacts and costs associated with providing that public infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Morgan Shook who is online. Morgan, can you hear me?

I can. Can you hear me?

Yep, go ahead.

Great. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Morgan Shuck. I'm an economist with ECHO Northwest, and I'm here on behalf of the Bellevue Chamber of Pledge Committee. The vision for the corridor is the right one, and I think the draft fixes some real problems that the 2009 code had, but I think that vision doesn't build anything on its own. The code operationalized it. In two ways, it sets forth what gets built and it also sets the cost of building it. And I think this draft gets that form largely right, but the cost side still needs work before adoption because that's what turned that vision of buildings into reality. Over the summer, we were asked to perform an independent analysis of the draft code and we shared our results with staff and this commission. I want to highlight three things. First, market conditions in Bell Red face that the Bell Red area face are outside the city's control and they do not currently favor development. And to put it plainly, almost nothing is really penciling right now. Construction costs, interest rates, rents have all moved in the wrong direction and no code can change that. But the code can be calibrated to conditions that we can actually foresee. We know enough about those costs. We know how hard it will be for rents and prices to rise far enough to cover those costs. And to say that this is a short-term dip is probably not correct. The code you adopt now governs development through this next cycle and likely at least the next decade and a half. It should be written for the market we can reasonably expect over that horizon and not the market we wish we had. And second, Bell Red Wright has fallen short because of this oversight from the 2009 code, right? 17 years in the corridor is still well behind at housing and commercial space and the walkable urban neighborhoods that the plan wanted to take shape is only really materialized in a few key areas. Where development did happen, it happened primarily on negotiated terms that sort of fit the marketplace and everywhere else like the standard code has fallen a little short of those expectations. And most importantly here, I think lastly, there are targeted changes that our analysis show could close that meaningful gap and to help projects move forward. The three things that matter most are things that folks have already raised, making sure that we try to calibrate on those street and stream obligations, figuring out ways to adopt day one offset tools to get development moving. And more importantly, we make sure that we have to align the affordable housing requirements with MFTE. So affordability is not just a vision. It's a reality that can get built and not be priced out. I think these are refinements, not a rewrite. The draft LUCA has made a ton of progress. And I think with a little more work, the city can adopt a code that's ready on day one for housing development under our current market conditions rather than waiting for a better one to arrive. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Paulo Sullivan followed by Brady Nordstrom.

Oh, good evening. It's already started. I love that little number there. So thank you letting me speak again here tonight. I represent Albertsons. We own 18 acres, which is brilliantly divided by a road, which is completely and utterly unnecessary. So we end up with two sites, one of nine acres and another of nine acres. We went away and did our homework and we submitted to you today, transported a complete traffic study on our site. The net result of that is without building the canyon road, we can build 6,000 dwellings on our site without negatively impacting the current street grid. So the road is completely unnecessary. It's expensive. It takes away a large amount of land, which will never have anything on it but tarmac. As you know, we consider a large master plan on this site. And so far, we have achieved absolutely nothing. We've met with the staff. They're hanging on to their road. I beg you and applaud. Please listen. That road is unnecessary. And what we're doing here is planning something that is just going to end up in a development agreement. So what I hear is everybody's going to be ending up in development agreements, and the planning document itself isn't doing what it's supposed to do, which has enabled us to develop. As we all know, development agreements, I've done too many of them in my long career. They're expensive. They're marginalized to where you come out. It'll take two or three years to do. And we want to get on with our development. And so this planning document is failing. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Brady Nordstrom followed by John Marasco.

Good evening, Chair Liu and Commissioners. My name is Brady Nordstrom, and I'm the Associate Director of Government Relations and Policy at HTC. That shouldn't have been so hard. I'm going to comment on just a couple areas that came up in this new code draft that directly relate to affordable housing funding. Firstly, the new draft dedicates amenity fee and lieu dollars exclusively to several uses. There's 35% for affordable housing, 50% for open space, and then 15% for public art creative space. First, we thank Commission for directing this in the past and for including affordable housing as one of these uses. This builds on top of the fees collected for affordable housing, and it will help Bellevue make additional progress in affordable housing to fund local projects that need gap funding. We just ask for a little bit of clarification about how the proportions were set. Just want to understand the clear balance here. The second one is we wanted to express some questions and leaning to concerns around the commercial catalyst program for the medical life sciences uses on 116th Avenue Northeast. This would reduce the fees collected for affordable housing for the first 850 square feet of development from And if you look at the fees, they start at $16.50, so they go to around $8.25. We just want to understand the impact of this a little bit more, the necessity for incentivizing this use, which very well is real, but then... the impact on the collection of these fees for affordable housing within this sub area of Bell Red. And staff attempts to balance this with directing a minimum of 2.0 FAR for residential development in the same sub neighborhood. However, we just want to understand if there's distortions that might cause shifting away from sort of this, the goal of having a mix of commercial and residential in this sub-neighborhood. So we just cause, we just urge caution in this trade-off when affordable housing fees are involved. But we look forward to engaging more with you and with staff on this in the final code. So thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have John Marasco followed by Jesse Klassen.

Okay, good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is John Morosco and I represent the Albertson property. Following up on the last Planning Commission meeting, we heard that the Commission would like to better understand the potential traffic constraints resulting from future development of the Albertson property. To that end, We engaged Transpo, a local traffic engineering firm, to study the maximum developable density before the existing intersections, as well as the intersections shown in our concept plan, break down. Their analysis concludes that up to 6,000 new housing units or alternatively up to 1.2 million square feet of commercial space may be built before these intersections reach failure and additional outlets to either 120th or 124th are required. We have provided the Commission with a summary of this report. There is no demonstrated transportation need for the proposed connection. The transpo analysis concludes that an east-west vehicular connection at this location is not necessary to achieve the transportation objectives of the Bell Red area. The surrounding network already provides adequate connectivity. We support the city's goal of creating connectivity and porosity, but this street is not required to achieve that goal. A more flexible approach like block perimeter standards used in the Wilberton area, plus adding pedestrian and bike paths can provide connectivity while allowing thoughtful master planning of large sites. The site also has significant physical constraints as documented in the KPFF analysis and illustrated by the site photographs we previously provided. The existing topography and retaining wall that's currently out there would create a canyon-like condition for this road. The result would be expensive and inefficient infrastructure providing little public benefit. Finally, retaining the public street requirement will require deviations repetitive site plan reviews, and likely a development agreement. Since we're at the code drafting stage now, the better policy is to remove the prescriptive roadway and allow us to utilize the new zoning for development. Leaving it on the map creates unnecessary administrative burden, uncertainty, delay, and additional costs for future development. So thank you for having me here tonight. And before I leave, I'd like to second Matt Rowe's comments. They're very well done. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Jessie Klassen, followed by Lucy Zappone, who's virtual.

I'm here tonight on behalf of O'Brien auto group. I'm passing out my letter that I sent to you earlier, and I'm going to cop to a mistake in my letter. I'm so sorry. And I apologize to staff. I stated in my letter that the road grid has not been aligned with our easements that are existing on the property. they have been aligned. And it changes nothing about what we're asking for tonight. You've heard tonight the street grid is a major problem for developers in the Bell Red District. In particular, we have private easements on our property, this is stated in our letter, that are in favor of other property owners. The only party that could come and take that interest legally is the city through a condemnation action. If a private property owner does not want to allow us to build a local access road in that location, we cannot do it. They have a private property right that as private property owners, we cannot force them to do anything. So that in and of itself is a problem. We do appreciate the staff's inclusion of a development agreement provision. This is a property that's larger than four acres. We could take advantage of that. However, I think it's telling that the development agreement provision requires at least three very costly potentially public benefit options to essentially buy your way out of a road requirement that shows how much the city is valuing automobile roads in this TOD neighborhood. And it also just shows problems because if we can't do the street grid for private property reasons in the first place, we're still being required to add costs to a development that's already costly. Lastly, the development agreement really improperly constrains city council discretion. Development agreements are a tool that a city council can use to modify development standards. here the code is really constraining the city council in its discretion um the o'brien auto group they own the lexus dealership they would build an auto dealership here that gives millions of dollars of tax revenue to the city that in and of itself the city council could choose is a significant enough public benefit so we would really ask that you recommend modification a eliminate the street grid we've heard that a million times And B, really modify these development agreement provisions so that the city council's hands are bound. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Lucy Zappone. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. All right, go ahead.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Lucy Zappone and I am here representing Imagine Housing, a senior real estate developer with Imagine Housing. who is an affordable housing developer, owner, and operator on the east side, and as mentioned previously, owns a parcel in this Bell Red area. I'm here today to ask the City and Planning Commission to consider eliminating the prescriptive street grid that is proposed in the Bell Red Look Forward LUCA. and instead allow for options that include multimodal pathways. As more housing and retail space is developed in this area, as the plans for the area allow for, including biking and pedestrian-only lanes as an option instead of just limiting it to another street for cars to use makes sense. These types of pathways would still achieve the same activation and connectivity as a local street could, and not only would the impact to development potentially be minimized, it would also allow for safer spaces for our future residents. Thank you so much for your time tonight.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alex Zimmerman, followed by Steve Malsom.

Thank you. It's like animal farm. My ass have different shares than your ass. I'm so sorry. Yeah, animal farm, nice book. Yeah, I'm a president of Stand Up America in this situation. I represent myself. There's probably only one man from 150,000 people who live in Belmi who speaks this, because everybody who heard represents corporations. It's a very interesting situation we have right now. So when he's speaking about code, when he's speaking about housing, I try to understand how is this possible? Why no-value people, 150,000, no one here, only one man, Alex Zimmerman. It's because I'm very stupid and another 150,000 very smart like you. Yeah, listen only to corporations. Well, we're right now in crisis. Every code that is your proof will destroy this city more and more deeper. More and more trouble will be for ordinary people. You know what it means for non-corporation. And I give you a couple of examples. Value budget for this year, I've been hearing a couple of weeks ago, $1 billion to GDP, what is about to be made? $150 billion. For you, the bill probably, you don't understand, different between $150 billion and $1 billion. You understand what I'm talking? This is exactly what has happened now. Who accepts this $149 billion? Who accepts this? Amazon? Microsoft? Or you? We need to stop everything. Build housing right now in Belleville. It's a nightmare. I know approximately a dozen houses that started a few months ago and after a few months will be ready. So what is we happen now? When price come to the roof, we have 15% empty apartment. I check many, many complexes because I look for apartment myself. I cannot find because I low-income senior citizen. It's only 40 apartment, 40. from $20,000. You probably don't know about this, what we can handle for people who make social security like you, close to $1,000. Guys, you need to stop this because by definition, you are a bandit. You understand? You support corporation who make us life miserable, in city falling and falling and falling. We in crisis right now, every another building. will make us life miserable. Is this exactly what is you support? I never hear for you, and I'm in every meeting what is half or many years. So you refuse something, do it. You always agree and agree and agree and agree. Viva Trump! Viva New American Revolution! Stand up, slave, and happy cow! When you stop and act and look like a debil, huh? Pure degenerative idiot. Thank you very much.

next we have steve malson followed by laurie keller

My name is Steve Malsom. I'm owner with Len Evans of Evans Wakefield. We're a developer here in Bellevue. We've been here before with Evans Plaza, so good to be back. Tonight, I'm here just to talk about Len has the Evans Industrial Park, which is located on 130th Avenue between Bell Red and Northup. Basically, what I presented to you was I understand the importance of the street grids and access and all that for development. But what I gave you was a couple of recent examples of developments that we have that we did. One was up next to the Alderwood Mall. It sat between the Costco and the Alderwood Mall. And as an example, just what we entered into was a development agreement with the city of Linwood. And we had 13 and a half acres that was owned by the Edmonds School District. And basically what we had, we had connection points and the city allowed us to basically go in, we developed 500 apartments, we developed 30,000 square feet of commercial, and we had a Home Depot. And we needed that flexibility to be able to meet the tenants needs, meet the needs for our apartments. But we knew we had access points. We knew we had, you know, but we weren't given a grid system. It wasn't said here you had to have a road here. We actually created a road. We actually and it was made it kind of a pedestrian. We activated it with a number of. tenants along there and stuff. So the development agreement works really well, but I guess my point on Linn's 10 acres and the Bell Road, you have Spring Boulevard to the north, you'll eventually have some road to the south, you have 130th, is allow these larger sites to work with the staff, work with transportation department. you know give some points of access but between the consultants that we have the traffic engineers in the city and the transportation department usually we can work out a lot of the issues but you don't know what those issues are until you know who your tenants are so to go in there and to artificially put a grid system in there um it doesn't work when it comes down to trying to and i've heard that on you know whether it's on a number of these different speakers the second one i wanted to show you was a a commercial development and a multifamily development. We had 900 units and 220,000 square feet of commercial. We actually worked with the city of Marysville and relocated a city street because it was based on the tenant needs. And again, if we had been given a grid system and certain requirements and all that, and didn't have a city that was flexible to work with the developers based on the tenant uses, we never would have been able to construct this development. You go up there now, we put in three roundabouts. That whole area up there had no real grid system, but if you go up there now, there is a very organized grid system based on the uses. So I would just suggest that you look and not put too many requirements. Thank you.

Our final speaker is Lori Keller, and that will bring us to our total time.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Liu, Council Member Bhargava, and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Lori McCray Keller, and I serve as the Director of Policy and Government Relations for Bellevue College. The college appreciates the city's consideration of a LUCA, an introduction of an institutional zoning category for Bellevue College and others in the future. Fall quarter starts September 22nd and we anticipate over 13,000 students to start classes on September 22nd. So we're very much ramping up for the fall. I've enjoyed working with city staff already and the college is in full support of the research community engagement and transparency that is already in progress. we look forward to continuing our strong partnership in the months ahead and thank you so much for your volunteer service to the city of bellevue thanks thank you all right

So with that, we have one study session item tonight, the Bell Red Land Use Code Amendment. The goal of this study session is to provide information to the Planning Commission on updates to the draft LUCA in response to prior direction and stakeholder input and to gather feedback. After the study session, the Planning Commission will be asked to direct staff to schedule the required public hearing. Code and Policy Planning Manager Christina Gallant and Senior Planner Charlie Engel will be providing the presentation tonight. Welcome both.

Yeah, that one's not working. Oh.

Thank you.

OK, sorry. We can manage.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Liu, Vice Chair Villaveses, Commissioner Bhargava, and members of the commission. We have a slight change of faces this evening. So I'm happy to share that Charlie Engle, one of the senior planners on our team, is stepping up her role in transitioning on as project manager for Bell Red. So this evening, we're here to keep going, presenting a lot of the work that has happened over the last two months, which has been really considerable. So this draft has a number of significant additions and revisions in response to a lot of the feedback we've been hearing from stakeholders and continued internal review. A couple things off the top to note. There's a pretty big misread of the new DA option going around just to get that in front of you. Charlie will help explain that when we get there. Just wanted to note, we're also seeing a characterization of stream daylighting as an obligation. It is not, in fact, required under the code. It is a really high priority for the city. So we're throwing as many incentives at it as we can. But at the end of the day, if it's truly cost prohibitive for a project, they can choose not to daylight. The critical areas code does not compel a project to do that. Just for one note, the chamber did give us some numbers on daylighting saying that it costs $15,000 per linear foot. Currently in the bonus system, we provide 66.7 bonus points per $1,000 of daylighting costs. So if you do some math, that's $15,000. That works out to 1,000 bonus points per linear foot per daylighting. So we're really throwing the incentives out there. At any rate, just to pivot, a lot of the comment you're hearing is about making this a day one code in a very poor economic climate. And that just... Setting that up as a goal is one we would, as staff, like to respectfully push back on. As planners, of course, it's our job to balance these current demands and long-term community needs, making sure that we're not making short-sighted decisions that could have a detriment to the public when we look ahead 10 years or more. Throughout the Wilberton and Houma process and all the economic modeling that happened there, the consistent takeaway was that development conditions are bad. The greatest factors in why it's bad are things out of our control, as some have noted, construction costs, interest rates, state energy code, etc., Those are not things we can fix with the land use code or with public revenue even, and it does not seem appropriate for us to fix it with public revenue. What is in our controls development capacity, we've given Bell Red a massive shot in the arm. We feel that it's normal and responsible for us to, for the public to share back some of that benefit that's being granted to private development by investing back in the neighborhood when an up zone of this magnitude is granted. So asked to permanently strip back some of those components that are providing more shared benefit into the neighborhood and cover those private costs with public revenue are taking away from that balance. When it comes to the public street grid, it's been puzzling for us that we often hear the comment that the solution is just to scrap the grid, replace it with private streets. Those private streets still have improvement costs. They're still going to be considerable improvements. A lot of the minimum standards are very similar between the two. And so we're skeptical that just replacing public for private alone is truly going to be the feasibility game changer that it's sometimes touted as. The reality is much more complex. At any rate as well, just to note as well, to advocate for the benefit that the city is providing with these public streets in terms of ongoing maintenance, we do, the transportation department assumes $12,000 per mile in basic annual maintenance for any local streets. Plus we set aside another 116,000 per mile per year going towards eventual replacement or major repair. of those streets so our concern there is that this can be a site a short-sighted decision in terms of that cost exchange is this really taking into account for those future property owners that ongoing cost with those private streets however As we've seen with a lot of the improvements we're making, we remain open to suggestions and input on options to transition temporarily, knowing that we are in a tough spot that we believe will change. So this evening, we are going to be talking about a new catalyst specific to life sciences and medical uses we're proposing in 1-16th. um and open to continuing that discussion of course another piece that we expect will be helpful is that updates potential updates to mfte because that's a separate code those will be happening in parallel with the office of housing once we get to the city council process so the city council will have the chance to consider luca changes alongside mfte changes kind of in in parallel um And all of this is to say, even with all of these dire comments about conditions, we do know, despite this, projects are still going forward. We've seen a lot of progress in Wilberton. I'm still getting contacted weekly, if not more frequently, by representatives of properties in bell red asking when's the code going to be adopted when's the code going to be adopted can we go forward for pre-development so you know there's a lot of different angles to look at feasibility different sites will have different needs and we can move on to the show so this evening the direction that we're seeking is to provide feedback on the key components of the LUCA and direct staff to prepare the proposed LUCA for public hearing at a future meeting So topics tonight, I did want to start because there's been so much discussion on costs. I want to start with a reminder of some of the major moves that we're making towards fixing the development capacity side here. Talk about a couple of big changes in the amenity incentive system, updates to access and connectivity, our new commercial catalyst program, few other general updates and wrap it up with schedule. So first up really quickly, this isn't everything, but some of these are pieces that were carried over from Wilberton, I think without enough fanfare, just to say how impactful this is compared to the current code. This is also an important piece in understanding another major piece of why we haven't seen more development in Bell Red. So the current code is on the left, proposed is on the right. So looking across all the districts, The base FAR right now is only 0.75 to 1 across Bell Red, even in our most intensive areas. We're bringing that up to between 2.5 to 6, depending on the district. You also, of course, can't see it here because I don't have the map, but currently the areas where we have the most intensity are very limited. We're spreading high density, high rise capacity across the bulk of the district. Max FAR has been increased accordingly as well. In our residential districts, we're proposing up to unlimited maximum FAR. Currently, there is nowhere you can get higher than a four in Bell Red. So really, really huge change there. Building heights as well have been increased and brought to levels that are actually in line with typical development. So up to 250 instead of 150. We've removed the set lot coverage limit so that now it's just kind of driven by the project and other kind of stormwater decisions, et cetera. And we've massively simplified floor plate limits and step backs, maximized a feasibility for projects under 100 feet tall. So just wanted to offer a reminder there. But pivoting on to what's new, so we have included a proposed fee in lieu for the amenity incentive system. Again, this is only the amenity incentive system. This is not mandatory housing affordability. So we are proposing that projects have total freedom to choose whether to do on-site or in lieu fees to achieve bonus points towards their max FAR with no limit proposed on the use of fees in lieu. Currently in Bell Red, after adjusting for inflation, the fee in lieu is just under $25. Feedback from Parks has been that this really hasn't been adequate to provide meaningful, to really contribute towards meaningful benefits. improvements in the Bell red area we can look to downtown there is an established fee in lieu right around $39 and so for a variety of reasons we think it makes sense to just match to that downtown fee we are recommending that you know while there's no limit from the project's perspective from the city's perspective we have set a defined allocation for how we recommend pooling those funds So, currently under the old tiered approach, it works out to roughly 42% housing, 42% parks, and then 16% to other amenities. There's no defined arts amenity. So, to kind of work with that framework a bit, knowing that our housing is going to have its additional mandatory component coming. We dialed back housing a bit to say 35% of the fees go there, boost open space up a bit to 50. And then we're introducing a new dedicated source for investments specific to the arts district with that remaining 15%. And again, all totally voluntary for participation in the fee-in-lieu. instead of providing on-site amenities. Next up, a couple enhancements related to the stream restoration amenity. So we have improved the clarity for eligibility for stream restoration projects to get bonus points. So we've clarified kind of by general project category that if a project is daylighting or removing armoring from a stream, then no matter what, that project can always get bonus points for that restoration activity. If the stream registration is limited to just buffer planting, then we want to see that buffer planting exceeding critical areas ordinance standards for vegetated buffers. Again, once you're eligible, then you get points for the whole cost of that enhancement. So there's no getting into what was required, what was not required. We're saying if it's better than what was required, then you get credit for the whole activity. For other projects, because there's a whole range of other projects that could be defined slightly differently, the project just has to demonstrate improvement to stream function over the baseline of the CAO, which again, this is going to be analysis that's happening anyway as part of that critical areas report process. That's always me happening with streams generally. So relatively straightforward here. We have also included language allowing for multi-phase projects to harvest FAR earned by stream daylighting in later phases earlier on in the project. We think this has long been a request that we think is going to be really helpful for those multi-phase projects. So this code includes provisions for what has to be outlined in that master development agreement to make this work, generally clarifying when the daylighting will happen and when those points are used. We established that daylighting can happen in an earlier phase than planned, but not later. And then we've introduced a bunch of standards for a covenant that would be required to be recorded later. setting some teeth into requiring an assurance device for 25% of the cost, confirming that the property owner would be on the hook for the remaining costs if the daylighting doesn't happen, et cetera, just to reduce the risk of this not actually proceeding. So some other additions in the amenity incentive system world. So in response to our last meeting, we have updated our list of amenities that are exempt from FAR. So currently, affordable housing, affordable commercial and active use spaces, well, up to one FAR of active use spaces are exempt from FAR. We now have added that grocery stores and child care centers are also exempt from We have also added bonus points for publicly dedicated streets, local streets, and green streets. These specific bonus points, bonus points for the local streets, this comes from the Wilberton Code currently, so applied the same rate here, boosted it up a bit for green streets since those are wider streets. And then access and connectivity. So we have, of course, this has been our number one topic. We continue to take in feedback in the local street map. We've been evolving as we get new information. And in response, we have removed two additional segments that we do agree both kind of have a conflict, combined conflict of both critical areas and other infrastructure that really limit the alternative options for where a street could go. A lot of the other street segments, we agree to disagree about the viability. We feel that the flexibility that we've built into the code, both in terms of the ability to move around where a street is located or even substitute for private streets, really helps provide the adequate fix there. This stage, I'll pass to Charlie to pick up with some additional follow-up and new items.

Is it just the arrow?

Yes.

Great.

Thank you, Christina, and good evening, everyone. Continuing on that thread of streets and added flexibility, I know this is a topic that's come up in past meetings. When we talk about when you're citing the local street, there is the ability for the director to review an alternative arrangement of the street on the site, as long as major access and connectivity goals are met. I think we wanted to just highlight that this isn't adding a new process per se, but rather give a little bit of a more high-level overview of what that development review process looks like, just to contextualize a little bit. It starts here in this graphic with the local street segment that's defined in the code and shown on the map. A project that is subject to this requirement would then provide a transportation analysis showing the different engineering standards, alignments, connectivity, and that would then be reviewed by a number of review staff from land use, transportation, utilities, and fire, all looking at how this works with the proposal and the site conditions. If there was a site constraint that limited the feasibility of the street segment shown on the map in a straight line, there is an existing path for flexibility in the code to make alterations to this rigid structure, but only for technical and engineering purposes. very little discretion and not a lot of flexibility for anything unique, right? So when we say in the proposed code, there is an additional path that gives the director the discretion to look at a different alternative. that review that happens with land use transportation utilities that's happening regardless of if the street is in a straight line or if it meanders through the site and I think that's the main point we want to get across is that um doesn't change a lot to the reviewers and we consulted with staff from these review disciplines to understand that process a little bit more um So during that, usually the review happens during a pre-development conference and staff identify any conflicts, major red flags, try to work with to develop solutions, provide clear expectations for what would be required for entitlement review and kind of get all these big questions answered early on in the process so that they don't come up later. So whether, again, it's in a straight line as shown on the map or has some movement throughout the site, the existing code doesn't provide a pathway for that kind of creativity, but the added flexibility in the proposed code does. Onto a separate topic, the new development agreement pathway. I'll talk about this in kind of two parts. What happens if you enter into a development agreement to modify or eliminate a street segment requirement? And what happens if you are hoping to modify development standards beyond just that? So kind of two sections there. First off, for both of those cases, the applicability is for sites that are larger than four acres and that have a local street requirement. What went behind this four-acre intent is that the development agreement process is very time-intensive and resource-intensive for staff, the city council. To do project-level review at that level, it's a big undertaking. So to offset and kind of replicate that, that's where the four acres comes from. So it's a significant project to... make sense to use all that time and resources. So that's the applicability. For sites that meet those requirements, the flexibility would be to remove a required street segment. And in exchange for that flexibility, we're looking for in the code, a 14 foot shared use path, tree planting provided on site that would otherwise have been required through the siting of the local street, and then making sure that sidewalks on site are at a minimum of 10 feet. So just to reiterate, if a proposal were to come in looking to enter into a development agreement specifically for the removal of a street requirement, these are the only three things that we'd be looking for just in exchange for that flexibility. if a development comes in to modify a local street segment and would like to also look at other development standards, height, if they are, because the development agreement can really open up a total flexibility. That's where these three public benefit requirement comes in, where we have a list of priorities in Bell Red, such as affordable housing, commercial space, parks, open space, public art. So we know what those priorities are. And so if you're going beyond just making alterations to the public street grid, the exchange for the flexibility provided would be a contribution into three of these public benefits. There are some limitations on the amount of like what you can negotiate through the DA. The maximum building height is capped at 250 feet, which is the highest in Bell Red, the Bell Red overlay in general. There's no allowance to modify transportation impact fees or any standards in the critical area ordinance, which is similar to other development agreement pathways offered throughout the code outside of the Bell Red overlay. And to give a little bit of context, the City Council processed a land use code amendment just this last spring for the public private partnership DA path that was included into the code. And during that process, the council expressed an interest in having some sort of parameter to define the public benefit that is exchanged for the flexibility through the development agreement, just to set some idea of how to have the conversation and the negotiation and set like a vision and a guide. And since we have the priority areas already clearly outlined for Bell Red, it kind of made sense to set those in there. So moving on from that and another place where we've added in some flexibility to the code are the on street parking requirements. So on street parking is required for new local and green streets and it was pretty ambiguous in the existing code and we've added some clarity and then also an exception that would allow for a 50% reduction in on-street parking when one of the three criteria on the right are met. So you don't have to meet all three, just choose one. Those criteria are providing an additional 15% of bike parking, That would be short-term bike parking, so it's publicly accessible and outdoors. And then also adding an additional three feet of amenity zone width. That's to really enhance the streetscape in the pedestrian realm in the trade-off to reducing that parking. Another option is, as currently drafted, if you are an exempt use from providing on-site parking and you provide visitor and loading spaces anyways, that could earn you a reduction in the on-street parking. Like I said, that's as drafted right now. Upon looking at it a little bit closer, we're thinking maybe it makes more sense to just open that up to anyone providing additional parking, whether they're exempt from it or not. So something to think about modifying there. And then the third option is the kind of creative option. If there's a proposal that can demonstrate how they substantially improve the pedestrian environment and, you know, kind of have these guidelines of other criteria that we would otherwise be looking for, that can also earn a reduction of up to 50% of the on-street parking. Moving on to the medical and life science incentives in the 116th corridor. So the new draft shows a commercial catalyst program that you may recognize is similar to the structure of Wilberton. It's been streamlined and simplified a bit to make it a little bit easier to use and So we've reduced it to just one phase for up to 850,000 square feet of gross per area of medical office and life science uses. And of course, that amount of medical office and life science would be eligible for a 50% reduction in the mandatory housing affordability fee. So similar to how that same reduction was given to medical office and life science uses in the Wilberton Commercial Catalyst Program as well. Um, this is in response to, uh, previous conversations and previous meetings with the commission. Uh, I know staff has presented on the importance of this medical innovation district and of these uses in this, um, neighborhood area. And also, uh, the commission reviewed the FAR, um, Base FAR for this. I think it was originally proposed at two, and then the decision was to bump that up to four. So to make sure that we're still allowing for residential development in this area, but making sure that we encourage early and meaningful development of these medical office and life science uses. We've done the Kettles program and then also added in a minimum residential density to kind of balance, you know, that the capability here is that you can do a high rise development. So we want to make sure that any sort of residential development that's going in here is substantial. So there's a minimum FAR requirement of two. So that's just to encourage that higher density residential development there. And with that, I'll turn it back to Christina for my last few slides.

Thank you. So last final piece, we were kind of recently reminded that Sound Transit has a requirement that 80% of its surplus property must be developed for at least 80% housing units at 80% AMI. And there is a currently vacant site in Bell Red owned by Sound Transit that could be surplused at some point. So knowing, and it's in the GC, knowing that it is likely destined for affordable housing through a really robust process, we would want to support that. So because the GC does have a lower height limit, and we are proposing a bonus on land owned or controlled by sound transit to bring those sites up to 100 feet consistent with our other mid-rise districts to enable mid-rise affordable housing development on such sites since all affordable housing is exempt from far that height limit really becomes the major barrier so We think it's a simple tweak here that can really enable things. And so since we know Sound Transit is subject to such a robust process for that surplusing that happens, we've tailored the recommendation here to align closely, as close as we can, with Sound Transit's minimum standards to allow them the latitude to get that property surplus for affordable housing if that's in their long-term plans. So, wrapping things up with the schedule. We are of course at our fourth study session this evening we are going to be seeking direction to move on to a public hearing date to be determined, whether we get the recommendation at the public hearing or subsequent meeting, we would be moving forward to city council review. Likely, just knowing the way the council schedule is looking, we're projecting that is not likely to happen until early next year at the soonest. So finally, again, direction this evening, we are requesting to you provide feedback on the key components of the LUCA and direct staff to prepare the proposed LUCA for public hearing at a future meeting. Thanks.

Thank you. That was really dense. So I think we can take a quick break and then come back to discussion afterwards. So let's take a break until 7.55. That clock is off. 7.55 on that clock.

All right, let's get this back in session.

Thank you all. So again, thank you for the presentation. I know that was a lot to get through and appreciate you going through in such detail for us and addressing a lot of the concerns up front as well. So now I'm going to call on the commissioners for comment. We're going to do two rounds as per usual. Commissioner Neal-Cheon, would you like to start?

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. First, I just want to compliment the FAR exemption for grocery stores and childcare centers. I'm very glad that was added in. So thank you for that. My main question is on the street grids. And I appreciate that you walked us through how this new flexible pathway differs from the current code. My question is, how does the new flexible pathway, how would it differ from a scenario where there wasn't a street grid and a landowner wanted to go through the approval process for a site? What is the difference in flexibility there? And how much extra... burden or delay could there be for development in that scenario?

Yeah, thanks for that. Do you want to take a whack at it or I can get started? Yeah, sure. So I think the answer to that would be it depends. I mean, as a baseline and a big part of the message we're trying to get across is no matter what, you know, sites, even if there's not a local street required, sites have to go through this multidisciplinary review for What access is needed? Is it adequate? And that also starts to look at, you know, do you have, like there was a comment about landlocked sites. So are you developing, do you have legal access across that landlocked site? So To generalize a bit, I'd say it depends. Sometimes those sites that don't have a defined requirement to have a street through are going to have a harder path to negotiate with their neighbors potentially to make sure they have the access they need. Um, I think there's lots of different ways. Maybe it'd be straightforward. It can be complicated. Um, but with the defined grid, that is one piece where it has to happen. So that kind of simplifies matters to some degree, but, um, I'd say it depends, but we can, you know, think about some additional detail to provide there kind of contrasting.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I realize that's kind of an unfair question to throw at you.

Oh, it makes sense.

But I appreciate you taking a stab at it. I guess my main concern and the thing that I'm trying to figure out for myself here is if we're providing this extra flexibility for landowners to develop that differentiates from the street grid map that we have, whether it's having these initial points and then You know, as long as A meets B, the street can look like whatever you want. As long as we're having that flexibility, I'm trying to figure out how that differs from just having no street grid and having the landowners try to go through the permitting process and meet those requirements in the first place.

That's a good clarification. I would say the big piece there is that when it comes to if it's just purely on the block size limit perimeter, for example... there, that really removes the city's ability to direct where the streets are happening. So what we have now, which is really great, is we have this baseline to say, this is where we really need to have these connections happen. And when it's going to be publicly dedicated, we have the ability to be much more directive in the specific location. When it's purely driven by property owner choices, block size limits, they really have that freedom to kind of make those connections happen wherever they may. There's not necessarily any kind of a hook to get them to connect to the broader grid. Here, we're still giving flexibility to say, hey, you can deviate if you're showing us a plan, showing how it works, showing that you're not creating crazy impacts. But we are starting from a baseline that is like, this is where we really need to have these connections happen. Having a green street that runs east-west as connected as we can, you know.

Thank you. And I guess my follow-up to that then is, is that something that could be implemented during the director review process? Or is that...

Oh, like for all private streets to say, hey, you need to move this? Exactly. That's an area. I mean, I'll talk to our lawyers to get a tighter answer on that. But my understanding is that we're really more limited in our ability to push for that kind of a change. But yeah, we can provide more.

That's all I have for my first round. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Cunliffe.

Thank you so much for presentation. I appreciate that. Um, one of the question that I want to ask is about, um, the ratio of the fee and lieu. Um, I kind of understand your logic, but it doesn't make sense for me.

Um, can you bring that, um, chart up? Yeah. And I know we've got a lot. We went through it really quickly.

Okay. I feel, um, I feel if we don't have a solid logic behind that, let's do it 33% for all the three, 33.3. I still feel affordable housing is one of the high priority of the council instead of Washington. And I'm... I love open space, but not 50%. And on the other hand, we want the art district, we really emphasize on the art district in Barrett and I feel now art, it's only 15%. Then I don't know, how would you like to

come up with some logic. I can provide some more logic there. So I realized we did have a pretty deliberate conversation between arts, housing, and parks to kind of talk through options, which I realized I should have broken out. And so what we were looking at were a couple of different options. So currently, if you look at the way we set up the amenities in the current code, we have this tier system, which is equal between affordable housing and open space. And so if you take the total FAR allocations that are possible under the current amenity system, so you first have to do, I think, 1.25 FAR of affordable housing, then you can do 1.25 FAR of open space. And then there's a remainder, a tiny remainder that can go towards other amenities. So we said, hey, you know, we can look at this as an allocation of of amenities to apply in Bell Red. So one, if you translate that to percentages, you could say 42%, that's roughly 42% of the fee to housing, 42% to open space, 16% to something else, which we'd now say, let's devote that to arts. We then looked at a couple of different other options. So downtown does a similar approach. Downtown does 25% to affordable housing, 50% to open space, and then 25% to any other amenity. So we looked at, because back up, the logic here is we know that affordable housing is always going to get that MHA contribution. The amenity incentive fees are a bit of a lottery. So they're not always going to come in on every project. We expect many projects aren't going to need the fee or necessarily opt in for a really significant amount. So it's kind of looking to this as it'd be nice to have, but it's not going to be super consistent. So knowing that housing is always going to have that consistent contribution, we said we don't want to propose a scenario where they're on the sum looking like it's going to be a reduction to housing, but we also say, hey, maybe putting housing and parks perfectly equal here doesn't necessarily make the most sense, both because parks is also a high priority in Bell Red and specifically the cost involved in providing these amenities, both housing and parks are going to be really cost intensive to acquire sites, to develop them. And then in conversation with arts, they said, hey, like for us, you know, a $200,000 project would be massive versus housing or open space. That's a drop in the bucket. So there were a couple scenarios we walked through and eventually the group landed on, hey, 35 to housing, 50 to open space, 15 to parks really seems to be a nice kind of sweet spot to divvy it up. And there's, like I said, there's also a ton of uncertainty on how much revenue is even going to be coming in here. Um, there's either language now or coming soon that explicitly notes that while these are, these funds are being, you know, allocated to these different departments where there's a shared purpose, they can be pooled. So like we're doing a performance venue in a park, like that's arts and parks together. So. That could be an example of how those funds could be used together. Does that help?

Yeah, it does. I'm just going to wait for another round. Oh, sure. And then my second question, when we were talking about this slide, access and connectivity new path, the new path that you suggest that director – That box, the yellow box, can you elaborate a little bit more about that?

Sure. So kind of also just a shorthand in the code, anytime we have anything in the code that is more discretionary, it always kind of says the director ultimately has the say. The reality is the actual review and the details are being worked out at the staff level. Ultimately, you know, the director has the final approval. So all this is to say is that so what we're getting at is in any project, you're always going to have this typical process of reviewing for access, whether or not a local street is required. Under the current adopted code, we have some language that points to, I believe, the transportation department's deviation process only for adjusting the location of a public street or certain characteristics. So there is flexibility that happens and can happen, but it's generally only for very firm technical engineering standards that physically can't be met unless we're adjusting those. The language that we've added has said within this process, this kind of site planning process that happens with staff that says, hey, we need these requirements. Have you looked at this? We want to see this additional transportation analysis. we now can entertain alternatives that are just based on, I wanna do something different, I have different priorities for my phasing. So like one of the commenters mentioned a project they worked on where they had kind of access points defined on the map and the street could meander through the site based on providing analysis to staff and explaining what was going on and that those impacts could be studied. While it's not exactly the same, we've got the path and you can adjust it. That's kind of the process that we have in mind here.

Can that one be panel of the directors? Like, for example, what I have in my mind, for example, utility director be on the table because of the so many water surface and water streams that we have in Barrett specifically. Because I don't see in that process, maybe it is part of that process, that it's not... It's not mentioned, but it can be like a panel of the directors, like a transportation development and utility.

Yeah, so that multidisciplinary process, the site plan takes in all those things into account. And that's why we really reinforce the benefit of keeping that discretion is because that's when fire says, hey, we need hose reach here, or utility says, hey, like you've said, your impervious surface has gotten to a level that we need something else for stormwater. That's all part of it here. So that's also understanding, you know, does the variation that you're proposing in the street grid, is it causing any negative impacts to these other disciplines that are weighing in on the site plan that need to be accounted for? We just want to see that all together. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Great. Commissioner Keppel.

Thank you for a great presentation. Let's see. I think I'm going to just dive in first on the street grid piece because I think that's the most complicated. I have a couple of other areas that I do want to... talk to you about, but I'll save those for the second round. I'm supportive of, you know, the street grid that you've come up with, and I appreciate the fact that you've looked at the individual sites some more. I am a little concerned, though, about some of the unique conditions within Bell Red and specific sites. For me, what that means is that the alternatives that are being proposed have to be good and viable alternatives. alternatives potentially to deal with those local site situations. And if we go to the private road piece to start with, I think if we're going to, you know, look at the alternative for private roads, one of the concerns I have is just with the expectations on um road typologies um that would be um put into place you know plus it appears to me that um that section of the code also is mandating minimum width of sidewalks of 10 feet on top of that on either side which means that these are pretty big roads. These are not like arterial roads. I mean, I'm totally supportive of a 10-foot sidewalk within places near more busy streets and other areas where there's a lot of use. But I'm just trying to figure out how we can square that. that requirement with the fact that you also indicate in that section for substituting local streets that local street segments may be replaced with flexible access corridors, active transportation access corridors, or enhanced shared use paths. But then it goes on to say you also have a minimum sidewalk of 10 feet. So which is it?

I can clarify. Yeah. So specifically, just for everyone else's benefit, this is specifically the provision to if you're proposing to replace a public street with a private street. So we wanted to have, you know, ensure a bit of additional kind of balance for the private benefit happening by, you know, giving up that public access provision. And that's in two places. So the phrasing is intended to be where a sidewalk is required. So that's really just for the flex access corridor. Otherwise, the minimum sidewalk is eight feet. We'd suggested maybe setting that as a 10 foot minimum to really maximize. There's also a provision that unless they're daylighting a stream, at least 50% of the block length along that replaced corridor would need to be active use space. Those are definitely pieces the commission could weigh in on. So if it's a street like a flex access corridor that does not have a sidewalk, it's a 14-foot path, you're not going to have to add on a 10-foot sidewalk. We're just saying if you're already required to do what would otherwise have to be an eight-foot minimum sidewalk, we'd ask for it to be 10 just because they're getting granted that benefit of swapping a private street. But of course, that's up for calibration.

Yeah, I mean, that's that's an area where I mean, I, I appreciate the I appreciate the need for finding some kind of public benefit, but it seems like. an exaction of additional space that I don't think is commensurate with the flexibility that we want to create. So I'm not for the 10-foot sidewalks in these areas.

Okay.

I mean, I think if we were at six or eight feet, I think that would be better. I also... I also just continue to like to see us look at more creativity in terms of the road typologies, because I am concerned about just the impact and the fact that that needs to be a viable alternative. Because I think the development agreement, I mean, both for the city... And for the private developers, it's a burdensome thing for them to undertake that further effort to look at a development agreement.

I will say, I'm kind of going on the fly here. So I might be getting out over my skis. But one thing to note, as we're talking about creativity and innovation, Street types. One of the transportation department has been and continues to look at, okay, what do some of these typologies, these one of typologies, how do they work? So currently, you know, there's no kind of one NACDO standard that can be replicated. As the attorneys know, When it comes to setting a public standard, it's more than just the minimum 10 feet wide. Are we confident this can be replicated in any condition? And then understanding the legal risk associated with it. So you can imagine if a shared car and bike situation is happening, that legal risk can be complicated. The examples that happen around the country so far are generally... kind of site-specific designs so that that risk conversation is specific to the site. It's not just a generalized typology. We're not aware of cities that have kind of broadly applicable typologies, which is the main thing. So something I'm thinking about is... We'll talk about it, but I could see a scenario where somebody does the development agreement and perhaps proposes to say, we want to do a site-specific design for a true shared wounder and negotiating those benefits. Maybe getting out there, but the DA could perhaps provide that path.

Yeah. Um, I think the other thing, oh, good.

Also the DA path as drafted probably supports that because it says modification to or removal of the street segment. So like an alternative, um, and that can be that alternative.

Yeah. Knowing that, you know, that site specific analysis is going to be much greater than what's typically required for a street. Cause you're kind of defining your own path. Um, but yeah.

And I guess, you know, I'd have the same comment about the 10 foot sidewalk with in relation to the development agreement alternative. And help me understand, too, on the development agreement side, what's the rationale for the requirement that you provide three additional public benefits on top of everything else? Why require that on top of everything else? Because it seems like simply for the benefit of you know, entering into that negotiation with the city off the bat, you're saying you have to provide these three additional things. Why is that required on top of the other criteria?

Yeah, I think... mostly because the development agreement opens up the code and all of those requirements to that extent. So with all of that kind of on the table, there's always going to be some sort of exchange for flexibility that's negotiated through this process with council. And kind of mentioned the context to the previous presentation, development agreement pathway that was the public-private partnership one that happened last spring, we heard from the council, well, how do we know what should that defined public benefit be? Because it just gives the ultimate flexibility to the council to decide, which is good, but they were interested in maybe some guardrails or some guidelines of, you know, how can this negotiation be addressed? And so that's why those negotiations priority area menu was introduced to try to offer that solution. And then also, they're directly reflect the Bell red priority areas that we see throughout the code. So nothing different from what we're already incentivizing and looking to see happen.

Yeah, but certainly, you know, if the commission feels, you know, maybe we keep the list, but simplify to not necessarily specify a hard number, you know, that that can all be adjusted.

okay okay that's great i'll wait for the next round great um commissioner ferris

Thank you very much. I'm going to start with the easy ones. A couple of very quick, easy questions on your discussion with the Sound Transit site and making that happen. You use the acronym GC. I'm used to that. It's General Contractor. It's General Conditions. What do you mean in this particular case?

Bell Red General Commercial. So it's the district that runs north of Northup on the upper edge of Bell Red.

Thank you. Thank you. I told you it was easy. Also, a question on the incentive system that Commissioner Conley was talking about. On the open space portion, because we had King County here talking about the TDR, is that a part of that open space incentive?

No. So TDR is on our list of incentive options. So a project that wants to earn bonus points towards FAR can opt to buy TDR credits and earn points here. The TDR system, of course, it's market pricing for the credits. So the code has to set a specific bonus points per credit. And then depending on the value of the TDR credits, I expect there'll be more or less worth it at different times. But yeah, it's a really great program. And the updates that the King County rep noted recently have been since 2009. So the new kind of loan option is a new one. Great. That's great.

now the more sticky part um it's of course the road grid yep um and it's such a dilemma because i i try to come at it like everybody wants the same thing everybody wants to have development happen in a way that is really enhancing that whole bell red area making it more livable sustainable but in order to have that happen it's got to be able to be produced and it's a big push and pull obviously we haven't gotten what we wanted in the first go-round with bell red so I recognize it's this tension. And the road grid keeps coming up over and over again because, of course, that's the kinds of things that we can impact. Things like impact fees and all that, we can't say anything about that. But the road grid, we could give you feedback on. And in my mind, and I know this is probably impossible, but the system that you developed, which is really remarkable. I mean, you've done so much work on this. But it is remarkable. Fairly prescriptive. We want this road grid to be here. Is there any chance that you could develop more of a system to say, here is the proposed road grid and our expectations for how we want it to interconnect with our existing road system? Here are some of the goals that we want to achieve with this road grid. and I'm making this sound really simple and I know it's not, but now you come back in, in a pre-development phase with your particular site and with this goal framework in mind, and you come back to us to say, how are you meeting that goal with this road grid that you potentially are wanting to propose? And I know that, It sounds simple and it's not remotely simple, but is there any way to say this is kind of what we want and what our goals are in achieving and tell us how you're going to achieve that?

And so would we look at this because, you know, I know we've talked before about kind of the caution and if we shift towards, if you meet these five things, you can definitely do it. It's going to be conservative. So is this more of a like... These are for guidance so that you're not going in totally blind with your proposal. Like, these are the things that we're going to be looking at through your pre-development. This is what you need to be thinking about to kind of save yourself some time. Not necessarily saying we guarantee we will approve because we know that's complicated, but just a little bit more... we're looking at these five things. Think about this.

Could you, I know where you kind of like guidance that we could do a hybrid where you, where you basically say, this is what we are hoping for and the criteria of what we want to achieve. If you come in and you're giving us exactly what we prescribed, great. Check the box. You, you can move through, but if you come to us instead and say, this just is not feasible for us for any number of different reasons, then if you can meet again, what our goals are with this overlay of what we want to achieve and then we're open to sitting down with you and talking to you. It's much of what you have, but I guess I'm thinking of making sure to really define what the goals are with the street grid.

We can take a crack at that. Well, I kind of see it as optimistically. I feel like that's the kind of the setup we've built in. It's more about is there a way to more clearly convey up front what we're going to be looking at, right?

Yeah. And I keep thinking that, and maybe you've done this and I'm just blind to it, but being able to be really clear about the goals that we want to achieve with that road grid. Having that is really the touch point to say, if we can achieve this goal with your proposed modification to what our road grid looks like, then we're going to be open to it. Just a thought. That's all I have for this round. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you.

So first, I'd like to ask you really quick, TDRs, what's the status of that right now?

Yeah, so it is included in the code. What's needed to make it actually happen is that King County has to sign an inter... Well, the city has to sign an interlocal with King County, and that agreement is going to get into the details of... how many credits we're open to receiving and kind of all the other details of the loan. That's, that is ongoing. I don't want to tap Nick to see if he has an update there, but basically timing wise city council is going to be the body kind of looking at that. So right now we're targeting, you know, bringing that interlocal forward with the LUCA to kind of have them together and Staff is supportive of keeping the TDR on the table, just have to get that interlocal buttoned up, which Nick's been .

That's more of a procedural how we actually effectuate the policy choice that you are making. You all might recall as the Bell Red CK, the comp plan amendment was happening, you did authorize us to look at renewing the TDR credits because the 2009 draft had them and they were very popular. And so we would like to explore that. And as Christina noted, King County, and as the commenter from King County noted, Um, the program is a bit more lucrative now, so we'd also like to look at the opportunity of getting into some of the, the, uh, fund matching, um, and grants that could really serve some of the purposes that we're trying to achieve here in bell red. So, um, it's in the code now, uh, it's just, uh, setting sort of what the, uh, incentive is going to be. It is competing with all the other amenity options that, um. we hear from stakeholders and you all, you'd like on the table as well. So it's kind of how do we prioritize that amenity option over some of the ones that are also important to Bell Red.

I'd just like to express my support for the inclusion of TDRs. I really wasn't sure where it was. But besides that, going back to the street grid and talking about a simple, not simplistic solution or approach to this. I think we have a prescriptive option, which is the street grid you're proposing. And then you have a, let's say, a departable option, which is the development agreement path. And you mentioned on the letter, it's designed to provide certainty to the developer. I don't think there's anything that developers like more than certainty, right? That's what we want to do. But that certainty arrives too late in the process. I think before you go through the agreement, it's just... going to take a long time, a lot of discussions, a lot of decisions by committee. And there is a lot of uncertainty at that point. But some properties need that because they're special. They have conflicting conditions or things like that. A path in the middle would be a performance path. And it would be comply with the 1,200 feet perimeter block and comply with this and this. And then you have these three options where you can choose which one is the best for you. And you can do this prescriptive option works for me very well. Or maybe this... Saeed is not very well suited for this like imposed street grip, but then I can try to meet this performance option. And I have certainty that there's a path that I can pursue. And then you get feedback through the pre-development meeting and then you're on your way. And if your property really is complex or you want to propose something really odd or something really vicious or very creative, as I mentioned, then you have the development path. I don't think there... I don't think they cancel each other out. I think they're working together. I don't think they're prioritizing one over the other. I think they're working together and they're complementing each other. And I mean, we would be... I don't think we would be doing a good service if we don't listen to all the voices that are talking about this tonight and over the last few months. And we're very far into the process. So I would like to request you guys to consider including a performance path for the street grid into this code that could work with your goals and with the intent of the code so that this can actually happen.

Yeah, and I guess our take is that we feel we have that set up. So kind of the path that you're talking about kind of to opt in to either do the... I hesitate to call it prescriptive because I'm going to say defined location local streets because the code, even if you're required to do that, we've built in flexibility to kind of move around where that specific location is. But anyway, under the draft, you have a... I believe, performance-based standards set up to propose an alternative to that dedicated street. We've got some, I think, very direct criteria to replace that defined public street with a private street when you're meeting the access standards, emergency standards. Like we talked about earlier, the wider sidewalks and active use, which are things that we could adjust. But we see that as meeting that kind of performance-based standard, in my mind. You could choose to just do the streets as planned, or you can do your homework and demonstrate how, hey, my alternative site with these private streets still works. And that's just reviewed through the normal development review process. There's no DA needed for that path. It's just going to be in our opinion, in my opinion. Yeah, I think it's the key definition is when we say performance based, what do we mean? We really would push back against setting any one kind of specific performance metric just because we know it would have to be so restrictive. What we're saying is we have created a path. For projects to say, hey, like, hey, we need to understand the traffic impact here. Can you submit a study that can be reviewed? You can demonstrate your performance. And it could take some more time for review, but it can be embedded within the standard permit review process.

It's similar to the discussion we had with critical areas. Yeah. It was a prescriptive option that... very well intentioned and very appropriate in many cases but there was and it was the same actually this conversation we had and then there was the the performance option that was included and under the code it says the performance option it names it that way and it says you have to if you achieve this and this and that then you you have a way forward you have a path forward so i don't know if it's about Clarifying that language in the code that says this is the straight grade option, you comply with this, or the performance option or the layout option, however you want to call it, where you reach certain outcomes and you demonstrate those, or you have a developer agreement path. And I guess a side question to this really quick, and this is excused by Ignace, but this is a question I've had for a while. Where is that line between the requirement to develop a street like this one, so in some cases through half of the lot, and eminent domain? Where does that line get crossed at some point? I'm just curious.

Like when is it not eminent domain because you're dedicated to the street?

The point is the city needs to say, okay, I'll just purchase this and I'll develop that street. I'm just curious.

We can bring that information back. I'm definitely not going to answer that without talking to our attorney.

I'd love to hear it. How does that, like when one becomes the other? We can give an explanation, yeah. That's it.

Thank you. I think... I'll just say I don't think we're solving the street grid discussion right now. So I'd also just veer us towards this next round. Let's clarify exactly the direction we want to provide to staff and then if we're comfortable with the public hearing. With that, I'll cover a couple of the fringe ones on my list. The departure path that you provided here, this still has to flow through the typical DA path where it goes through council approval and everything, right? Or is it you're prescribing a different... So this is my misunderstanding then. Is it... Like, are we proposing a way to skip over a lot of the administrative burden that would typically come from a departure?

Oh, for replacing a public street with a private street?

Yes.

Correct. Yeah, it's just through normal development review, right? So the DA path is going to be its own thing, its own beast. It's much more substantive, but it opens up for a lot more change. latitude in terms of what can be on the table. But as written, the path to propose replacing a public with a private street, provided you're meeting those criteria in the code, can be contained within the formal stuff.

Okay. And that would skip over the future administrative burden of going through. Okay. That helps a lot. Thank you. And then the second thing I wanted to ask is there was a public comment about looking at the the streets that have really intense grades to it. Was that included in your analysis of the proposed or updated street grid?

Yeah. We do know there's a lot of grade issues out there. The other piece with this is that when development is happening, they also have to be looking at grading as part of that. I think we often have had a different take on, often we're a lot of these segments get put forward to say this is not feasible because of grade, but it's not thinking about what has to happen with the rest of the site. Um, it's not to say they're going to be impossible. We know it's challenging, but I think with the combination of the new latitude to kind of adjust the location of the street or potentially replace it, um, I don't know if either of you have anything else to say about grade issues. Um, Because a lot of the steep, the grade issues can be engineered away. It just really depends.

Okay. That clarifies it for me. And then the last thing is I'll just express support for the Catalyst for Life Sciences. I think this is a discussion we've had in the past. I think it's fair to incentivize the... the build out of life sciences, I've been going there a lot recently to overlay. So I understand kind of having everything within one location is, is really helpful. I guess one clarifying question with that as well is, uh, how did you come up with the, um, uh, the specific catalyst, like a square foot or, uh, I forgot the. Yeah. How was that calculated? Was that based off of future potential use that you see coming in, or is that from more of a financial calculation?

Oh, the square footage for the Catalyst?

Yeah, the square footage for the Catalyst was something that was proposed as part of Wolverton, the Catalyst program. We also talked with our economic development staff, and they felt like that was going to create enough of a I think it was two projects is what they roughly estimated. So to help kind of, I don't know, cement a life science district or at least get the start of one going.

Okay. So that was calculated as a part of the economic development.

Okay. They did ask for a million square feet, our economic development department, but we also recognized it's a 50% fee reduction. We don't necessarily want to open that up for a ton of square footage because Um, but a million is what they really wanted. Um, I reckon like 12 month staff. So, um, uh, talked him down to eight 50, but you all can decide differently.

That's good. Cool. Um, no, that, that clarifies things for me. All right. I'm going to do another round here. And again, let's focus on now a direction and then whether or not you're comfortable with a public hearing, but I'll pass it back to you, commissioner, Neil, John.

Thank you. Um, Quick question, or I guess just a clarification on the development agreements. My initial thoughts coming into this meeting was that I'd want to give council as much flexibility as possible in those agreements, but it sounds like they've expressed that they want some kind of guide rails in there to give them an idea of what they're looking for for the public benefit. Am I characterizing that correctly? Yeah. Okay. In that case, I won't argue with the council.

And that's also been the precedent in other areas. East Main is an example where there's a development agreement path available, and the council has set an expectation of we'd like to see, through the DA, better performance than the code would otherwise achieve. And so that was asking for more affordable housing than what the code would provide in normal operations. Yeah. It's always helpful to have the framework, so that really guides the negotiation. Yeah, and some can view that as limiting them, but it also is setting out some pretty important priorities for the district. So limiting maybe them in the right way, keeping the focus on that.

We can't forget, too, that council is still going to review the LUCA. So if we've interpreted the guardrails wrong, they can definitely say otherwise.

That's a great point. Yeah. My next clarifying question, you mentioned the MFT supercharger. Can you just clarify for me what the timeline is on how that would potentially be implemented? Would it be the same time as this? Can you just give me some clarity on that?

Yeah, that's the idea. And so we also recognize, you know, maybe it's reading to us, just trust us, there's going to be some relief with this MFT offset. And that's not putting you in the best position to also make some good, important decisions. So we have the Office of Housing, they're working with a consultant to do some analysis there. The Council has provided that high level direction anytime a mandatory affordability policy is being contemplated. They'd like to understand whether any adjustments to MFT are necessary to support that policy decision. And so we think it's fair that you all kind of get that information as well. We did that with HOMA as well, where we try and share at least some high level analysis giving you some indication of yes, we're probably going to need to provide some options for the council to consider to offset some of the impact or no, we think that the code sufficiently addresses some of those feasibility concerns. We'll try and get that information to you. I believe we were aiming for the public hearing, but we'll have to just check in with our office housing staff, depending on when the public hearing gets scheduled.

Thank you. And the last thing that I have is just going back to this street grid conversation that we've been having. You know, I share a lot of the same concerns or hesitancy or... uncertainty that some of the other commissioners have expressed. Seeing the development that's gone on since 2009, I want to make sure that we're not stuck in an undevelopable climate for the next decade. So that's where my head is at. I'm trying to weigh whether or not this very well thought out and flexible system that you've come up with is the best path forward to do that, or if some other tweaks are necessary or changes are necessary to do that. So that's where I'm at. I'm not 100% set on where I am exactly, but if you have additional changes or comments or arguments, I'm welcome to hear them.

Yes.

add on to because we hear and we appreciate some of those concerns that have been raised and that you've heard tonight as well. And I think, you know, to help balance that, we also have some concern of building out an area as large as Bell Red with private streets with no kind of map to guide how those decisions are being made. It is a pretty consequential experiment to embark on in an area like Bell Red. And if it works, great. But if it produces misconnections, some access, inconsistent access or infrastructure that really should be managed publicly, stormwater infrastructure is an example. And our utilities department has a very strong interest in making sure that they have the ability to connect to projects. If those items happen, are not necessarily thought about, then those will eventually become a public cost. So while it's a decision to go private, I think a lot of the costs and the risk is shifted to the public side. And that's the concern that we're trying to grapple with as well, of how do we make sure that we get the certainty that we need to have a reliable network that's serviced and that future residents can rely on the level of service that public streets provide. um without having to you know hamper development and that's the real tension and that's why we're trying to build in as much flexibility as we can getting to the performance piece we're trying to at least state some of the outcomes that we need to achieve um and giving the flexibility where we're where we feel confident it's appropriate to exercise that flexibility um but really trying to hold to you know things that are really important to protect the public good um in this area

I also just I'll add on to note that I do not think it's accurate to say that development has not proceeded in Bell Red exclusively because of the street grid. I think we have some seriously restrictive provisions in our development standards today. The kind of capacity that we're allowing is not aligned with the type of development that's happening today and that we want to have happen in TOD areas. The humanity system is restrictive. There's also the piece of light rail to Seattle just opened. So we and everybody in the area knows that. The Spring District got the DA because we knew we were incentivizing them to come in early, and they made that choice. Other sites, for one reason or another, we know people are going to be timing to try to hit the development that is going to be encouraged after the light rail opens. So there's a lot of layers. I think we're addressing a lot of them, including improving local streets.

Okay. Commissioner Condon.

I think I have another question about TDR. We already have a contract with King County in 2009. That's still there, right?

It's exhausted. So that contract in 2009 had a set number of credits that could be used in Bell Red. That's the way the contracts are set up. And those have all been used. So we need to set a new contract to enable the new use of credits here. And is it by like...

How many development happened? Three, four in the last couple of years where those development has been exhausted, right?

Yeah, it was early on.

It was early on because I think it was one project that got to sweep all the way through. Okay, good to know.

And then for the stream daylighting FAR, when we told them about the phases, you can finish the phase one and then do phase two, did we say 25% assurance that they need to give us for next phases?

so for um if you're going to um you would need to do an assurance device for 25 of the total cost of the stream daylighting project in order to be able to borrow points in an earlier phase and then on top of that if they don't follow through we know we not only get the assurance device they are also on the hook for the remainder of the cost of the private bank crop, what are you going to go do, guys?

I mean, there's all the daylighting and the high rise next to it.

I mean, you're illustrating some of the risks inherent here. I think we've, you know, we worked with our attorneys to set up some pretty solid, I think we feel some really solid kind of enforcement to have some certainty here. But there is always going to be a measure of risk. We do feel in this case that, Um, it's worth the trade-off, um, just because it's such a high priority and we do acknowledge it is such a huge cost. I think it's fair to say a lot of these projects might be getting a surplus from their stream daylighting. And I think it's fair to say, you know, you can allow that spillover to benefit some of your other phases. Can we have an assurance device of a hundred percent at least? Well, that's really cost prohibitive. I mean, I think you theoretically could, but, um,

And that's some of the challenges that we have when we're trying to get the assurance is if we set that requirement too high, it actually deters folks from even jumping into the incentive option. We saw that with Green Building in downtown where we got feedback that the assurance device was such a deterrent because they had to put up so much cash to develop their project according to what they said they were going to do.

I mean, with bonds, should it only be cash? Cash? going to be like a bond or something?

Even so, I know the feedback is typically, it's a really big hassle to recover funds.

I'm trying to get on the icon time with Matt.

Because I mean, some of the design. That is a tool, the bonding assignment of savings. I mean, there's a lot of forms of assurance devices, but we don't direct one over the other per se. It's really developer choice in a lot of times, but it's just whether or not we set that assurance too high that

I think 25 is too low. This is my personal opinion. Because we have seen so many things that the phase one is done, developer is gone, or we all know about that. That's my two questions.

Something to note too, just to add to it. In the code, we also have some strict timelines to say, I think... From the first phase, you have two years to start your stream daylighting, and then you have three years to finish your stream daylighting. So that's some added, just some added metrics to know like upfront, this is what you're committing to.

Yes, from that start day or from the finish date of phase one?

I think, I believe it's from the start date of phase one. Sorry, I don't remember that. Anyway, give it a read. Okay. I go read that.

Thank you. Yeah.

All right. Commissioner Keppel.

Yeah. Maybe just start with the TDR piece. I just wanted to understand the mechanics of the TDR. Would that be... would that be used as part of the amenity fee, basically fee in lieu on the amenity system? Is that how it would be used?

Yeah, so it's one of the options that is available in the amenity system. And it's not truly on-site, but I think of it as the other on-site option. So you might choose to do affordable housing on-site or affordable commercial, or maybe you buy TDR credits But it's essentially like a fee in lieu. It's just for that TDR. So King County administers the program. They coordinate finding sending sites. So that's kind of the key catch to TDR. And I think King County does have a large supply of sending sites. But all of the credits that people are buying in Bellred have to be matched to real sending sites. And then the price of credits that projects are buying is kind of set by market fluctuations.

So it's not really tied to the $39.69. Totally separate. So instead, it's like one of your options for purposes of meeting your amenity credits. Exactly.

And depending on what the market pricing is looking like, I think there'll be times where it might be more or less attractive to projects. Okay.

I just wanted to say that I'm in favor of the TDR approach. I think that's a good thing for, you know, regional support of the resources that we want to have, um, in this area. Um, the next thing I was going to, um, just mention was, um, have we thought about any kind of pioneer program for Bell Red? And I know that we did something like that in relation to Wilberton, and the concern was maybe we were too generous there because it got filled up right away. And I wonder if the lesson we should take from that is not that we should – avoid pioneer programs entirely, but maybe could we consider calibrating it? Because if there's a concern that the development circumstances are not such that it will cause much initial development in the Bell Red area? Is there a possibility of creating a more calibrated pioneer program that, you know, doesn't give away too much, but at least helps to get people over, you know, some of their concerns about the economic viability of development in this market? could take a look at it yeah okay um the final question i had was just about the um the way that we set the um the fee in lieu um amounts um for the amenity system why do we think um downtown the downtown amount is the right amount as opposed to some other amount because i think the current amount is 25 you said something like that

Yeah, it was originally set at 15 in Bell Red and over the years, just through inflation, it's now at about 25. The downtown fee has been updated more recently. My sense is that I don't think that necessarily the cost to provide those public amenities is going to be so much different in Bell Red and downtown. And there's some administrative efficiency to just keeping things more simple that way. And it's totally optional.

I think the only other thing, since we're supposed to be giving you feedback on things that we would like to see potentially change, I do feel like for some of those alternatives for either the private road option or for the development agreement that we ought to look at a smaller sidewalk size. And that's it for me. Thanks.

Commissioner Ferris.

I have nothing more to add. I am prepared to make a motion to call for the direct for the public hearing. But I also like to make a motion that we extend our meeting by 15 minutes.

Can I get a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Great. Vice Chair Villaviesis.

So our direction for the public hearing, I have a question so what happens if we do this public hearing and we hear the same comments again. What happens afterwards i'm just concerned that we've had three or four sessions and we keep hearing the same comments over and over and.

At that point, we'd vote on a recommendation that we provide. We don't need to reach consensus. We would just, you know, it would be up to the commission to vote on.

And if it doesn't go on, like what's the... What do you mean by it doesn't go on? If the commission doesn't recommend it, it goes to council. What happens after that? Like what's the impact to this process?

that's more of a question for staff if we delay indefinitely. Yeah.

I mean, the commission's done this before. You hold a public hearing. It's a good way to get the word out. And that triggers a bunch of notice requirements for us. And if you can't reach a recommendation tonight at the public hearing, we'll schedule another study session. This one isn't We don't have a hard deadline on this, though, as Christina noted, we have folks that are interested and that want us to begin doing review under this proposed code. And we are not doing that right now because we need to get some more. We need to settle some of the code before we can really rely on reviewing projects against it.

No, I guess my comment, well, first I'd like to plus one the Pioneer provision. I think it would be a great addition to Bell Red, to support development, especially in these times. But I also like to... I really encourage you to add a third path for the street and the block sizes. We just keep hearing it. And I agree with those voices. But whether or not I agree, when a developer is going to develop that property, once they have the different options, they can move forward. So it does provide flexibility. So I really like to see something in the code that reflects the voices of everybody that's been talking about this. That's it for me.

No further direction for me, so I'll just kind of review what I've heard from the commission so far, and then we can make a motion or not. So first one was I liked, I think Commissioner Ferris early on recommended just kind of like the goals of the street grid and kind of clearly highlighting that. I think that has been a missing element in some of our presentations. And I think very clearly stating that would make it a lot easier for us to have a discussion around the grid. I think... what Commissioner Villavesa just stated in terms of alternative path. I also hear you stating that like you feel that that's already kind of mapped out. So maybe it is a, you know, like put together a proposal for how you feel it's mapped out or a third alternative, but a way to address that. I heard some more options maybe with the assurance device around daylighting from Commissioner Kanlu. Uh, support generally for the pioneer program proposal. Um, I also heard a lot of TR opportunity proposals. So, uh, maybe just some opportunities that you could highlight there and maybe diving into that a little bit more during the next session. Um, and then also I think from commissioner, a couple of smaller sidewalk alternative, uh, for, um, uh, for the DA, uh, anything I missed, I'll let the commission chime in if there's anything else that you'd like to say.

Yeah. Like when development agreements, there were some comments about development agreements for properties that are larger than four acres. And it makes sense, like even for smaller properties, when you have constraints, they're more onerous on smaller properties. So I think the path should be open for properties that are smaller than four acres. And I don't know where that line was drawn, like why four acres. Yeah.

Well, part of it is because really the focus and the DA path is about proposing alternatives to the street grid that could be removing a street entirely. And in practical terms, large sites are always going to have more flexibility to develop roads. alternatives to their access than a small site has. A small site is going to be more limited. We feel like, and also in terms of the public benefit that it can provide, it's also, again, just a reminder of the practical number of DAs that the council is going to be able to handle. We want to keep it limited. We want to look at providing some flexibility in the code, which we believe we have. I think I will say, I think no matter what we do, we are always going to hear comments that we want to see more. That's, you know, property owners are going to advocate for getting the most on their property. I don't fault them for that. I think that's always going to be an agree to disagree. But we can provide some more kind of thought on options for setting that size limit or other kind of considerations with the eligibility there.

Great. I think that's everything for direction. Could I get a motion to set a public hearing, if anyone's willing?

I would like to make the motion that we direct staff to set up the public hearing segment.

Great. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Great. Hope you guys got everything you need. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Great. Next up is approval of minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from June 24th, July 9th, and July 22nd? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Great.

We'd like to make a motion that we adjourn.

Second. Great. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.