Good meeting.

Good evening.

And welcome to the January 28th meeting of City of Bellevue Planning Commission.

This evening's meeting is held via hybrid format with both in-person and virtual option via Zoom.

Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment during the oral communication portion of the agenda.

All written comments that have been submitted prior to 11 a.m.

today, Wednesday, January 28th, will be summarized into the record.

We have one study session item tonight on the agenda.

Housing opportunity and mixed use area, land use code amendment.

This continues our study session following the hearing on December 10th.

Now let us uh move forward with the roll call.

Wesha Lu.

Present.

Commissioner Ferris.

I'm here.

Commissioner Belvisis.

Commissioner Geppo?

Here.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Present.

Commissioner Neil Chan.

Here.

Council and Lies and Mayor Malakutian?

Here.

And I'm Chair Han Lu.

Can I get the motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

A discussion.

All approved, say I.

Aye.

Mayor Melicrus.

Do you have any reports for us?

Yes, very quick.

From the last time we were here.

We had just one council meeting.

The topic that uh was very interesting was human service needs updates, what City of Bellevue community needs are, and then how we are allocating our funds uh with what percent to what kind of needs.

So it was a great study by the staff.

Uh so if someone is interested, is last night meetings.

We also did something on the updating the safe speed um of the whole Bellevue city uh uh arterial roads.

Uh we are decreasing a speed uh because we know speed uh correlate to more injuries and bad accident, I guess.

So there was a lot of data and we are updating all of our speeds.

So watch that if you're interested.

But something that is related to this body is uh to the uh today eventually we finalize all of the appointments.

So from next meeting, uh very known person, uh council member Vishal Bargawa would be the liaison for this body, and it would be my today my last day, but I'm coming on a stopping by because I appreciate you all.

I uh built a relationship with you all, and I would love to continue that.

And some of these topics are very interesting.

I'm very interested, so I would love to come and see it in person, rather to hear it via some Zoom audio or uh in other ways.

So that's uh all update right now for you guys.

If there is any question, I'm all yours.

I would just like I'm gonna guess I'm speaking on behalf of our planning commission of how wonderful it has been to have you and thank you.

Oh, thank you so much.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Savas.

Mayor Coachyon, after I don't know, nine years you have Wednesday open.

I can't believe it.

What are you gonna go do with your calendar?

Good luck.

I am not going to remove the blocks.

It's blocked for me.

No one can take nine years blocking.

Oh my gosh.

Um, Kate, um, are there any reports from board and commission?

No, no reports.

Sorry.

Um Kate, will you provide us the update of the meeting schedule for 2026?

Yeah.

The um I was just wanted to note that the follow-up discussion on the survey results uh was going to be tonight, but uh we've postponed it to February 25th.

Um, and I've also added uh the tentative topics for April to the calendar as well.

Thank you.

And um let us move with the oral and written communication.

Kate, do you um have any summary of the written communication that you can share with us?

Sure.

We had um several written communications that came in since the packet was published, all related to HOMA.

Um, and I forwarded all of those to you.

I think there was something like 13 or um two written communications have come in since I sent the update at noon.

Um, also regarding HOMA.

Um I believe all of those folks who sent the comments have also signed up to speak.

Um Chair, I just wanted to let the public know that if they send comments on the day of the meeting, um, they're not forwarded to commissioners before the meeting if they come in after noon.

Um, I I know that different um bodies have different um procedures, and I just wanted to make sure that the public is aware of that practice.

It's 11 o'clock, right?

Whatever we receive by 11, they're gonna go forward to us and after that.

Um, yeah, I I let it go until noon.

But yeah, 11 is better.

I encourage comments to send written comments as early as possible so that the commissioners have the maximum amount of time to review them.

And just so folks know you can find the topics of the upcoming meetings in the materials for this meeting on Legistar.

There's a calendar um in that in that packet.

So if there's a topic that's coming up at the next meeting, sending the comments early, make sure that the commissioners um get those materials.

Um we have a total of 30 minutes for oral communication.

HSBC will have up to three minutes to speak.

A staff liaison case Nessie will call and the speakers in order in which they have registered, either in person or online.

If anyone from the public has missed the six o'clock registration deadline, you may still provide public comment if there's remaining time.

Please you um use the raise hand function in the Zoom if you are attending virtually or motion to a staff if you are in person.

Um rules at updated by city um council limiting the topic about uh which um the public may speak during our meeting under ordinance 6752.

The public may only speak during public comments about subject matters that are related to city of Bellevue government and are within the power of the duties of the planning commission.

Um Kate, would you please call for the speakers and how are we doing about us regarding the 30 minutes?

We have um 16 people that are signed up to speak.

Um yeah, that would be over the 13 minutes.

48, yeah.

Um it's happened to me.

Um that we extend our uh session by 15 minutes.

A second.

Any discussion?

All in paper.

Aye.

Okay.

Um thank you.

All right.

Um so the first person we have signed up to speak is Brady Nordstrom, who is virtual, and that is followed by a pair of people.

Um, Deborah Deutsch and Suba.

Brady, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Oh, just a moment.

I forgot to get the time timer up.

Just one moment.

Oh, wait.

Using a new timer tool.

So one moment.

All right, uh, go ahead.

All right.

Um, so my name is Brady Nordstrom, as you see on that screen there.

Um, and I'm here tonight to represent the uh housing development consortium and the east side affordable housing coalition.

Uh the EAHC represents over 30 organizations on the east side, the bill design, operate, and advocate for affordable housing, including in Bellevue.

Uh sorry that I'm unable to join you tonight in person, but I'm excited to share my comments.

So uh first of all, I wanted to thank staff for all their hard work on the HOMA code.

Uh there's been a balancing of diverse stakeholder voices, economic realities, and a range of trade-offs and city goals.

I also wanted to thank you as the planning commissioners for your deep engagement with uh all of uh with with staff, myself, other affordable housing sector voices.

Uh and we share your values of realizing a welcoming, inclusive and vibrant future for Bellevue that includes affordable housing for a range of workers, families, aging adults, and young people.

And so this is why I'm here tonight, and it's probably not a surprise to any of you to enthusiastically support HOMA draft A with a well-calibrated affordable housing requirement.

And I know I've spoken on this topic in the past.

I just wanted to put a fine point on some things as you consider action tonight.

So first of all, the proposed affordable housing requirement is well calibrated, and there's been uh careful city analysis that shows the cost of providing the affordable housing is offset uh by the value provided to landowners through the up zone.

So the city also provides other benefits to developers uh that you're familiar with, uh, removal of some outdated code requirements, FAR exemptions, et cetera.

Um this policy is a common policy in the east side, uh King County and the nation and has a track record of creating affordable housing at scale.

So Bellevue's version of this policy is light touch.

Um and it's complemented by a uh conservative fee and loo structure that ensures flexibility with compliance.

And so ultimately I find this policy interesting.

It's it succeeds only alongside um market rate development.

So we encourage you to create consistency with Wilburton and continue that legacy here today.

Um FTE is going to be important to pair with this program.

And fortunately, uh city council recently and um I would say quite wisely directed staff when your recommendations arrive to them that they would provide additional analysis to pass MFTE uh updates simultaneously with these code updates.

And so I just uh wanted to say this is a really important new development, and we hope this enables you to focus on recommending a framework that will help Bellevue meet its housing targets, of which about 85% are between zero and eighty um percent AMI uh for the next 20 or so years.

So finally, last point affordable housing requirement is technically and legally only being proposed in mixed use areas.

So we broadly support the staff's effort in working with the time is over.

Thank you so much.

All right, next we have uh Deborah Deutsch and Suzanne Baugh.

Or in person.

That will be followed by Mark Mowet, who is virtual.

Press the button.

Go ahead.

Good evening, planning commissioners.

My name is Sue Baugh.

You're probably sick of hearing me, but uh my name is Sue Bon.

I've lived in Lake Heights for 35 years, and with me tonight is Deborah Deutsch, a Newport resident, a Newport Hills resident for 45 years.

We're here tonight to reiterate our support of the latest draft of HOMA.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak again on this topic again and again.

As I have mentioned before, I have spoken with Bellevue City Council member and staff since the 1990s about the need to redevelop the Newport Hills shopping center.

But tonight we are here to speak as members of the Newport Community Coalition, which includes residents from Newport Hills, Lake Heights, Newport Shores, Greenwich Crest, uh, and including new and long-term residents.

Our coalition is has supported and still supports a comprehensive plan is adopted the need for more housing of all types, including housing that is affordable for teachers, nurses, and police and police.

And the most recent iteration of HOMA that is before you tonight.

I didn't space that properly.

But anyway, you know what I mean.

Sorry.

In particular, we support redevelopment of the Newport Hill Shopping Center.

As I have shared with you before, this is the third time that the Newport Hills shopping center has been involved in a redevelopment debate.

And twice the anti-development coalition contingents, adversarial efforts resulted in a negative outcome.

We are excited to finally soon, we hope, have the opportunity to change the outcome going forward.

I'm Deborah Deutsch.

And the Newport Community Coalition supports HOMA and specifically for what is called in the NB zone that applies to the Newport Hills shopping center.

We're comfortable with three to five stories with amenities and bonuses as included in the draft.

And as a reminder, contrary to what you may have heard, no one in our group supports seven to ten stores.

We're very supportive of adding much needed housing and housing that is affordable to everyone in our community, as Sue mentioned.

We also understand that a mixed-use center includes retail in order to support retail, additional customers are a must.

The Newport Neighborhood Coalition representing a large group of residents supports moving forward on redevelopment of Newport Hills shopping center.

And we are here tonight to again reiterate our coalition's support for moving forward with HOMA so we can get that done.

And thank you.

And thank you for linking to us yet again.

Well, thanks, Daddy.

Mark Moet, if you could raise your hand.

Mark will be followed by Nikki Steck, who is also virtual.

Mark, can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Mark Mowit, and I'm here to comment on the city's HOMA draft as it relates to the Northtown Shopping Center at 2616 Bellevue Way Northeast.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Uh we support Bellevue's goal of increasing housing supply.

And our message tonight is simple.

OMA needs the right incentives and flexibility so projects pencil and get built.

Our top priority is the grocery FAR exemption.

We support the intent.

A grocery can be a true neighborhood anchor, but the current approach is unlikely to be used.

First, the FAR bonus needs to be stronger.

Grocery is materially more expensive to build in mixed use projects due to loading, venting, structural needs, and operational constraints.

In our view, a three to one FAR bonus is likely necessary to make grocery inclusion economically accretive.

And the bonus should support not only the grocery space, but also the required pedestrian oriented retail program.

Second, the permanent grocery covenant is too restrictive.

Requiring grocery use for the life of the building creates long-term risk.

The capital markets cannot underwrite.

We understand there may be an option to convert to another exempt use like child care, but that also isn't workable.

Grocery spaces are highly specialized and costly to repurpose, and many exempt uses are not financially viable to finance.

This creates a stranded space risk.

A broader solution allowing repurposing to market feasible community serving uses is necessary.

We recommend limiting the covenant to 10 to 25 years or allowing modification after sustained vacancy and commercially reasonable efforts to retenant.

On pedestrian-oriented frontage and setbacks, we appreciate staff's amendment allowing 15% in set retail in a plaza.

We support that direction, but more flexibility for plazas and modulation would improve design and live work units and resident amenities should count toward pedestrian oriented frontage in lower demand locations like Northtown.

Finally, if HOMA includes mandatory affordable requirements, it must include the MFTE supercharger.

So MFT units can satisfy those requirements.

Otherwise, redevelopment will not pencil and housing delivery will stall.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Nikki Stuttgart.

Can you raise your hand online?

Can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Uh Nikki will be followed by Layla Kademi.

Uh go ahead.

Can you timer?

Yep.

Chair Conlu, Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Nikki Stuck, and I'm here today on behalf of the Bellview Chamber Plush Committee commenting on HOMA prior to the study session.

Uh first, thank you to staff and the commission for the amount of work that's gone into HOMA and for the collaborative conversations along the way.

We continue to offer strong but conditional support and appreciate the direction this work is moving.

I want to focus on four specific but related items that we think are important to making sure HOMA actually functions uh as an incentive, particularly in downtown.

First, the 3% floor plate bonus is essential to making HOMA work in downtown.

It is a very modest increase, but it provides a real tangible offset to the affordable housing fee in lieu, particularly for office projects that do not provide on-site housing.

Without this offset, there is no meaningful incentive for office development to participate, which creates an imbalance in the program.

Downtown job growth and housing production need to move together.

Tools like the 3% floor plate bonus help ensure we don't unintentionally discourage office development at the same time.

We're asking projects to contribute to housing.

We strongly support this provision as drafted, and we ask the commission to direct staff to clearly implement the 3% bonus in the final code language.

Second, regarding affordable housing development flexibility and maximum floor plates.

We are requesting that the exemption from maximum floor plate requirements apply to buildings 85 feet or less rather than 80 feet, and that it applies across all downtown zones, not just the perimeter overlays.

We appreciate that staff has previously indicated agreement with the 85-foot threshold based on alignment with the type 3A construction.

So we simply want to make sure that commitment is fully reflected in the final code edits.

Equally important is the downtown-wide applicability.

If this provision is limited to the perimeter overlays, the only remaining ADF benefit outside those areas is a five-foot reduction in upper level setbacks.

Standing alone, that is not enough to incent participation in the affordable housing development flexibility program.

Third, on the grocery store incentive.

While we strongly support the grocery store incentive, we encourage the commission to ensure the covenant duration aligns with real world market conditions as a perpetual covenant risks deterring use of the bonus altogether.

A time-limited covenant, such as 25 years consistent with market leasing practices would make this incentive far more workable while still delivering a meaningful public benefit.

And finally, on the MFTE supercharger, if HOMA includes mandatory affordability, it must be paired with real economic offsets.

We also ask that the MFTE supercharger apply to permanently affordable units provided in downtown as an added incentive for on-site long-term affordability where feasibility is most challenging.

These are targeted changes, but they make a meaningful difference in whether Homo delivers housing and supports job growth in the near term.

We appreciate the commission's leadership and staff spirit of collaboration with stakeholders and respectfully ask you to go incorporate these points into direct staff accordingly as your final as you finalize your recommendations.

Thank you.

Thanks, thank you.

Next, we have Layla Kademi.

Can you raise your hand online?

And Layla will be followed by Amanda Keating, who is in person, I believe.

Can you hear me?

All right, go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Layla Kademi.

I'm a land use attorney at Hill is Clark Martin and Pearson commenting on behalf of Westbrook properties.

Westbrook through the ownership entity EGBW38R purchased the woodlands at Bellevue, formerly the Boeing Eastgate campus in 2021.

The site encompasses 45 acres just north of I-90.

If the city maximizes HOMA's potential, the site will have enriched opportunities for mixed-use development with access to expansive public transportation.

The recent draft updates increasing the impervious surface limits are essential for transit-oriented housing development.

We appreciate the city's work towards improving these standards.

To strengthen the legislation, the city should take a more thoughtful approach for sites subject to mandatory affordability that have a blended apartment and townhouse concept where sites include both townhomes and apartments.

We request updated language to allow consolidation of affordable units in the apartment building to ensure feasibility of the townhomes.

We've suggested this comp this concept in past testimony, and it was supported by several of you during the discussion at past meetings.

Despite the support, the concept has not been reflected in the legislation.

Home is a critical step towards meaningful housing development in Bellevue.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments and thank staff for their work on it.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Layla.

Next, we have Amanda Keating.

Amanda will be followed by Jackson Diller, who is virtual.

Just uh press the button to turn it on.

Go ahead.

Hi there, thank you very much.

Um in reference to the letter, um, first of all, I'm Amanda Keating.

I'm an architect with Weber Thompson Architects.

Um reference to the letter and the diagram that I submitted earlier today.

Um, thank you for the work on the HOMA code update, and thank you in advance for considering two small revisions that support the goal of delivering more housing in Bellevue, especially in the mid-rise mixed-use areas.

As you know, the city's vision for these mid-rise mixed-use areas is to provide an area for a mix of housing retail service, office, and complementary uses at a middle scale and density.

As architects, we support this vision for middle scale density, and we have direct and extensive experience with this building type.

Our recommendation is to ensure that the city's land use code aligns with the building code and construction best practices for wood frame type 3A construction.

This will help the city maximize the housing potential and construction efficiency in these new MU zones.

Generally, we request that the planning commission align the land use code heights in the mid-rise mixed-use zone, especially the new mixed-use seven-story MU7 zone being created with established building code heights.

Under the Belleview Building Code, which is also the Washington State Building Code, the maximum height for wood podium wood frame type 3A buildings is 85 feet, but the new MU7 zone in the land use code draft allows for only 80 feet.

The city can align those two codes in support of more housing in these MU7 zones by editing specifically a section with the name mixed-use 7-story MU7.

I ask that you consider clarifying the mixed-use 7-story MU7 to mid-rise mixed use to match the attachment D future land use map.

Secondly, um land use code 2020 010.

Consider clarifying the maximum building height to be revised from 80 feet as currently drafted to 85 feet.

This slight change will align the land use code with the Bellevue and state building codes, which restricts podium and mid-rise buildings to 85 feet in height.

85 feet would allow for the full build-out of a podium style building while staying within the wood construction height limits.

Adding an extra five feet will allow for another full floor of housing in these zones, while the current proposed 80 feet leaves a full level of housing capacity on the table that will never be realized.

85 feet will still allow for a tall ground floor level that will support retail or non-residential uses.

And I did attach a diagram diagrammatic rendering showing what this might look like in reference to halt by height, bulk, and scale of the buildings.

Thank you very much for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Next, we have uh Jackson Diller, followed by Jesse Clausen.

Can you hear me, Jackson?

Yes, I can.

Uh go ahead.

Hello, Planning Commission, Jackson Diller here.

Uh great to see you guys again.

Um I'm here to comment uh regarding the uh grocer concerns of HOMA on the one-to-one incentive.

Uh personally, we uh we own the grocery outlet in crossroads, as well as we're also investors of uh grocery infrastructure on a more national scale.

And I believe that I want to uh interject on some of the concerns around here because we're also involved in the building and the one in one one-to-one incentive that is originally proposed here raises a little concerns on the investment world, um, even for someone who is involved in the grocers.

Um, there's some long-term views that pose a lot of risk.

And I wanted to confirm that you know, a good three to one incentive is a little bit better and more inclusive for the investment community, such as ours.

Um, you know, also the covenant that you know puts a lifetime hold on the building is a little concerning.

Um, as you all may know, that you know, a lot of grocers may be a bit more brick and mortar today, but in the next 25 years, a lot of the infrastructure could potentially change through a lot of the e-commerce platforms, which would pose it uh a very challenging position for future landowners to fill these spaces.

And as Mark and Nikki mentioned, who I um do not know, but I was very impressed with their um response that these build-outs for these grocers, as we know, um, as we personally have them, are quite expensive.

And to replace that or to find a tenant to replace um, you know, that space is could potentially be near impossible to the future landowner.

Um, so I I really wanted to put my two cents in there, and we had a great conversation a little while ago with uh Matthew Menard with the senior planner and who took an interest in um because we have the grocer out in crossroads, and that was one of our larger concerns is that you know, if we want to incentivize it, we have to make it very incentivized in order for people to put that risk on there for the personal property.

So, anyway, I just wanted to um reiterate that the three to one would be a little bit better for proposed for future investments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Jesse Clausen, followed by Ian Morrison.

Mayor, commissioners, chair, hello.

Um, thank you for all the care you've put in to the HOMA legislation.

I want to speak briefly about why just some of the details that you're hearing matter and why addressing them now can help us avoid having to come back and do another look back, which we're trying to avoid doing.

Many of the zoning provisions connected to this package haven't been updated in decades, as you know, because the city understandably doesn't want to revisit these same sections again anytime soon.

It's helpful to make sure the details are as perfect as possible before we move forward with the legislation.

But these are minor, minor refinements, and they will make a really big difference in how effectively the code functions.

First, office and non-residential development should be incentivized to participate in the fee and loo program downtown.

The same way residential projects are residential.

A simple 3% floor plate increase is visually imperceptible, but it helps attract the investment Bellevue needs, especially right now given what's happening in Seattle.

More participation means more affordable housing dollars and a stronger tax base.

This is not a giveaway.

It aligns incentives so the city actually gets what it's aiming for.

Please recommend that the staff include our proposed amendment in the recommendation package.

Second, you've heard about the 25-year covenant with the fee and loo option, provides the certainty needed to actually deliver affordable commercial spaces and grocery stores.

This is the behavior the city wants and the structure supports it.

Third, aligning the land use code and the building code by adjusting the 80-foot reference to 85 feet is just good housekeeping.

It prevents projects from getting caught between two different standards.

And this small fix will lead to more housing.

Finally, please voice your support for the MFTE supercharger for mandatory housing.

The reality is that few very few projects pencil right now outside of Wilburton, where the MFTE supercharger will exist potentially next week.

If Bellevue truly wants housing now, not in five or 10 years, its policies must reflect that urgency.

Supporting the supercharger is the quickest way to actually get homes built.

These refinements don't change the structure of the HOMA legislation.

They just complete it.

Council relies heavily on your direction.

Including these details now helps Bellevue meet its goals of 35,000 housing units and 70,000 jobs over the next 20 years.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jason.

And we have Ian Morrison, who's in person, followed by Heidi Dean, who is virtual.

Thank you, Mayor.

Member Commission and staff.

I'm going to be brief because I think it's we are at an exciting point here.

Thank you to staff.

I was talking to Matthew today because we're down to sort of the last refinements to make HOMA truly something that can unlock housing quickly.

And he mentioned, you know, we've been working on these issues since 2024 in earnest.

And it feels like there has been great progress.

So thank you to staff.

Thank you to you.

Thank you to the council.

This is an exciting opportunity.

I want to just focus on two things.

We're here to talk about shopping centers that are not Newport Hills and echo what you heard from Mark and Jackson.

And there's also shopping centers like Crossroads, right?

Where you see there are these are the neighborhood anchors that create these places, these daily places that people want to go to.

So your leadership in the grocery incentive is an exceptional idea.

And as you know, land use attorneys, we believe in regionalism and healthy rivalries between, you know, uh Bellevue and our friends across the lake here.

And I would simply reiterate that where you can have a leadership by directing staff to continue working on that ratio and the 25-year covenant versus the pot permanent covenant is I'm not going to compare, but we have a city across the lake where there's also grocery things.

They are proposing in the city of Seattle a 35-foot height incentive.

That's off the table here.

We know that's been settled.

We agree with the small edit of to bring this up to 85 feet in the mixed use areas.

But I think this is a place where there's a friendly rivalry where you can outbeat where Seattle is in terms of these grocery incentives by clarifying the 25-year and by providing that three to one incentive.

As you saw just yesterday, with Amazon Fresh, grocery technology is evolving quickly.

Investing in these large format boxes with loading docks and the kind of infrastructure that's narrow there.

These are extreme upfront investments.

And by bringing that ratio within the heights and density of HOMA to take it to a three to one ratio, I think is going to make Bellevue the leader in the region of saying we want groceries and these community-anchored retail spaces in our neighborhood mixed-use centers.

So I would say thank you to staff.

I think we are down to sort of nits and ticks with the 25 years, the three to one ratio, and the alignment of the building code height with the mixed-use height.

With those things, you can look across your friends at the lake and say, we are the leaders on incentivizing mixed use centers.

And so I would leave you with thank you to staff.

Thank you for all the work.

And it would be an opportunity for you as a city to give direction to as this goes forward to the council to be on the forefront of uh innovation for neighborhood mixed use centers with those couple of tweaks.

So thank you for your work and we look forward to your deliberation.

Thank you.

Next we have Heidi Dean, who is virtual, followed by Luke Schroeder, who is also virtual.

Heidi, can you raise your hand?

Can you hear me?

I can.

Just a moment.

Let me reset the timer.

All right, go ahead.

Great.

Thanks, Kate.

Um good evening.

Heidi Dean from Newport Hills.

I wanted to say that it's interesting that the members of the Newport community coalition knew about the new strike draft because the planner didn't inform the Newport Hills Community Club until Friday when the opportunity to get comments into the packet had already passed.

Um, so there is a problem again with engagement and being informed.

I also found it interesting that represent the representative for Northtown is there, but none of the businesses at the center, nor residents living around the center provided comment.

And that's because they are unaware, which is due to the bare minimum community engagement that totally avoided engaging with both Northtown and Bell East.

And I would remind the planning commission that you did ask staff on May 14th.

Um you put the public hearing on hold and told them to go out and do engagement, and they did not do that.

You're not hearing from everybody.

I wanted to say that removing ground for retail for the NB zoning will not help vibrancy, nor will decreasing the amount of commercial space to 50% of street site linear space.

The NB zoned neighborhood centers are already doing well.

Go look at them.

They don't need that.

They don't need more neighbors to support them.

Um that's a fallacy that Newport uh Hill shopping center owners like to put forth.

Removing the grocery store protections will result in food deserts.

Um and the comments made by the Northtown rep shows that if you if you don't require them to include them, they won't.

You're only hearing from residents regarding the Newport Hill Shopping Center because our community club has reached out to the neighborhood.

And Rainer Northwest PR consultant has organized the Newport community coalition.

But Newport Hills residents have stopped commenting and showing up because they feel you're not listening to them anymore.

And you've already made up your minds based upon the disinterest in discussing the impact to MB's on properties and things that have been said to them when meeting with council members.

Passing a citywide LUCA that will impact all neighborhood centers while only hearing from residents living near one neighborhood center equates to passing a site specific rezone of the Newport Hill Shopping Center and taking the other neighborhood centers along with it.

That's neither ethical nor is it legal.

Um I can't see the timer.

I'm sorry, I can't.

So I don't know how to 32 seconds.

Um I just I wanted to remind you guys, you did really great work.

Um, those of you that were on um planning commission in 2023 and 24 adopting and and separating out low rise one and low rise two, and that got adopted into the comp plan.

And I have a document that I've prepared and I'm sending to you that shows low rise one, two to four stories.

That's what was adopted.

Please don't do this to the neighborhood centers.

It's not okay.

Thank you, Heidi.

Your time is over.

Next, we have Luke Schroeder, followed by Alan Bacallian.

Can you raise your hand, Luke?

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Uh, go ahead.

Good evening.

Um, first I want to say thank you to the planning commission and the city staff for fostering this dialogue um with the development community and working proactively with the city stakeholders to, you know, first and foremost ensure that we do address affordable housing, but um equally to maintain a pro-development sentiment in Bellevue.

My name is Luke Schrader.

I'm with Schnitzer West.

We were founded in Bellevue and have a long history here, dating back to 1997 when we first purchased the land and began the development of Civica Office Commons.

Since then, we've developed over three million square feet across nine different properties and are currently in pre-development on a new office project called the Arcadian on 106 and 2nd.

The Bellevue Office Market is one of the top markets across the nation.

And in turn, these tenants and businesses contribute contribute millions of taxable revenues to the city constituents.

Companies decisively choose to be here.

They choose to be here for the quality of life, the talented employment pool, and again, the pro-business sentiment.

This has been evidence in numerous conversations I've had in the recent example of a Fortune 500 company attempting to secure the last remaining 400,000 feet of Class A office space in Bellevue.

Now, this was all due to the political atmosphere in Seattle across the lake and their choice to come here and to be in this community and to work with stakeholders such as ourselves.

Bellevue is a beacon of growth because they choose to work with businesses and development community to reach mutually beneficial solutions.

The current home plan as drafted is very reasonable.

That said, for new office developments, there's a proposed affordable fee to be incorporated as part of the amenity bonus.

Now, I will acknowledge that the fee as proposed is financiable and is a great mechanism to contribute to affordable housing.

However, we are worried that this is the first shoe in the door to ultimately expand in the future and ultimately without an offsetting incentive that other zoning areas currently provide.

We have proposed a simple solution and only a 3% bonus to the four plate area.

This solution is easy to implement for new and already permitted products and will help offset the added cost to build.

We appreciate your time and consideration and ask the commission direct staff to implement this 3% bonus to offset the fee.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alan Bacallion, if you could raise your hand.

That will be followed by Brendan Lawrence, who's also virtual.

Alan, can you hear me?

Representing the Bell Red Professional Center.

Didn't know if you heard that.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

We submitted comments December 10th.

And again, today in writing, I wanted to make sure you receive them.

I think I emailed them just an hour or so ago.

The Bell Roy Professionals Center was built in 1979 prior to any residential construction.

So the focus for us is the setbacks and the transition own requirements.

As I stated in the letter, we think that the setbacks should be more flexible.

A 25-foot hard setback when the adjacent residential property home is sent back 75 feet would be a hundred foot separation, which should be allowed to be reduced.

I would say up to 15 feet based on the actual distance of the home to the property boundary.

To maximize the potential for residential housing.

Appreciate staff's revisiting this again.

And I know Matthew's done a lot of work on this, but we still think that 45 degree requirement from the 25-foot setback, taking into account the adjacent residential properties could mean that the top story is over 100 feet from a residence.

And where the requirement is to maintain existing trees, some of which are now 80, 100 foot tall, Doug Furs and hemlocks.

Stepping it back is not going to change that.

The trees are there, and they can't be removed.

So my letter provided some examples as to how you could provide for flexibility and allowing for discretion for future development because it may not be five, 10, 15 years before these properties are developed in their transition zone in the adjacent neighborhoods could totally change as well.

So the focus for us is again providing more flexibility, allowing for maximum residential housing units by providing more units above 60 feet.

Um ensuring that there is sufficient uh buffer without restricting the development potential of the properties.

Um I appreciate your time and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have uh Brendan Lawrence, who will be followed by Charlie Fouche, who is also virtual.

Uh Brendan, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh good evening.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you for the time.

And again, I want to iterate uh our appreciation to both the commissioners and staff for their ongoing uh conversations and consideration of comments around the home implementation.

Uh my name is Brendan Lawrence.

I'm the senior development manager with the Ani Group.

Uh, we're a large uh developer in North America and have a in-progress three and a half million square foot project in downtown Bellevue, uh, of which 900,000 square feet consists of office.

We are excited about Bellevue and getting that project underway uh this year.

One of our strong considerations here is that uh Bellevue certainly has a thriving office market, as Luke outlined, and that that really creates a vibrancy and a demand for residential and jobs, right?

So we need to think about incentivizing office uh on the same scale that we're talking about, adding residential.

Uh, the way the HOMA code is written now relative to downtown, is it doesn't have any any offsetting um uh benefits associated with the cost.

And uh as Luke and Jesse and others have noted, uh, we've proposed through the plush committee a 3% increase in the uh floor plate sizing to help uh absorb some of those costs.

Uh, currently, uh, as many of you are aware, uh, it's a challenging environment for for all developments, uh, and especially at the scale uh and size of downtown projects, both in terms of their capital investments and time to get those projects approved.

Uh, it's a challenge to uh absorb additional costs and fees in the timeframe of those projects.

So we are requesting and asking that the planning commission continues to direct staff to work with the downtown community and implement that that fix uh so that we can continue to to incentivize development of the downtown core.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Next we have Charlie Fouche.

Could you raise your hand, please?

Can you hear me?

I got you.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Yeah.

Thank you, commissioners.

Um and again, um, as most have noticed, really appreciate everyone's work on this.

Um, like Brendan and Luke and others, um, we support the adoption of a 3% floor plate increase as well.

Um, that would be FAR exempt as a fair offset to the new fee on downtown office projects.

Um I work for Scanska.

We are a global commercial developer where we have developed both uh an office project V8 on Northeast Eighth and 108th, and also um residential alley 11 um that is also on Northeast Eighth.

Um as others have said, the city is a thriving office market um that maintains, you know, and helps with strong employment and tax revenue.

And we'd also believe that the city needs to have a strong balance between jobs and residences.

Um the way that the new Homo fees are written today, um, disincentivize future office development and we need incentive, we need incentives to develop, not disincentives.

Um we've identified the fix uh through plush um for a simple fix and a small amount of additional FAR for office buildings in exchange for these fees, and we as well uh support the the planning commissioning, the planning commissioners to um direct the staff to continue to look at implementing this fixed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Mark Vilwak, who is in person.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor, uh Chair and Planning Commission.

My name's Mark Vilwalk with DR Horton.

And we develop both four rent uh apartments and also for sale townhomes.

And just wanted uh um just bring to your attention, there's certain areas, you know, with the pedestrian-oriented uh development that just doesn't make sense in some of the mixed-sease zones, like kind of the end of Southeast 37th Street.

It's one way, it's a dead end.

There's no through uh road whatsoever there.

And so we've proposed, and I emailed in our our comments some slight changes to kind of carve out that area um so that pedestrian-oriented development wouldn't be necessarily required in that area.

And that would really allow uh more housing to be developed in that area much quicker.

And uh, you know, there's been several properties that have been for sale in that area and they've wanted to develop over the you know past decade or so, but it just hasn't made sense with pedestrian-oriented requirements.

So I just encourage you just to take a look at our our red lines um to kind of carve out that that area in specific to to reduce or eliminate the pedestrian-oriented development.

So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Can we go to the study?

But I think we have five minutes left in the in the extended ones.

I see someone is raising hand.

So anyone online, Kate?

Nobody online is their hand.

Thank you for giving me the time to speak.

My name is Nicole Myers.

I just wanted to mention that there are some bills potentially under consideration, Olympia that could change how we think about ground floor um retail and other um active uses.

Uh, it does look like there's the potential for all of that to become housing.

And I hope that you'll consider changing the structure, not necessarily the outcomes we're looking for, but changing the structure so that even if legislation like that does pass an Olympia, it doesn't up-end what we're trying to, the balancers trying to strike here in Bellevue, um, so that we do have the amenities for all the future new residents, and that um basically, you know, we still have a certain height that we're expecting.

We are still, you know, giving a option for um growth beyond what is currently allowed, but that additional height be dependent on things happening on the ground floor that um, you know, just support the whole neighborhood, enable it to be more vibrant, enable, you know, uh uh pedestrian experience to um match what we think of when we think of a city and that it's not just residential.

I do think, you know, when we think about the incentives for building housing, that we are we need more housing here in Bellevue.

And so it's not unreasonable for there to be some incentives that exist for residential that don't exist for office space.

But um, I also hope that we make sure that the mixed use stays mixed.

And I hope you'll direct staff to think about ways we can say, you know, in order to get the extra height, it is dependent on continuing to offer things at the ground level.

Um, but you know, there are definitely other things regarding, you know, signage and um you know access to pedestrians that might be able to be uh loosened up a bit.

So I appreciate that so many people are speaking in support of grocery in particular.

I think that's something that really a lot of people depend on.

And as we have seen, um, you know, if if we lose that, then you have to, you know, change a lot of your plans.

And um, that is such a huge part of how you experience the city.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, it's really good.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

And December 10th, 2025, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed LUCA.

Staff made changes to the strike draft related to the in previous and hard surface limits, pedestrian-oriented youth requirement, downtown and transition requirement based on the input received from the public and planning commission.

Tonight the staff requests that the planning commissioner recommend approval of proposal LUCA.

Uh we will have code and policy director, Nick Whipall, senior planner, Matthew Minerd, and senior attorney um Robbie.

We'll provide a presentation on HOMA LUCA.

Great.

Uh thank you.

And uh good evening, Chair Conloo, uh, Vice Chair Liu, Mayor Malikutian, members of the commission.

Um, we are excited to be here tonight to talk about HOMA for I think this is our sixth touch point with you all.

Um, so we are looking forward to a recommendation this evening.

Um, and uh the last time that we were here was on December 10th.

Um we you all held a public hearing, um, received a lot of community input at that public hearing.

Um, there were some specific requests from you all for staff to follow up on, um, requests from yourselves as well as a list of 36 items that you wanted us to look into, respond to, um, close the loop on.

So we've had uh we've been busy since December 10th and are happy to kind of report back uh what we've been able to adjust in the draft.

So um this evening, we are looking for input from you on the LUCA, um the land use code amendment.

And then after your discussion, we are hopeful that you will uh make a recommendation to city council so that we can move this forward uh in February.

So with that, I'll just pass this over to Matthew.

Thanks, Nick, and thank you to the planning commission.

Uh we will start tonight with just an update on process.

I will say this presentation will be shorter than the previous presentations, and we'll really just focus on what we talked about at the public hearing.

So uh shorter presentation uh from us tonight.

We'll then talk about the updates we've made to the code since the public hearing, uh, what we're looking at with the changes for downtown and then the schedule.

Uh so as Nick mentioned, this is our sixth touch point with you all.

Uh, the draft for HOMA, the original draft has been out since March of 2025.

So we are very quickly approaching a year of having this draft out to the public.

Uh, we have incorporated feedback throughout this process, both from you and the public and our development stakeholders.

Uh, we are on draft number six of the LUCA at this point.

Um, and the latest draft uh reflects what we heard at the public hearing from you and from the public as well.

Uh so a recap on the public hearing.

Uh there were 36 requests made by the uh chamber's plush committee that you all requested that we take a look at and uh make changes where we felt appropriate working with uh PLUS through that process.

Uh there were some requests to refine the transition area requirements that we had proposed, explore greater flexibility for pedestrian-oriented uses, uh, review those impervious and hard surface limits, uh, evaluate some of the non-conforming language and make some updates there.

Uh, and we spoke with some stakeholders around Seattle's approach to that as well, uh, and discuss vesting.

Uh so as I mentioned, there were 36 requests from the plush committee.

Uh, 16 of those requests have been proposed for incorporation.

You'll hear about those in the following slides.

Uh three of those requests are being addressed through the affordable housing director's rule and some other directorals' rules that we're working on, which are basically rule setting that are uh adopted through the department.

They're not adopted through the planning commission or um council process.

Uh the affordable housing director's rule, which is the main focus of the request, should be done in the next few weeks.

So we will have consistency and we will have sort of closed the book on those requests, hopefully shortly and certainly before HOMA is adopted by council.

There is also a parking reform, Luca that is upcoming.

So the state has passed a law in the last legislative session that limits how much parking we can require throughout the city.

That has to be completed by January 20 of 2027.

So that will also address some of the concerns we heard from Plush.

There are nine requests that we are looking at carrying through to downtown livability 2.0.

I will say one of those requests that we did mention carrying through and is sort of a top priority for downtown livability 2.0, which I assume will be a large point of discussion this evening is how we treat floor plates for all uses in downtown.

And there are eight requests that we're not recommending moving forward with from that list.

We did attach that spreadsheet with those requests and our responses to those requests in your packet.

I think it might be attachment D if my memory serves.

So the next point of discussion was the transition areas.

We were asked to look at making more of a transition between residential districts and neighboring buildings that were over 60 feet tall from what were originally proposed.

So if you remember, originally proposed by staff was a 25 foot landscape setback.

And then essentially you could build as much building as you wanted at that 25 foot line.

We were asked to go back and reevaluate that and look at some more setting back for taller buildings, specifically above 60 feet in height.

So what we are proposing here is to essentially allow that initial 60 foot building at that 25 foot line and then a 45 degree, what we would call a daylight plane.

So essentially going from a 45 degree angle, what you can see in the image there back away from the property line, your building can't cross that 45 degree plane.

So for example, if your building is 80 feet tall, it's going to have to be set another 20 feet back from that property line.

You can, as shown in the diagram, create this sort of stair stepping building to achieve that effect as well.

We were asked to look at some more flexibility and significantly more flexibility for pedestrian-oriented uses at the public hearing.

Essentially, what we heard is that our language is too restrictive and we need more pathways to move away from the strict application of those pedestrian-oriented uses.

As a reminder, in our lower density mixed use districts that are neighborhood centers, we are looking at 50% of the linear street frontage being required of pedestrian-oriented use within 10 feet of the back of the sidewalk, and 66% in those higher density districts.

So those districts that are allowing seven stories and above.

It required that any use on a collector arterial, a minor or a major arterial road that is visible from the neighboring neighborhood, essentially couldn't qualify for that departure.

We've loosened that language up significantly.

So a smaller road.

So we've taken that off the list.

So properties that are on collector arterials could now qualify for this departure.

And we've also removed the requirement that you cannot be visible from the adjacent neighborhood.

So properties that are visible from the adjacent neighborhood now qualify for this departure to depart from this pedestrian-oriented use requirement.

That would be at the discretion of the development services department through the design review application process.

So things that are going to make you come in and out of the building during the daytime, as long as your project is not greater than 50% townhomes.

Our major concern with that is that a lot of these projects that were asking to be exempted from these pedestrian-oriented uses in these areas that were neighborhood centers, we're looking to just build townhomes and basically townhomes not being compatible with that ground floor retail use.

It's not necessarily beneficial to the city from a housing standpoint to have a townhome farm on districts that are proposed for 10 stories or seven stories.

You have a much more expensive housing type and you have much less density through townhome development.

So making sure we do maintain some of that pedestrian oriented use and some of that apartment use in some of these higher density districts that are intended to be neighborhood centers.

We did have a request from a few developers to place the pedestrian-oriented uses along a plaza.

So you'd essentially have a plaza or outdoor space along the sidewalk.

And you could wrap your pedestrian oriented uses internally to the site as long as that plaza is there along the sidewalk.

There are some restrictions with that proposed in the code.

The plaza does have to be a certain width compared to the depth of the plaza.

So you can't just do a very narrow alleyway.

Those uses do have to be visible from the sidewalk.

So even if you're sort of at the back side of the plaza, your use has to be visible from the sidewalk to draw those people in.

And there's only a certain amount of the pedestrian-oriented uses that you can put along that plaza.

So the proposed limit is 15% of those total pedestrian-oriented uses.

There are some other code updates that were requested.

We have significantly increased the impervious and hard surface limits, pushing impervious surface to 85% in those lower density districts.

Most of those are at 60% right now, and 95% in those higher density districts, so seven stories and above.

And then hard surface, which are going to be those surfaces that are not totally impervious, but do allow some water percolation.

So something like pervious pavers and green roofs count as hard surfaces, either at 95% for those lower density districts and 100% for those higher density districts.

We had several requests around bike parking.

We did not propose to change the bike parking requirements for residential uses, but we did think our proposed hotel bike parking was too high.

It was one bike parking space per every five hotel room.

We have dropped that to one to 20, which is consistent with other area cities.

That's not necessarily the way you design a modern apartment building where a lot of the units are facing inwards onto a double-loaded hallway.

So if the units are external facing, they still do have those requirements associated with them, which is sort of that stoop type development, but we are allowing them to be internal facing.

So then that's now an option rather than a mandate.

That was a request from one of the public hearing comments.

We have added a couple of exemptions to the triggering proportional compliance or the non-conforming code, those being demolition and environmental remediation.

We didn't want a development to skip out on something like soil remediation or removing asbestos because it was going to trigger proportional compliance.

We'd really like them to do that regardless of what else it is.

So taking those off the list, make sure that that doesn't become a concern, as well as vacant or underutilized buildings, having those knocked down is often a benefit rather than a negative.

So we don't want developments to not do that because they're going to trigger the trigger this non-conforming code, proportional compliance.

Again, a request from the development community.

As you heard last time, we continue to recommend option A.

As you heard from public comment this evening, we do think it's a well-balanced program.

It's less aggressive than many of our neighboring communities, but we do think this is the best way that we are going to get affordable housing in the city of Bellevue.

History shows that.

And we are coordinating with Office of Housing to make sure that they are present at the council meeting whenever we get a recommendation on this and move on to council.

So we do think option A is the best way to go in terms of really achieving one of the main goals of this LUCA, which is to promote more affordable housing.

There were several requested changes to downtown, which you have heard about this evening.

Some were just minor clarifications to make sure the code was clear when it came time to submit permits under the new code.

There's a very minor update to the assurance device for the green building amenity incentive.

So right now you can get amending incentive points if you provide some sort of green building code like lead certification, for example.

We require a bond for that under the code right now.

Through the Wilburton process, there was another process and a different portion of the code that was set up for that assurance device that allows a little bit more flexibility, which allows the director to determine what that assurance device is.

So if the developer doesn't say get lead certification, but it's gotten amending incentive points, we have them on the hook for something.

Just a little bit more flexibility, but no actual change to the program other than sort of what we're holding as collateral.

We are proposing to allow up to 65% of the parking downtown to be compact parking without a departure.

Right now, the downtown code requires that you get an administrative departure for that.

Um, in discussions with our land use team, uh, we essentially always approve this departure.

So there's no real reason to do a departure.

It adds more process on our end, uh, and it adds more cost to the development for having to go through that process.

So removing that departure process and just allowing 65% of parking uh sort of without it.

Uh, there's was a request to remove side and rear landscape buffering requirements to parking areas in downtown.

What we were finding is that a lot of the property lines in downtown are within a single project.

So these projects are spanning multiple properties, and we are requiring properties to buffer from themselves, essentially.

Um, so it was creating weird landscaping requirements.

There are several districts in downtown already that don't have this requirement.

Uh, so we're proposing to remove those requirements full stop.

It was a five foot uh buffer.

Um, and we will, uh, you heard tonight, we did commit to uh updating the floor plate exemption flexibility in the perimeter overlay for buildings up to that 85 foot mark.

So essentially, if you provide the 0.5 FAR of exempt square footage under the design flexibility, you can exempt yourself from floor plate requirements.

Uh, that did get missed in the draft.

That was my fault.

There were a lot of moving parts.

Uh, we will update the draft to um basically push it to 85%, as we had committed to to the development community, but I did want to call that out.

Uh, we are aware that that didn't quite make it into the draft, but is planned uh for any sort of final draft.

Uh we had a lot of discussion about vesting.

This is another one of those items that is at council's discretion.

Uh, we have very much committed to discussing vesting with council.

Um, likely the discussion will be around allowing projects to either fully choose the old pre-com uh pre-HOMA code or post HOMA code.

So you can't sort of piecemeal those together.

You have to choose one or the other.

Um, we have added some language to your recommendation to request that council does take up this uh topic with us when we get to council.

So you'll see that in the resolution.

In terms of schedule, we are at the beginning of phase three.

As Nick mentioned, we would love a recommendation this evening uh that puts us at council a little bit later in the spring.

Uh otherwise all bets are off as when we get to that council point.

Um there are decision criteria in the land use code around adopting uh Lucas, which your recommendation should be based on these criteria.

Uh those criteria are the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

It uh enhances the health, safety, and welfare of uh the residents of Bellevue, and it is not contrary to the best interest of the residents and uh property owners in the city of Bellevue.

Uh again, uh this is a study session.

You don't have to make a recommendation this evening.

We would love it if you did make a recommendation this evening.

Uh with that recommendation, if there are any changes you would like us to pursue, uh, we would ask that you make those in the recommendation, and you're certainly welcome to do that uh in the recommendation.

And with that, Chair, I'll turn it back over for you.

We are here for questions.

Thanks, Matthew.

Thanks, Nick.

Um we can go to a round or we can take like five to six minutes break if you want it.

How do you feel?

Break.

Okay.

It's um 7.38.

Can we come back at 745?

Okay.

Soon.

Okay.

Thank you so much for a small break.

Um, I can go around and start asking questions.

Can we keep it one question?

Maybe the next person asked your second question.

Commissioner Nidishan.

Uh thank you.

Um first of all, thank you for going six times uh in front of us to talk about HOMA.

Um you actually answered most of my questions in your presentation.

So you've really preempted a lot of what I was going to say.

Um, I'd like to start off by asking a couple questions on the impervious surfaces.

Um I noted in the in the report, you mentioned that you had coordinated with utilities and there were no potential drainage issues or stormwater issues.

Can you just give me a little bit more peace of mind on the actual effects that this increase in impervious services will actually have?

Yes.

Um, so yeah, we did coordinate with utilities quite closely on this.

Obviously, it impacts them.

So we want to make sure that we're not having downstream impacts when we adopt uh land use code.

Uh, there are still you know, city stormwater requirements, there are state stormwater requirements.

Those remain in play.

Um, so we know that there will be adequate stormwater uh detention retention on the site based on state and local requirements that are already in place that we're not proposing to change here.

Um, the other thing that is very important is that if there are downstream impacts, so impacts to our stormwater system or any other systems, uh, it is on the developer essentially to remedy those impacts that they're having.

So that's that's at their cost.

Um so utilities didn't have any great concerns with us doing this.

And Nick, I don't know if you want to add anything to that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um next, I guess I'll kind of tackle what we've been hearing.

Shin Nichol, one question.

Sorry, I thought it was three.

I was serious.

Thank you again for the presentation and for being so responsive to all of our 36 questions uh from last time.

Um I have four questions.

I I'm gonna I'm gonna try to keep it shorter than that.

Um that I think maybe won't be covered by others, is just a clarification associated with the pedestrian-oriented use changes that have happened since our last round.

Can you clarify again?

We've had at least a couple sets of comments uh both today and at our last study session and open meeting associated with the visibility of the um parcel for the pedestrian-oriented use.

You mentioned visibility today, but it didn't seem like it was responsive to those two questions.

And I'm trying to just understand what have you changed.

The questions that came in had to do with parcels that were not visible to pedestrians.

Well, I think trailer in had a comment.

Uh, we had a comment this evening from another um commenter about we have a parcel, it's not visible.

What could could they get a separate exemption for that?

And what have you changed?

Yes.

Um we have there was uh at the public hearing, there was a basically a departure that was in a different part of the code that was only applying to the neighborhood use uh neighborhood mixed use district that we had taken and put into the uh community mixed use design district, which is the sort of the new district uh overlay for HOMA that sets all the standards for HOMA.

Um, and that departure was quite strict the way it was written.

So it required that uh your um parcel not be on a collector minor or major arterial.

Uh and the the big one that made it very, very strict is that you also couldn't be visible from the adjacent properties or the neighborhood.

Um so what we have done is uh removed the collector arterial language there.

So you would now qualify if you are on a collector arterial to apply for this departure.

That's not saying you will get this departure, but you will be able to apply for this departure.

And you that clause um the visibility clause has been removed.

So uh opens up this a bit to those parcels that may um have a little bit more difficulty uh in getting that departure.

It's still more strict than the new departure that we have um added into the uh the the latest draft, essentially, which uh just requires that you have some sort of use that you sort of draws pedestrian in and out, and you can depart from some of the uh HOMA requirements as long as you're not doing just town homes.

Okay, so it's not an exception that that eats the role, but it is being responsive to some of these properties that have unique situations.

Got it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Valeves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I'm not sure if this question is for staff or for chair and the other commissioners.

Uh first, thank you for the update and for the patience.

Uh there's a lot of comments today, and in a ways, like, why now?

Like we've gone through this for a long time.

So I I do agree with a lot of the comments that were raised out today, and I don't know how everybody feels about incorporating this.

It seems like there's uh you stole my question.

Good job.

Uh I don't know if if if it makes sense to get another session for this or make a recommendation with recommendations inside it.

So I'm not sure how everybody feels.

I don't know if this is a question I should ask break, though.

If I can ask you, Chair.

Matt, Matthew, I that was what I had questioned too.

And Nick or Matthew, do you want to add anything?

Because we closed the we closed the public hearing on December 10th.

And then we ask, we directed you all to answer a couple of questions that we ask, and you were working on it.

And meanwhile, you got a new comment not corresponding new suggestions.

Like I don't know if you want that's that's exactly what you are talking about, right?

Considering all the work that has been done, do we just push a little bit further and get it just right?

Or do we just move with what we have and make maybe a couple of amendments that are very specific?

Sure.

Just want to get a sense of how everybody's feeling about this.

So I believe we've had um we had six study sessions for Wilburton.

So maybe if you want to surpass Wilburton, um, you can consider that as a benchmark.

Um the procedurally, um, if there's uh amendments y'all would like to entertain tonight that weren't addressed either um in the comments that were received on December 10th or had come after the public hearing, and that is that is up to you all on how you'd like to manage that.

Um we also don't need precise language.

So if you want to say include the 3% floor plate increase, we know what that is.

Um we're happy to conclude that with the recommendation as we pass that on to council.

Um and likely our processes will work with the commenter and say, was this the thing that you were asking for in the way that you were asking for it?

If we didn't get it quite right or they feel like they want to adjust that again, um, they can go lobby council, because that would be the next point too.

So um these requests can be entertained all the way up until council's ready to take action.

Um and for you all, you don't need the exact language.

If you're comfortable giving that policy direction to us, we'll take it.

We'll incorporate in the recommendation and move it on to council.

That's great.

Thank you.

So I think we can we can make it, we can do like a nodding vote if we want to make a decision to consider.

If you have a question about those comments, please go ahead.

Yeah, go okay.

Can I just procedurally, if you decide you want to move forward with this and make some amendments, um, in front of you, I have some suggested um language.

And if somebody makes the motion to approve the Luca, either attachment A or attachment A with uh the amendments in attachment B, depending on if you're going with the mandatory or voluntary.

Umce that has a second, the chair will open it for discussion and you can make amendments to it.

You guys have been through this before.

I just wanted to remind you.

We always need you to remind us.

Thank you.

So that said, I'd like to voice my support, I guess.

From some of these are easy wins, like 80 to 85 height, which I think you mentioned is gonna be.

Yeah.

Uh I do appreciate the comments about uh incentivizing office space.

This is a good moment for the city.

It's great to hear that from the public.

Different people uh talked about it.

Uh the three percent increase seems like a reasonable proposition.

Uh I do uh like to uh encourage you to revisit the consolidation of affordability component into apartments for mixed use programs that have townhomes and apartments.

That that was raised before it was uh brought to you today again.

Uh Amanda Keating had a comment about uh nomenclature not matching the future land use map.

So I guess that's also an easy win.

And then the grocery comments uh that seem to be uh pretty sensible, especially coming from the developers and users themselves.

I personally would be scared to uh uh demand something that is forever.

So the length of the covenant should probably be considered.

That's that's all I think I'm in agreement with most of the comments that were said today.

Sure, just two things if I could address in that.

Um in terms of the nomenclature, uh there are more zoning districts than future land use map designations, so those names will remain different.

Um if uh commission does want to increase the building height in the MU seven, makes you seven story district to 85 feet.

It's now an eight-story district, so I would recommend that you also recommend we call that uh mixed use eight story at that point.

Um just a very minor thing.

Um but so that will probably the those two are never gonna sync up essentially.

The future land use map and the the zoning designations are not gonna be the same.

Um and the mix of where the affordable housing uh has to be, whether ownership or rental is covered in the director's rule.

Uh, it has not been adopted by the department that has a separate uh adoption process.

Uh the way it's proposed right now is that it will have to be basically split the way the units are split.

So if you have 20% ownership and 80% rental, it has to be 20% and 80%.

Uh, we do think it's important that we encourage affordable housing in ownership units.

It's um a priority in the comp plan as well as in uh hopefully shortly upcoming affordable housing strategy.

It's in the draft as well.

So um that has been that split has been maintained through the director's rule, but there is a lot more flexibility around uh director's rules and changing those.

Um, but it's unlikely that it'd be something we would address through.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Commissioner Um Geppo.

Yeah, thanks for a great presentation this evening.

Um I found a lot to celebrate in what you put together.

I I I liked it.

I liked the additions that you made on the pedestrian-oriented uses for more flexibility.

I like the um your um 45 degree plane for the transition areas.

I thought that was clever um solution.

Um I think the um the things that um Commissioner Bilvasis um mentioned.

Um I'd like to get a little bit more information on just in relation to the impacts of um, you know, this um 3% um bonus for um floor area for downtown and also the grocery um requirements.

Are those in your view necessary um or appropriate from a policy standpoint?

I I'm just surprised that it seems like that's only come up, you know, at this last uh at this last uh meeting.

Sure.

Um in relation to the floor plates, I don't think staff has any particularly particular heartburn over that change.

Um I think staff has uh through our responses basically said we'll address this in downtown Lobby 2.0, which we can do it now and in downtown Little 2.0 if we commission desires.

Um, but floor plates broadly uh have so far been the sort of number one topic that's come up through our uh very early outreach with downtown 2.0.

So it will certainly be talked about there.

Um, but we don't have any concerns with addressing it through HOMA as well, just with the understanding that it may change pretty substantially in the near future.

Um, around grocery stores, uh you probably don't recall this because it's been nine months now, but we did talk about the 25-year sort of exemption for grocery stores very early in the HOMA process.

It was a very early request that we got.

Uh, one of the commenters who you heard tonight made that request probably 11 months ago at this point.

Um commission didn't take that request up.

Um, the reason that we don't necessarily recommend that we go down that route is because we're giving them a bonus.

And when then we end up potentially losing that bonus use after 25 years rather than the life of the building.

Um, I think, and I've talked to our attorneys about this, there is a compromise permit position we can take, which is um, you know, if you can't bring a grocery store back in after that 25 lease year lease expires, which is uh been consistent from what we've heard of outreach as at a grocery store lease is 25 years.

So no argument with that point.

Um you could potentially switch it to a different use that's exempted uh through something like pay the fee for affordable housing to get that exempt FAR.

So we're still making ourselves whole, basically, as a city for that bonus we've given.

Um we do have some draft language for that.

If we do want to go down that route, uh you all would need to make that in your recommendation.

Um I also don't have that much concern over, you know, ending that term at 25 years.

Uh grocery stores are something that are very important to the city.

It's very clearly called out in our comp plan that we want grocery stores.

Um if that's an absolute necessity to have grocery stores, um, you know, it's not that concerning.

Uh, we obviously would prefer to recoup the bonus that we've given out.

Um the three to one FAR exemption is brand new.

Uh, this is something I had not heard until uh probably two or three days ago.

Um so um I don't know, you know, the validity of that.

I'm assuming that the the commenters are being genuine about that.

Supermarkets are difficult, especially in the ground floor of a mixed use building.

We know that um it's a pretty new use type, even in Seattle.

We're sort of starting to see those.

So uh I don't think from our standpoint we have any particular concerns with increasing the FAR exemption.

Um I would say we don't want to push it beyond what the the bonus is for affordable housing, as you know, we do want to say what our priorities are for this additional FAR.

Um, you know, the more FAR bonus you give for one thing, obviously you dilute the FAR bonus for the rest.

So it's that balance um and it's sort of at the discretion of planning commission in this case.

Um, but I don't think we have any particular concerns either way.

That's great.

Um very helpful.

I'm I'm ready to make a base motion when we're ready at the right time.

Thanks.

Um comment and a question.

Um just oh the comment is overall, I strongly support the 3% floor plate bonus as discussed.

I also support the 85 feet increase.

Um I also think that the request around the covenant, the 25-year covenant ending then is reasonable.

Um we w desperately need grocery stores in our community.

We've talked about that even in the in the comprehensive plan.

It's recognized just from a business perspective that that is in order to get financing, that's really important.

And we also know that things will change over time.

So I'm okay with again as proposed the 25 year.

And then lastly, the three to one bar bonus, again, to spur the development of grocery stores, I strongly support as well.

Question is easy.

The setback, the one that's over the 60 feet of the building.

So is that that particular style?

Because I know this is kind of a balance between trying to open up the skyline, if you will, and not have buildings be imposing as well as having the floor plates be as efficient as possible.

So does that 45 degree angle is that been adopted elsewhere?

Are you modeling that after something else, or do you just kind of make that up?

Uh not necessarily in Bellevue.

I mean, there are different angles in different cities.

Um, most famously New York City, sort of the first, what we call the first zone in code of the United States was that sort of daylight plane coming up from the street.

So this is not something that is unique to Bellevue.

Um, that angle was essentially trying to find a balance where you have those buildings that are not creating so much shade as was requested by um planning commission staff didn't have concerns over the original transition area proposal, which didn't have the daylight plane.

Um those concerns were really driven by planning commission.

So if planning commission uh wants a steeper or less steep angle, uh I would not recommend going less steep than 45 degrees because it is already quite a large uh setback.

I mean, we're looking at for a hundred and ten-foot building, you're looking at an additional 40 feet, 50 feet plus the 25.

So that's quite a large setback.

Um other set um daylight planes that sort of we looked at 66 degrees, gives you a much steeper um building.

Um more shadowing, but with mature trees, it's probably not that big of an impact.

So certainly something that um we're happy to hear a planning commission recommendation on a different angle.

My two cents would be is to not make it as steep so that um it's again we get more efficient floor space use.

But that's just my opinion.

I was also gonna note we did have a daylight plan standard that really to related to single family homes that came out through neighborhood livability amendments um in the mid-2000s um or early 2000s, and uh that required um basically you do a line at the property line um up 10 feet and then shoot off a 45 degree angle.

Um and that was to open up kind of the daylight between properties.

Uh the commission did remove that um through middle housing um to try and kind of relieve some of the restrictions that applied to single family in recognition that we want to support housing in all ways possible.

Thank you.

West Chad Lu.

Thank you.

Uh first of all, I just want to acknowledge the amount of work that you guys have gone through uh collaboration and working with us, working with everybody in the audience.

I know it's a lot, and I think it's a we're nearing a situation where I think we see this all at work where 90% of the work gets done in the last 10% of the time.

So I also don't want to rush into this uh with you know too many changes at the last minute.

Uh so I'm gonna give early indication for myself that I think as a product that we can push forward to council, I'm pretty comfortable with where staff is recommended.

And I think a lot of these uh kind of tweaks can be a part of the either presentation from staff or from the chair.

And I think that'd be that would allow for at least the decision makers at the next level to um study that a little bit more and see what the impacts of those are.

Um I think all I have is a request.

I don't have any more questions.

I think those have all been answered.

Uh, my request is and it's fortuitous at the mayor's here as well.

So I'm gonna try and hold you this later.

Uh, we have a really cool, uh, maybe not cool, but we have a very interesting use case right now for the grocery stores with all the Amazon fresh stores closing.

And so I would like to see before we make any decisions on yes or no to changing any of these covenants or the uh the exemptions that we see what the impacts over the next couple months of what these uh store store closures look like.

Are they being replaced by other grocery stores?

Are they just being left empty?

I think that as far as a presentation to council and you know, getting their input on it would be really valuable for us to be able to see kind of what happens over the next couple of months.

So I just want to caution us as a body to maybe not push forward too much with changes until we can see a very clear example of what happens when grocery stores close down and what happens to those spaces.

So with that, I'm I'm pretty happy with where we're at.

I'll leave to you.

Thank you.

I think my turn.

Um, thanks for covering all my questions.

Um for me, one of the comments I have, I live in downtown Bellevue.

I walk through those wind tunnels and the shades.

I feel it's a smart to keep that degree.

I understand the housing is important and but I think livability and when you are coming out of your home, wind is killing you.

Nine months of the year, it's really important too.

That's what where I'm standing by living in downtown 24-7.

And then exactly in New York and Dubai, like there's so many places that they leverage that style.

Uh, and then even North Lincoln, I don't know if you'll have pension to pay attention to in that ACE street.

It's smarting as a starting pretty short um small and it's just going and bending and going high, like just to stand on the intersection of the Bellevue way and NATO streets and look at the North Lincoln, same rules.

Like just to stand on the intersection of the Bell Vaya and NATO streets and look at the North Lincoln.

Same rules.

And it's break the wind and it's better.

That's my first comment.

The second comment is about grocery.

I'm totally fine if we're gonna go do that study.

I think we have one Amazon store in downtown Bell V.

I don't know how many we have.

Maybe there's one in factory.

I'm bad.

Sorry.

Um, that's a good point.

But I feel if we are doing 25 years, I want after 25 years we get something back for public.

Like this is for public policy.

I want to we get something back for public.

Because I don't want to leave the town after 25 years.

I'm like, oh, somebody is gonna go figure out in 25 years what's happening there.

I just want we have something that after 21 five years, it's totally reasonable or even 10 years, whatever is reasonable.

Then we can revise and get something back for public.

Uh could be affordable um commercial space, could be comedia space, whatever it's comfortable, but I think we want to get something back for public.

Um do we need a second round?

I think we'll um yes.

Well, the day light lane.

I agree in general with with stepping it at a 45 degree or one-to-one proportion.

Special time on something.

Sorry.

It's the first time we agree on something, well, that's um but the this is not gonna resolve anything about shades.

Uh the sun here is gonna fall roughly 65 degrees in the summer and 30 degrees in the winter on the south side to the north side.

So it's not gonna solve shade, but it's gonna solve uh mass bulk scale, it's gonna provide a different type of scale for the city and and and more views of the sky.

What I would like to propose is that you allow for canopies to extend beyond that limit.

And it could be semi-open canopies, like lowered canopies and things of that uh of that sort.

So that allows more flexibility to developers to provide a different type of language uh in the architecture of the city, which is gonna be important because otherwise you're gonna end up with this chunks that are gonna be the same everywhere.

Uh that type of element is gonna just increase detail and human scale and uh texture on the on the city is not gonna uh be detrimental to the uh open openness that we're trying to do with with this.

So I'd like to see if you could explore that.

Thank you.

That's anyone needs the second round.

Yes.

Commission Kennedy.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh two follow-up questions before we would move to um a motion and amended motion potentially, it seems.

Um, one is on the what would the motion look like for the 25-year limit?

If you you said you had proposed uh language that would enable um the grocery store to move to another type of exempted use.

What would that look like?

Is it possible that the list of exempted uses is modified or expanded by then?

How would that be referenced?

And how would it be utilized by a landowner?

Yeah.

So um currently the language, basically the applicant, if they're gonna get this bonus, they have to sign a covenant with the city saying that this use will be maintained through for the life of the project.

Um so what we would do in the code is loosen that language.

So if it were a 25-year covenant, we'd basically say for grocery stores, the length of the covenant must be no shorter than 25 years.

Um so very simple, cut and dry.

If it were to be something where you have to transition to a different use on the list, and so we have that exempt use as list, so that list could change with future updates, but it would still be within that list.

Um, we would basically say that that covenant, instead of required to be with that one use, we would sign a covenant basically saying it could be any of those uses that you've received the bonus for.

So that gives you flexibility to transition from one of those uses to any of those other uses at any time.

You would likely just have to come in and speak with us to change that covenant.

So it wouldn't be so strict on you signed a covenant for this one use, you've signed a covenant for all of these uses, basically.

Okay, so in perpetuity, it needs to fall within the list or be an approved exemption outside of the list through working with the city.

You know, it would have to be on the list.

So it would have to be within the list and the land use code.

That's a covenant would have to be specific to that.

Okay.

Okay.

And I didn't like that concept.

I mean, that's the feedback that we can take and draft language.

So if it's, you know, transfer it to one of the already defined exempt uses, or work with the city to determine kind of another use.

Um, because maybe there's an emerging public need um that we might want to say slot it there.

Um so that's we can work with that.

Yeah, we can do the nodding vote at the end.

Okay.

I can do that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I want to see what's commissioned once to do.

I can take care of that for you.

Okay.

And then the last language uh question I had on potential amendment was this shift from the 80 foot to the 85 foot.

Um you mentioned that you would not move to MU or MU, call it MU7.

You would call it MU eight, which would be creating a new category.

What are we what do we actually what's actually what are we actually talking about?

So not in the category.

Um basically what's been proposed or what's been requested through comment is to um currently the mix use seven story, which we're also calling MU7, uh limits your building height to 80 feet, which would have been a seven-story building, which is why it's called mixed use seven story.

Um the request from the architect, and you can see in the schematic in your public comment there that that is now an eight-story building when you increase that height to 85 feet.

So uh we would have to update our dimensional table from 80 to 85 feet as the maximum building height, very minor change to the strike draft.

And then just for consistency, we would update the name of that zoning district.

It's a brand new zoning district, so it doesn't exist outside of HOMA.

It would go from mixed use seven story to mixed use eight story, just to acknowledge that we're now uh allowing eight-story buildings in that district.

So there's no confusion uh when someone comes in with an eight-story building and get permitted.

And this you were saying is probably the most popular building type because it maxes out a wood frame design.

So this seems like a very substantial change.

Uh yes.

Uh it would definitely increase housing production.

Um and it's also substantial from the other end, and now you're allowing uh a full extra building height story in this in this district as well.

Uh I will say the mixed use seven-story district is quite limited being a new district, and there's only a few parcels that if you're I feel I'm leaving one of those.

Okay.

Okay.

So this okay, the so it is a limited number of districts that would enable this just this one.

You wouldn't get to it through some of the bonuses that are allowed for no.

Okay.

It's just this one uh this one district where the the height cuts off at 80 feet.

Understood.

Thank you.

Any other second round?

No.

Okay.

I do have some um items.

If I miss something, they can match you, keep me accountable.

Um, are we comfortable about 80 change to 85, right?

That's one of the amendments that we are having.

What are you thinking about the grocery and the 25 con covenant first?

And then second, what do you think about what do you think of yeah, I'll go for that one.

And what do you think about if after 25 years we'd give them a list of the items?

Like what how are you comfortable, no comfortable?

Just go around, Ferris.

I like the compromise that um Nick was talking about in terms of being able to have allowed use in it.

That is I understand it, it's not after 25 years, it's any time they're allowed to transition into any time transition, but the maximum 25, right?

I don't I think the 25 years goes away, correct?

It would be moot at that point if you could transition it any time.

Okay.

Um, Nilcha.

Just one clarifying question on that.

Maybe I just misheard when you initially brought it up, but is the transition only if you're unable to maintain grocery as it stands, or can you just elect to transition?

Yeah.

So right now there's a those list of FAR exempt um uses, which are grocery stores, affordable housing, child care, affordable commercial space.

Uh there's a small open space exemption.

I think I've left one off, but that's sort of the general gist.

So um under this compromise, you would basically be able to choose any off that menu at any time.

So you don't necessarily have to do a grocery store now to get that FAR exemption, you can do something else.

But if you did have a grocery store and say they went um away, uh like as we're seeing current some of the current grocery stores go after five, 10 years, you could transition that space into any other space as long as you make that FAR exemption that we've given you whole in the end, essentially.

So you you know, pay us back for that exempt space we've given you.

Are you comfortable with that?

The 25 year change I'm comfortable with.

I'm more hesitant on the on the three.

Giving back to the public.

No, of the three to one.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um, are we asking about a 25-year exemption?

Yeah, are we thinking about the grocery city?

Just the grocery.

Just perfect 25 year exemption, not holistic change.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, I'm supportive.

You are comfortable, um chair Johnny Lou.

I'm uncertain, so I'd rather have council do with it.

Okay.

It means we don't amend that.

Okay.

Um, what do you think about the grocery one?

And Gopple upcoming on the um on the grocery one and the exemption.

I uh I have some concerns about providing too much flexibility in the first 25 years.

If the lease terms are really, you know, out there for 25 years for purposes of these, I think if you're coming in with a grocery development and you're getting a, you know, you're getting um additional floor ratio for that.

I mean, I think that uh you you should have that use during that time period.

I'm concerned about just making sure that um we continue to um have and maintain sufficient places where people can get um food and we don't have food deserts within um the city of Bellevue.

Um so I'm I am more flexible after 25 years, you know, that if we were to design something so that after that lease term, you know, there there is that flexibility.

I I'm more sympathetic to that because I don't feel like we can plan out that far in the future.

Um, and I like the idea of either it being in terms of it uh an alternate use or potentially you could buy your way out of it if you wanted to use do something different, you know.

Um, maybe some fee and loo arrangement or something like that.

So uh I think that that and and I thought I heard that being one of the things that was in your so you could see affordable housing fee and loo too as that exempt space if you wanted to.

Yeah, so there is that option, correct?

Yeah.

But I I would I would be supportive of that, but it's a little bit more of a a tailored exemption when it comes to uh um continuing that usage.

I I'm not I'm not all that supportive of the three times multiplier just because that seems to have been a new a new ass that's come up at the last minute that I don't think there's been enough consideration of that it merits uh um that it merits consideration at this point.

Pink Hill and Commissioner Valametis, how do you feel?

I plus one uh Commissioner Goppels comments on the 25 years.

Yeah, I would like to see an incentive.

Incentives are always good right now.

Uh that said we should not just implement the three to one without having stuff look at it carefully.

So that's are we feeling just my turn?

I'm feeling comfortable with Commissioner Goppel too.

Are we thinking we should touch this subject or we should let it to council because Lice Chair just brought it up?

Or do we feel we are comfortable with what Commissioner Geppel was suggesting?

Could could we have three two?

I was just gonna suggest maybe we could handle that through the amendment process and figure out if it's because I want to I want to have a clean amendment.

I don't want you withdraw and do it.

That's why I'm opening up the discussion.

Yeah.

Uh we have that fun couple of times.

Could we could we phrase it as a recommendation to council here?

The things that we would recommend you change along with potential consideration of an MF.

100%.

Yeah, 100%.

Yeah.

And just as a point of sort of process, everything you're doing here is a recommendation.

So there is no other way for you to phrase that at home.

Council can change it 100%.

Um do we comfortable if um Commissioner Goul comes with uh that amendment?

Okay, good.

Is there any other subject that it was really important for us that we want to add as an amendment that I missed that I think we were talking about the three percent floor paint capacity increase for the prevention?

I I'd support that as well.

Two, three, okay, uh, vice chair.

Four.

Support that too.

Support.

Yeah.

Support.

Okay, we're good with that one too.

Was there anything else?

Commissioner Ferris.

I saw you when I would also support the three to one floor plate.

I know there's uh some disagreement on that.

Okay, I just I would love to see grocery stores and having an incentive like that.

Make sense.

Supporting that.

Okay, two chair.

You might just want to have, since there's some disagreement, you might just want to have a motion.

A motion, and then people can decide based on the let's do that.

I was trying to prevent that.

Let's do it.

Chair, can I um also just earlier you had mentioned the 80 to 85 feet?

And that was a comment that was raised in a couple of different um or in a uh in a couple of the different contexts.

Um so it was initially raised by plush um as within the perimeter overlay.

Please allow up to 85 feet for the unlimited floor plate.

That was the item that Matthew had mentioned was an oversight.

Um, the other item is much more substantive.

And so we just want to be clear which one you might be directing us on.

Um that was the one that was pertaining to MU7 only and asking to go eight stories rather than seven um by allowing 85 feet.

So we're gonna go pray and clear on that.

Uh Gebel, do you want to take a motion and amendment?

I see you are.

I love that.

I I was gonna suggest doing the base motion.

Okay.

And then we can build on it.

Okay, let's do it.

Yeah, go for it.

So I'd like to move that the planning commission recommend to the city council the proposed housing opportunities in mixed use areas, land use code amendment um is shown in attachment A.

That's the one with the mandatory affordable housing option, and that be adopted because the proposed land use code amendments are consistent with all the decision criteria in land use code 20.30 J.135, and further that the planning commission recommends that vesting for projects downtown with submitted permits be discussed by the city council and to address the 85 foot um piece here, the correction piece that um that there be an increase to the building height to 85 feet to receive floor plate flexibility in the downtown affordability development flexibility program.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Um I'm gonna open a motion for discussion, any discussion or amendment.

Did I miss that?

No, Matt.

I'm good.

Okay, I'll just like oh shoot.

Okay.

No discussion.

Do we want to and then this is where I think we get to do that?

Yeah, this is the time that you guys gonna go to amendments.

Yeah, that's why I'm like looking at you all.

I'm like, are you sure?

Um do you want to start to the amendments now?

Well, I'd like to maybe start with the 85 foot one where because again, it was we we need to clarify whether this is just limited to the downtown, and I would propose that it's in the the larger context, which would create then that um MU eight.

Just to clarify, um Commissioner Geppo already included the correction in his motion.

So that correction is taken care of.

But I thought there was a discrepancy between the limited aspect of it versus broader aspect.

So the downtown is covered, the broader one is a couple of different one is most and cover to add it.

Okay.

So does that need to be a motion or yes?

We need I would like to be broadened the definition of the basically we have a big motion.

We had a second.

We are doing motion to amendment and second, and all in favor, and when we close everything again, we go out.

Okay, do I have a second for that?

Second.

All in favor for that's a specific amendment.

Are we gonna discuss it?

Oh, any discussion?

Yeah, I I guess I'd like to understand the impacts of that a little bit better um before voting.

Yeah.

Um, so the mixed use seven story district is a new district.

It was one of the new ones that was outlined in the future land use map with the new comp plan.

I say new it's a year old now, uh, the newest comp plan.

Um, it's relatively limited.

Um, any parcel that would uh be receiving this district does need to have a zoning amendment on the parcel.

So there's no parcels zoned for that right now.

Uh the impact of the proposed change would be to increase the building height for proposed building height in that district from 80 feet to 85 feet.

Um what that sort of does on the ground is add an additional story to these parcels.

So these buildings go from seven stories to eight stories uh on the ground.

It is the limit, uh, as we heard in building code of basically the the podium style wood framed building, uh, which as we've discussed uh many times at this point is sort of the most feasible and economical uh residential building development type.

Um yeah, I mean the impact is you will certainly see that extra five feet of building being being built.

Great, thank you.

We have another question.

Um can I can I just clarify the amendment?

The amendment is to increase MU7 to 85 feet uh and to change it from MU7 to MU8.

For not only downtown, right?

For entire city.

Just for MU7.

Yeah.

Okay.

I uh thank you, Chair.

I share the concerns that Commissioner Geebel was just uh raising.

It seems like a very major change to be addressing in a small amendment uh at our last meeting coming in after the the open open hearing and meeting.

Um feel not ready to to recommend that amendment yet.

It seems like a massive change, a new definition, new category of housing.

And I don't know what I don't a new zone.

I'm not sure where it applies to if we were gonna make this amendment, I would want to look at a map and better understand how much of the city it impacts and whether those impacts are positive.

It's it seems very relevant.

We have uh any more discussion.

Comments, sure.

So response of Commissioner Kennedy.

I correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think it's a big impact.

I think is uh the increasing height allows to maximize the most efficient building type to produce more housing just by increasing five feet, you can get a full more floor under the building code for the more uh economical development type.

Right.

So increase just that five feet, you can get a full more floor housing and is not uh is not a big impact in terms of the massing of the building or anything else.

The amendments to the code, MU7 to MU8.

I think it's just housekeeping to make sure it's coherent.

So because it's eight eight stories instead of seven, now you want to call it MU8, so it reflects eight stories.

So I I actually think is a very minor, easy win to maximize the cost benefit of this building type to this.

Yeah, and just Commissioner Kennedy, for example, I I live in the same height, I think at MU eight, but it's only sixth floor because it's really taller ceiling, and we are basically now cutting that cake.

Um to call it instead of six section to eight section to have like shorter uh ceilings.

Uh basically the total height is the same.

Um this is one where I I think when we were discussing MU7 during the comprehensive plan, we were pretty intentional about targeting seven as a building height.

And so I think the departure makes me a little bit nervous because it feels like a minor change.

You do get more housing.

There's some consideration of you know the the plan map that we built out had mu seven basically as the intention there.

So I I I hesitate a little bit to make that change at uh in our recommendation, um, acknowledging that yeah, it it is the the full bill.

I just want to also kind of give credence like credit to the past of how our discussions and where we landed with those.

Is that gonna go impact a comprehensive plan um that we have MU7, right?

Matt to you and Nick Wilberton and the comprehensive plan, the way the future language map is done, doesn't list any specific building heights.

So you know, I'd have to look at it more, but I don't anticipate huge impacts comprehensive plan wise.

What about Wilburton wise?

Yeah, that district doesn't exist in Wilburton.

Um but you know, it has been messaged since March uh seven stories for this district.

Okay.

So that has been um at least the expectation that's been out in community.

Um and this is I I had not heard this comment before tonight or before this week, I guess.

This is the new comments, Commissioner Ferris.

Just a quick comment.

Um also in terms of just the economics of this, yes, it would increase housing by adding a story.

It also could make the difference whether or not that building gets built.

Because if you have one more story of housing, that means you're getting more income, which means that that might be just enough to put it over the edge to actually get produced.

Okay.

I'm gonna go ask for saying yay or nay, and then we're gonna go kill the motion or keep it alive.

Commissioner Ferris.

Yay.

Nilcia?

Yay.

Come share Kennedy.

Nay.

Johnny?

Nay.

Nay.

Yay.

Three.

Uh I'm gonna say yay.

Yay.

Okay, four, and I'm yay.

We have five to two and um debt amendment being adopted to the main motion.

Um, is there anyone who wants to do the amendment about grocery and all of other objects that we talked about?

It's a good one.

Um yeah, you can do amendment on your own motion.

Why not?

I'd like to I'd like to amend the motion um to provide for a um 25-year um uh limit on the grocery covenant um that is eligible for the um for the far bonus um provided that at the end of 25 years um there's either a transition to um some other um use with um a commensurate public benefit or um some um you know compensation um to account for that um uh for the benefit originally provided for some other public benefit usage.

Um provided that at the end of 25 years there's either a transition to some other um use with um a commensurate public benefit or um some um you know compensation um to account for that um uh for the benefit originally provided for some other public benefit usage can I get the second for this motion I'll second the motion uh any discussion can we vote okay commissioner Ferris aye Nilchian Yay Commissioner Kennedy Johnny Liu and Okay Yeah and I'm I okay we voted fully is there any other amendment that you would like to take it shot down but I'm gonna still put it out there uh in regards to the grocery stores I would like to amend it that we allow a three to one far bonus for a grocery store can I get the second for disamendment if you want I'll cycle that second any discussion should we make my pitch I know and then I have done I had a motion who sat on the floor forever we remember I didn't even get the second you got a second can I vote for I'm just the reason I'm very strongly in favor of it is that we all know how important grocery stores are and to be able to give a little bit of an extra far bonus to if that again puts them over the edge to be able to produce grocery to meet it's worth it um commission first would you like to vote for that should we go I would yes okay Commissioner Ninchan Nay Okay can I ask a question first is that sure we are voting but it's okay it's okay staff do you no wait a minute should we finish it I know we've moved to the second I know we moved to the second voting yeah sorry I'm sorry um I was trying to I'm inclined to vote vote yay as long as staff doesn't have any concerns with this change and it doesn't seem that you're staff are pretty neutral here today yay okay and Johnny Lou okay seconded so yes okay um no no I am no and not it did not pass okay any other amendment whatever you like to do in the city of Bellevue just kidding it's too late in the base motion didn't you include the three percent in the no he didn't he just did the 85 one okay in that case I would like to move that we allow the um 30 3% floor area uh increase for floor plate increase second yes just a clarification that that was three not 30 three three three and we're talking about downtown right for commercial yes okay any discussion this is a moment you can ask a qu did um um commissioner fares did the first and nilchan to the second I'm looking at okay she's gonna any discussion sure okay I'm gonna go get the vote commissioner Ferris Commissioner Nilchia okay Commissioner Kennedy just a clarification we said no we we can't commercial we can are we saying non-residential uses is it relevant to the amendment any non-residential uses right office and downtown uh yay to office and downtown commissioner uh vice chair yes and commissioner values and yes okay and I am yes we fully voted for it okay any other items I let me look at my list Matt and Nick are we missing anything okay I'm gonna go ask you all now vote for the first motion that we took with all the amendment that we vote any discussion about it if not let's vote for it okay um I'm gonna go vote for that second motion that we have it for recommendations we cancel commissioner Ferris aye okay Commissioner Nilcheon yay Commissioner Kennedy aye commissioner vice chair uh and Gipple aye and I am I thank you so much congratulation you won't come here oh wait a minute don't go I have work to do um can I have a motion um to adjourn a meeting Commissioner Ferris you love to love to move that we adjourn our meetings okay any discussion all in favor aye good job chair