Good evening and welcome to the February 25th meeting of the City of Um Bellevue Planning Commission.

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

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

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

today, Wednesday, February 25th, will be summarized into a record.

We have two set of sessions item tonight on the agenda.

A checking on the parking reform land use code amendments and the further discussion of the 2025 annual process improvement survey.

And now let's move on with the roll call.

Commissioner Ferris has uh notified me that uh she will be a absent and uh our liaison um council member Michelle Bargala will be absent too.

Commissioner Geppel.

Here.

Commissioner Balevases.

Kennedy present.

Commissioner Nilchan?

Here.

Vice Chair Liu?

I'm here.

And um this is Negin, Chair Hanlu.

Um okay.

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

So moved.

Is it a second?

Second.

Any discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Kate, um, are you having any reports from boards and commission?

No reports from boards and commissions.

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

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

Oops, share.

There it is.

So on Saturday, we have uh urban design workshop for the Eastgate and Factoria neighborhood area plans.

Um and that will be at the Hyatt House in Eastgate from 1 to 4 p.m.

Um and it will cover both the Eastgate and the Factoria neighborhoods.

One side will be Eastgate.

And one side of the room will be Factoria.

Um so there is a QR code there um if you would like to register.

Now stop sharing.

Um and uh thank you to everyone who has shared their village availability for the additional or alternate dates.

Um it looks like we'll have quorum for the first and third Wednesdays in November.

Um so the second Wednesday falls on Veterans Day.

So we wouldn't hold a meeting that day.

Um and it looks like we will not have quorum for the fourth Wednesday in November, regardless.

Um it would be great to hold um the retreat either the first or third Wednesday.

Um we're working on um reservations um space for the meeting because um there are other commissions here at the City of Bellevue who also use this room.

Um but we'll between Mary Joe and I will figure out um where you guys will meet.

Thank you.

Back to you, Kate.

Do you have a summary of the written communication that we received?

Sure.

So I forwarded one comment that came in since the packet was published.

And that comment was asking for clarification on HOMA.

So she has been referred to staff for clarifying.

I also received another comment this afternoon from the Masters Builders Association.

And that one was is in regard to the parking reform, Luca, that you'll be reviewing.

So I'll make sure that you get a copy of that comment as well.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone registered for oral communication?

If no, I can skip and not read the section.

We do not have any pre-registered folks.

We do not have anybody in the room besides staff.

But I do see some folks online who've indicated that they would like to comment.

So perfect.

Yeah.

We have a total of 30 minutes for oral communication.

Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak.

A staff liaison.

Kate Nessie will call in a speaker in order, which they have registered either in the person or online.

Sorry.

If anyone from the public has missed the 6 p.m.

registration deadline, you may still provide public comments if there is a remaining time.

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

There are rules adopted by city council limiting the topic about the public may speak during our meeting under ordnance 6752.

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

Please check online for additional information.

Kate, can you please call for the first speaker?

Um, sure.

We don't have anybody signed up to speak, but um if you are attending virtually and you would like to speak, could you raise your hand?

All right, Jesse, I see you.

Uh can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Go ahead.

Hi, everyone.

It's Jesse Clausen.

Sorry, I can't be there in person.

Um I just wanted to give some comment regarding the parking code discussion.

Um I think you all read the packet.

I was a little shocked also to note that many of the codes have not been updated for parking since the 1960s.

I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.

So I'm hoping that as you discussed tonight, you can bring the code into the 21st century and think about some of the tools that some of the other jurisdictions use, like, you know, being able to reduce parking uh minimums based on parking studies for a citywide um application or thinking about existing nonconformities for parking being able to continue if you're just retenanting a building.

Just so that it's easier for small businesses to thrive and and relocate.

Um we've had a lot of issues lately in Bellevue with businesses being able to even go into buildings in downtown just because of parking minimums.

So hopefully it's a fun conversation.

And thank you for your time.

Goodbye.

Thank you.

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

I don't see anybody else.

Thank you.

In 2024, 2025, the Washington State Legislator adopted three bills which collectively standardize parking stall dimension and certain other um development standard for parking lots and structure.

Established minimum parking requirement caps for certain residential and non-residential uses citywide and limit um circumstances when minimum parking requirement can apply within light rail and bus uh rapid transit station areas.

Bellevue must comply with these requirements before January 27, 2027.

Council initiated this work and directed the staff to conduct analysis and engagement on several options to expand amendment beyond the state mandate.

This is planning, this is a planning commission first study session on this land use code amendment.

We have um planning manager Christina Gallitz and senior planner Sean and Gail will provide a sorry presentation on the parking reform LUCA.

Thank you, Chair Conloo, uh Vice Chair Liu and commissioners.

Uh so this evening we're here to present uh the project scope for the parking reform LUCA, which was uh initiated by council in January.

So while much of this scope is driven by state legislation, the cities recognize the risk of requiring access parking and multiple planning documents, including our draft affordable housing strategy update.

So the cost to build parking in underground garages can easily rise over 50,000 per space, with certain factors driving that much higher.

The practical need to think about parking in terms of levels means that it can be very difficult for the geometry of the project to line up well with parking requirements, even when those requirements are calibrated well.

So the end result can mean that projects might build less space for housing or other uses that the public would like to encourage, and that based on the amount of parking the project can afford or physically accommodate, meaning a need to design towards the parking rather than perhaps the public benefit or what might be most interesting for that site.

So we can't deny that there's some risk with looking towards market-based approaches for parking.

Um, but there are significant trade-offs to consider.

We also know understanding uh these potential impacts to better understand these risks will be a key component of this project.

Uh so tonight we'll be walking through uh the details of that core project scope, uh, which includes meeting the standards of several pieces of recent recent legislation through a rewrite of our parking standards.

Um, this also gives us the opportunity to um consolidate and streamline our parking code.

Uh during that January initiation, council also provided staff with direction on a number of options to explore to think about thoughtfully expanding beyond that minimum mandate.

Uh so over the coming months, staff will be uh conducting robust outreach and research to inform uh decision making on these options.

Uh so this evening we'll share that guidance from council with the commission and take in any uh early guidance and questions that you may have at this stage.

So, with that, I will pass to Sean.

Thank you, Christina.

So, as she mentioned, my name is Shauna Edgewill, uh senior planner with the Code and Policy Department.

Uh tonight we are going to be providing an overview of the parking reform LUCA, why it's needed, what's required under recent state legislation, and how this project aligns with council direction and our community engagement process.

So, quick roadmap.

Uh, we're going to start with talking what is minimum parking, why is um or how did it come to be?

Uh, we're also going to talk through the new state legislation in depth, uh, what it means for Bellevue.

From there, we're going to cover over proposed scope of the LUCA or outreach and schedule and the direction that we have received from council.

Of course, we will leave plenty of time for uh questions and discussions at the end.

So, minimum parking regulations have been a foundational land use tool for decades.

Uh, in the simplest of terms, they are rules that require development to provide a certain number of uh off-street parking spaces, usually tied to land use number of units or a building size.

Uh traditionally, these standards were designed to prevent spillover parking uh to neighborhoods and ensure parking was available at peak times.

Um they were rooted in engineering manuals and worst-case scenario assumptions, often assuming every household owned and drove multiple cars.

As we'll see, those assumptions don't always match current level or I'm sorry, current travel behavior uh or our long-term uh planning goals.

Uh as we had heard earlier during uh our comment uh period, Bellevue uh has had very similar uh minimum parking requirements uh stemming back all the way to 1962.

Uh note that we are talking about the base um minimum parking requirements uh are largely the same.

Um the development pattern at that time was very different.

Uh it was much more auto-oriented, suburban and built around an expectation that driving would be the dominant mode of travel.

Uh much of that regulatory framework has stayed in place, uh, even as the city has grown denser, more mixed use and more transit accessible.

Our comprehensive plan recognizes those changing conditions, or it supports increased housing near transit flexibility in how parking is provided and removing unnecessary barriers to development.

We also know that parking is not free.

Structured parking is costly.

Those costs ultimately show up in rents, home prices, and commercial leases.

For some businesses, minimum parking requirements can pose challenges to opening or expanding.

Because many of our standards do date back more than 60 years, they often exceed today's actual parking demand.

That leads to higher construction costs, less efficient land use, and reduced flexibility, especially for housing, mixed use and redevelopment projects.

More broadly, strict parking minimums reinforce auto dependence at a time when Bellevue is moving towards a more urban transit-oriented future.

So here's the state legislation.

Over the past two years, the state legislature has passed three significant bills that we are taking into consideration through this code amendment.

Senate Bill 6015, Housing Bill 1491, and Senate Bill 5184.

Together, they do establish new limits on minimum parking that cities can require and apply broadly to residential, mixed use, and commercial developments.

These changes are not optional.

Many of these are impacting cities across the area, anything above 30,000 realistically, but the sooner compliance deadline of January 2027 impacts anyone above 50.

The LUCA that we're developing here is going to address four key areas.

Location-based parking requirements, use base requirements, development standards, and exceptions.

These form the minimum scope for compliance, and we are going to walk through each of them in more detail.

First off, location.

Bellevue may not require, we can no longer require parking for either residential or mixed-use development that are located within a half mile walking distance of light rail stations or quarter mile walking distance of rapid rides.

These boundaries are prescribed directly within state law, and we don't have very much in the way of wherewithal to alter this requirement.

There are also several land uses that cities have to take into consideration where we cannot require minimum parking.

These include small residential units under 1200 square feet, commercial spaces below 3,000, affordable housing, senior housing, child care centers, ground floor commercial uses in mixed-use buildings, conversions from non-residential to residential, and changes of use between commercial spaces.

The legislation also impacts maximum, I'm sorry, caps basically for minimum parking.

So effectively, for all other cases, uh cities can't require more than half a space per unit for multifamily, a single space per single family, and commercial uses are limited to two spaces per thousand square feet.

To put this in perspective, many of Bellevue's uh current requirements do exceed those gaps, uh, except in localized areas, largely in downtown.

Uh the legislation also affects development standards tied to parking.

The cities must allow tandem parking and must count both enclosed and unenclosed parking towards any minimums that remain.

Parking spaces can no longer can uh no longer be larger than 8 by 20 feet, which is going to impact current uh dimension requirements that are within the LUC.

Uh, this is not to include ADA stalls, which of course are uh dealt with through federal law.

Uh additionally, uh there are minor limits to what materials must be used for parking services.

This does include an allowance for up to six spaces of gravel parking.

Additionally, we are not permitted to require, as stated earlier, garages uh or carports as part of an approval process.

There are a few exceptions where there is flexibility for municipalities and county governments.

Um we can still develop standards for certain um operational or time-restricted parking.

Uh, this word this includes visitor parking, drop-off areas, loading zones, uh, or carpool and van pool spaces.

Um, so these are kind of areas that we're hoping to do a little bit more in-depth analysis to understand kind of Bellevue specific needs and how we can tailor it more appropriately to the community.

It is important to note here both uh SB5184 and HB 1491 do have a quote unquote off ramp.

Um, if a city can demonstrate requirements would significantly reduce safety.

Um effectively, we would have to go through an empirical study and safety studies themselves are not well listed as to what those actual requirements are.

It's a very high bar that is not assured.

Uh so it could take time, it could cost money, and it could in the end effectively shorten the timeline that's already we're counting down at this point until next January.

So given Bellevue's transition to more uh urban transit supported community and the importance of consistency with neighboring cities, uh staff is not recommending uh pursuing this option.

Uh City Council, uh, as mentioned, uh, we met with them uh on January 13th.

Uh they did provide us some project guidance.

Um, they provided uh showing of support where it comes uh for flexibility, market responsive approaches, and continued reform near transit.

Uh they also emphasize the importance of grounding the work in data, uh ensuring robust engagement, especially when it comes to local businesses that may be most directly affected.

They asked us to um if this is more of a they green lit the uh research into these items.

Um there are uh, for example, we're looking at yes, we have to be able to require those buffer areas of half a mile from light rail and quarter mile from um rap ride.

Uh, but they also said that we could look into um standardizing it between both uh types of transit to having half a mile, um, as well as looking into uh expanding beyond that for frequent bus service.

This is a um a unit that was utilized through uh uh middle housing.

Uh so trying to find these common spaces that uh happen between the legislation uh has been difficult.

So we're trying to see where we could have like wise uh or common terminology between a lot of these requirements.

Uh so that is one of the reasons why we did bring that forward to uh council for consideration.

Um they did ask that we look into uh ensuring that there's a safer environment.

Uh so obviously not the safety study at itself, but ensuring that whatever code we do provide takes into account um the street level itself and safety for pedestrians.

Um they had asked that uh we look into how to handle change of use situations uh where parking constraints currently create barriers uh for incoming uses.

And importantly, um they did also uh say that we could research elimination of minimum parking requirements citywide.

Um we will bring back findings on these topics uh during our future milestones.

Next up, um, since this is a process for amendments, uh there are formal public notice and hearing requirements.

Beyond that, we are committing to a robust uh engagement program.

We've already conducted a public information session uh earlier this month on the 9th.

We did have a virtual uh public information session where we did uh get to at least broach the topic with many individuals of the public.

Um we are also in April on April 20th, uh, are planning to host a an in-person data walk to help community members engage with the research and kind of provide uh input and discuss possible trade-offs.

Um we're also hoping to meet directly with residents, neighborhoods, uh developers, and um we are also uh engaged with the uh the technical advisory committee, uh, myself as well as uh one of our transportation um employees, uh John Murphy.

Murphy, thank you.

I apologize.

Um both of us have been uh talking with other uh municipalities uh as well as county governments and the Department of Commerce uh in regards to really kind of fleshing out uh some guidance uh from everybody uh to and asking detailed questions where there might be a little bit less definition uh from the legislation.

Um information will continue to be available on the white city website uh as well as on info sheets and FAQs and in publications like It's Your City and Neighborhood News.

Here's our current draft schedule.

Um we as we move kind of towards January 2027, um council did initiate the project uh earlier this year.

We are currently in our first outreach phase.

Uh we anticipate developing a draft Luca um between now and this summer, um, where we are planning to bring forward kind of a first draft for your review uh as well as getting the input from the public, both within the spring and again in the summer.

Um we are looking uh hopefully to get approval from this body um in fall um and have the council approve no later than the end of this year to make sure that we meet that deadline.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Let's skip it to one question then when we go around, maybe a next person ask your second question.

Commissioner Velavesis.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Can can you uh I like to ask some clarification about the maximum uh I don't know if it's maximum allowed or maximum required.

Can you go to the I don't know which slide this was?

Uh the one that was talking about the maximum size, which was eight by twenty, and the slide be before that as well.

Um so in this one is that the maximum you can ask for.

What is this?

Yeah, so what this is is it is a cap that has been uh applied by the state.

So effectively any residential or commercial use uh per these specifics um cannot we cannot require more than these sets uh established maximum.

So just to clarify further, because I know parking maximum can mean something specific.

We're not imposing any new maximums or touching those.

So if projects want to provide more parking, they still can.

So this is just your yes.

So single family, you can only request maximum of one space, but you could probably four by more if you want.

Yes.

Yeah, this is from a regulation point of view.

Yeah.

And then the the next uh slide, eight by twenty uh size.

Yes.

That's also maximum required is the maximum that you can that we can request in the code.

Yes, okay.

And they are permitted, they can always provide a space larger than that.

We cannot ask for more.

Okay.

I'll give some feedback here right away.

Eight feet is really narrow.

Uh-huh.

Seattle is very narrow, say eight and a half feet wide by 16, which is very short.

Uh Costco is 10 by 20, which is a good reference point.

Uh, but eight is very narrow.

Uh if you cannot request more, you should encourage it somehow.

And also um it would be very helpful when you spell out the code that the driving space is very clear because if it's a one-way driveway versus a two-way driveway versus an alley versus an intelligent internal road, like all these things in the codes are very confusing, and sometimes they use measurements like uh you need like 16 feet from the landscape strip opposed to the hows where you're gonna park.

And it's like it doesn't make any sense.

So if if if you're parking, you have 90 degrees 60, 45 or parallel, and those have a minimum dimension, that should be pretty easy to spell clearly in the code.

That would be super helpful.

Yes, agreed.

And and that is one of our intents is that part of the consolidation would impact, I mean, immediately the eight by 20 does effectively render moot any of our dimension uh tables.

So it is going to help facilitate uh strong streamlining uh efforts.

So um I thank you very much for your input on this.

I will make sure to include uh aisle widths and be clear with my thank you.

And then on the so the eight is very narrow, but the 20 is really really generous.

Uh you could request 18 or even 19.

Most most large cars will fit a 19 stall, like maybe like just giant cars will need a 20.

But uh if there's some flexibility there, like something like nine by nineteen is a reasonable parking size.

This is just from experience, but yeah, yeah.

Unfortunately, that is one of the things where this is pre-empted.

So unfortunately, we're not allowed to request more than the eight by 20.

Um, but it is certainly something that we'll look into.

Um but you could request less than 20, right?

No, it's a firm eight by 20 for the minimum parking.

Yeah.

So, but like those other parking dimensions, we there there weren't any other uh things introduced there.

So unfortunately, eight by twenty is that that like the hard cap.

But yeah, grade, I wish we knew where that number came from.

Um does that include uh encroachment by columns or is that between calls between calls?

That's a good question.

Well, we we can look at that.

Sure.

Yeah.

That's it for now.

Thank you.

I wish I did, yeah.

Thank you both.

Um this may be a very basic question that I should know the answer to, but how will the process work?

I know I I'm looking specifically at the requirements of uh it was a half mile from light rail stations and a quarter mile from uh rapid stops.

Uh how does the process work once that was maybe expanded in the future?

Do we have to then come back and re-amend, or is it kind of baked into this, or are we kind of planning for that now?

Sure.

So the good news here is that this is also not a new concept for us.

So we do have some regulations today that regulate based on transit service.

Uh and the way that it works is um the code is set up just to speak to the transit service, not the specific locations on the map.

So um when an application comes in, the applicant has to demonstrate um that they have that walking distance um between their property and the um stop.

So we don't have to necessarily keep the maps updated all the time.

Um one key note there too is that the legislation does give us the ability to look at walking distance.

Um, so those cases where you know your buffer here um might like jump over the freeway and you know you can't walk that distance, we're allowed to take that into account.

It just to follow up then on that, to what degree are we allowed to take that into account?

What's the is there like a set walking distance that that the legislation has or so you the walking distance is just within a half mile or a quarter mile?

You know, I think our initial take is that it's it's looking at public rights of way.

Um, but that's going to be one of the ongoing areas of clarification.

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

Whatever the no cutting through random private property.

Yeah.

Okay.

Cool.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Thank you for the great presentation.

Um, I also really appreciated the pictures of the 1960 cars.

So that was helpful.

Um sounds like we're due for an update.

I'm really glad to hear the work that's going into it.

Um I wanted to follow up on the pedestrian uh line of thought that we were just going through.

And and you mentioned that when council in January went through some of the things that they would like to consider in this parking update, that safety for pedestrians was one of the key concerns.

How are we considering that?

How would we be funding efforts to ensure that if uh we're not requiring landowners to put in parking?

That's one thing, but how would we be paying for a sidewalk that does not exist today that would enable those pedestrians to have more fluid access through neighborhoods to replace the vehicles?

That could be pretty expensive.

You mentioned that you had spoken with the transportation commission.

I'm curious how we would be funding those initiatives.

It would be fantastic if we can.

Um and it seems essential if we're going to be reducing vehicle access.

So there's kind of a couple related points there.

Um within the council discussion, um, the the notes on uh pedestrian safety and that quality of the walking environment uh were uh offered up as a layer to think about in analyzing these options for going beyond the minimum.

So perhaps we consider uh looking at lowering that threshold for transit, but in those cases where um we know that there is um a sidewalk in place and perhaps even thinking about things like uh the grade of the sidewalk.

So um, you know, maybe if there's that steep grade, we're gonna dial down the the def the distance a bit further.

Um but uh for the the minimum under state law um in order to take some of those pieces into account, it would take that full empirical study route and um yeah, like we've noted that'd be a much much different kind of consideration.

So I'd say the the thinking was more about for the optional considerations, understanding what we can for what's in place today.

So um, you know, not not going beyond what might be there at some point in the future that we got, yeah.

And there it should be stated as well.

There are design standards within current code that can be uh fleshed out to offer opportunities for um safer pedestrian options um that can go through these parking areas.

I know that there's some language that's already in there that can be looked at.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

I think it's an important consideration.

So appreciate your time on it.

Can we shake Epple?

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I'm gonna start with uh with my initial reaction and bias, and then I'm going to ask you a question.

So my initial reaction and bias is the statewide standards are very ambitious and they're gonna mean a big change.

So my concern is, you know, the idea of us going beyond those standards, especially initially, is that that's a bridge too far.

And one of the things I wanted to ask about was the um the experience that's been had at, you know, Plymouth Crossing porch light development in Eastgate, where I think it's kind of you know, a good example of some of the challenges and trade-offs, because on the one hand, I mean, I think all the people here, we we would like to see more affordable housing and we'd like it to be built well.

But um, you know, as I understand it, the amount of um-site parking that's available there is quite limited, and that's had a lot of spillover effects on you know, neighboring areas.

Um, and I'm wondering if if that's something that you're taking into account when you're thinking about how big do we go.

Yeah, that's a great question.

And um the affordable housing piece of this is is challenging because there isn't any nuance in the legislation for location.

Um, and we have been hearing that, you know, with market rate development, we see the um kind of economic pressure working pretty effectively towards projects thinking um about how much parking their site truly needs and finding that market-based approach to be pretty effective.

Um, but you're right, that same lending pressure doesn't necessarily exist when it comes to affordable housing and costs can be a major barrier there.

So um it's a challenge.

I I mean we're we're working to understand, you know, learn more about what those impacts are.

And part of this too is thinking about tools that we can use to help potentially offset some of that impact.

So thinking about um Bellevue currently has some really limited application of residential parking zones, um, thinking about if that might need to might have a benefit in more places.

Um, so there's no easy answer there, but it is an issue we're tracking.

And while I, you know, I believe that there's a lot here that I I think we could do this analysis and come back to finding the six similar conclusions of the state.

Um, I also wish that it they weren't all coming together so quickly.

Um, but it is what it is.

I think we can we can make them we can do this in a way that um is really mindful of our circumstances to some degree.

So that's helpful.

I have a one idea that I guess I'll I'll wait um till the till the next uh I think we could ask 10 question.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Okay.

I mean, one thing I I wonder about um as we're thinking about how to make this work, because I I'm just thinking about my experience in in Amsterdam and about uh what they do there.

Um in Amsterdam, there's about 40% of the garages that are owned by um the municipality um in Amsterdam.

And there are arrangements that you know Amsterdam has for um providing some subsidy um for some residential um uh you know, um residential use by um people in the city of Amsterdam, um, you know, as as a way of subsidy.

uh what they do there um in amsterdam there's about 40 percent of the garages that are owned by um the municipality um in amsterdam and there are arrangements that you know amsterdam has for um providing some subsidy um for some residential um uh you know um residential use by um people in the city of amsterdam um you know as as as a way of subsidy it's it's not so subsidized that um it makes people want to go out and buy you know three large vehicles but there is some um there is some subsidy there and I I just find that works because I as much as I would love to turn in my automobile and take mass transit and go everywhere using that I don't have time and that's the truth for I think most people um you know and and oftentimes more um you know people who are um you know challenged economically and and working multiple jobs they don't have time to be able to you know take buses everywhere in order to do all of the jobs that they're doing so I wonder if there are some solutions that we could look at that would um involve not um not necessarily requiring um on site parking at every location but providing some shared parking facilities that um could um not only be available for commercial uses but also for um you know residential subsidy in some way yeah and I know um we did have some discussion about shared parking with the council initiation too so we're uh looking into kind of expanded use of shared parking and kind of creative options there is is uh is in the scope too.

Good okay that's it.

Thank you.

Why is Ju.

It's a fun presentation so appreciate that.

Uh I'm kind of curious putting yourself maybe in the uh I don't know if you'll have the answer to this but I'm kind of curious what the mechanism for first responders and fire will be if uh because I I think uh there was a slide where you listed a bunch where you cannot require minimum parking I know there is gotta be some way that we build a mechanism for you know a fire truck to be able to show up.

I was wondering if you just kind of take us through that yeah yeah I I um I can kind of I I know enough to get into trouble but in general you know uh fire review is a critical part of land use review and um that's not necessarily regulated through the parking code um we have provisions that speak to um when you need to require a turnaround for a fire truck and uh what widths you need to get a fire truck through so please yeah rest assured um that access for fire trucks fire hoses uh will remain untouched here that slide with the uh with like the the businesses where they're exempt uh yeah this one yeah was this the slide you were looking for yeah this is what I was looking for okay it's interesting choice do you do you know the reasoning behind these uh as the legislature I mean some of these you know there's there's a pretty solid um legislative basis I mean we have seen quite a few pieces of legislation around conversions from non-residential to residential so I expect you know that's that's been a continued policy um maybe I'm just wondering why like child care is up there if I feel like that's a kind of a random add-on.

Yeah seems like one where you'd probably see a lot of automobile volume.

So but these ones we where our hands are tied we can't do anything.

Yeah but you know I will say that um for for when it comes to like childcare center uses thinking about like loading zones that's that's an area we can still think about so yeah those of us here who deal with drop off yeah for A I think for me um it's a lot come to my mind funny that my unit that I live in it probably won't have a because it's 500 square feet will not have a parking but in my building like constantly people ask for parking like everybody's keep asking any parking can I rent a parking and that's going to go be worse obviously because we have one parking per unit regardless of the square feet.

One of the question that I have and it's about small um commercial space slash I believe retails, right?

Because what I'm hearing from some of my friends who are small business owners um they have enough parking but they need to validate the parking and super expensive that validation for them that it's not feasible for them even to do the validation.

And then on the other hand and do it in downtown.

The losing customer then they became creative to say like hey if you buy $15 something we can validate for you because it costs like for example four dollars for them to buy it or $3.

I don't know what's the thing.

I feel that's one of the really high operational costs on small business.

Uh, and again, like this is like a business that I know forever in downtown and it's lockable, but it's still it's a big burden on the small businesses.

And I understand we cannot do anything, but I feel somehow we need to be creative for those of small business.

It's just gonna go kill all of them.

Because I don't think any small business goes bigger than 3,000 square feet, but yeah, at least maybe we have like drop often pickup or curved side or something that at least, yeah.

Anyways, should we go second round?

Yes, Commissioner Blavices.

Thank you.

Um I'd like to plus one commissioner Goppel's uh comment about shared parking.

I actually have some some prints today that I that I actually forgot, but I wanted to share with you because this might be an interesting approach.

Uh these are these are uh shared parking structures.

Uh this is in Lincoln Road.

Uh these are all mixed-use parking structures.

Uh this turned out so great that they actually host weddings and concerts and events in there.

And it becomes uh wayfinding item to a place where people go park and then they go walk on a big pedestrian space.

Um Commissioner Ninja, do you have any question?

Meanwhile, we are taking care of that.

Yeah, sure.

Uh this is first of all, I also want to plus one Commissioner Epple's comments um and ideas there.

I I think those are well thought out.

Um my question is, and we touched on this a little bit before.

I know we can't these are the requirements from the state.

But I'm assuming that we're looking at potential ways to encourage more parking as part of this process, uh, even if we can't require it.

Is that is that right?

Yeah um, I think we don't have a firm plan yet, but that's something we can.

Yeah, oh, absolutely.

You know, um, so I I think thinking about, you know, how could we perhaps help projects to think about their parking demand?

Um, but yeah, yeah, we're thinking on it.

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

Um I'm not married to that idea, but it's something I'd like to see some kind of research on.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Yeah, I I thought I saw an email get through, but are we?

Oh okay, right.

Okay.

Um two questions.

One is um non-conformity is um are we looking at the same process that we just went through the consolidation of during the CAO process for buildings that may have one phase that they've completed or a second phase and they want to make a change and now they the parking is completely different and they want to take advantage of that.

Like what what is the can you walk me through what happens?

What are we can I do with or I'm making sense, like if someone is a true process right now and building the phase one, is it one?

Okay, if there's someone building the phase one, and then we change the parking requirement, what's gonna go happen?

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

So yeah, that's I can look in my notes.

But yeah, then it's the non-conforming code um is that that citywide non-conforming code is remaining.

Okay, so if it's if it's just a parking change to be the same process.

Okay, just wanted to confirm that.

And then the other was you mentioned that you have already done a public info session.

I was curious to hear what comments you may have received and um uh how you're dealing with that.

And uh yeah, so um, we did receive a few comments in regards to um a lot of it really dealt with uh local issues that individuals are running into, including um visitor parking is uh a large one that a lot of people have concerns on.

And as we've mentioned through this presentation, uh visitor parking is actually something that we actually we have some more leeway with.

Um so as such, we can kind of build something that encapsulates uh visitor parking or time restricted parking uh to help deal with many public concerns that could arise for any new uh projects that come forward following this.

Uh, additionally, we did also hear a lot of concerns of spillover and current issues that people are facing uh when it comes to on-street parking.

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

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

What do I do?

Where um, you know, we're we're anticipating those will be kind of the type of questions that keep coming up.

Um yeah, in terms of format, the meeting was uh mostly QA, so it didn't get too far into comments, but I think Sean summed it up pretty well.

Uh a lot of concerns about spillover in particular.

So we're we're also gonna be working closely with our transportation and code enforcement staff um to help, even if we don't have the hard data, getting some of that qualitative, like where are you seeing these friction points around the city?

That's super helpful.

And and and given that it's a statewide legislative change, it seems like it may be the data from our own transportation commission and department would be helpful, also.

It seems like shared practices between cities.

Have you been speaking with other cities that are working through implementing these revisions and what kind of lessons learned?

Uh yeah, no, we have actually we did uh a few weeks ago.

Um, we actually spoke with the city of Tacoma, uh, who are currently doing their own analysis, and they have uh very kindly offered um once they complete to provide us any uh data that they do uh procure from that.

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

That's fantastic.

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

So that's great.

Thanks.

Um, Kate, are you ready to share the screen?

Um, Commissioner Balevisis back to you again.

Sorry.

So these are I have to share one at a time.

Yeah, that's fine.

So there's four examples here.

This is uh uh the parking at Lincoln Road in Miami.

Lincoln Road is a big pedestrian street.

So this anchors one of the ends of that street.

And you go there, you park, and then you can walk around.

This is actually the length of Wilburton, the length of the pedestrian street.

That's where the Tesla dealership is.

Like there's a lot of activity there in a city that is primarily uh ruled by by cars, right?

But then all of a sudden you have this big pedestrian area, and this acts as a wayfinding element, but it's also it's a mixed-use building because as I said, it turned out so great that they use it for events.

The image is not very clear, but the one in the bottom uh left is an event, there's weddings, there's concerts, etc.

Uh, you can go to the next one.

This is in Copenhagen, and it's called Park and Play.

And it's a parking structure in a busy neighborhood, and it's gonna park in the top.

And then you have the axis on the on the stairs, you have the green facade, it's for the kids, like the the parking on in Miami, and there's a couple other examples, those are for-profit examples.

Uh, this one is not.

This one is developed by the city.

So the city developed this parking this parking building for the city, and then the they also provided that park for everybody.

have the green facade it's for the kids like the the parking on in Miami and there's a couple other examples those are for profit examples uh this one is not this one is developed by the city so the city developed this parking this parking building for the city and then the they also provided that park for everybody so this is a really interesting model that I mean I guess what the larger point I'm trying to make is uh no parking works if the supporting infrastructure around it is sufficient and is working well and that is I mean we have light rail and there's buses and there's all these things but parking is an important component because where are all the cars gonna go right uh if you could go through the other two quickly as well uh just two other examples I think okay do you want to email us yeah so this is another one uh this is uh museum uh park and it's also a parking uh space mostly this is mostly for parking but their idea is that they would create spaces for interaction throughout the building so you have the parking for the kids in the top you have the sliders you have the you have all this thing so so there's there's something to be said about uh parking structures as mixed use buildings that could be really um that could really contribute to the to the city so I think this important and and to complement this I I think uh if we're talking about minimum parking uh requirements or or eliminating parking minimums it would be really important to look at what other jurisdictions are doing there's a lot of documentation now about success case studies like I think the biggest one that I've heard is Buffalo in New York uh Austin uh Port Townsend in Washington is doing this uh smaller scale like Hartford Connecticut there's a lot of cities that are been doing this and what I hear so far is it's successful all of this jurisdiction say it's rivitalized downtown it's like spur development is lower housing cost uh it's a little scary but also when we're looking at what what type of city do we want uh Bellevue was a strip mall and we want a pedestrian vibrant city and and those two are competing right so we don't want to have a much parking we want to be able to come here and walk and enjoy the city so uh I guess the the the two takeaways for my comment is let's seriously consider shared parking structures and kind of have an open mind about what these can be because there's other success stories elsewhere and if we're gonna consider uh uh elimination of minimal parking which is clearly uh huge driving cost to affordable housing uh let's take a look at what's been done elsewhere and what is working and what is not working it would be good to see what is not working uh so that's that's it thank you thank you Katie thank you for sharing that can share Geppa I love those pictures really good thank you for sharing that um one thing I was gonna ask about was um one of the exceptions in under the state law and I'm I'm wondering how you're thinking about it and and how it might be utilized because one of the things that the agenda memo indicated was that there's an exception um where cities are not prohibited from requiring temporary or time restricted parking is that something how are you interpreting that and is that something that you're thinking about in terms of the planning here for how we might manage some of these requirements and you know potentially you know that's another form of in a way shared parking as if you have um you know time restricted parking yeah um the the legislation is frustratingly vague uh which we're taking to be we can perhaps interpret this in our favor uh I mean we're thinking about some of those provisions for capturing needs um like loading zones delivery drop off visitor parking um kind of working through the definition there uh and we'll be coordinating with um staff who have developed the curb um the curb pricing studies and others to understand more about um what should we be building into the code uh especially given now that there's going to be less required parking um so we know there's probably gonna be um some increased demand for some of those temporary spaces so um we're thinking about it broadly um and want to think about getting some more explicit standards into the code good okay and work courses thank you um do uh mine's tangentially tangentially related but I think could help inform some decisions I think there was a uh uh study on I think it was just downtown for uh paid parking are we gonna get kind of results or anything out of that before we go into the decision making for or before this uh before this process concludes I guess uh I intend I intended a study session the specific parking study well we'll we'll we'll check in on that at the top of my head I'm not sure exactly which study but could because I'd be curious on like the restriction of you know existing parking spaces especially downtown and if we're also adding on you know do we need more time spaces or you know do we keep them permanent so I think that'd be really helpful for us as we go through this.

At the top of my head, I'm not sure exactly which study, but could I be curious on like the restriction of you know existing parking spaces, especially downtown and if we're also adding on, you know, do we need more time spaces or you know, do we keep them permanent?

So I think that'd be really helpful for us as we go through this.

Absolutely.

I think for me, um I'm I'm with you.

I think Copenhagen is one of the best one.

I know half of our former council um in a couple of years ago they went to hook Copenhagen and they're all in love at that parking lot, by the way.

I have heard that from every council members in last 10 years.

Um, and I was always hopeful that Lincoln um center that we have at City of Bellevue turn it to something like that, affordable housing parking and something creative.

Hopefully, council hear my voice now.

Uh, but uh I agree with that one.

I think we should be creative about it.

But I just want to mention something like somewhere like Copenhagen or Netherlands, and my cousin lived there and I spent like months there.

When you walk out of your street, there is a train, there's a public transportation.

This is not like this, even for me.

I'm in downtown Bellevue.

I need to walk 14 minutes to get to the station, which is not typical in Europe.

In Europe, like in less than I think three minutes, you get to something that comes regularly.

Uh I appreciate if the state was considering that, which they didn't.

Um, then um that was the only thing I want to say.

I'm with you.

We should figure out something.

A mom who has three kids and two jobs, uh, cannot wait for the train and the boss to delay.

Um, I took train, I took bus for like I think 12 months from here to Ballard.

It was four hours round trip.

Painful, like the most painful thing I have ever done, I think, for public transportation in my life.

Um, I think that those are the challenge that it's beautiful that we think about Copenhagen and Bellevue, but we are so way far.

They have like I don't know, 12 train lines or something, and we have 1.1.

Two is coming, maybe, right?

Um, anyways, but thank you so much.

Do we go round three?

Are we good?

We're gone.

We're good.

Oh, really?

Uh and thanks.

I I I agree with uh Cherry Kondo.

And but there's there's ways around this too.

Like there's uh there's a missing part between the train and your house, which is what we're talking about, especially when you get to the to downtown and parking is one of them, but also there's there's alternative, like in my hometown.

Uh they build this huge rapid transit uh bus line.

And like for my house, it was like maybe 25 minutes walking, and sometimes it pours and organically this thing started happening, but they like the all of a sudden we had uh taxi bikes.

So it's like a bicycle, a guy in a bicycle with uh with uh what do you say, like a little cart that is covered, so you could just get in there for a dollar and they would just drive you in five minutes.

What would it take it to do 25 minutes?

So that bridges that gap.

Um so that's that's just uh uh one item and I forget the other thing that I was gonna talk about.

So scooters is good too.

Yeah, scooters as well.

Yeah.

Um I I forgot I lost my train of thought.

Maybe if I I remember I'll let you take you.

Okay, if there's no more question.

Oh, okay.

It is more questions.

Okay, then please go ahead.

Like it's like okay.

Last time we finished uh with the really really serious subject, we finished at 8:30.

It's 740, 40.

Okay, let's do it.

Let's keep questioning.

No pressure.

Yeah.

I uh I I wanted to plus one um the chair's comments as well um that related to um, you know, mass transit.

I I found it a little bit funny reading the um, you know, the House and Senate bills um and the state mandates, which talk about the groundbreaking investments and public transit and the like as a basis for um these minimum standards.

I'm excited about all those investments.

Don't get me wrong, but comparatively speaking, it's only a start to trying to create you know, a walk a more walkable pedestrian-friendly urban environment in our cities.

We've way underinvested, you know, as a community as a state, as a country in all those kinds of infrastructure developments.

And you know, to think we're gonna have to think creatively, and that's why I I love some of the ideas about shared parking to try and um bridge that um transition, because our built environment is not is not suited to that right now.

We're hoping to get there, but we need a transition plan that's gonna help make that bearable, I think, for people.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I remember it was related to both what you were saying and what I was saying earlier.

Like I guess that the question is this code reform or parking reform.

Like, what is the time frame for this?

What is it long the span that we want to use this for?

Are we looking at 10 years, 30 years, 60 years?

Like what's well, um, but when it comes to the state mandate, we we do have to be in compliance by January.

So there's that.

Um, but are you getting at like are we are we thinking ahead in terms of a timing time horizon for those other components?

Um how far out are we planning for?

Last one was 9062, probably like that's what my question is.

And we're in a very unique moment, right?

Like nothing is too crazy right now.

And Bellevue is this AI epicenter now, which is becoming more and more recognized as such.

We're getting all these like high-tech companies, like maybe we're not gonna get the the taxi bikes, but maybe we're gonna get the self-driving scooters or self-driving cars that are gonna take you from your parking spot to your work or to your park or whatever.

Um Mazdar City in Abu Dhabi works exactly like that.

And it was kind of uh uh uh a test city for this.

And you would go, you park there, and you walk, and then a self-driving car picks you up, you get in, then it takes you to the city, and then it's a completely pedestrian city.

It's a small core.

The initial plan was much more ambitious, but this was 10, 15 years ago.

I am pretty sure things are gonna move very, very quickly.

So we should be kind of preparing ourselves as much as possible for something like this, but the possibilities to come up with a creative solution that can support this type of interaction and pedestrian activity in downtown, they're much better.

So that was the point.

Thank you.

And then last thing I add Copenhagen every two minutes, there's a public transportation coming in Bellevue with 14 minutes.

Yeah, Copenhagen is just cheating.

Yeah, I know.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

And see you in spring.

Yeah.

Yes, I think summer issue.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

The agenda from follow-up and the conversation of the planning commission uh conducted at in in the doing the annual retreats held on November 5th, 2025, related to the result of the annual planning commission survey on continuous improvement.

Since that time, staff has had internal discussion about how to best address the recommendation and feedback from the survey results.

Staff request direction on implementing the process improvements at this time.

Our staff liaison, Kate Nessie, would provide a presentation on the annual process improvement survey discussion.

Hello.

I moved chairs.

Do you still recognize me?

Um, so uh you guys had a really great discussion at the retreat in November about process improvements.

We took those back, had a discussion with staff.

Um, and uh now I'm bringing them back to you.

Here's what we can do.

Um what I'm gonna do is go through um all of the suggestions, um, and then I'll turn it to you, Chair, if you want to go through them one by one, or if you just want to talk about all of them at once, whatever you think is the best.

So we're requesting direction, you don't need a vote, you can just sort of nod your head.

We don't need to vote on, you know, memo formats.

Um as I said, we did uh the survey in October and um summarized it at the November planning commission retreat.

And don't we all look handsome?

Um so yes.

Um sorry.

No, these are the the things that you um that you uh suggested at the retreat, and I'm just gonna go through them one by one.

Um so one of the areas that there was a lot of discussion around was um how uh staff respond to public input in to make it easy for planning commission to digest that public input.

Excuse me.

Baseline requirements for engagement in the GMA and in the land use code you saw in the parking reform presentation that they had one area that said process for requirements.

So there's some basic requirements.

And the commission's role is not so much to direct the input, but to weigh the comments that do come in.

So some of the I think a number of people had mentioned the table that was used for middle housing to kind of consolidate all of the comments that had come in, especially at the end, and how easy that was to use.

So we we can create probably just use that as the template or something very similar to that and have that available to staff to use.

Of course, it's not appropriate at all stages of the process.

This would probably be something that would come more at the end of the process than at the beginning, but we can have it available for staff to use as a suggested template.

Right now the the memo format is pretty loose, and there's some advantages to that because many of the projects are different, but you also have process four types of proposals, and so there is also some consistency.

So we could create some sections in the memo, and one could be for engagement and have kind of a suggested way of addressing engagement in a memo for process for actions.

And it's very hard to respond to comments when they come in.

I mean, of course, if it comes in at five o'clock, there's no way we can address it by 6 30.

Um even if they come in the last week of the process when it's you know that it's been out for two weeks many of these things go through iterations, and so coming in at the very end, it's really hard for staff to respond to that.

Um so um one suggested one suggestion is to uh consider limiting response to those last minute comments when there has been time for people to review.

So we're required to for a public hearing to publish that 14 days in advance.

And so if it's for a code amendment, then the proposed code would be published along with the public hearing notice 14 days in advance.

If it's for a comprehensive plan amendment, it's you know, whatever the proposed amendment is published 14 days in advance.

Um and that is um to give people time to review it because you know even within a week when the planning commission materials are published, it you know, people have other things to do.

So that um longer time period is um so that people can um have time to review it and respond.

Another suggestion was the pre-meeting briefings.

Um I'll say that um all of my conversations with staff, everybody finds these helpful as well.

Um it's helpful to understand um where you guys are coming from so that staff can tailor the presentation and be able to answer questions, um, you know, have some you know, check on numbers and that type of thing.

Um that of course they have to remain um information only.

Um and uh as we discussed, it would have to be below quorum.

Um however, um it's totally possible to set a recurring meeting.

It would just sort of depend on what your schedules are when you want to have that.

We would need to require an RSVP.

So even if it's on your calendar, we need to know in advance if you're coming or not for that quorum issue.

And of course, we would always have the option to schedule a briefing at another time.

Clarify, you know, what is the scope of the planning commission for any particular project and understanding like what was council's mandate and are we stepping outside of what they asked for this particular proposal?

And there it's as I discussed this with staff.

We noted it's also helpful for the community to understand.

Like so they're not asking for things that are outside of the council scope.

So sometimes counsel is very specific and says, yes, look at, well, for example, with the parking reform, they said, yes, we want you to look at expanding the walk sheds.

So make sure you look at if everything is half mile and make sure you look at, I can't remember all of the specifics, but um and other times counsel is not um as specific.

Um so that would be something that we would need to address.

Um the other um thing to note is that all process for actions have very distinct decision criteria in the code.

Um, usually staff um bring those up at the very end of the process.

Um, but in the suggested changes, we can look at the memo and sort of streamline how we address the scope in the memo, and um, we can also introduce the decision criteria earlier in the process.

So that's something that you're thinking about before the you have to make the decision.

Um visual aids uh staff.

Uh I think um there was response in the survey and um the discussion in November.

Um people all of you really appreciated the visual aids as a way to sort of understand complex topics.

Um having a toolbox staff that was a good idea.

Um in general, they they like to have um the visual aids maps and um diagrams and that type of thing.

There was some concern that it can some of these processes are quite complex and it can lead to oversimplification.

Um I can um as you note uh things that are particularly helpful.

I can develop a toolbox because we for one thing um we return to similar topics year after year.

So if there's a particular way of understanding the CPA process, we can um reuse that uh the next year.

Um and also if there's examples of um, you know, a particular way a map was symbolized or something like that.

I can um add that to our our toolbox for um staff to reference.

Uh commissioner mentorship, I was really excited about this one too.

I talked to the clerk's office.

They're um also excited about this.

I'll say that.

They are um currently reviewing um all of the onboarding experience for all of the boards and commissions.

Um so I had a long conversation about onboarding for planning commission with the clerk's office.

Um, so they don't want us to get ahead of them.

Um so maybe in the future we'll have a mentorship program.

They want to make sure that the experience that you know all of the commissions have uh similar opportunity.

Um I can compile a list of past commissioners that are willing to be contacted for a coffee chat.

Um and uh the city attorney's office also wanted me to let you know that they are available if you have any questions.

And I know um some of you um have uh taken advantage of that.

So um they yeah, Matt's here because he is.

I know he was a smiling consulting attorney.

Yep.

Um glossary of acronyms is the last item.

Um everybody thinks acronyms, a glossary of acronyms would be useful.

It's kind of a um, I don't want to say hazing, but like a ritual for new staff members to develop their own um list of acronyms until they understand all of them and then they're like, okay.

Um I did it myself.

Um we know a staff noted that it would also be helpful for the public as well as the commissioners, so that we're all on the same page.

Um I I would say rather than like trying to to develop a comprehensive list all at once.

Um we I can work with staff to generate this list over time um based on the memos and other agenda materials.

I'm still um uh working with um staff to figure out where it should live.

Um I I'm not sure exactly where the best place it is for it is.

Um, but uh yeah, staff was very supportive of um having this resource available uh to the commission and to the public.

So I will end it there.

Um council member Bargava doesn't show up and we take him out of the picture.

Um should we go one by let's keep it to one please?

I will cut you off if you ask follow-up question or second question.

Um should we go one by one or should we go with the one that you prefer to talk about it?

Maybe we can go one by one if you have a comment we can add it for item one.

Is it okay if we go with item one?

Um does anybody has any comment about response to public inputs, regardless that if they want to provide a template for us?

Please go ahead.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um I just I appreciate I appreciated uh the recognition of this.

I do think it would be helpful um to have, I don't know if engagement section in memo.

Yeah, it is on this slide.

I I do think that that would be a helpful uh consistent addition to the memo formats for um issues in which it's appropriate to have a table that outlines the comments received and how they were dealt with.

So um appreciated that being brought up and wanted to support it.

Is anyone disagree with this or have a comment adding to this one?

Okay.

Oh do we have anything added to here?

On this topic.

Yeah, I have one thing.

Yeah, okay, please go ahead.

Okay.

Um it's the limited response to last minute comments.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

And I wonder if there's some way to signal to the public that if you don't get your comment in 24 hours in advance of our meeting, don't expect that we're all gonna be waiting to look at them.

I mean, I I I mean, we're volunteers on the commission.

We have full-time jobs, you know, separate from what we do here.

Um, for the most part.

And but no impression.

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

Yeah, and we already said 11 a.m.

We it's almost two years that we have set the bar about 11 a.m., right?

But so we see that someone comes 5 p.m.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um any other comment about the template and all of those, we're good.

Next item for pre-meeting briefing.

I do have a comment here.

I feel I personally see a lot of a lot of struggle about processing place, the why are you standing?

What is a vote for, and all of those.

And chair and wise chair, for the people who have been that we have a regular meeting.

So we are totally on board.

We get all the knowledge that we need that what we should do, and all of those.

And I think for commissioners, really a good opportunity to know the process and then ask any question.

Then it's save a lot of time for us sitting here and going through those.

Um, and do we have any comment about should be requiring meetings or should be like something that people in like any shit by it on self?

Any comment there, any preference.

Yeah, go ahead.

I I wanted to support the recommendation or suggestion that that Kate uh brought up.

Uh having a regularly scheduled time that eventually will be on all of our calendars and we know when that is, I think would be very helpful.

Um what we can RSVP and ensure we don't have quorum.

Um it would definitely uh take advantage of that and and as soon as it's possible would welcome it.

Yeah, yeah.

Anything, Commission.

Yeah, I agree with that too.

I know it's probably very hard because there's you know, you have to take quorum into account, but maybe two recurring meetings or however you think it's best to kind of figure that out.

I I'd like the idea of a recurring meeting.

Anything else?

Anyone like good?

Yeah, I I agree with that.

Okay, yeah.

I think for me it's really helpful.

Like I have meetings on Monday.

It was when Friday we moved it to Monday, and it's really helpful for me because I know like four to four thirty on Monday.

I want to go have one more review about what is happening.

I think that's really nice.

Yes.

Does this mean that if we don't come to a meeting?

Yeah, you cannot ask questions.

Then we cannot ask for clarification questions.

No, for like I've I've we've had uh a couple of meetings, maybe three or four meetings overall since since I started.

Yeah, those are helpful.

Uh, but they're they're not they're they're they're the exceptional rule, right?

And uh I just don't want to be into a place where all of a sudden we all feel obligated to attend this meeting on a weekly basis because there's there's even more time.

So but I understand that if there's a recruiting time kind of a set-aside time.

So if you can make it a time, that's great.

Uh that's I think it's the office hour and if if Kate or anyone doesn't hear from you guys, it will be gifted cancel.

And then it's responsible of us to for me eventually in a couple months, I'd be responsible to say I need to have a clarification and uh at that attend that office hour.

And and Chair Conlo, uh, I think Kate, you also mentioned that we would have the opportunity to meet outside of that time.

Yeah, set up set up those periodics.

Yeah, and I would say that you should I I'll probably put an hour on your calendar.

Um, but um count on it actually being half an hour, because if I have an hour on and we have more than four more than three commissioners that want to, then I can just split it.

Yeah.

And Kate, uh, maybe if you feel you you send us the email that we say what time of the day we prefer, for example, like for me personally, after three is better than 8 a.m.

Like maybe that helps for you for scheduling.

I don't know.

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

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

That's on you.

Are we good here?

Okay.

Next one for planning commission role.

I think I want to ask something here.

I remember I was I was keep asking, can we do um best practices of study?

And I remember one after like years.

Some some one someone in one of my meetings said this is out of the scope that that council asked.

And I'm like, why you never told me this comment is out of a scope, right?

Like for me, I didn't know about that.

And I was just like, I wish I knew it earlier because I could prevent myself to say that a million times.

Uh I think that was one of the things.

I don't know if someone else mentioned that or no, but for me, I'm just like, I didn't know that in that specific case as we were not supposed to add something that is gonna go out of scope to what's already council um assigned to the um staff.

Any comment here.

I have one one comment.

Um I I wanted to support that we consider adding this as a standard section of our our four memos uh ahead of time and and appreciate your comments, Chair Conloo.

Yeah, uh I I think it's incredibly helpful.

The C uh the um uh CPA amendment that we just went through last week, knowing what um uh the uh criteria, decision criteria are we're looking at geographic scope and X, and I know that's in the memo, but but it is it would be really helpful if it is every time.

Um, and then the council scope isn't necessarily always in the memo.

What what they said as far as what they were looking at in particular and asked for, which sometimes could be qualitative, is helpful guidance.

Um so having that as a set piece of the form that needs to be filled out each time, and just to say the engagement ad table where appropriate and the visual aids that are coming up next, having just a spot for that, I think would be would be helpful.

Thanks.

Great.

Anyone else?

Good, yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I was just gonna add um I I wanted to plus one commissioner Kennedy's um comments on this.

And I I think when it comes to the variability with what the council provides um for SCO, I mean, it kind of is what it is, um, you know, for us.

So I mean, as long as we know that going in, um, you know, and it's stated in the agenda memo.

I mean, I think that's helpful for context for us.

So I I support what Commissioner Kennedy was recommending.

Okay, Vice Chair.

Just a quick comment.

I think this also stemmed from us occasionally making requests or uh like of staff that maybe are not that we sh are not supposed to be doing.

So I think also just a staff practice of very being very clear of like this is not something that you know we can do or should be doing.

I it like in that moment would be really good because some of these I think there's a tendency from staff to say, like, oh, we'll look into it, but then that kind of like goes off into the ether.

I'd rather just have it very upfront, like, you know, this is not really something that we'll be looking for.

Yeah, I was going to add that one too.

I agree with you.

I think I want our staff are amazing and always kind to us and professional, but I want they tell me this is gonna go be additional skull compared to what council like determined for us.

Like I think hearing that, I'm like, oh, okay, I'd be fine, but maybe um it's it's nice to hear that from me personally.

Okay, are we good here?

Perhaps I can work with staff to assist them.

Yeah.

If they if they're not feeling emboldened to say I'm sorry, but share Lou, but no.

Because sometimes we even hear something from the public and we feel that we need to mention that, but I think I I need to lean on expertise of the staff to tell us, for example, or remind us that this is totally out of the scope.

Like, for example, for HOMA, right?

FT, like E was like out of the scope for our study.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else?

Good.

Next one, visual aid.

I think we all agree on having visual aids, right?

I agree.

I have one short comment on it to clarify.

Um I mentioned on my last comment that it would be helpful to maybe have a consistent section in in forms, um, just a reminder, just uh cue.

Hey, if there is something you could provide that would be a visual representation of this, it would be helpful.

I think he um so would support having that in the forum.

The second was um you mentioned when you were walking through this slide that it would be helpful to consider examples of things that we have found helpful in the past.

I have consistently found it helpful to walk through an example of how a developer or landowner would do this new process.

Here's how they did it before, or it was impossible.

Here's how they would do it today.

Recognizing the limitations of such an example, you mentioned we don't want to oversimplify, but it's really helpful to see how that would walk through to make sure that we understand it, that the commenters understand it.

So having that be a potential EG parenthetical on the reminder of could you walk it through um how we would use it, I would I would very much support along with the maps that you mentioned.

So thank you.

Go ahead, please.

I'd like to close one.

Uh, and I like to bring uh the example of uh Roby explaining the non-conforming code, how to calculate that.

That was very clear during the presentation.

It was very hard to understand as we were reading, and people that did not attend that meeting were sending comments after that.

Very confused, but that walkthrough was very helpful.

I would also like to encourage uh the use of visual aids like maps and diagrams, those are helpful in general and not only for the meeting, but also if they go into the actual code, they're they're super helpful.

So yeah.

I was just gonna add um maps, maps in particular, because um, when I start thinking about the practical um impacts of the decisions that we're making, maps are so helpful for me to visualize what it is we're doing.

I mean, that was true in the context of like the critical areas, ordinance, um, you know, and so I I think that in particular is the one area that um is is hugely helpful in terms of visual aids.

Okay, great.

And the next one for mentorship, we just gonna go have a weekly coffee with Matt, all fun schedule and his calendar.

Great.

Seven days one of us.

Okay, I think we good.

We got the message clearly.

The office is working on it.

We move on.

Okay.

For this one.

Does okay.

We all agree we want to do that.

Do you have anything that is gonna go be really helpful to add here?

And has been missed.

Yes, go ahead.

One comment.

Um I you were saying that Kate that we're still considering what the format of that would be, and you had recommended that we develop it over time.

I wanted to support developing it over time.

And when we consider that format, I wanted to provide just one thought I had on this is that I think it would be helpful to keep it as an informal document that is not codified, and that would be something that could be regularly updated.

And I think that would be the most useful tool from my perspective.

Anything else?

I think I want to add something.

I personally have an AI agent that it's a city planner.

I I'm not joking.

I have already shared with Sarah and Kate has access to entire data in the ward because it's a Gemini agent.

And it's really helps me.

And I was thinking, do you want me to give you a basement of those acronyms?

How far do you want me to go?

I can create tenures of them in any public record of the department in less than a second for you guys.

And I think I want us, we do that.

Like I use the notebook LM, upload a document, start a conversation and ask all my questions that nobody knows I'm asking those.

I highly recommend.

Anything else?

Okay.

Kate, thank you so much.

I hope we answer all your questions.

And thank you so much for doing that.

I know it's it's we pushed this out of the agenda for a while.

Thank you.

Great job.

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

Moved.

Okay, any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

And Commissioner Ferris is not here, so one needs to adjourn the meeting.

I move that we adjourn the meeting.

Can I have a second?

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you all.

Almost a record.

Yeah.

Let's