So can some bosses do we have uh uh commissioner Ferris online?

Okay, okay.

Perfect.

Good evening and welcome to the June 10th meeting of the City of Bellevue Planning Commission.

This evening meeting is held via hybrid format with both uh in-person and visual option, we assume.

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, June 10th, will be summarized into the record.

We have three study sessions on the agenda tonight, two comprehensive plan amendments to consider, and the introduction of the new land use code amendment.

The transportation um conformance comprehensive plan amendment, the events um plot or comprehensive plan amendments and the introduction of the high density housing land use code amendment.

Now let's call move forward with the roll call.

Commissioner Kennedy and Commissioner Neil Chan have notified me that they will be absent today.

Um Councilmember Liaison Bargava is also absent today.

I'm present.

Uh Commissioner Geppel?

Present.

Commissioner Velavesis.

And Commissioner Ferris will be late, and I'm Chair Han Liu.

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

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Um, the state that we elect office uh officers at our first meeting in the June.

Um that is this meeting.

I move that we add the election of officers to the agenda immediately following the approval of the agenda.

Is there a second for the amendment?

Second.

All in favor of the amendment of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

The amendment carries all approve of the amendment agenda.

Say aye.

Aye.

The planning commission ball is a state that um there shall be a chair and vice chair elected at the first regular meeting in June.

By laws, specifically using Robert Rule's newly revised uh procedures.

This process identified that nomination do not require second.

The action acting chair will um close the floor to nomination when no other um nomination are uh forthcoming.

Nominees will be voted on in the order in which they were presented as soon as one of the nominees receive the majority votes.

The current acting chair will declare that person elected.

No votes will be taken on the remaining nominees for the office of chair.

Commissioners must cast their votes, either aye or no for each nominees.

Failure to cast a vote means that your vote will count it in the affirmative.

Nomination for the chair are now in order.

Any other nominees?

Okay.

Commissioner Johnny Liu nominated.

Are there any other nominees for chair?

Hearing no further nomination, nomination are closed.

We will vote on the nominees in order in which they have been pressed, which is only one.

Please um signify your vote by saying aye or no when the question is called.

The first nominee and a lot last one is Commissioner Johnny Liu.

All in favor, please say aye.

I those opposed say no.

There is no.

The vote is four in favor.

This um the eyes have um, okay, sorry, I missed it.

Um the eyes have it, and commissioner um Johnny Liu is elected as a chair.

Congratulations Chair Johnny Liu I will pass the gavel to you to chair the um remaining of the meeting.

And uh before uh nominations for vice I just want to say a couple words so it's been honor to serve as your vice chair over the last year.

It's been really great.

I I think you managed meetings with a very even keeled hand even when they got a little contentious throughout some of the topics here you were able to kind of move us along and I really really appreciate the efficiency of which you ran the meetings.

I think you now hold the record for both the fastest meetings that we've ever done or the shortest meetings that we've ever held so it's been great.

I also you know want to say I appreciate your enforcement of the bylaws especially during uh some of the uh the public comments and I think that that's something that's going to live on an infamy and I hope to follow your uh your footsteps in that regard as well so thank you.

Thank you Jenny.

All right so just as the election uh just as for the election of chair the bylaws specify using Robert's rules newly revised procedures for the election of the vice chair uh this process identifies that nominations do not require second the chair will close the floor to nominations when no other nominations are forthcoming nominees will be voted on in the order in which they were presented as soon as one of the nominees receives a majority vote the chair will declare that person elected no votes will be taken on the remaining nominees for the vice chair at that point uh commissioners must cast their vote either aye or no for each nominee failure to cast a vote will mean that your vote will be counted in the affirmative nominations for the vice chair are now in order.

Um I'd like to nominate um my learned colleague um commissioner vilibasis.

Great any other nominations so Commissioner Via Vasis has been nominated and hearing no further nominations uh nominations are now closed we will now vote on the nominees in the order in which they were presented so please signify your vote by casting an aye or no when the question is called the first nominee is Commissioner Via Vases all in favor please say aye.

Aye all in favor all opposed say no the vote is four in favor and zero against the ayes have it and Commissioner Via Vases congratulations on being elected chair um looking forward to serving with you this coming year.

Likewise thank you.

All right so uh Commissioner Bargaba or council member Bargava is not here to provide an update on council.

However I will note that uh commissioner conlu delivered the planning commission recommendations to council on the omnibus LUCA last night and council adopted commission's recommendations on the Luca so I hope that that went well any comments on that yeah we got um six I vote and no against uh one against uh and uh there was uh some conversation about uh Fee and Lu that came out and one of our council members was not agreed with the Fian Lu for that specific um East May uh for some history of that section but uh the council uh voted and approved that one right thank you uh Kate are there any other reports from boards and commissions nope okay staff Liaison Kate Nessie will now provide us with updates to the meeting schedule for 2026.

Uh yeah I just wanted to note that um the the Bell red uh Luca um you decided not to set a public hearing you will still hear about the Bell red Luca on July 9th it will just be a regular study session and I'm working with staff to um move some topics around in the fall so the September topics may change a little bit and um yeah it's always the calendar is always tentative but it likely those will change.

Got it are there any questions for Kate no if not then let's move on to oral and written communications.

Kate could you provide a summary of the written communications received.

Yeah, you uh I sent you four uh letters.

Two of them were related to Evans Plaza um this afternoon.

Since then I've received one additional comment related to Evans Plaza and the the author is here uh tonight, so uh he will provide comment, I assume on what he sent you.

Great.

So we will have a total of 30 minutes for oral communications.

Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak.

Saf liaison K.

Nessie will call on speakers in the order in which they have registered either in person or online.

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

registration deadline, you may still provide public comment if there's remaining time.

Please use the raise hand function in Zoom if you are speaking or if you're attending virtually or motion to staff if you're in person to indicate that you would like to speak.

Like you all to remember there are rules adopted by the city council limiting the topics about which the public may speak during our meetings under ordinance 6752.

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

Additional information about the rules of decorum governing conduct of the public meetings during of the public during our meetings can be found at ordinance 6752.

Uh so let's get started.

Kate, can you call our first speaker?

Yes, I wanted to note, Chair.

Sorry, I'm looking in the wrong place.

Um that uh Commissioner Ferris has joined us online.

Oh, great.

Welcome, Commissioner Ferris.

Our first uh commenter is um Norm Hansen, followed by Pamela Johnston.

Although, oh, I do see Pamela.

Thanks.

So, Norm, you can come up.

Oh, can you turn on your mic?

Right, if I do, we gotta press the button.

Life is pressing buttons, isn't it?

Uh my name is Norm Hansen.

I've lived in Bridal Trails for over 50 years, and uh I I want to thank the uh planning commission for serving.

I know that it's uh very intense uh commitment as it is uh from the neighborhood when they uh are challenged with changes.

So I'd like to present to the planning commission tonight for your consideration and option three.

City staff has presented two options for you, and we thought that there should be a third option.

So this is the neighborhood option.

It's requested that the planning commission consider substantial community engagement during the upcoming bridal trails sub-area update.

It's not too far off.

Discussion here is that bridal trails and surrounding neighborhoods want to keep the unique neighborhood heritage characteristics that have served the Bill View community for over 50 years.

It continues to be a thriving and needed business area.

Bell Red currently offers many red up many opportunities.

That's the adjacent sub area.

The developer already has substantial residential upzoning just a few steps from Sound Transit Station on 130th Avenue Northeast.

Bellevue has already invested heavily in the needed infrastructure there.

Bellevue needs to concentrate on property already designated as high density rather than create sprawl in some of the neighborhoods.

I think we need to find out how it works out in other neighbors' goods to have uh some of these uh next use facilities.

Uh Bellevue has a process for significant density changes as the recent opportunity in the 2024 comprehensive plan process.

And uh we were heavily involved in that, and uh I guess we're also involved in this.

Um so I would hope that you would make a recommendation to uh to allow us to uh have a review at the appropriate time in our sub-area update.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela johnston.

And she will be followed by Joe Kunzler, who is virtual.

Just a second gonna fit into the desk okay thank you um i'm Pamela Johnson um there's several things I want to talk about pine view that I never heard of pine view until it was stuck on a map so this is what we didn't really see it as a neighborhood center because we've never been taught talked to about what we wouldn't want in a neighborhood center and bridal trails um during the comp plan the general commercial parcels were retained as general commercial throughout bridal trails cougar mountain lake month bell red factoria bridal trails in particular was retained pine view had the third highest number of retail visits from all neighborhood centers pine view was the fourth highest number per dollars per square foot twenty-one properties were considered redist redistricting in the FEIS only one overlay farms that had been talked to before the following week was that was moved um state bill 60 26 will mandate that all general commercial are allowed housing we're gonna do that work anyway why are we doing it twice for this one special place um hb 1491 is a transit oriented they're gonna ch change the a little bit about transit oriented what exactly is transit oriented will the general commercials and bell red be affected um bridal trails general commercial was retained without concern for housing and bridal trails because the episode's along one forty eighth and 40 acres at overlay farm we're not desperate for new houses we're only supposed to have to get about 300 in total for the next 40 years um what makes neighborhood center work well this is what your retail study the city's retail study said vibrant walkable mixed use space where residents can work live play are desirable but difficult to create how is a difficult is going to be created in this neighborhood center when it's only one person participating in it and one person deciding what it is again pine view there's no pines that are native to this area so we object to the night um so the other thing I I like to have if I have a few seconds um is yes growth by neighborhood we're around six 260 to 300 needed um for housing s the city of Bellevue has passed its rate for affordable housing so we're on track for that we don't need to add new housing zones for that thank you thank you next we have Joe Kunzler followed by Alex Zimmerman who is in person Joe just may give me a moment and I'll allow you to speak Joe can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Yeah go ahead uh congratulations to your new chair um this is Joe Kunzler here Joe you are breaking up can you can you hear me it you're breaking up and we can't hear you anymore uh I'm gonna move on to our next speaker and can you hear me uh yes we can hear you now okay all right okay um the cell phone might cut out but uh first off I I want to say very bluntly that you need more transporting development all over because um we spent a lot of money on public transit, so we should get.

Are you still there?

I think let's maybe and um, you're you're cutting in and out, and we're in a we're unable to hear you for probably uh eighty percent of the what you're speaking, so um we may move on to another public speaker, and then uh Kate, I guess.

If that's the procedure, then we can come back to you if you're able to get better connection.

Yep.

Um I I could just conclude that I asked you to enforce your rules until Alexander maybe stop this guy and face it.

Okay, thank you.

All right, next we have Alex Simmerman, followed by um Alex.

I can't read your last name, another person named Alex.

Thank you very much.

I disable, but I cannot sit in floor.

Yeah, I need a chair, yeah.

Little bit, Sherry's okay.

Thank you very much.

I very appreciate it.

Stay, baby, stay.

Yeah, my name Alex Zimmerman.

Yeah, my name Alex Zimmerman.

I want to speak about something, what is I speak for last 10 or 15 years every day.

First, you never show people faces, and I speak uh from Tacoma, see at all over it for the last 30 years more than five thousand times, council chamber, different city.

I never see like this before, and I talking about this more than 10 years, zero reaction from you.

I think this you are mentally sick people is number one.

Number two, twelve years ago, Mayor Robinson established a new policy only for Alex Zimmerman.

So can speak only 30 minutes, you only ten people, but this is another correction.

What is you forgot about this?

Nobody who have somebody who have speaks six months ago cannot speak.

It's never happened before in America.

I cannot understand.

You'd be absolutely degenerative idiotic, a pure Nazi pig who totally destroys constitution and freedom of speech.

You're never talking about this correction, but this correction exactly only about Alex Zimmerman.

So situation right now very simple.

Mare Robinson by the definition of pure criminal.

Why?

Because for three years they cut my right, go to council meeting and speak, trespass me.

It's because we have a candidate, a candidate against her.

Totally, you know what I mean.

It's never happened before in state Washington.

Never.

I am not too much sure.

Probably zero.

We have another point, what is absolutely critical.

We have more Muhammad, a mayor who signed a document.

It's a joke who sign a document not legal name.

When you sign something official document, not legal name, it's a crime, it's a felony.

And everybody acting like a idiot, include you.

You are a idiot.

You play the generative, idiot of stupid.

Play stupid.

How is this possible?

A mayor.

Okay, could you pause really quick on this?

Mr.

Zimmerman, what does this have to do with the planning commission?

What does it do with government?

It's planning commission specifically.

No, you're talking about government.

No, we're talking about the planning commission.

So I'd like to stay on topic.

Planning commission, please.

Absolutely.

Planning commission make a decision, a decision for mayor who.

This is your first warning on staying on topic, but we'll go ahead and we can unpause now.

Thank you.

This is exactly what I want to speak to you.

You involved in every business.

This cannot be not legal something.

You will be quiet about this.

But this is not only not legal, it's a nightmare.

You know what I mean?

I cannot understand.

Man sign a document, you know what is mean, city document.

People can go in jail for one year for example, what's happened a couple of weeks ago, and he signed this, but not legal name.

Mo, it's not legal name.

His legal name Muhammad.

I talk about this for four years.

Why are you talking about?

You commission, you have this rules.

What is cons mere delivery to you?

You will be do in this.

So what is this is not CT business.

It's not even your time is up.

Thank you for speaking.

Hopefully, thank you very much.

I'm so sorry.

Next we have Alex Sergalow.

Followed by Jesse Clausen.

All right.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

Uh, my name's Alexi Gergalo.

I'm a represented representative with North Coast State's Carpenters Union.

And we represent over 10,000 members just here in Wash in Western Washington.

And I'm here to speak on behalf of uh or about uh Evergrew Everglen Village Project.

So we as carpenters, what we do is build and we are in support of the uh Everglen Village Project and the uh affordable housing uh that it will bring to uh City of Bellevue.

Um as you consider this proposal, we encourage you to ensure that uh uh the project of this size, uh and its significance uh is to be built with strong stamp strong labor standards and uh apprenticeship utilization requirements.

Uh Everglen Village is being described as a legacy project.

Legacy projects would leave more than just buildings.

Um they should create pathways into families, uh family wages, careers, and help develop the next generation of skilled uh construction workers.

Apprenticeship programs provide opportunities for local residents, uh, such as veterans, women, and young uh people uh who get to learn uh while they uh earn.

Um, building careers, careers to strengthen our workforce uh and the uh economy, uh requiring uh apprenticeship participation helps address the ongoing skilled uh labor shortage while ensuring high quality uh construction long-term uh community benefits.

Uh this project has potential to deliver over 1,000 affordable homes.

It should also deliver workforce development opportunities that invest in people and create lasting uh uh economic impact.

North Coast States uh Carpenters Union with uh 10,000 members, um, respectfully ask commissioners to support this project with stand with a strong labor standards and apprenticeship uh utilization so that benefits uh the the community uh throughout in the local economy.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Next we have Jesse Clausen, and that's the end of our um registered speakers, but I do see a hand online, and we should have time for that.

Great Chair Lou, planning commissioners.

I'm Jesse Clausen.

Good evening.

I'm here to talk uh in favor of the Evans Plaza comp plan amendment uh to move ahead as uh we applied for it, which is to say to change the designation to low rise two.

Um we saw the staff recommendation about low rise one.

Um it sounds like that would be a good middle ground, um, you know, between the general commercial and the low rise two that we proposed.

I will say there are problems with the low rise two designation.

Um the implementing zones that are associated with the low rise two uh designation are much lower in intensity and in density.

Again, that doesn't sound all that bad on its face.

However, I know one of the neighborhood wants and one of our wants and one of the city's wants is really good commercial space.

Um, in order to achieve really good commercial space, you really have to have a good ground floor, floor to height, floor to floor height of, you know, the concrete, you know, mixed use development.

And that really eats up about two stories of your project, about up to 20 feet.

The implementing zones under the low rise one zone or designation only allow you to go up to either 45 feet or 60 feet, so really only four stories or six stories.

That doesn't allow you to have the apartments above that help subsidize the commercial space below.

The low rise two designation allows you to go up to eight stories and it also has other benefits like higher FARs and also lot coverage requirements that are you know you can have unlimited lot coverage requirements rather than only 75% in the low rise one zones so we think in that area um it really makes sense if you want the commercial development and you want the mixed use development you saw an email from uh uh Evans Wakefields the the folks that are uh we are representing at the low rise one designations it's really not going to develop anytime soon this is a long-term project um these rezones take a long time this is something that we're we're looking out for a long time um so we do hope that you go with the low rise two uh designation and we are always available to answer any questions thank you all right I uh Nicole I see your hand raised I will allow you to speak can you hear me can you hear me Nicole I'm not able to hear you let me see if there's any um other folks that want to comment in the room and I can come back to you there anybody else who would like to comment I'm Patricia Hanson and I'm a resident of the Bridal Trails Bellevue area and we live off of 140th so I have some idea of what it's like and we've lived there for over 50 years the transportation and that's what I would like to cover just simply stating that the streets and the roads and the area are not suitable for this proposed Evans proposal.

The traffic that will be created will be great and that area is not set to handle this kind of traffic from the people who would live there.

So I ask you to take into consideration all of these things that have been brought before you there are things that are suitable right now it is a suitable area and I think that um the Evans proposal is such that uh it's it's not designated for this kind of thing and where Evans Plaza sits right now they have a designated area for this kind of housing and it would be right near the uh train station where people could get on and off and it also is located right between Bell Red Road and um pardon makes me nervous I the other road that is in our area um so you know please when you when you take on these things I know there's big business but there are people who live in these areas and deal with the various traffic situations on a regular basis and I ask you to please take into consideration these things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right Nicole I will ask you to unmute can you hear me?

Yes is that working now yes go ahead the wonderful it's such a pleasure to be able to uh speak with you and uh I really appreciate the time you're paying um the attention you're paying to this Evans Plaza work uh I am concerned that it is not something that meets the um significantly can change sorry the significantly changed conditions requirement and I hope that you will scrutinize that part in particular.

I do appreciate the um fact that there's an altered recommendation by staff, but I think we haven't fully insured that the amenities for the area as well as the potential for significantly changed conditions on the Dun Lumber site would not result from making a change now.

I'd also like to call your attention to something that's also on the agenda today, which is that the transportation element is going to be referring to 20 years now instead of 12 years for the TFP.

And that's because there are funding limitations that are making it hard for us to accomplish all the things on the transportation side that we'd really like to do.

These are important essential upgrades, the transportation network that honestly are going to be stretched even more because we have so much growth happening.

And again, that takes us to something else that's on the agenda for tonight, which is the high density residential.

I think the idea of having additional density on overlake farms that jumps all the way from the large lot one to LDR 3.

Um it's not really explained why there would be such a large jump.

And I hope you'll ask about that.

I do certainly support the idea of clustering on the site.

Um, but I have questions about why the clustering would no longer allow like say a five-acre property to participate in that.

And um I hope you'll take a look at this carefully because again, the additional density is something that will um be hard for us to support with our existing transportation network.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is the end of our speakers.

Great, thank you.

Um, I guess there is no public hearing, so all right.

Uh, our first study session.

The transportation conformance amendment seeks uh was proposed by the city to amend references in the comprehensive plan to the mobility implementation plan and the transportation facilities plan and to ensure conformance with the city's process for planning for active transportation across plans.

The amendments have no policy impact.

Uh Planning Director Tara Johnson and senior planner Tun Dooling will provide the presentation.

Welcome both.

Good evening, Chair Lou, um, Vice Chair Via Vesas and Planning Commissioners.

Um staff are very pleased to be here this evening.

We're going to be presenting um two studies, two separate study sessions on the 2026 comprehensive plan amendments.

Um thank you.

Um, part of our annual amendment process, as you know, we'll go into more detail as part of the overall presentation.

Um, we're allowed under the Growth Management Act to amend comprehensive plans just once a year.

Um we've gone through the threshold review process.

And as part of our presentation tonight, we're gonna start off to Nina I'm gonna tag team um this evening.

We'll start off and provide an overview of the comprehensive plan amendment process.

Uh, we'll go over the final review criteria, um, and then we'll cover some of our proposed amendments that were included in your packet and then conclude with uh with our direction that we're requesting from the commission this evening.

So tonight um we'll go over some of the details of the staff recommendation that that's also included in your packet materials on some of the changes to the transportation element.

And um finally our request is if the commission is prepared, um, provide direction to set a public hearing on July 22nd for the transportation conformance amendments.

So that I'll turn things over to Tim.

Great.

Thanks, Tara, and good evening, uh, commissioners.

Um, city initiated amendments like this transportation element conformance uh um comprehensive plan amendment or CPA, um, sort of skips threshold review and goes straight to um to final review.

That's different than the Evans Plaza, which is privately initiated and earlier this year went through the threshold review process.

So for final review, it's sort of a two-step planning commission studies and evaluates and holds a public hearing on the proposed amendment and then makes a recommendation to council for their consideration on the CPA.

And then City Council reviews that and takes final legislative action on the planning commission's final review recommendation.

Council included this particular CPA in the 2026 work plan at their March 10th meeting, so a few months ago.

And these are the criteria for final review that are provided in the land use code.

So I'll just go through them quickly.

So the criteria are, and there's like an attachment in your packet as well.

So the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Secondly, that it addresses the interest and the change needs of the entire city.

The third one is that it addresses significantly changed conditions.

That is a term that is also further defined in the land use code as well.

Fourth is that the proposed amendment is sort of in general conformance with adjacent land use and development patterns.

And then lastly, that the proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit and enhances the public health, safety, and welfare.

So these amendments that are part of this CPA are very limited in scope.

And are meant to ensure conformance between the comprehensive plan and two recently updated transportation-related functional plans.

The mobility implementation plan and the transportation facilities plan.

And transportation department staff identified the need for a subsequent CPA when this these two plans were updated and those updates were brought to City Council for their uh consideration and adoption back in November of last year.

So concretely, what were the changes or what is sort of requires these amendments now?

The 2009 pedestrian and bicycle plan was incorporated into the mobility implementation plan that covers all modes of transportation, including uh pedestrian and bicycle transportation.

Um so there's no longer a need to reference that plan because it's incorporated in the MIP in the mobility implementation plan.

Um so therefore the recommended amendments are to remove those references in the narrative portion of the transportation element in the comprehensive plan, as well as one reference in policy TR and then TR stands for transportation uh number 96.

Um the second element uh to those conformance amendments related to the transportation facilities plan.

Uh, that is one reference updating that reference um because that referred to the old time frame uh for the TFP or transportation facilities plan that was 12 years and that is now updated to 20 years in the transportation facilities plan that was adopted in 2025.

So just to make sure that everything sort of uh is again in alignment with these with these functional plans, uh, um transportation commission uh reviewed these um amendments to the transportation element.

Their review really is limited to the transportation element itself.

Um and after reviewing the those amendments, they made a recommendation to the planning commission.

That recommendation is also included in the packet uh last month.

Um staff um also reviewed other parts of the comprehensive plan, sort of beyond the uh transportation element that was already uh part of the Transportation Commission uh recommendation to plan and commission.

So there are a few additional references to the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan elsewhere in the comprehensive plan.

Uh specifically, there are three definitions provided by the glossary that uh right now mention the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan uh or the record staff recommendation is to remove those references.

And then lastly, there's also in a um text box and the sort of vision and introduction element of the plan, there's also a reference to that uh pedestrian and bicycle plan.

Um so that recommendation is not sort of different from the Transportation Commission recommendation, sort of complementary, sort of builds on that because it focuses on other parts of the comm plan.

Um and all the recommended changes, uh they're they're quite limited, uh, but they're all outlined in detail in the attachments uh um that were part of the meeting packet.

Uh so with that, um, staff asked like after the review of the both the staff and transportation commission recommendations, um, which again are complementary to each other to provide direction on the proposed amendments, so it's conformance amendments, and then uh lastly also asking to provide direction to schedule public hearing for for final review when planning commission is ready to do so.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I will now call on each commissioner sequentially and uh we'd ask any questions, let's keep it to our burning topic of the day.

Uh so I'll start with Commissioner Keppel.

I'll be easy.

I have no questions, and I'm fully supportive of moving to a public hearing.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Ferris.

I would 100% agree with Commissioner Goebbels.

I um have no questions, and I'd like to move it forward to them the uh public hearing.

Great, Commissioner Ganlu.

Thank you so much, Sam.

I'm the same.

Thanks.

And vice review bases.

Likewise.

Sorry, plus one commissioner's co-its.

Great.

I just have a quick one.

Um, was there a reasoning behind uh the 12 to 20 year uh shift or just some is it to align to the comprehensive plan or is it some other reason?

Um so two reasons.

One is um I think um uh aligning with some of the public comment you heard.

It's a it's um ability to fund additional projects.

So 12 years is uh shorter time frame.

Um the other component is um actually that's a recommendation from the Puget Sound Regional Council that we have a longer time frame.

Great, thank you.

Uh no further questions for me, and I'm ready to move this to uh a public hearing.

So I guess uh I'd like to make a motion that we uh uh direct staff to set the public hearing on July 22nd for this topic.

Second, great.

All in favor say aye.

Thank you.

And that passes.

So well, thank you for uh the presentation.

Sounds like we moved to public hearing.

All right, next topic, and I guess both of you stay here.

Uh the landowner of the 10-acre Evans Pos Evans Plaza property and bridal trails neighborhood has proposed an amendment to the comprehensive plan future use land future land use map from general commercial to low rise two mixed use on approximately a 10-acre site.

Uh planning commission held a public hearing for the threshold review and is and recommended moving it towards uh forward to final review.

Council agreed, and this is now in final review, and so planning director Tar Johnson and uh senior planner toon doing will once again present uh information to us about this site.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lou.

Um, so similarly, we'll go over the amendment process uh here.

Um, as you as you just highlighted, it's a two-step process.

Um, so councils provided direction that this be considered as part of our 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle.

Um, we'll again touch on the final review criteria that we just um discussed.

We'll talk about the Evans Plaza uh scope uh within their application request.

We'll talk about some additional analysis that's been done by staff, and then our staff recommendation, which includes two options as uh was highlighted by some of the planning uh public comment this evening, and then move on to our request uh for planning commission direction.

Um so after uh we complete the presentation opportunity for the planning commission to ask staff any questions on the proposed map change, and then if the commission is ready and prepared, uh provide direction for us to schedule a public hearing again for July 22nd.

So then I'd turn things over to Tun.

Yes, thanks, sorry.

Um, yeah, this is a familiar slide by now.

Um, so I think here the biggest differences between a city initiated CPA and a privately initiated CPA is that the latter goes through two steps of the process: threshold review and then final review.

Threshold review um was sort of completed with council uh um deciding to uh include this CPA in the annual work program, uh other CPAs that are on that work program, and of course the CPA that we just discussed, as well as the Eastgate and Victoria neighborhood area plans.

Um, so right now, and then this is something that came up in January, February when there were like a study session and public hearing for threshold review at Planning Commission, is that final review really focuses on an evaluation of the merits of the proposal threshold review really focused on should a proposed amendment be included in the annual work program.

So uh planning commission uh made a recommendation to council to include it.

Um council unanimously adopted that recommendation, so it's now part of the work program.

So tonight, at the at this study session item, the evaluation of the merits of the proposal is very much central to uh to this item.

Um so during this step final review, similar as what I had mentioned about the transportation element, CPA, sort of a two-step process with planning commission uh issuing a recommendation to city council for their consideration and final action, and then planning commission when they evaluate the proposals with like a study session and then a public hearing, also hearing from community members uh on this particular proposal, and then making a recommendation to council.

Uh again, familiar slide.

Um, the criteria provided by the land use uh code, um, and staff will develop a staff report including a final review recommendation uh ahead of the public hearing based on an evaluation of these these criteria.

Um, I've just gone through this 10 minutes ago.

So I think we might be able to skip a skip ahead.

Um so the Evans Plaza CPA has a proposed map amendment uh that entails a requested change in land use designation from general commercial to low rise to mixed use on an uh about 10-acre site.

And the site is located in the bridal trails neighborhood area immediately north of 520 and all red.

Some maps um that give a little bit more context.

So what I said immediately north of 520, um, and uh it's a basically a block um that is um, you know, bound by 136th, uh northeast 24th, and 140th, but then 520 again on the southern side.

And at uh I think it's January 14th meeting uh planning commission provided direction to expand the geographic scope of the application to include the one uh corner property that's outlined in uh green.

So Evans Plaza is under so outlined in red is under common ownership uh by the applicant, and uh is currently occupied by commercial buildings and a range of large and small commercial services, retail restaurants, a wholesale grocer is located as there as well, and uh motorcycle and car dealership.

And here you can see the uh future land use map as it exists today.

Um, and uh just for context, the future land use map is policy-oriented, and a future land use designation represents the community's long-term vision for a specific area.

And the future land use designation links to comprehensive plan's vision with specific zoning classifications or land use districts that uh are in the code and implement that vision.

Um we went over this at earlier sessions as well or earlier meetings.

But the proposed land use designation, low rise two mixed use was created with the 2024 update to the comprehensive plan and a new zoning classification that goes with that land use designation.

Uh MU8 or mixed use eight story was created by the recently adopted HOMA LUCA or housing opportunities in mixed use areas land use code amendment.

Uh so that one goes with the low rise two uh mixed use designation, and that was something uh that was in front of planning commission not too long ago.

Um, and since the related zoning classification that MU8 did not exist at the time of this application uh for a CPA, the CPA application is not a concurrent rezone application.

If council were to approve this or adopt this CPA, then at some future point uh there would need to be a rezone application in order to build anything uh different than what is currently allowed.

Um, so as Tara mentioned, staff conducted a site analysis, looking at the at the proposed amendment site and its immediate surroundings.

Um the proposed amendment site is uh, as you know, in the bridal trails neighborhood area, and also within uh the Pineview neighborhood center, which is one of 13 identified neighborhood centers in Bellevue, as outlined in the comprehensive plan.

And neighborhood centers, uh per the comm plan are commercial mixed-use areas uh in locations that are otherwise primarily residential, and they are envisioned to serve at least some of the daily needs of people uh living in uh the area surrounding it.

Uh Pine View has a more office focused character, as you can see on uh the photo uh included on the slide.

This is um looking north from the proposed amendment site on uh Northeast 24th.

Um, so what I said like it has a more office focused character with limited um community gathering spaces, and most of the retail uses within that neighborhood center are confined and limited to the proposed amendment site.

Um, and lastly, um there's limited transit access.

So the two line runs parallel to 520, not far from uh the site, but the nearest stations are about a mile away.

Um over Lake Village in Redmond to the northeast and then to the southwest, uh the Bell Red station.

They're sort of the site is equidistant between the two um the two light rail stations.

Um the nearest bus stop is um sort of due south.

If you go south on 140th, it's uh a half mile uh walk south um to that to that bus stop on Bell Road Road.

Uh then, of course, as part of the staff analysis, also review of the comprehensive plan.

Um, as I mentioned before when uh sort of the slide that had the cutout of the uh future land use map, the the existing land use designation uh general commercial general commercial does not encompass residential uses and sort of the land use district or zoning district that goes with that does generally not allow residential uses there.

Um, and there are both a stated need and established policy in the com plan for accommodating bell of use housing and job growth within areas that are designated for compact mixed use development, and those are a number of different centers, including neighborhood centers that are um identified for that.

And with that, allowing uh that type of development, so mixed-use residential development is generally considered consistent with the with the comprehensive plan.

And based on that staff analysis, so looking both at site conditions and as well as the policy direction provided by the comprehensive plan.

Um staff recommends considering an alternative low rise one mixed-use land use designation for the proposed map change.

Um, and that recommendation is uh based on a review of other neighborhood centers and their land use designations in the comprehensive plan, as well as Pineview's characteristics as a neighborhood center that's much more focused on office uses with limited retail uses and residential uses.

And then lastly the size limited transit access.

So right now in the comprehensive plan there are only three neighborhood centers where a portion of it is designated as the low rise two mixed use designation which is the designation that is applied for which allows for greater residential densities through the zoning districts had implemented.

Access to nearby frequent reliable transit can be a rationale for allowing higher densities but as I pointed out on the last slide considering the site's limited transit access access future development could not be considered transit oriented development on this site because it's not within a one or a half mile walking distance from Bellevue's frequent transit network.

And then a little bit more detail on what that means that staff recommendation and how it sort of compares to what the applicant's request is for um so option one is a staff recommendation for a low rise one mixed use it really encompasses the same sort of mixed use and type of uses that you see in low rise two mixed use I think the main difference here and you see that in the sort of the fourth line of the description is that low rise one mixed use is at the lower end of a low scale and density where low rise two mixed use is at the higher end of a low scale and density.

If you then look at the sort of the associated zoning that goes with that and you're familiar with that through all your work on the HOMA LUCA recently but low rise one mixed use translates into a maximum building height for instance of 60 feet where low rise two mixed use translates into a maximum building height of 85 feet.

So that is sort of in short the difference also like lower FAR permitted FAR for the related zoning on our low rise one mixed use.

During threshold review there were some concerns both from planning commission and the community about business displacement Evans Plaza has a wide range of existing commercial uses on site and um business retention is a is a council priority and also reflected in adoptive policies both in the comprehensive plan and the economic development plan both like fairly recently updated.

The economic development plan and sort of staff also lead initiatives such as the small business development center to support businesses, for instance relocate or find assistance.

And then lastly there are also land use incentives in the code particularly in the and what was adopted per the HoMALUCA to encourage the location or attention of specific uses and that's for instance affordable commercial space grocery stores daycares sort of specific uses that are particularly relevant and important to the to the community in terms of public comments so as required by code notices go out at different sort of milestones as part of the CPA process community club meeting and a follow-up meeting earlier in the year.

And so far um well this is slightly updated now I think with the common written comments that came in yesterday and today I think the current tally is uh 21 written comments that were uh submitted um it's it's a mix with most of the comments are um sort of against um this proposal.

And with that, um, uh sort of staff asking direction from planning commission that after a review of the staff recommendation to provide direction on a proposed map changed and then secondly, to provide direction to schedule a public hearing for final review.

Great.

Thank you.

I'll go through each commissioner sequentially.

Uh we'll go in opposite order, so I share via basis.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

I I think I I can relate to both sides of the argument for low rise two and low rise one.

Uh however, I think for this property in particular, which is surrounded by institutional office use and a major highway with 520.

Uh the difference between six and eight stories is not gonna be an impact on surrounding properties.

Um that combined with the fact that a low rise two is a developable property, makes it developable by having enough density to support the development of mixed use uh mixed uses that are desired.

I think my uh I would like to recommend that we uh proceed with low rise too.

I think it's the best option for this site.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Connolly.

Um I walked in that area.

It's basically not walkable.

Um one mile to Barret Highway.

It's not like really TOD in my opinion.

Um, and then to the overlake it's not walkable either.

Because 520 is cutting there, and um my only concern is all we are hearing from Braddock residents.

Um after February, there was no engagement because now we are in June, or there was engagement.

Um there have been updates provided by staff about what are the next steps in the in a process, but not in terms of like um meetings um as happened like earlier in the year now.

Okay, I don't have any question, maybe second round.

Thank you.

Commissioner Commissioner Ferris.

Yes, thank you.

Um I would say I'm A, I'm in support of the uh change in zoning, and I would say I'm leaning towards the um the lower density.

However, I wonder if we have an opportunity.

I mean, one of the goals that we have is to provide affordable commercial space.

So, and I know this makes it complicated, and I'm gonna apologize ahead of time staff, but I'm imagining what if we set the zoning at the low rise one, but offered essentially an incentive to say if they provide, and I'm gonna make up the number, 20% of the commercial space as an affordable commercial space, they're allowed to go up to the to the um low rise two.

It might be a win-win just to because again, we know we want to provide more affordable commercial space, and maybe this particular site is an opportunity to do just that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Gepple.

Yeah, um, thank you for the thank you for the presentation.

I am stuck on something that I wonder if you could help me on.

And it's the um significantly change conditions.

And when I read that definition in the land use code, it's a high standard.

You know, it it says demonstrating evidence of change such as unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy or change conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area or changes related to the pertinent plan map or text.

And then it goes on to say where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole.

I mean, especially that qualifier at the end, you know, where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole.

I I'm struggling to see how we meet that standard for um for a change here.

And I guess I'd like to understand, you know, how staff is thinking about this, because I I raised this question when we were doing the threshold analysis, and you know, now we're looking at the substance, and again, that's one of the criteria we have to address.

And I feel like you know, we we just approved the comprehensive plan amendment update in 2024 and the land use you know um map that went along with it and the zoning map that went along with it and so I'm I'm I'm struggling to see what changed here and I I'll be honest with you if this was closer to transit and we felt like we had made a mistake um especially on that I I would be inclined to say that this is really important but I I'm struggling to get over that criteria.

So I'm wondering how you're thinking about it and if you can share your thoughts to help me figure out um you know a path forward on that.

Yeah I can I can speak to that I um I remember like the discussion that planning commission had on that specific criterion uh at threshold review um it's a criteria that is both part of the threshold review criteria as well as the final review criteria um it is um uh something that hasn't really been the center of um sort of the the staff agenda memo for tonight but it is something that uh needs to be addressed um in the staff report that would go out for for the public hearing um so I can just mainly speak to um sort of my recollection of like what was in the threshold review staff report and our discussion at the time and that mostly centered around sort of a discrepancy in a comprehensive plan between having a land use designation that doesn't allow for residential uses while also having a growth strategy and policies that were focused on accommodating uh residential or mixed use residential development in those same uh neighborhood centers um um so that was sort of the discrepancy that um um was sort of central to that review or staff review uh of of that criterion specifically at the time but again as I mentioned before it would be something that again needs to be reviewed and addressed in the staff report for final review that would be part of the public hearing materials.

Okay thank you I again I just kind of come back to the fact that um you know what you what you described I I would be much more I'd be much more persuaded if this was closer to transit you know to um to really look at um at going big here um so I I'm I'm I'm thinking about option three or maybe option one at the most um you know so that's that's my view.

Great thank you.

Uh I just had one question around the um any impacts from the proximity to 520 uh because you know on the map when you looked at the the uh comprehensive land use uh the plan comprehensive plan land use map there's a section just south of 520 there that's uh designated mid-rise mixed use.

Do you know what designation like actual like uh height that area is um that is in the Bell Red area and Bell Red area has its own um land use districts and zoning which I am unfortunately a little less familiar with so I guess then the other question is just uh you know are there any impacts from that proximity to 520 around building residential uh we talked a little bit about this when we went through the comp plan amendment initially because I think we were discussing I 90 in factoria but I think this is feels very similar.

So any impacts to building residential in the area.

Yeah what I can say is like for instance like the um any impacts around like air quality is something that was um covered in the Wilberton to DUCA at the time.

I think it was sort of a a code provision um that encourages developers to cite sensitive uses so things like play areas, daycare, uh housing sort of like places and and and buildings where people spend a lot of their day um to cite those further away, uh preferably from uh four of five.

Um and then I think it's also something that um was part of the discussion or prior discussion on uh Bell Red recently for uh in front of planning commission.

It is not a provision that um was part of um the HOMA LUCA and uh indifferent of um whether planning commission decides to go for um the staff recommendation or for what the um applicant applied for.

Um both those districts or both all the related zoning districts are covered by HOMA and uh so there's no provision about citing uh sensitive uses away, like residential away from 520.

Got it.

Thank you.

I'll I'll do another round uh so um, this is good.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure that we keep everything in perspective because uh transit-oriented development is a much higher density, usually like high rise or something like that.

And if we were discussing between uh mid-rise and low rise, and then that's the discussion that makes sense, but we're discussing two like different gradients within low rise and having the opportunity to provide housing and having an opportunity to get the project developed and provide that housing that makes use and kind of dilute the the ability of the project to perform just by virtue of reducing uh uh its capacity uh by by a shade of gray, if if that makes sense.

Uh I think it's a little bit uh shy.

Uh I would like to ask you though, is like what other low rise two projects or developments we can see in the city that are not exactly within half mile of transit.

Like, I'm sure there's a lot of developments like this that are successful that are not necessarily placed near transit.

And I want to re-emphasize the fact that this is surrounded by users other than residential.

You have 520, which is huge, and you have uh church on one side, you have offices, which is essentially a suburban park uh on the north, you have uh empty vacant land on one side.

So this is I think this is gonna be good for for the city to have this thing developed.

So I'd like to know where else is a comparable project to the size that we're looking at that is not necessarily uh near transit, if that makes sense.

Um that is a good question.

Um I think staff would have to look at sort of comparable developments that maybe predate the last update to the comprehensive plan because specifically low rise two mixed use was a land use designation created with the 2024 update to the comprehensive plan, and then the zoning that goes with that has only been put in place three months ago, so there will just not be any like you know relevant uh uh development that happened since then.

I mean it's too short uh of a time span, but staff could look into what sort of other um um sort of relevant development Bellevue has seen that sort of meets the general uh similar scale kind of impact, right?

And my guess is that this type of development will work on its own well without having to have direct connections to transit, which would be ideal, but of course not everybody can get direct access to transit.

That's that's it.

Thank you.

I would say the probably the comparable zoning is uh NMU, what was existing neighborhood mixed use, so we can definitely look and see if they're comparable examples when we come back.

Okay, thank you.

Great, Commissioner Gunlin.

I think I'm as commissioner Keppel, I think Commissioner Fair uh Commissioner Kennedy and you brought up last session.

I'm still not sure.

I remember doing comprehensive plan hours, hours until 11 p.m.

in this room and other room.

We specifically decided to keep those as general usage.

Those uh those are there on the north and south side of the 520.

Like as a commission, we decide about that.

And I remember that.

I was actually looking at my phone.

I have a folder for study of Bellview maps, and I was like literally looking at those.

We wanted to keep them as a commercial if it's a commercial um then I'm still not convinced what have been changed.

And I'm I'm with Commissioner Ferris on the other hand and Commissioner Boba says about like we need housing in all of those.

But I just want to come up with something that our neighborhood uh will be like agreeing with it and then not have the displacement of the um businesses that we have there like uh and then on the other hand housing.

Um I don't know maybe we need option three option four.

And I understand we should have public hearing I don't know how we can have right edge residents more involved.

I know Pamela Johnson can do that in the public hearing if the planning commission wants to go but I just wanted to see how we can be creative to have something in the middle that is uh good for the neighborhood and our small businesses on the other hand uh for housing again I'm not convinced about what has been significantly changed since our last conversation except only couple buildings that we upsound in Bilberton is building uh as we know the market is not as much as um feasible for building either thank you commissioner fares so now that I put my thought out there before about doing potentially this baseline zoning proposal with the incentive to go to the higher density along as long as you provide affordable commercial space I'm gonna ask staff what do you think is that even feasible?

Um I would say that's something staff would have to evaluate but um that's a that's a fairly challenging approach um to tie you know conditions we typically don't do that tie conditions to um land use land use map change or even a zoning change like that.

That's too bad.

Seems like there's a great opportunity.

And if it if that can't be done for lots of different reasons then I would land on being able to go with the mixed use one category just to be able to have it be less of an impact.

I do think that we because we had the a large discussion in our meeting in January whenever it was we talked about the threshold review I think we we edged our way over the line to say yes this does meet the change condition criteria so I'm okay with that.

But if we can't tie greater height to affordable commercial space then I would land on the the mixed use one thank you.

Thank you Hart Commissioner Geppel Yeah I I had a um really a two-part question I'll I'll make it into one compound question.

So um I'm wondering if you can address um something that came up in the public comments tonight about what would be the opportunities potentially to look at this issue more holistically in terms of neighborhood planning you know rather than respond um you know to a privately initiated um comp plan amendment.

And I wanted also your help to just refresh refresh my recollection on you know the the comp plan um uh policy that I believe is in there that is trying to encourage um you know residential development away from um away from uh you know major highways I mean I I think we we saw that in other places like um you know, in the factoria area and um, you know, and also um in places like uh, you know, along 405 as well.

So I'm just trying to um I'm just trying to recollect that as well because I think that is a a relevant factor here because I think part of the reason that we um provided for these being commercial spaces was in light of that um in light of that criteria and now we're moving in a different direction which is to or there's a proposal to move in a different direction which is to um which is to add significant amounts of housing right near 520.

Um would you mind taking the or the second part of the question I can discuss the first part about like siding away from highways and those.

Um so yeah I think the comment that was made also a written comment oral comment about um sort of going like having a broader discussion with um informed by extensive community engagement like through our sort of neighborhood area planning process for bridal trails.

Um that is something that came up during threshold review um and that is the question I can't quote the land use code yeah but um there is a question about can you handle this proposed amendment through an existing work program that is one of the criteria great neighborhoods is an existing work program uh that is initiated by council um it initiated that in 2018 um council has provided direction on which neighborhood areas or like existing sub-area plans to update um right now um uh the updates are to uh Eastgate and Victoria which we're all very familiar with and then the there's two more iterations where neighborhood areas are identified to be part of great neighborhoods the bell red is or bell red sorry uh bridal trails is uh not one of those neighborhood areas and therefore because council has not provided direction on going through the neighborhood area planning process for bridal trails um if I remember correctly staff report sort of mentioned like well we cannot sort of postpone handling or like reviewing this um amendment proposed amendment sort of indefinitely because we don't know when we would do that and sort of like unfair to the applicant to be like well we'll get back to you but we don't know when um sort of in short.

Um yeah just to add on to that I'd say um you know I think what would be helpful for the planning commission is once staff goes through um more detailed analysis of how of um whether this application and proposal meets uh the CPA criteria that we that we outlined I think that's that's the criteria that the planning commission should be using to evaluate whether this application meets the criteria.

If the planning commission finds that the application does not meet the criteria then that can be that can be a recommendation too that it does not meet final review criteria and then that ultimately is council's call.

Great all right.

I so I guess point of order here where we I didn't hear any opposition to moving towards the public hearing I did hear a number of direction that we want to give uh staff but I'm just gonna get a quick look from the other commissioners where it seems like we're comfortable moving that direction but I'll also reiterate the the points that we've made for direction but any opposition to moving towards a public hearing.

Okay.

The points that I have on my notes list here is uh one is the uh the conversation we just had about the uh review criteria and significantly change conditions.

I think we want to hear a more detailed list or a more detailed answer about that uh if we're uh uh at the next session um I think also heard we want to hear see a couple of comparable uh low rise twos that uh zones that were developed that were a little bit further from transit if that's capturing what you're saying um also additional community engagement if that's possible between uh now and the next one um and then also potentially any incentive programs that could uh you know as an alternative uh I know it's tough to add maybe the complexity of an additional option, but I think hearing minor tailoring that we can do within this to help incentivize things would be helpful as well um but I think that's hopefully that captures every everybody's points here.

Uh all right given that, I think, do we okay?

Do we uh we make a motion to move it?

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion that we um direct staff to have a um public hearing on July 22nd.

Second.

All in favor.

I think I.

Any opposed?

No.

Great.

Sounds like we'll move it to a public hearing.

Thank you.

Uh, you guys open to a quick break before we start our next one.

Great.

Let's meet back here in uh five minutes.

So 45.

All right, uh, let's let's meet back in five at uh forty-five.

I think you will go over the rest of it.

Fifty-five, yeah.

I'm sorry, I got the uh, all right.

Let's uh move to our third topic of the day, the uh high density residential and planned unit development land use code amendment.

Uh so this is uh this will implement updates to the future land use map in the Bellevue 2020 2044 comprehensive plan to align with new land use designations primarily in the crossroads and factoria neighborhoods.

Planning manager Christina Galant and Senior Planner Sean Edgehill will provide the presentation.

Welcome both.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Chair Liu, Vice Chair via Vases.

Uh this evening we are here with an information only update, uh reporting back um after uh and initiating this project with council just last month.

Um so we're about to embark on our extended engagement analysis process and have the chance to check in with you before we go away for quite a little while here.

Uh so this project uh incorporates uh three scope elements that are um separate but all kind of unified by supporting flexibility for housing production and implementing some specific updates to our 2024 comp plan.

Um so these three major components Sean is going to be walking through for you in just a moment.

Um, but we are including a uh implementing zoning for the new high density residential uh future land use designation.

Uh this was introduced to the future land use map in 2024, applied to two specific locations.

Um, and this, while it's called high density residential, it actually kind of helps bridge the gap between our um lower density residential neighborhoods and um our mixed-use centers.

It density-wise sits in that middle gap.

Um we're also going to be uh talking about some updates to our planned unit development tool.

Uh, this is a commonly used tool in many different flavors in lots of communities, um, including Bellevue.

Um, ours, however, has been very rarely used, and in good circumstances to be clear, PUDs should be pretty rare.

Um, they're but they're really great for certain niche cases.

Uh and we've seen that our existing code um just really has some uh issues that don't make it as helpful as it could be in those niche cases.

Um so this is a great opportunity for us to better um align uh this this oper this tool uh for its great uses.

Uh and finally we'll also be talking about some rezones.

Uh first, simple, just implementing zoning for those areas designated as high density residential once that um zoning is available.

Uh and secondly, also uh upzoning the overlake farms property consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um so while this action is specific to the rezone, uh, this property owner is uh really optimistic about the PUD opportunity.

We'd call this, you know, a classic case for a PUD, real opportunity to look at clustering and see some real enhancements to open space and tree retention.

Um so we'll be a nice uh case example to kind of show uh what the opportunity can be with PUDs.

Uh so with that, I will uh pass to Sean for more details.

Thank you, Christina.

Um as mentioned, I'm Sean Edgehill, senior Planner over in Code and Policy.

Uh tonight our presentation's gonna be broken up to kind of give over uh a clearer overview of the proposal along with its key components.

We will also discuss the initiation with city council that we had in May, finishing up with our engagement plans and proposed schedule.

To kind of reiterate a few of the items that Christina did mention, this is going to be three separate parts: high density residential, planned unit development updates, and legislative rezones.

I'm going to provide the policy background for each item, detail the specific scope of the amendments, and share the policy directives that we did receive during their initial during City Council's initial notification.

So here we're going to go ahead and dive into our first topic: high density residential.

Back in 2024, City Council formally added this designation to the comprehensive plan.

The core policy purpose is to allow for residential development as scale and density, like closer to low rise mixed use, but focused more purely on residential.

While the policy was adopted in 2024, we currently lack the actual land use district within our existing land use code to make it actionable.

This Luca is the implementation process, giving us a functional tool to apply the future land use map intentions into the zoning map reality to kind of help visualize what high density residential means with context.

This slide does include a contrast of the scale metrics used within the comprehensive plan itself.

When we look at our existing medium density residential scale here, you can kind of see that it is more of a mid-scale housing transition from middle housing up to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre.

And then you kind of see from there that the HDR sits just above that, and that one is going to be that bridge between mid-scale residential and more mixed use, low-rise mixed use.

But we do recognize that edge conditions do matter.

We are analyzing options for specific transitional protections wherever the HDR district itself sits adjacent to lower density residential zones.

This will also involve standard cleanup procedures to ensure that any cross-references across the entire land use code do remain consistent and legally sound.

Now we'll pivot over to item number two, updating the planned unit development framework.

An important note here is that this is an update of existing code rather than creation of anything brand new as we are seeing through HDR.

So as a quick refresher of the utility of this tool, PUDs are designed to achieve flexible site planning, allowing for custom deviations from standard zoning envelopes to achieve better overall design.

Clustering benefits by clustering buildings tightly together on one part of a site, we can efficiently utilize the land while saving the remaining space.

There's also environmental preservation.

The primary mechanism here is say it is that it helps to save contiguous open space, protect mature tree canopies, and insulate sensitive critical areas or natural features, and also housing diversity.

It can help to encourage developers to mix housing types, moving away from single product subdivisions and projects.

The primary issue that we are facing with our current PUD framework is that it is outdated.

We have some regulations remain largely unchanged since the 1990s because the code reflects economic and development assumptions from over the last 30 years.

There's more limited usage and its effectiveness has lessened over time.

About 10 PUDs have been established over the last 20 years.

Our goal here is that we can help make this a more viable tool for broader application.

And so marching orders for this update stem directly from the comprehensive plan policy LEU41, which explicitly instructs us to provide clear opportunities for increased density and height to accommodate building clustering and efficient site planning.

Crucially, the policy itself ties these dimensional bonuses directly to significant preservation of trees in open space, specifically targeting larger parcels.

To satisfy this policy, the proposed PUD update introduces several changes to our code.

We are considering an acreage threshold, discussing the increase of thresholds from five acres up to ten to align directly with the comp plan policy.

We also are wanting to strip away old more subjective design criteria and help to replace them with more predictable objective performance metrics, and also explicitly strengthen clustering provisions and introduce clear regulatory incentives that can help to trade height and density flexibility for increased tree retention and affordable housing.

Ultimately, developers will be will find new flexibility in setbacks, lock coverage, building placement, and height, but only if they deliver verifiable environmental and community benefits in return.

And this brings us to our third and final item under this LUCA, implementing the legislative rezones.

Map amendments are where policy meets reality.

So we are looking at two distinct types of rezones here.

First, applying the newly created HDR designation to specific nodes within the crossroads and factorious sub-areas, and secondly, applying a low density residential designation to the overlake farms area within the bridal trails neighborhood.

The primary purpose of the HDR rezones is direct map alignance alignment with our future land use map designation.

I do want to make sure that I'm explaining here.

This one we are considering going from the existing LL1 to LDR for the overlake farms portion of bridal trails.

This one, what makes this amendment unique is really how it coordinates with the PUD code changes by ensuring that this land is rezoned to meet up with what the future land use map is anticipating, together with what we compare with our modern PUD clustering rules, we can help to create a framework that more and maximizes the environmental benefits for the space.

During that discussion, there was support for these updates with council viewing the changes as a modern extension of the city's long ver uh long-term vision.

This they specifically did uh point out the approach to the PUD uh flexibility, noting that using the height and density incentives to protect our mature tree canopy and uh open spaces complies with agreements that have been made in the past.

Council also gave us, gave staff a um clear set of practical considerations uh that we have to account for as we build out this code.

They were explicit that density increases cannot happen in a vacuum, uh, that they have to move in tandem with, you know, verified utility capacity to these changes as we look at upzoning.

Uh, they also provide emphasis for multilingual outreach, particularly focusing on diverse immigrant communities within the crossroads area.

And finally, council did recognize the reality of resident density fatigue, uh, the ongoing uh tension that surrounds state-level housing mandates, reminding us to be empathetic and clear in our messaging throughout the process.

From those considerations, council did issue four directives uh to guide staff and this commission moving forward.

Uh, first, they asked us to explore more bold modern incentives within the PUD framework to maximize the environmental protection.

Uh, additionally, they asked us to evaluate specific applicant requests that were received for building heights up to 65 feet in PUDs, provided that the extra height functions as a strict trade-off, ensuring the preservation of significant green space.

Third, we were asked to design a tailored engagement strategy uh to reach underserved populations and cross in the crossroads, uh, emphasizing connections with residents who lack representation by formal neighborhood associations.

And finally, they did ask that we deliver the finalized engagement plan directly back to them for review.

Um, since these actions do fall under a process for review, we will execute all standard legal requirements, including formal notices of applications, notices of public hearing, and the public hearing itself before this commission.

But we are planning to go a step further.

We are trying to organize uh direct information sessions and targeted meetings with residents, neighborhood associations, and the development community alike.

Uh on the digital imprint side, we are launching dedicated city web pages, localized notices of rezone, and more critically, um multilingual information uh sheets and FAQs.

And looking at our roadmap moving forward, this slide outlines our proposed schedule.

Uh, following tonight's study session, we will continue drafting code language for both the HDR and PUD updates, incorporating input from future community engagement findings as they come forward.

And then we are planning to return to the commission with updated drafts as we march towards a formal public hearing, ensuring that the council's outreach directives are fully realized before any final recommendations are cast.

And that does conclude our presentation for this evening.

So both Chrissy and I are very happy to uh answer any technical questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Appreciate the presentation.

I'll go through the commissioners in order.

So uh Commissioner Geppel, would you like to start?

Yeah, thank you, uh Christine and Sean for great presentation on many different topics tonight.

Um appreciate that.

Um just a comment to begin with, and then um and then a question.

Um first um on the PUD.

I'm really excited about that, and I'm I'm excited that um you're leaning into that to try and figure out how to make that work.

I think that's a fantastic idea.

Um, on the high density um residential and the um the increases in zoning density, high residential.

I have some questions about that and how that works.

Um, in particular, it would be helpful for me to know what the um building height is for the um high density residential, what are the limits for that, you know, and some of the far information related to that.

It would also be helpful for me to know more about the transition zones in relation to those.

And in part, um, in part for me, this is kind of an equity um question um as well when it comes to the um the city of Bellevue, um, because we've had a lot of discussions about the wedding cake in, you know, design for downtown Bellevue, and that seems to be a well established principle for downtown.

I don't always see that reflected when it comes to other neighborhoods in the city.

And I have concerns about you know, people who have single family residential um uh lots, and if you look at the map um for these, some of them a butt on the high density residential areas, and I um I appreciate the desire to go big when it comes to housing development, but at the same time, I think just out of basic fairness, you know, for people in other parts of the city, you know, the affluent people of West Bellevue shouldn't get different treatment than people in other places when it comes to these very same issues.

So I'd like I'd like your help to answer those um couple questions about the high density residential, you know, related to building heights and you know, transitions and setbacks to see if you know some of what's being proposed um can help address some of those concerns.

Uh sure.

So um the uh the the height and FAR is informed by a couple pieces.

Um, you know, we have um one element will be you know looking at what was modeled through the um the EIS and then also having those um kind of surrounding districts as benchmarks to keep between, right?

So we know it could potentially be a little higher or at least higher FAR than our mid-rise districts, but the vision is that it would still be at an intensity that's lower than those centers.

So there's definitely a lot of kind of fine-tuning and tweaking that can happen there as we proceed and as we come back with those recommendations.

Um, and then on the trend transitions, you know, that's that's well heard.

Council was really concerned with that piece as well.

Um, I think, you know, part of this will be looking at um, I think there's there's plenty of different ways we can get there, but we did get that specific direction.

So whether it's looking at kind of daylight plane tools or different buffers, um, you know, those standards can be aligned to those locations where the HDR um lines up with those single family neighborhoods.

So um yeah, not not certainly not resolved yet, but within our scope to move forward.

Yeah.

Great, great, thank you.

Yeah.

All right, Commissioner Ferris.

Just finishing my bite of dinner.

So sorry.

Um plus one, Commissioner Goldwell's comments.

And this is I know you can't change it.

I personally think it's unfortunate that we call it high density because it's really not people think about high density being like the supra dense, and it's not.

So I wish that we could come up with a different name for that.

Similarly, the PUD.

I mean, I think PUD that's a public utility district, isn't it?

It's not this.

So I don't know whether it's possible to think about how we communicate this in a way that everybody can understand clearly.

Um that's that's my only point.

But Mr.

Goppel, I appreciate thank you.

All right, Commissioner Connor.

Thank you so much.

Um, I have a quick question.

Um a lot like over like farm will be um will be like part of this project, right?

Um, how big is that lot?

I don't know.

Okay, like let's say 20 acres at large.

Yeah.

50.

Go 50.

We could well, what does that mean?

How many dwelling units they can build there?

And how do you calculate that?

Can you walk me to that?

What's happening in that?

Sure.

So there's there's one piece is will be increasing the the zoning that's allowed, the base zoning.

So today um the property is under a district that only allows for single-family residential or um or middle housing is an option.

The upzone brings it into a district where a multifamily can be allowed outright.

Um the uh I believe it's permitted at uh 15 units per acre, which is actually a pretty modest density.

That's what you've seen.

Or 15 per acre.

Yeah, but that's the base.

So what we're what we're saying is there's one layer with a PUD.

Um, you know, you might say, of course, because we're talking about clustering here, that's 15 across that really large site that could perhaps be consolidated into a smaller area.

Um, and then the PUD, um, what we're looking at are options to say perhaps if you're meeting some of these distinct outcomes that we can name, such as um certain uh percentages of open space or better outcomes for tree for tree preservation, etc.

Um, that can grant you more flexibility, uh, potentially for height would be the big one.

Because of course, if we're trying to build on a smaller footprint to avoid those trees, you're gonna need more height in order to accommodate the same density of units.

Um, but that question of how much lift and how much flexibility could be possible through the PUD is all going to be analyzed through the process.

Can I ask the question?

Um okay, I have a 50-acre land.

Um, I'm gonna go preserve all my trees.

Can I go high rise there in the middle of bridal trail?

Well, we don't have any 50-acre sites that's golden bridal trails.

20.

Well, I mean, another consideration here is there are specific decision criteria for a PUD.

So it's it's not a buy right process.

You do have to demonstrate that by um being granted this flexibility, which will be defined specifically in the code, you can demonstrate that I'm achieving a better outcome for the city than would be possible under base zoning.

So a great example of this would be to say under this base proposed zoning, perhaps you can get some um maybe mid-rise kind of lower scale multifamily, but you're gonna have to take up a bigger footprint to get the same number of units with a PUD.

You can say, hey, because I'm building on a smaller footprint, I have been able to retain all of this open space, which there can be provisions about how that works.

Um other outcomes.

There are many things that can be set up there in exchange for that additional flexibility, and then we change the threshold from five acres to 10, right?

That's part of the proposal.

Yeah.

I would love to when are you guys coming back to planning commission, right?

Oh, yeah.

Well, this is the night, this is we just initiated the project.

So we still have engagement and analysis to kind of.

I think I personally want to know how many um with changing from five to ten, how many lots gets qualified for this PUD?

And then I would love to know where are they located.

Uh, for example, I can literally, if I have a 20 acres in bright or toll, I'm gonna go have a high rise there.

I want to go build a high rise, make it half affordable housing, and just have a good view of the bridal trail.

That's the best place to build.

I will do that if I have that lot.

Uh, but I just want to know how the community feels about it.

And then the second, I just want to case a study, like really like literally go with this assumption.

I have a 20 acres in the bridal tour, what's happening there?

What are the scenario A B C D?

Because I think that's gonna go help all of us to understand the impact in the community.

Thank you.

Commissioner View Basis.

Thank you.

Could you go to slide 16, please?

You're talking about uh density needs to go in town than way of the capacity.

Uh oh.

That's why I take 12 minutes.

16, yeah.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

So the first key consideration, density increases must move in tandem with wastewater and utility capacity.

I guess this is council directive.

And it makes sense.

Council comment.

Yeah.

The question is how is this actually practically enforced?

And who is enforcing these?

Are you a staff making sure that you propose density where capacity already exists?

Does the applicant need to confirm the capacities there before they propose a project that has density that's permitted under the code?

Like what how is this working?

In reality, this is the this process itself is just the implementation of kind of a rezone itself.

When it comes to actually implementate implementing the capacity for utility, that would generally occur as part of the building process as part of a review that comes forward.

Um as part of To clarify, just to put a point on it, it is confirmed as part of that permit process.

Our our comp planning processes do consider, you know, that the adequacy of those um kind of system scale utilities and that that has to be demonstrated at the project level as well.

So we do have processes in place to make sure.

Yeah.

So is demonstrated, let's say I'm an applicant, I need to demonstrate the capacities there, or I need to demonstrate that I'm gonna provide the capacity or both or either.

Like what's the or do we not know yet?

We know.

I think we it's it's it's late to kind of walk through the specific mechanics.

Um I don't do project review at the city of Valve, but we can come back with some specific examples of how that works because it it it is done.

Yeah, no, because this was a conversation that was had during the middle housing as well.

We can talk about density and more units and all this stuff, but if we don't have enough capacity in the stormwater, then nothing's gonna happen.

And then if you're uh developer or a homeowner that wants to uh develop your own property to put more units in it, and you have no idea of what the capacity is, like how like who helps you figure that out?

That's that's the question I have, right?

Like because otherwise you're gonna be halfway through the process and you have to provide additional stormwater that's just gonna increase the costs of your project astronomically.

And for small developers that want to do infill housing and middle housing or this type of work, that's just not gonna allow the project to work through.

So I'm I'm just wondering how is this how is the city moving this in tandem?

Is is density being proposed here uh and presented to us, and then on a separate meeting somewhere there's a proposal for increasing capacity on stormwater and utilities or how is that working?

So that's that's uh uh that's that's the question I have.

Thank you.

Great.

Um, and so in the spirit of kind of the I know you guys are just getting this process kicked off uh for the next time that we talk about this, I'd love to see kind of the uh the current state of those areas.

If you go back to that map, um that'd be helpful.

Because if I if I look at that map, that area north of Crossroads and then the area south of Factoria, I just think crossroads that's already multifamily, I think, right now, and then the area south of Factoria, it's a mix of both multifamily, some affordable housing and single family.

And so I guess my questions are uh what is the real kind of actual impact of rezoning it this way?

Uh I think you guys can probably get to some projected uh, you know, number of what is the real like increase in density that we're actually looking at here.

And the second thing is also I'd be curious on the um maybe the current stars on any middle housing uh that's being developed in those areas because that does also kind of sit in this, you know, more dense uh then what we're currently seeing probably, but you know, probably not to the degree of the high density housing that you guys are proposing.

So I just love to see the data around, you know, what is it currently uh what is kind of like in the pipeline already because of the, you know, recent things that we've pushed through, and then you know, what is the total proposed capacity that you're actually looking at here?

Um I'll do another round here and again it'd be great to just kind of focus our uh comments around what we want to see next time, just given that this process is starting to just get kicked off.

Uh, I'll start with Commissioner Gebel.

Yeah, I just wanted to plus one your last comment because that was the other thing that I was thinking about was just um how does this how do something like this um high density residential, how does it interface with things like metal housing and what we're expecting there because we've always we've got a lot of tools, you know, and just trying to figure out how um we think about those working together.

Um, and that's it for me.

Commissioner Ferris.

I have no other things to add.

I appreciate all of my commissioners for asking great questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Callman.

I have just two more commons.

Uh one, can we really care about small footprint and uh preserving a tree uh canopies?

And then the second one, I want to do affordable housing will not be um viable with Fianlu.

I'd really want if we are focusing on affordable housing, we focus on affordable housing.

No fian lu.

I don't want like six months later again, Fiannuo comes on the plate.

Like we had objections in council yesterday, too.

And I kind of my heart is there, and I think I have echoed that so many times.

Like I want if we want to have an incentive affordable housing, we should have an incentive affordable housing.

Yeah, I I do want to clarify the first question.

Uh could you could you repeat your was that a question?

No, it was a common, just like let's keep that like a small footprint and like preserving a tree like a really poor prioritize on site.

Yeah.

Uh Commissioner Review Faces.

Yeah.

So I wanted to see you said there's only a few um PUDs in the city.

Uh yeah, only about we could find 10 have been done.

Um, and we we've also found examples of cases where um projects that seemed like classic cases of a PUD, you know, heavily encumbered by critical areas actually went through um going for a um a variance instead of a PUD, which is in most cases a much more, I mean it is a much more rigorous process.

So that shows that you know the payoff you're getting through the PUD, even for a very classic example, just isn't worth it in that case.

So is there is there's uh like a development of like maybe eight homes, just what is this, west of Bellevue Square?

Is that one of those PUDs?

Do you know what you're talking about?

But there's there's really not many.

I don't know if you might know what he's talking about.

You know what I'm saying?

No, just like um, I guess one one of the questions too is what is the and excuse me if you already covered this.

What is the difference between high density residential and PUD?

I mean, we're gonna have a density of a number of units on a large lot, right?

Yeah.

And uh I'm wondering is this gonna be like a cookie colour development that's just gonna be repeating and it's gonna be a little bit going against what you've been looking for, which is kind of variety and density and human scale mix by having almost like what happens a lot in Isaqua, just uh and that that's one part of it.

The second one is like what is really the difference, like why do we have two different zoning approaches now, as opposed to just one that allows us to develop with more density in certain parts of the city.

Yeah, and um uh so so there's kind of we've got a couple different topics somewhat related by being related to housing development, but PUDs and the high density residential are in kind of two different um types of land use tools.

So the the HDR zone is going to be a new um kind of buy right zoning designation that'll just be a base zoning applied to these uh properties.

Uh the the PUD tool is one that is um uh a tool that a property owner can ask for, um, kind of regardless of where they're situated.

It's um the kind of the the class I keep saying the classic example, but typically what we see is it's uh a large site with a lot of critical areas where they say, hey, I've got all this land, but I really practically only have this small area to build on.

Um and then a PUD is a tool that basically defines a separate specific process that um kind of pulls away from the base zoning to apply some specific physic uh um some specific flexibility to kind of consider the merits of the the site as a whole to um again, say, are we getting a better outcome for the city overall compared to the base zoning?

Um, kind of the inherent uh assumption there is that we want the base zoning to be working as well as it can be.

This is not something that should be used to fix underlying issues.

So that's why I say, you know, we don't want to have a scenario where we're seeing tons of PUDs because that suggests something's wrong.

Um, but for those really unusual cases where you're running into that kind of thing, they're a really helpful tool.

Um, ours is just very, very, very subjective, lots of really confusing language.

Um, so could could work a lot better in those cases.

That was just a question.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

All right.

Uh the last thing for me is uh I'd also really appreciate if you could give us a bit of an overview of any related state law that might be coming down the pipeline as it relates to um uh basically higher density zoning.

Because I I think you know we're not here deciding on that, but it's really helpful context for us to also kind of prepare mentally for.

So if you're able to just give us like a briefing or an overview about that um as you continue this process, that'd be really really appreciate.

I will bring that back with a future session.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Alright.

Um there's no other business on the agenda.

So thank you both for presenting.

I think we're uh I saw you guys taking notes.

I'm not gonna rehash everything here.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, we have some minutes to approve.

Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes from our May 13th meeting?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Great.

Any discussion?

I'll approve, say I.

Great.

Anybody would like to motion to.

I would like to make a motion that we adjourn our meeting.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion?

I'll approve, say aye.

Aye.

Great.

Donnie, the protocol, right?

Did I?

So,