Good evening and welcome to the July 8th meeting of the City of Bellevue Planning Commission.

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

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

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

today, Wednesday, July 8th, will be summarized into the record.

We have two study sessions on the agenda tonight.

Staff will be requesting that we set public hearings for both projects.

The first is a review of the full draft of the Eastgate Neighborhood Area Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is seeking approval to set a public hearing, and the Bell Red Look Forward Land Use Code Amendment.

Now let's move forward to roll call.

I'd like to note that Commissioner Kennedy is attending remotely.

Do we have Commissioner Kennedy on screen?

Not yet.

Okay.

I'll move on with the rest of the roll call for now.

Uh Vice Chair via Vases.

President.

Commissioner Kanlu.

Here.

Commissioner Ferris.

I'm here.

Commissioner Keppel.

Here.

Commissioner Neilchon.

Here.

And I guess we and we're at I see Commissioner Kennedy online.

Wonderful.

And uh Councilmember Bartaba.

Okay.

All right.

And I am Chair Lu.

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

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

I'll approve the agenda.

Say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Let's move on to uh reports of council uh boards and commissions.

Commissioner or sorry, Councilmember Bardova.

Do you have any updates from the council?

I think today is a really easy day, not much to uh provide updates on.

The council's been off uh last week and we're off this week as well.

And so we'll be back on next week.

Yeah, glad to see you guys getting a break.

Yes.

All right.

Uh Zach, are there any reports from the boards and commissions?

Uh there are not, but just one note um Bell Red is not asking for a public hearing to be scheduled this evening, just so you know.

All right, um, let's move on to oral and written communications.

Uh Zach, can you provide a summary of the written communications we received?

Yes.

Um, and sorry, I do want to note uh just our upcoming schedule.

Okay.

Um, for the next meeting of July 22nd, we have three public hearings for Evans Plaza, the transportation conformance EPA and the parking reform LUCA.

Uh after that, we'll be on break for the month of August, and then once we return for the first meeting in September on the 9th.

There'll be two public hearings, one for the Eastgate Neighborhood Area Plan CPA, and then for the Bell Red Luca, as well as a written update for Bellevue College Luca.

Uh, in terms of our communications, we have received seven written comments.

Three came in after the packet was published, which are in your materials, and one was received after the deadline today, and that'll be part of your materials for the next meeting.

Of the comments received, one comment was for the great neighborhoods program.

However, this is in relation to the factoria plan that was reviewed last time.

Um, and it will be part of the packet um for the public hearing when that happens.

And then six comments for Bell Red relating to tree credit uh requirements, FAR allowances, lot coverage, commercial catalyst program, the street grid requirements, and the amenity tier structure.

That is all.

Thank you.

All right, let's move on to oral communications.

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

Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak.

Staff liaison Zach Lincoln will call in speakers in the order in which they have registered either in person or online.

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

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

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

There are rules adopted by city council limiting the topics about which the public may speak during our meetings.

Under ordinance 6752, the public may only speak during public comment about subject matters that are related to the City of Bellevue government and are within the power and duties of the planning commission.

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

And I'll just know that I think we have 10 uh people signed up exactly, so there's we may need to extend time if we uh see folks sign up uh after the 10.

Uh with that, can you call our first speaker?

Sure.

So we have 10 people who've signed up online.

Uh one is virtual, the rest are in person.

Nobody else is signed up in the room.

Uh so we're gonna start with our virtual uh attendee.

We have Leslie Geller.

Leslie, if you want to um try to speak.

Leslie, can you hear me?

Yeah, yeah, I can.

Alright, you have three minutes.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um, hello, Planning commission.

It's very weird to not see an image of you.

I'll just see the timer.

Um, I'm Leslie Geller.

I live in Eastgate, and that is what my comment is about.

And I'm also the president of the Eastgate Community Association, and I have been involved in this process very closely since actually before its inception.

I have given comment at every step of the way, and I dare say that.

Well, anyway, um, so I wanted I have some pretty strong thoughts about the neighborhood area um plan and the process, and um I first of all, I think you should take with pounds of salt, all of the statistics that you've heard from Zach and other people in planning, um, and the number of people that they reached in their outreach efforts versus the actual number of people who gave more than just passing comments, in other words, really thought about it and gave meaningful um feedback.

Um, as I said, I've done it throughout the process, and I would bet money that what I contributed uh surpasses all the other people who gave feedback.

Um, my big my big issue with the NAP is what how will it be used?

I mean, I've asked this question of Justin and Brooke.

I know it's a guidance, but will it actually have an impact on realizing the goals of the policies?

Um I have strong doubts that it will, and for reference, some of you may know about the fact that Lithia Motors, who owns uh the property of Sunset Village on the north side of I90, um, a couple years ago, they were um moving forward with application to tear down all the existing retail there, um, the small businesses and to build another auto dealership.

That went completely against so many of the policies that were in place of the Eastgate sub-area plan, which at the time was only the north side of I-90.

And so I really question the value of the NAP and this entire process.

I have very low expectations of it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right, our next speaker is in person, and it is John Morasco.

So that's fine.

You'll still only have three minutes, but it's you can substitute, sure.

Yeah, we're both on I just thought we'd have Paul go first.

Sure, that's fine.

Yeah, yeah.

Remind me.

Thank you.

Good evening, um, planning commission.

Thank you very much for getting the opportunity to speak tonight.

Um, as you know, this is the third time I've been here, and you know that I represent Albertsons on the Spring District land.

Nothing has changed.

Not a solitary thing, and I find that deeply disdeeply, frankly, depressing.

I wonder why we're going through the process.

The grid pattern that's proposed is still in place.

That is going to encumber our land forever.

I ask you, please, please, please do not do that.

This is a development crushing proposal.

A grid pattern.

I think the Romans were good at that.

We surely moved on since then.

You've seen the plan that we produced.

We were gonna propose a creative plan, which will give excellent pedestrian access, which will be creative, will be very well landscaped.

And of course, as any great development team would do, we've will hire a very good traffic analysis company, and we will provide a road system that meets the requirements that is necessary to meet the traffic standards of Belmont.

Bellevue, sorry.

I was in Belmont yesterday.

Um anyway, that's my very simple answer, my very simple question.

Um, and I hope that we can take some action here before the next meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and I will now call John Morasco.

Thank you.

Um good evening, and thank you for letting me speak tonight.

Uh I'm John Morasco and I represent the Albertsons interest.

Uh I'm gonna read from my phone here my notes.

Uh, so I'm a little quicker than I was last time.

Um there's a proposed framework for allowing a private road in lieu of a public street required by the street grid.

Uh this creates an administratively burdensome process that provides little certainty or predictability for the future development of the site.

The staff has also stated in the comment tracker that it's exploring a development agreement pathway for larger sites such as the Albertsons property.

This is similarly burdensome, requiring extensive negotiation and adding significant time and expense to the entitlement process.

These proposed mechanisms for preserving the street grid on this site are nonsensical.

I would implore the commission to consider a performance-based criteria as opposed to a prescriptive approach.

And lastly, um the uh Luca includes a provision uh for development uh in a parking garage where there's a minimum 10-foot floor-to-ceiling requirement, uh, which again I believe is onerous and costly for the developer.

Uh if you must have a 10-foot section, it should be 10 feet floor to floor, not floor to ceiling.

And I would argue for a parking garage, you don't need that much clear space anyway.

Um, so you could go with uh uh a narrower floor to floor section, and those are my comments for tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker um is Brady Nordstrom, followed by Layla Kademi.

Uh greetings, commissioners.

Uh it's good to see you all.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Brady, and I'm the associate director of government relations and policy.

Um, I'm here to comment on Bell Red.

Um, first of all, I'd like to just thank staff and all of you as commissioners for the work so far.

I don't think it should be lost that the code has made incredible progress since the start.

Um, and a lot of the concepts have been carried over from Wilburton.

Um, in particular, uh, from the affordable housing perspective, we support uh the staff recommended uh requirement approach is the only option in Bell Red.

There's consistency with HOMA and Wilburton, uh, there's the size of the up zone, there's other code benefits like FAR exemptions, um, and then there's MFTE, the council will also be pairing with this in the future.

So we urge you to continue to see affordable housing as a top priority in Bell Red.

Um, after all, if we prioritize everything, then nothing is really prioritized.

And also, when we tie affordable housing and market rate development together, code-based cost savings become an affordable housing tool.

So the rest of my comments are about um how we make affordable housing in Bell Red work for artists, workers, families, and all these other folks that are necessary for the vision to be completed there.

So I this is all in uh leading to street grid.

So HCC signed on an East Side Housing Roundtable letter in May urging you to seek out bold solutions around the street grid and then other code code-based cost savings like stream mitigation that are going to be discussed, I believe, in the fall.

So we still support a shift away from a street grid network to a more flexible performance-based standard that can deepen multimodal connectivity while maintaining flexibility.

There's also some other things like the street frontish requirements, bringing those from 75% down to 50.

I think that was the intent in the code, but reflecting that and then some of the other widths, and especially ones that aren't on main arterials or key streets, thinking about how we how we do that.

But if the decision is to move away from this to some sort of a middle ground with a still with a grid overlay, and then we strongly support a non-discretionary or or the least discretionary waiver process as possible to replace uh these required streets with private streets where appropriate.

So uh the staff proposal with criteria is a starting place here.

Um, the key is to remove uncertainty.

And I um the more discretionary a process, the more likely it is that project financing isn't gonna be possible.

So that's really the key there.

Um, and I know that there's ongoing conversations and debates around this.

So finally, with the amenity incentive system, there's some some updates in the recent code drafts.

Um, we uh appreciate that uh the Wilbertson structure has been carried over.

Um, and we continue to ask for the dedication of some portion of amenity fees, nothing but probably won't be possible to do all of it, but some portion to affordable housing, which can complement fee and loo from the affordable housing requirement itself.

So thank you all very much.

Our next speaker is Layla Kademi, followed by Alicia Ruiz.

All right.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Layla Kademi.

I'm a land use attorney at Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson here tonight providing comment again on the Bell Red Luca.

Um, while staff's comment tracker reflects meaningful progress and outstanding issues, we haven't seen complete code language yet.

So these comments really focus on what we saw in the comment tracker.

Uh, the proposed street grid remains a significant barrier to redevelopment on affected properties, although staff has introduced some flexibility by allowing sites to provide private roads in lieu of public streets when specific conditions are met.

This approach is administratively burdensome and does not provide owners with sufficient predictability.

Existing tools like block size limits and flexible pedestrian and bike connections go far enough to reach the city's connectivity goals.

Staff should also reconsider the requirement for on-street parking along local and green streets, the additional impervious surface area and vehicle dependency encouraged by on-street parking are inconsistent with the intended purpose and character of these streets.

And in addition to revisiting the street grid requirements, the amenity incentive system should be expanded to better reflect some of the community priorities over in Bell Red.

The AIS should also include publicly accessible sports and recreation facilities, community serving uses like child care facilities, grocery stores, and other neighborhoods serving retail amphitheaters and performance venues that qualify as outdoor plazas, broadened critical areas improvements, incentivized family-sized housing units, and access and connectivity improvements.

And consistent with the commission's direction during the last study session to strategically incentivize medical and life science uses in the MUMH zone in lieu of the staggered residential FARs, which I did see are no longer staggered in the new draft.

The Lucas should include a medical and life science use catalyst.

This catalyst should mirror the existing Wilverton program by providing a reduction in affordable housing fee and lieu obligations for the qualifying uses.

The upcoming draft should also include a heightened FAR exemption for affordable housing projects located on land formerly owned by Sound Transit.

And finally, the nonconformity provisions should be updated to reflect Bell Red's industrial past.

Existing warehouse and manufacturing uses should be allowed to modernize and expand without triggering proportional compliance if there is no net increase in off-site impacts.

We've provided staff with suggestions for these provisions, and you also have a copy of my testimony that has these suggestions right below.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Diana Leo.

Good evening, Chair Lee, and members of the commission.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, and I am the new policy and advocacy manager at Habitat for Humanity Seattle, King, Kitas Counties.

And I'm here tonight.

I want to take a moment to introduce myself.

And although I'm new to the east side, I am not new to land use.

Habitat builds and preserves affordable owner-occupied homes for working families like teachers, caregivers, first responders, and others who make this community run.

But they are increasingly priced out of it.

As Bellevue continues to grow and reshape neighborhoods like Bellred, we see real opportunity and real responsibility to make sure that growth includes a path to home ownership for families at a range of income levels, not just market rate rental developments.

I look forward to working with this commission, city staff, and our partners in the housing community as the Bellred plan moves forward over the next coming months.

I'll close by asking that as the amenity incentive system and fee and lose structures are finalized, that a meaningful portion of those funds should be clearly dedicated to affordable housing, since that is and should remain a central goal of Bellred's redevelopment.

Thank you again for your time and this ongoing work, and I look forward to continuing this conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Diana Leo, followed by Ben Mickle.

Good evening, Chair Lou and Commissioners.

My name is Diana Leo, and I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs at the Bellevue Chamber, speaking on behalf of Chambers Plush Committee and the Bell Red Properties Owners Group.

First, a quick correction to the record.

Our July 7th letter was written against an outdated draft, the May study session version, rather than the corrected working draft dated June 26, which city staff shared with us this morning.

We appreciate Christina and Nick and their team for catching that and communicating quickly and transparently.

That kind of responsiveness has defined this whole process.

Having reviewed the corrected draft, several of our concerns have been addressed, including the active use frontage standard, but four core issues remain.

One mandatory street grid visibility.

The code still doesn't allow a map street segment to be eliminated when it's physically or financially infeasible to build.

The grid has been proposed since 2009 and remains unbuilt because private parties can't deliver it alone.

If the city wants it built, each segment needs a real feasibility analysis.

Two, private streets that meet emergency access standards should be allowed outright if the goal is genuine flexibility.

Three, the code still lacks any shared use or low vehicular street typology, even though other cities have already done the work.

Four, mandatory affordability requirements remain in tension with project feasibility with no offsetting cost relief.

Underlying all of this, the draft is considerably more costly than the Wilberton Code.

Properties absorbing street grid or stream restoration obligations get little credit elsewhere in the code, and upfront electrical infrastructure costs compound the burden hitting hardest the lower profitability, higher affordability projects this code is supposed to produce.

We're meeting with staff again soon and appreciate their continued engagement.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ben Mickle, followed by Jesse Clausen.

Hello, my name is Ben Mickle.

Tonight I would like to talk about bike safety in the Bell Red Street Grid Plan.

In the April engagement report, safe biking and walking infrastructure was identified as a top priority for the community.

And I know this commission wants Bell Red to be a safe place to bike.

We have active transportation corridors, which are great, but they will not connect together.

The local and green streets make space for cars, parking, pedestrians, and trees, but no space for bikes.

Adding bike lanes to these streets is one option, but I'm proposing another option.

Use modal filters to block cut through traffic.

For example, imagine a one-block street segment, such as Green Street.

Block one end of it with bollards.

Now cars have to enter and exit from the other end.

They cannot cut through.

This eliminates most of the traffic.

Now it's safe for biking.

And since bikes can use either end, it's also useful for biking.

Apply this treatment to all the green and local streets, and the whole neighborhood becomes a biking paradise.

Unlike bike lanes, modal filters don't increase the corridor width and therefore have minimal cost to developers and property owners.

They can even be done without bollard through better emergency vehicle access.

For more details, please watch the short video I sent you in an email this week.

At the last meeting about Bell Road, city staff told you the local and green streets are unnecessary for traffic throughput, and their only purpose is to provide access to local buildings.

In that case, there's no reason not to use modal filters on these streets since they fully preserve the intended function of vehicle access and only inhibit the unnecessary function of vehicle throughput.

Modal filters are not really as exotic as they sound.

They're mostly just ped bike friendly cul-de-sacs.

We use cul de sacs all over the country.

They're highly desired places to live for the safe, quiet environment they create.

You won't find any cul-de-sacs on our high injury network.

That safety shouldn't be a luxury reserved for single family neighborhoods.

It can be and should be enjoyed by residents of neighborhoods like Bell Red.

Studies have even shown people form more social connections with their neighbors when they live on low volume streets like this.

The benefits of modal filters go way beyond bike safety.

They would truly be a treasured feature of the community.

Please put a modal filter plan in this Luca.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have two more speakers.

Next up is Jesse Clausen, followed by Bruce Wanta.

You can share this.

And I have a handout for you tonight, and we've been talking a lot about the street grid always.

And I think a picture helps a lot.

So on the first page, you see my great Microsoft Paint renderings.

But we're talking about the Heidelberg site, which is a concrete plant that is Kitty Corner from a light rail station.

And that is outlined in green.

You can see in the yellow above the vicino, which did do half street improvements all around it.

And that is roughly where where around the vicino where those the north-south streets that are required in the current draft of the code are supposed to go all the way through down to uh eventual spring boulevard and where the light rail uh line is.

The Heidelberg site, you can see there's a huge wetland marked with a W.

North is up in this picture.

And then there are Xs in other locations where there are steep slopes and then also, you know, intervening properties where no development is happening today.

So these are places where this street grid is not going to happen unless the city comes through and does it or decides that a street should go in a wetland.

On the second page, you'll see a City of Bellevue map from 2021, and I don't know actually where this came from.

I found it on my desk today, where it talks about uh where some local streets are dotted and or a dashed, I guess, and they're identified as challenges.

And the Heidelberg site is circled here.

So that western uh north-south road is identified as a challenge because of the wetland.

Um, and then on the third page, the Bell Red Street grid that is in the current draft and the Heidelberg site is circled, that same north-south street that is identified as a challenge is required by the code.

The fourth page is the actual code language.

And I know we we keep talking about the code language, and I think it's really worth a read by everybody to see that even though we have a wetland in the location where a street is called for in this code, this modification language does not say, hey, you get to not do this street.

Basically, what it says, it does not say that you can wave a street, it says that you can modify it.

You can choose to do a private street, and it still has to meet certain, you know, general intersection alignments, is generally consistent with the map, um, and meets certain standards below.

And I think that that's what you're hearing in all the angst with people talking about the street grid, um, is that you still have to do the street, even though it's actually impossible, I think, in this this particular location.

So we're hoping that you know, I know that this is a longer discussion, and we'll be talking about it into the fall, but I just wanted to show you a picture of what I think helps illustrate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is Bruce Wanta.

I'll say in the advance, you all have a sheet sitting on your table.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Bruce Wanta.

I am a 54-year resident of Bellevue.

So I'm here specifically to talk about a site that I own.

It's the PBNK site and how it is affected by the street grid.

You can see in the center of that first page the green square.

That's my site, it's bounded by Northup on the north, Bell Red on the south, 130th on the east, or west, excuse me, and 132nd on the east.

That's where we sit.

And the train station is only 160 feet away.

What I want to tell you is that with the current street grid, the way it is aligned, there will be no development, uh, new development on my property, and I want to explain why.

If you flip to the second page, you'll see a zoom in of that area.

The PBNK site sits right above the L-shaped uh Sioux development site, and then Blue Sky Church and Raffin above me.

The Spring Street station is right at the bottom.

As you are aware, the station has fencing on both sides, so there is no way to cross from either this property to either side of the station without going to the ends of the block already.

There's no pedestrian access.

The other important thing to understand is the geography.

If you look at the PBNK site and the one below it, there is a 20-foot bank between those two sites.

And in 160 feet, the only way to build a road, this red road that is shown, the only built way to build that road is to build a 20-foot high berm at an angle all the way up to my site.

Fill it in with a bunch of dirt, put a road on top so it'll bisect the Sioux development where they're trying to put three or four towers, destroying a bunch of land there, also destroying a bunch of land on my site.

The road is actually much wider than this, so uh bear with me.

So the interesting thing is the road provides no additional access.

If you're going westbound on spring, it's the only way you can go.

You could take a right and go up and around back onto one thirty, one thirtieth, but you wouldn't save any additional commute space or commute distance, but you'd make two additional turns, it actually impedes traffic.

The other important thing to understand is that the blue sky site and my site have a common fire access between the two properties.

So the shortest route from either of those sites to 130th and 132nd for fire is already covered.

I've just documented in the upper corner on the next page the elevation change.

So the ultimate key to all of this is that at 273 units, which is what I can build or what a developer can build without this road or with this road.

This means I'm not a seller.

I can't afford to sell the building because my building's already more valuable than the site would allow.

With four to five hundred units on the site, we get four to five hundred units of housing and dramatically increased density 160 feet from the train station.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else signed up to speak?

Or do that is it?

And our time is up as well.

Great.

All right.

We can open it up for uh additional comments.

Um is anybody else in the room want to speak or anybody online?

See anyone online?

Great.

Okay.

With that, let's move on to the study session.

The first study session is the Great Neighborhoods program, the uh review of the full draft of the East Gay Neighborhood Area Plan, comprehensive plan amendments.

The East Gate Great Neighborhoods Project was designed to develop local policies to address issues and opportunities to help Eastgate grow in a unique way.

Neighborhood priorities were identified through an extensive through extensive community engagement.

Please welcome uh planning director Tara Johnson and senior planner Justin.

Uh I was mispronounced that I'll say Pangeniban.

To provide the presentation.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Lou, Vice Chair V says, Commissioners, thank you for having us this evening.

We're continuing on with our comprehensive plan amendments for 2026.

At your last meeting, as you may recall, we went over the full draft of the factoria neighborhood area plan.

And so we're bringing forward the Eastgate neighborhood area plan this evening.

So a result of many, many months of community engagement, dialogue, and then also previous touch points with the planning commission.

So very eager to go over the Eastgate policies before you this evening.

And then if the commission is ready, we're requesting that you provide direction for us to set the public hearing, which, as you've heard earlier, is part of this overview of the schedule.

We're anticipating for the fall in order to meet our deadline by the end of the year.

So we'll start off and provide some background and context on the Great Neighborhoods program.

We'll talk about our overall review process with the Planning Commission.

We'll talk about some of the modifications with our existing uh sub-area plans versus neighborhood area plan boundaries.

We'll give you an overview of our engagement to date, which has been pretty substantive.

And then we'll talk about our.

Great.

Thank you, Tara.

So as a reminder, the Great Neighborhoods program seeks to develop neighborhood area plans, which are developed to be consistent with citywide policies in the comprehensive plan, while at the same time identifying neighborhood specific policies that are relevant community-driven and reflective of neighborhood identity and unique neighborhood conditions.

And we learn this through extensive community engagement.

They are meant to serve as a guides for decision making as to how to city partners with others to realize that vision, whether that's through potential regulations, programs, or partnerships.

Many different inputs inform the staff recommendation of the plan for discussion tonight.

Community engagement comprises kind of one significant portion as a daylight community values, opportunities, and challenges that should be foundational to the plan.

We also hear from boards and commissions on policy areas that pertain to their areas of expertise.

We're responding to state and regional requirements that require us to plan for future growth.

And we're also working with staff in other departments to align these plans with investments identified in their functional plan updates.

As we look ahead to the fall, after the public hearing, the planning commission will review the plan against a final review criteria established through the land use code before making a recommendation to council on the draft plan.

So the present-day Eastgate neighborhood area boundary reflects updates that were made actually back in 2015 to revise the city's sub-area boundaries to better align with neighborhood characteristics.

So what you here see here on the screen is actually the older Eastgate sub-area.

The hatched area is now part of the Eastgate neighborhood area, while the areas in white are now part of the Lake Hills and Westlake Sammamish neighborhood areas.

To ensure consistency between these different plans, we are amending the sub-area plans to ensure that relevant policies remain in effect where they won't get superseded by the new Eastgate neighborhood area plan.

And so that means we're taking a look at not just Eastgate, but also Richards Valley and the Newcastle sub-area plans to ensure that those are adequately covered in the Eastgate neighborhood area plan.

The areas in white will be addressed during the Lake Hills and Westlakes and Mamish neighborhood updates, which are anticipated to be initiated by council later this month.

And once those plans are complete, the Eastgate sub-area plan will be repealed in its entirety.

So looking ahead today to the present-day neighborhood area boundary.

It is a geographical geography that largely follows the I-90 corridor and includes areas both north and south of I-90.

It's made up of a variety of different land use characteristics, including residential neighborhoods south of I-90, and then a mix of higher density residential, affordable housing, human services, light industrial, commercial, and educational uses to the north.

I think Bellevue College is probably the more notable one north of I-90.

Both sides share the similarity of having a retail and services clustered kind of around the I-90 freeway interchange.

I also want to point out that the Northwest Quadrant of Eastgate is identified as one of the city's mixed use centers and is expected to have significant growth and transit investment, including a potential future high-capacity transit stop.

As I mentioned earlier, community engagement comprises a significant portion of neighborhood area planning, and we use different strategies at different phases to collect input.

So during the discovery phase, our outreach activities were exploratory.

We were wanting to better understand the values, opportunities, and challenges that shape and inform neighborhood identity.

When we transition to a defined phase in the start of the year, we distilled those exploratory ideas into high-level visioning elements and policy priorities, and we also use interactive workshops to understand the types of improvements that people want to see in their neighborhood.

And now we are in our refined phase, and we've shared policies and these concepts that more concretely describe what the city will do and where we want to see them happen.

And since early May, we've welcomed input from the community in terms of understanding where there are gaps in whether or not we are achieving desired outcomes.

We also just want to underscore that this is a plan shaped by community, and we've heard from diverse voices and perspectives across many different neighborhood settings.

And that I think key to this has been adapting our outreach process so that we are reaching many different segments of the community, and we've been very fortunate to work with community partners to be in community spaces like Newport Way Library, the community center.

We were able to visit different schools like Tai Yi and Bellevue College, and we even had an opportunity to connect with affordable housing and human service providers at the Eastgate Housing Campus, which I know was a priority when we started this process late last year.

In the refined phase, staff conducted public engagement around draft policies through an in-person open house as well as an online survey that was shared through various city channels and social media.

And the format of these engagements were really to understand kind of what policies community felt supported the goals and vision for the neighborhood, and what policies maybe were less effective at doing so.

As a whole, across these different forums, there was a general support for Eastgate's policies and particularly strong reception to policies that focused on neighborhood beautification, relieving traffic impacts during construction, being able to access the map since the Sound Greenway Trail, which runs east-west through the neighborhood, as well as expanding active transportation infrastructure.

We also noted areas of more mixed support, including around affordable housing, expanding capital facilities, and the development of a regional aquatic center as part of the Bellevue Airfield Park Master Plan.

And later in this presentation, we'll talk through how we've dive through these areas of concern and how staff have reconciled those comments.

This slide might seem familiar.

We've also consulted with various boards and commissions for their feedback on how these draft policies relate to their areas of expertise.

And overall, I think similar comments were shared between East Gate and Factoria.

The parks and community services board really appreciated the focus on walkability in these policies and encouraged staff to focus more on how to incorporate neighborhood history and identity and public safety.

For Arts Commission, they appreciated how the concept maps in particular were able to pinpoint opportunities around cultural investments and really encouraged how we can continue to further those community partnerships.

And finally, with transportation commission, they focus on how staff engaged with the community around transportation issues and encouraged us to think about how congestion is prioritized within the policies.

So to break down the neighborhood plan, it's comprised of a vision statement that articulates a desired feature state of the neighborhood, includes background narrative and imagery that describes the community context.

It has an urban design framework that describes opportunities for public space improvements with companion concept maps to illustrate where those are.

We have a neighborhood policy summary for the five different sections of the plan, which we'll walk through in a bit, and finally those goals and policies that really help to achieve the neighborhood area vision.

So the plan narrative is kicked off by that vision statement, and it articulates a future 10 to 20 years out, and it really builds off the values and assets that were identified by the community.

So to kind of just read this verbatim, Eastgate is a convenient, safe, and welcoming neighborhood where its diverse residents, businesses, and student population can thrive and build connections with one another.

It's treelined and well-maintained residential areas are the heart of the neighborhood, and people from all stages of life are seen walking, biking, and taking transit to experience the area's natural beauty, outdoor recreation, and retail and entertainment offerings.

Mixed-use areas on both sides of Interstate 90 as well as Bellevue College anchor the neighborhood as vibrant hubs for living, working, gathering, learning, and fostering community.

And with that vision statement in mind, the goals and policies that support this vision statement provide direction on the different investments and partnerships that could take to support the future state.

So to start off with the first section, we have neighborhood identity, and these policies seek to reinforce Eastgate's convenient, green, and welcoming qualities.

And it builds off the assets that make Eastgate unique today.

It has a diverse community, it has excellent access to recreation wilderness both within the neighborhood as well as outside.

It's mature trees, as well as its access to regional transportation.

And so one example of a policy that really underscores this is N4, which provides direction on supporting and expanding the beautification of Eastgates public spaces.

And three policies in particular that staff further reviewed based on community feedback were N1, N5, and N8, which I will walk through in this next slide.

This is building off of feedback that we've heard about having more recreational and entertainment options within the community.

And this also, I think, complements strategies within our economic development plan to support revitalization of vacant office areas.

As you may know, Eastgates Hotels as well as Bellevue College brings visitors into the area.

So both cultural and sports recreation has a benefit to the neighborhood for both folks who are visiting as well as folks who live there.

There were concerns raised on neighborhood impacts as well as how these uses would benefit the community at large.

And so staff took a look at this policy.

And we really want to clarify that these kind of the intent of these facilities were meant to be focused on Eastgate's mixed-use areas where we envision kind of significant redevelopment happening over the future.

And at the same time, wanting to recognize that these facilities are meant to broadly serve the community, so making sure that was clear in the policy.

Another policy that we expanded upon was N5, and this was mainly to kind of articulate what we meant by distinctive feature.

As you know, creative elements like public art are really key to neighborhood identity, so wanting to just make that more explicit in terms of how we intend for this policy to really celebrate and recognize Eastgate's gateways into the neighborhood.

And then finally with N8, which is our affordable housing policy, we had a number of comments regarding impacts to neighborhood scale and safety, and just kind of similar to what we talked about with Factoria, which had a similar policy, this really reaffirms both regional and citywide direction on addressing the entire spectrum of housing need across the city.

And so this type of policy does support many different implementation strategies, and we feel that this policy is important in ensuring that our affordability goals are met.

Moving on to Eastgates' mixed use and neighborhood centers, these seek to strengthen our mixed use areas, and this includes the Eastgate TOD area north of I-90, Bellevue College, and the surrounding area as places that are accessible, vibrant, and provide a range of goods and services.

And so these are qualities that are inherent to Eastgate today.

It's also inherent to its designation as a countywide center, which requires the city to plan for growth and transit.

And one example of this policy is N14, which focuses on how the city works with major institutions such as Washdot, Sound Transit, and Bellevue College on comprehensive land use and transportation planning in the area to realize that mixed-use vision.

So the one policy that we did want to focus on, we there was a general support for the policies in this section.

I think there was some questions or concerns regarding N9, which provides direction on citing and expanding city-owned capital facilities to meet future needs.

Just to clarify, when we talk about capital facilities, we're talking about our public services like fire, police, and utilities, and those are really essential to maintaining the quality and responsiveness of services, not just in Eastgate, but across the city.

And we expect this need to grow over the next 10 to 20 years.

And we're also realizing that we're often challenged by a lack of places to cite city facilities.

So just wanted to make sure that we're clarifying in the policy the demand for public services to really underscore why a policy like this is important to fostering Eastgate as well as Bellevue's future growth.

The next section is on community gathering spaces.

These policies seek to improve connections to nearby trails and parks, as well as support new parks and gathering spaces that are lacking in the neighborhood today.

And so one example of a policy would be N24, which looks at Eastgate's more mixed-use areas, such as the area around the Eastgate Park and Ride, and looking how to incorporate public space opportunities and cultural activities like markets or festivals.

And some of the policies that we took a look at as part of this were N23, N26, and N29.

So the changes in the first two policies, N23 and N26 were actually considerations that were raised by the Parks Board to improve direction around parks and open space investments.

Bellevue College came up quite a bit.

This also came up with Arts Commission.

They recognize that Bellevue College is a community asset that could benefit some for some more universal access.

They have a number of existing spaces that could host arts and cultural events.

And so we want to make sure that when we updated this policy, that we were reaffirming that community partnerships is a big part of how we affirm Bellevue College as a cultural and community hub.

Another policy that we want to focus on and take a look at was N29.

There were concerns regarding kind of the facilities' impacts on traffic and the natural setting.

For folks who don't know, the regional aquatic facility is part of the council adopted Bellevue Airfield Park Master Plan to help meet needs around this particular type of facility in the city, and the city is actively working to design, develop, and secure funding for it.

So I think having this policy in the plan really furthers having direction at the neighborhood level.

Currently don't have a policy around this in the current Eastgate sub-area plan.

And I think having this in concert with policies around neighborhood identity, parks and open space, the environment, it really helps benefit how this facility can be planned and designed to fit with the neighborhood's land use transportation and environmental context.

Moving on to Eastgate's mobility and access policies.

These are focused on creating a safe, complete, and convenient transportation network.

And I would say that many people who we have engaged with today note that they currently rely on their car but appreciate the opportunities to walk and bike safely within their neighborhood as many of the streets there today lack sidewalks or crossings to do so.

I think Eastgate's also very unique that it has a lot of regional connections.

It has a park and ride, it has a regional trail, potentially one day a high capacity transit station.

So policies really support how the people can move around the neighborhood to better connect to these things that help them connect not just within their neighborhood but to the broader city and region.

And based on our survey, I would say that mobility and access policies had some of our strongest support.

Policies such as N30 and 33 and N36 were very well received in terms of addressing things like traffic constriction impacts, accessing trails, as well as thinking about how we make local streets safe and complete for people.

Based on parks board feedback, we updated N35, which is our wayfinding policy.

And we just want to clarify that the thresholds or the gateways into the neighborhood are a key opportunity for wayfinding, so wanting to make sure that was part of how we explore those opportunities within this policy.

And then I just also want to note just kind of similar to the factoria study session, congestion was a policy priority for the Transportation Commission, and just want to again reaffirm that the policy direction and the tools that we have, such as the mobility implementation plan, helps to establish some additional clarity around arterial gaps, targets, and ways to address congestion.

We know that transportation is a tricky exercise in terms of we have limited right-of-way, a lot of different priorities.

What we hear from the community is a strong desire to feel safe as they walk and bike and access destinations in their community.

So safety is a key priority as we were developing the policies.

And we recognize that the set of policies here works in concert with our comprehensive plan as well as with our functional plans to ensure that a comprehensive approach to transportation planning is taken.

And to round out the policy sections, we have the environment which seeks to promote the health of Eastgate's natural systems.

Eastgate has many different streams like Fasa Creek, Sunset Creek.

It's, I think, very much defined by those creek systems.

And there's an opportunity for those systems to have both passive recreational and educational benefits.

So the policies are really geared towards how to make that a more integral part of the neighborhood identity.

And so an example of a policy would be N41, which is really exploring the different ways that we can really think about stream improvements as a way of leveraging different benefits to the community as well.

I would say again, strong support for environmental policies.

We took a look at N42.

I think there were a couple comments looking at the survey around kind of how does that impact current wildlife conditions?

Are there examples of kind of nature trails in Eastgate today?

I think the short answer is yes.

There are a couple different trails and viewing areas on both sides.

And I think the main thing when we're exploring potential future trails is that public stewardship is a key part of our comprehensive plan.

It's part of our open space plan as well.

So as we look at integrating trails with streams and green belts, there's also a co-benefit in terms of thinking about how we can pair that with things like habitat restoration, environmental education, and other ways to really highlight and support environmental benefits.

So I'll wrap up the presentation today by talking about how these policies are applied to our urban design framework.

To kind of really localize this broad policy direction, we've included an urban design framework that guides improvements to Eastgate's public spaces.

So, like while a policy might provide direction around see more public spaces, the concept maps allow us to get a little bit more specific as to kind of where in the community we can benefit from those public spaces to better serve the policies and the community that would use those spaces.

These concept maps are intentionally broad, they're advisory, they're not meant to be specific projects, but are really meant to illustrate policy intent.

And what we hope that these maps do is that they guide how we have conversations with other departments and community partners as to how we actually implement these improvements.

And the concept maps in front of you were informed by existing conditions, community feedback, as well as consultation with our SMEs to make sure that what we're showing were things that were defensible and things that we could potentially implement in the future.

So there are two suites of maps that are included in the plan.

The first being neighborhood connectivity.

The map, if you recall kind of similar similar symbology and factoria, includes opportunities to enhance active transportation connections, being able to provide through block connections on larger blocks and development sites, improving pedestrian crossings, and finally improving the streetscape experience to make them more attractive, safe, and comfortable corridors for all modes of travel.

And so those improvements are relating back to policies we've established.

So an example is N7, which talks about how to improve the pedestrian experience for public spaces and which streetscapes play a key part in that.

Moving to our concept map, this illustrates how those policies are applied to provide a cohesive vision of the active transportation network in Eastgate.

So to kind of walk through the different symbology, those thick pink lines are arterials that are prioritized for streetscape enhancements such as landscaping and lighting to make them more safe and comfortable corridors.

And so this includes places like Southeast Eastgate Way, Southeast Newport Way, which are auto-oriented today.

We've had several community comments note speeding issues that make them not very comfortable corridors to use.

The orange circles indicate opportunities to explore crosswalks and mid-block crossing improvements to better serve pedestrians crossing high volume arterials.

Want to highlight that Southeast Newport Way in particular has been a challenge for many folks, especially east of 150th.

There are schools, there are bus stops on either side, but not necessarily sidewalks on either on either side or places to cross.

So this really helps focus where we might want to look at those crossing opportunities to make those safe to access destinations.

The light blue lines represent potential through block connections to improve pedestrian circulation and break down larger blocks.

And these are really focused on kind of Eastgate's mixed-use areas.

Those were areas that are kind of prime for redevelopment, have been updated as a result of HOMA to look at mixed-use opportunity and can really provide additional permeability and walkability in those areas.

And then tying those elements together are those dark blue lines, which we call our active transportation connections, so being able to identify opportunities for walking and biking safely throughout the neighborhood.

I'll finally conclude by it's maybe not dark brown and from the screen, but that east-west line that's the mountains to Sound Greenway.

It's uh I think a signature part of the neighborhood.

And so I would say a lot of the moves in this map are meant to help connect people to that trail safely and conveniently to create that connected network.

And then to wrap up, we have our neighborhood gathering space map.

And this map provides guidance on opportunities to program and activate third places with community partners.

It identifies opportunities to look at potential new neighborhood scale parks.

It looks to provide environmental enhancements to natural features within Eastgate, which, as I mentioned, are primarily streams, and finally to look at visual markers or thresholds to reflect unique neighborhood identity.

And so, as I mentioned, similar to the last few slides, we have a number of policies that help support those improvements.

And how we apply those improvements to the concept map.

We have the light green bubbles primarily on the south side of I-90.

Those indicate potential new park spaces south of I-90.

And those are informed by policies recognizing the need for neighborhood parks in areas that lack walkable access to parks today.

There's a lot of greenery south of I-90, but not a lot of functional recreational space, and to make sure we're reading our equity targets around parks access space, exploring opportunities to find new neighborhood parks is crucial.

The pink cogs dotted throughout the map represent destinations where community and people want to see more opportunities for indoor and outdoor gathering.

And so those includes places like shopping centers, community facilities, schools, places where people gather today, want a more intentional and easy way to meet and gather with people in their community.

The purple circles are what we call thresholds.

They mark the entrances into the neighborhood.

They're can be at the edges of the neighborhood, they can also be at our transit centers.

Those are the places where people might enter Eastgate for the first time and experience the neighborhood.

So thinking about ways that art signage and other creative elements can welcome people into the community.

And then finally, the fuzzy green lines represent environmental enhancements.

And for Eastgate, that primarily focuses on its streams, where we can incorporate improvements such as trail corridors, daylighting, and environmental education.

I know that was a lot, but hopefully we're able to uh kind of apply a kind of a clear through line as to how these policies and concept maps um support the vision for Eastgate.

And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Cher Lou to read the discussion.

Thank you, Justin and Tara.

Really appreciate it.

Um I'll now call on each commissioner sequentially and just uh always want to have some context.

We are here to decide whether or not we're prepared to move forward with a public hearing.

We'll also have another opportunity of uh comments and direction at the public hearing itself.

Uh so just as you're making your comments, keep that in mind that that's kind of what we're working towards a decision point on that.

So with that, Commissioner Neil John, you get the honor of starting off.

Great, thank you.

And I guess to clarify then on that, if I have wording changes, I want to make sure I save that for.

No, you should suggest them here.

Uh, but just uh rather than I my point is more rather than far out ideas of where we can uh go, I'd prefer we kind of stay on track here.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Uh thank you very much for the presentation.

Uh and for the lovely materials and the presentation that was uh great.

I had a couple specific uh policy lines that I wanted to hone in on.

I guess starting with N1.

I understand the reasoning for the language change.

I, however, think that I still prefer the language from pre-amendment just because it was stronger.

I feel like sports facilities and entertainment are something that we at least I specifically really want to emphasize.

I think they're vital for well-being and social cohesion.

Uh, and I felt like the language of pre-change was stronger.

I would almost want to go back to that language than add in in mixed-use facilities at the end of it just to specify uh that uh distinction.

If that's what the arts commission and what the stakeholders have um asked you to clarify.

I was wondering if you can speak a little bit about that.

Cause to me, it seems the language is a little bit more watered down now, but maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

No, that's that's a great question.

I think yeah, I think that policy was kind of balancing many different kind of uh considerations around how to support recreational cultural opportunities.

I think the community concern that oh we had seen uh through the survey in the open house was I think the notion that if we're supporting tourism in the area, that we're not necessarily focused on amenities that serve kind of the needs of residents who live in the neighborhood.

We also recognize that uh facilities of all sorts can benefit both people who are experiencing the neighborhood for the first time to people who are long-time residents.

So we just want to make sure that um the policy is clear and how we're making sure we're serving the broad spectrum of folks who could use those facilities.

Okay.

Uh yeah, I mean that that makes sense.

I would be interested in exploring maybe a little bit stronger language around that.

Maybe not what the original language was, but uh something kind of in between uh on N23.

In the materials provided and the feedback, my understanding is that we had uh a handful of people really wanting to emphasize that the partnerships with Bellevue College are meant for the benefit of the community as well.

I would suggest maybe tweaking the language at the end there to reflect student employee and community experience, just to make that abundantly clearer.

I think the changes that are made are good, but I'd I'd like to see a little bit more clarification there at the end.

Uh on N.

And I'll leave it for this one for now for the first round.

But the for N29.

I had a question on this.

My understanding is that the only additional change was the inclusion of the word planned.

Can you talk a little bit more about how that actually that changes the actual policy there?

I understand wanting to link it to the uh Bellevue Airfield Park, um, but how does the word plan specifically make that connection?

Yeah, I the the word plan is to really I think help support that um the regional aquatic facility has been kind of a long piece of the conversation about how to better serve uh the aquatic facility need in Bellevue.

Um, I think we want to make sure that it's not something that kind of came out of vacuum, it's something that took a lot of intention.

Um, went through the council process to get that uh that master plan approved and that it's uh kind of a priority for city staff to uh not just kind of work through the design and the funding, but also make sure it's well integrated with with the community.

Great.

That makes perfect sense to me.

I'll leave that out of that for the first round.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kalm.

Thank you so much for good material and presentation.

I go to the policy, um, and two.

I just want to write it down in a different way.

Like, for example, proactively increase tree canopies and go to the end.

And at the end, maybe we say ultimate stronger verbiage of prevent the loss of the significant trees and all of those.

If it's possible, we bring the um we bring the increased tree canopies, the proactively increase the tree canopy and just continue that one.

And then for um minimize a loss of trees, it's kind of like give me a wrong wipe.

I think it's good to say, like pre-wan to loss of there and go with like a tree canopies that we have a significant and mature and you know, landmark trees, like something like that.

If we can do that, I do kind of have.

You meant N3, not N2, right?

So oh, sorry, let me see.

Yes, thank you.

Sorry, I need to read where my reader classes.

Yeah, if we can um change that one that way if the uh commission wants.

That's one of the things that's come to my mind.

Um and then the other thing is for N17.

I kind of understand the spirit of that, but I still I'm a little bit stuck with it.

I don't know how we can change it.

And I'm seeking opinion from the commission if they feel the same.

Um I kind of get it, but I on the other hand, I'm like, it's kind of blind for me.

I don't know how to um make it better.

I might think about it by end of this round, and I come with something.

Um, and then I think last one for this round, um, for traffic and 31 and 30, all of those.

Um I personally have a problem.

I think last session I was struggling.

I'm I'm struggling with traffic calming verbiage.

I don't, I don't know what to do with that.

I understand like we can use other verbiage that we have it maybe in the um comprehensive plan.

Um that's another thing that I'm a little bit um struggling with it.

In general, in traffic um section, I'm wondering we can think about congestion and all of those and come up with something in those to have it there.

And again, I'd be happy to provide some.

I stop here for and I save couple questions if other didn't ask that.

Sounds good.

Commissioner Conley, maybe for the benefit of the commission, can I kind of uh provide some additional perspective on those two policies?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So just to kind of build on um N17, which is the um the policy focus on Eastgate Housing Campus.

So for who folks don't know, that includes Polaris, um, Porch Light as well as Plymouth.

Um they have been, I think, a key stakeholder throughout the entire process.

We know that it's an area that is part of Eastgate's mixed use center, but is very far away from a lot of the amenities that they could benefit from.

Not a lot of public spaces or uh walkable access to services and retail.

We also hear a lot of concerns regarding East Gateway in particular and how it's a challenging place in terms of lighting and safety.

So as a portion of the community that is uh kind of needing to access those services and making sure that it's an integral part of how we plan for the mixed use center.

I think it was important for us to call that out in the in the policy.

Um and then just to kind of build on N31, that's something we can take a look at.

I uh want to just verify that in our transportation element we do define traffic calming.

I think there's a benefit to having consistent verbiage um in the policy, but we could certainly take a look at see how uh to better address that comment.

Yeah, I trust your expertise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Keppel.

Thank you, Justin and Tara.

Um, great presentation.

I I think this is close.

I have um three areas though that I wanted to just um uh probe a little bit more.

Um the first had to do with something that came up at the last planning commission meeting where we were talking about um how it would be useful in this um neighborhood plan to try and um anticipate with some of the development that we're doing now, the future possibility of um light rail transit coming through.

And I I don't see that in the policies.

Am I missing something on that?

Um so we have um the policies that get to that um a little bit more directly are um let's see here because I'm looking at the mobility policies and I don't see that because I would love to for us to build towards that to help enable that and make that part of a longer term vision over time for this plan.

Yeah, and actually uh maybe maybe it's maybe not in the most intuitive section.

So it is N18 in our um mixed use center section.

Um it's currently housed there um one because it is located in the mixed-use center, and two because the uh considerations around high capacity transit uh kind of transcends not just the transit aspect, but also thinking about what are opportunities to leverage siding alignment and other kind of opportunities when we plan to think about future open space, amenities, housing, et cetera.

Yeah.

And I I think that's a good start.

I would um I'd recommend strengthening that so it's not just coordination, but it's it's really helping to um build an anticipation of you know of the future high capacity um transit projects.

Um, so I I'd like to see more in there, you know, coordinate and you know, once once um things are looking more um certain, you know, work towards building those things so that we can actually meet them when they're available and make them successful.

So strengthening that would be helpful.

Um a second thing, which you may have addressed um in your presentation, has to do with I-90, because I I view I view the whole prospect of trying to cross I 90 in that area as a pedestrian or a cyclist as terrifying.

Yeah, um, and I'm wondering, you know, the map that you showed earlier, is that going to be a um is that going to be an emphasis for trying to address that for this neighborhood?

Because it's it's really a barrier as between these two sections of Eastgate.

Yeah.

Yeah, I would say that is um the intent regarding this map.

And I think the the comments about I-90 is a barrier is very, very clear with the community as well.

Um I can point to one example.

There's currently uh a PED bridge, um, kind of along 140th and 150th that um is not well lit, probably doesn't kind of meet any type of expectation around pedestrian safety or or connectivity.

And so those are the opportunities that we really try to daylight with concept maps like this, trying to figure out like where are we kind of really reconciling some of the challenges in terms of that barrier and seeking to better stitch together both sides of the neighborhood.

So we're hoping that the concept map does um point and provide direction on that.

Okay.

And then the third and final comment that I had was just the um when it comes to um traffic congestion, that was something that was flagged by um the transportation commission as a concern and it's not addressed.

I think in you know, in separate plans, we we also raised that in relation to Factoria and it's a real issue, I think for the people um in this neighborhood.

So if there's a way that we can address it more broadly, that would be useful.

I know you have a broader vision for the future state of mobile transportation and the like, and that's great, but people live in the in the current um age where they have to deal with that.

So if there's a way to address that too, that would be useful.

Yeah, certainly, uh Commissioner Geppel, and maybe to build on that point as well.

I think we get we can see how both the East King factoria policies can uh provide stronger policy support around that.

I would say for N30, as it relates specifically to Eastgate, I know there have been a number of projects such as the uh the Sunset Creek culvert uh improvements.

There's currently ongoing construction on 150s as well that have resulted in traffic impacts.

So I think there's kind of some degree of I think construction impacts, I think, are very really felt by the community, which I think was the intent of N30, but to your point, I think there is also broader uh direction around congestion that we can certainly explore uh as part of this plan.

And maybe that means adjusting the language of N30 to broaden it.

I don't know, or some other place.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation and all of the work that's gone into this proposed set of policies.

I am just going to echo uh my fellow commissioners on a few items that have already been brought up.

Um I wanted to support um strengthening the language on N3 to uh ensure um that the tree canopy is robust um and and maintained.

Um I also wanted to support Commissioner Geppel's proposal to uh explicitly incorporate light rail, it sounds like N17 was intended to do so.

I think that's critically important.

Uh and and my third comment was that uh on the map of the neighborhood connectivity concept that you just had up.

I think there are um I'm really really glad to see the strengthening of the um active transportation connections that flow up through and by Bellevue College north of I-90.

Uh the just in ensuring that there is an ability to get from the neighborhoods that are south of I-90 to um uh third spaces and uh gathering places and encouraging the development of those places in areas where um it it seems more possible.

Glad to see the airfield park is going to be seeing some additional aquatic centers and opportunities.

There's a lot um of uh opportunity for development around that Michaels Toyota that's just south of I-90 here.

There's always been a series of of um, there's cafes and uh Bellevue College has great opportunities for similar connecting points that seem to come up frequently in comments.

And so I just wanted to to bolster those comments and the opportunity to create the connectivity and opportunity for those third spaces to to thrive.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Ferris.

Thank you again.

Um I'm gonna reiterate a couple of points that have already been made.

Um I would suggest, and there's been a couple of the commissioners that have said this on specific items, but I think just like we did on our comprehensive plan where we looked at each one of those action verbs and tried to make it much stronger.

So every time there's a word like explore, support, coordinate, I would say pause and see if you can strengthen that to make it more action oriented, if that's all right.

So that's a general comment.

Um also I was struck there was comments from the community.

I think it was on page 70 of the comments that were in our packet, and it talked about how there might be an opportunity to identify different sub-neighborhoods.

That struck me, and I made this comment before.

This neighborhood is very unique because of I-90 and just completely severing the connectivity, and also these areas have different needs.

So being able to identify those sub-neighborhoods and directing specific policies to those neighborhoods.

We just were talking about the housing complex, that has some unique challenges.

So being able to identify that rather than making it general for the entire neighborhood, I think would make some sense.

And that person that commented on that had some really good ideas for naming conventions, I thought, but um, and lastly, to um also do a plus one for Commissioner Goppel.

I would like to see a separate policy specific to improving the connectivity between over I 90.

To me, that is so important.

We've got we have more housing that's going on in the south side.

We now have more housing on the north side, both in that office park, and there's no way for that group of citizens to to access some of the services that are available.

So I would I would like to see a very strong separate um uh policy specific to that.

And then lastly, just add on, I would like to also see something very specific about connecting to the South Bellevue Park and Ride.

I think it's really important that we connect to that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Chair View Vasis.

Thank you.

Thanks, Justin, for the presentation.

I'd like to, I think most of the comments have already been addressed.

I'd like to plus one Commissioner Ferrius's and Commissioner Goppel's comments about the connections between and across between the two north and side, north and south neighborhoods within Eastgate, and the connections in particular across I-90.

Um there's two items here, like the connection across uh, or to get to the park and right, and the connection on 150th to 148th.

I think uh policy N37 is talking about improving opportunities for pedestrians to safely cross arterials.

So I don't know if it's a separate policy that needs to address specifically these two items.

Um there's also if you can go back to the to the to the image, there is no bike path across uh I-90 on 150th and 148th, and I think it's important not only just because it's a major pathway, but Robinswood Park is right there and it's uh urban park.

This is dragging people from all out of places, and the connection there, I've done it.

It's really hard to it's really kind of uh scary to cross that.

So I would I would like to see that being addressed specifically because this, I mean, it's it's there's two points where we can connect those two halves of the neighborhood, and we should make sure this is included in the policies.

Uh besides that, I have no more comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

A lot of what I want to talk about has been covered, but I I also want to take a moment, and the more I think about Eastgate, the more I feel that it's an area that's really defined by a lot of public and private partnerships.

I mean, we look at there's Buffy College, there's uh BSD, you know, South, nobody's mentioned South Bellevue Community Center, but there's a Belleview Boys and Girls Club uh partnership there.

Uh we have Porch Light there, like it's so many uh kind of unique public privates that are all set up in the area.

And I think having just essentially like one policy cover the breadth of that is a little tough for me.

So N14 I know covers that.

I know you have a specific one for Bowman College as well.

But I I would like to see some breakout here of some of the major partnerships that are there and have the policies define the goals of those partnerships.

I think you've already done that with BSD.

To some extent, you've kind of done it with Sound Transit and Kit and uh uh King County Metro.

Um, but I think you know, South Bellevue or sorry, uh Eastgate Park and Ride has for so long kind of served as that you know transit central point for South uh uh people that live south of uh I-90.

I think that's worth calling out, but I I just want to emphasize I won't uh you know do that whole exercise right now, but finding some of these major partnerships, defining the goals of them, and then having those as separate policies, and then maybe encapsulating some of the smaller partnerships into a kind of catch-all policy for collaboration.

Uh, I think would be great.

This area just serves such like a unique spot for anybody who's grown up in South Bellevue.

Like this is where you meet and where you, you know, do a lot of kind of like uh just collaborative activities that I think it's worth emphasizing.

Um, and then separately, um, I really want to plus one uh by share via Vasis's comment on the uh the bike path.

I've done that a couple times uh going south, and it's really scary.

Um that ped path that you talked about uh is a good start, but yeah, it's not well lit, and it's also a huge incline to get up to it, so it's a little bit tough to traverse.

Um so I just want to kind of emphasize those.

Uh the I think the last thing I have was covered.

So yeah, I'll just stick with those two.

I'll do another round uh for everybody to give comments if there's nothing else that's uh there's uh an additional one that wasn't been covered.

So I'll go back in order.

Um Commissioner Nilchion.

Yeah, most of my other comments have already been addressed and just want to plus one a couple of things.

Um one on plus one uh Vice Servia Levasis and uh Chair Lou's comments about the bike path uh across I-90, um, especially as Vice Servia Levasis said, connecting to Robinswood Park.

Um, you know, I and that's a very popular destination for a lot of people.

I go there all the time.

Uh so I improving connectivity from South Bellevue over to that area is great.

Uh also with plus one, uh, Commissioner Ferris's comment on uh change the language in certain areas to strengthen it, like specifically N34 is one that I noted where it says work to obtain.

I think it'd be stronger if it just said obtain, just cut out work two altogether, but just doing little things like that as you as you work through it, and then I also plus one um strengthening N3 as well.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Kalman.

Uh I think I want to emphasize two things.

Um, for that is specific N17.

I think if it's porch light, um, it needs to be named.

For me, even someone who's memorized so many policies, it doesn't give me a wipe that we are talking about Portugal and Polaris.

I think as um uh Chair Liu was mentioning, like if you want really specific uh um partnership to be highlighted, so let's not be shy about that and do it.

And the other thing about the verbiage that we need to have more strong, I wanted you guys look at an N44 and 45 for environment too and see, because it's kind of like really like collaborating, coordinating, same thing that we were talking about, comprehensive plan and most of the thing.

Let's make it a little bit proactive.

Um, because I feel if everybody's collaborating with each other, but nobody's initiating, and that's gonna go be just the policy level.

Um, and then the other thing was um on page 10, I don't see this equitable table engagement really clear.

Like for example, when I'm looking, the only thing I'm seeing is just like, oh, 42% of Eastgate community are older than 45 years old.

But like 45 years and older, it's like a big wrench.

I really want to see this is be like in like I remember we had a really high uh engagement of the school.

If I remember, I was in two events, which is great.

I think we need to have that category here too.

Like if we have, I don't know, 60% of the people between 14 and 21, we should just include this one.

This charter is also bit, and I didn't see anything else in details here.

I want to see like really a good um charts that it shows who has been attended those.

Because it's really bringing it clarity for you.

For me, when I'm looking at it, it's a little bit I'm like, okay, 42% of East Gay people are 45 years and older.

That's all I get.

Pretty, and then mostly what I'm seeing apparently is a single family household, if I remember correctly, when uh between the lines.

That'd be I think interesting to look at it too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Keppel.

Yeah, just a couple of plus ones um on strengthening and three, and then also um I like the idea of a separate um of a um separate policy as um Commissioner Ferris mentioned, um, specifically just on the NI-90 um, you know, access and enhancing that because that's one of the biggest um challenges.

And um, your maps are a good start towards that, but even having it more um formally and a policy would be a good thing.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Uh I support everything my fellow commissioners have been raising and I I don't have any further comments.

I was reminded of a question that I had in reading through, um, given uh Commissioner Conloo's comments on the um the uh percentages of uh people that were commenting on this and that were polled and surveyed and and uh uh spoken with in preparing these policies.

And one thing that caught my eye was the percentage of people that use public transit in Eastgate.

I was I was impressed.

Um and I was curious how that compares with other areas.

Good question.

I don't have an answer right off the bat, but I think but to your point, like I think there are a number of local bus services that I think are pretty well used by a variety, variety of community members, 271 connecting folks from Seattle all the way to Issaqua as an example, things from the Eastgate Park and Rights.

So I wouldn't be surprised why um transit ridership is is pretty high.

It's high.

And and what it emphasized to me is supporting uh greater connectivity in this area.

It just uh it underscored that for me even more.

Uh, that we're we're seeing a lot of ridership and usership and active transport and opportunities here, and and people are engaged and and actively trained to to use it.

So thanks.

That's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ferris.

No further comments.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Vives.

Just a minor one.

Uh and following up on Commissioner Kennedy's comment about the amount of people that use public transport.

The connection between the East Kate Park and Ride and the bus stop across part of I-90.

Is it a bridge, but is really like my mom came to visit, and she was very kind of paralyzed about crossing it.

She's still youthful.

She's not like an old lady.

Uh, but but the height and the movement of the garden, it just it is scary for some people.

And I think there should be somewhere uh somewhere these policies should be that this access is to cross I-90 or or across to uh Eastgate Park and right, it should be fully accessible and must feel safe.

They like there's no way she can fall, but it doesn't feel safe.

And that is gonna discourage transit usage.

That is gonna discard it for uh I guess a broad section of the population.

Besides that, no further comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Most of what I wanted to say has been covered.

I'm just gonna use this opportunity to ask for one thing, which is um I I suspect that the uh the transit usage has somewhat shifted with the light rail coming in.

Um a lot of people who are equidistant between Eastgate and South Belview are probably veering towards South Belview now because of light rail.

Uh it would be very helpful for us, I think, at a future commission meeting if possible to to see what the changing transit landscape looks like, so that as we are going through these types of policies that we can see, like you know, should we be shifting more focused towards one or the other?

Um that was a lot.

I hope uh do you want me to go through my sheet of uh every comment here or are we do you feel good about what you've got?

I think we're able to take some some good notes.

So I'm yeah, I'm happy to go through it if you want.

I took a bunch of notes though.

My handwriting is really bad.

So I'd prefer not to go back through that.

Uh yeah, so all right.

Thank you so much.

Uh really appreciate the uh the presentation, the uh the engagement here.

Chair, can I make a motion that we uh direct staff to set up a public hearing on the state plans?

Second.

All right, any discussion?

All the proof say aye.

I think I looks like we're approved.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Can we take a break, Chair?

Yeah, let's uh take a quick break.

We'll be back in five.

So eight oh, uh that thing's still off.

Let's go 805.

Text around the medical innovation district, that's the one 16th corridor.

We received direction from you all um to equalize those based FARs.

So we also want to start thinking about what are the ways that we're gonna really achieve some of the policy outcomes we want there, knowing we've provided sort of equal footing for medical office and for residential.

Um, so we'll get into some discussion there.

Um, we also have a lot of follow-up.

Um, first, I guess just to at the top, um, there was a a bit of a mix-up in the draft publication that we had provided, um, as noted in earlier comments, um, that was flagged really today.

Uh so we had uh republished our May draft um when we had put a lot of effort into making some adjustments to it based off of feedback from you all and from the stakeholders, so um, we had corrected that error this morning, um, very late.

Apologies for that.

Um, but we have been making progress.

Um, and we have been very much listening to you all and to our stakeholders, but we also acknowledge there's a lot more to get through.

So um you all had identified a number of areas you wanted some follow-up on.

Um, these were not light areas.

There's uh a reason why you did not direct us to come tonight for a public hearing.

Um, so we're really using this as an opportunity just to um check in with you all, let you know where we're at with some of the status of that May 27th um requests.

We've also got more work ahead of us, and we're looking forward to a September study session.

Um, so not looking for direction to schedule the public hearing, and then I know in your schedule it also noted a public hearing in September.

That is going to be a study session.

So that's when we're gonna really move through the meat, I think, of the local streets.

Um, so while we'll welcome any uh comments or ideas you have tonight on that topic, it's a big topic, and you all have shared a lot already.

So we're happy to kind of just put our collective brains together as staff and with our stakeholders to just get to some more progress on that front.

So now we've got our slides up, so let's turn it over to Christina, the project manager, and she'll walk us through the deck with Corbin.

Thank you, Nick.

So as noted this evening, our direction is simply for the commission to provide feedback on key components of the Luca.

We will be uh following up on a few items from last month's meeting.

Um, we'll bring in Corbin to share some more considerations and context around the 116th corridor and our priorities there.

Uh and then we will uh work through a bit of a check-in on some of the high-level uh higher priority items in our comment tracker.

Um, what are topics that are resolved?

Uh, what is still under review, and what are those topics where uh we are at this time not recommending further changes.

We are still hearing requests to change, but um are our answers that we want to hold firm on the staff recommendation.

So uh just to provide a bit of framing to start, uh we wanted to kick it off with a uh recap of what flexibility is uh in place in the current grid.

I mean, in the current street grid proposal, just to understand what other options could there be.

Uh so uh the as it stands, we have a grid that has been reduced from what it is currently in the code.

A number of known problematic segments have been removed or shifted to better align with property lines.

Uh and then in addition to that, we have expanded code language to provide uh additional flexibility to shift segments and intersections through the development review process.

That's not a departure or another separate kind of permit.

It's reviewed through development review.

Um, you know, while we we do hear a lot of requests for performance-based standards with that, uh, we do stress the importance of the development review process because this does provide an opportunity to review flexibility that's fully site and proposal specific.

Fundamentally, if we're gonna define a metric or two based on performance, those will be more conservative to be able to be broadly applicable.

So, you know, you can you can maximize for flexibility, you can maximize for predictability.

It's really, really challenging to do both.

We would love specific suggestions on how to do that.

We continue to welcome them.

Um, but you know, that's what we offer up here to say it's a good thing to be able to look at this through the development review process.

That's what really provides the opportunity to look at a transportation analysis, look at the design.

That's there.

So there's the flexibility to kind of move around that site plan where those segments and intersections are located.

That's one piece.

Um for uh areas where there's no defined public grid, but you have a large site.

Uh, we have a number of private street options available to break up blocks because we do still have that provision to break up blocks.

Uh that includes um active transportation, so non-automotive options that are narrower.

Um, and the the projects have flexibility to select those options.

Uh, the most recent option we've introduced are at the set of criteria to propose replacing one of those public local streets with a private street again through development review.

Um so that's what's on the books now.

Uh we are currently uh thinking through some options for how to offer some form of amenity credit or other specific bonus for those projects that are providing uh a public street.

So that's kind of the first layer.

Um which, you know, as I was getting at, it's it's it's really challenging to point to, okay.

So what are other areas that we can bring in specific flexibility?

Um, one option that's not currently in the draft, but that we do employ in other situations around the city, and we did previously in the spring district, would be to provide an additional development agreement pathway.

So development agreements in general are tools that give the ability for the city to negotiate public benefits directly with developers in exchange for modifications to development standards and other provisions.

This is ultimate maximum for flexibility, but they're really complex, time-intensive, resource intensive for everyone involved.

So it's not a tool that's probably going to make the most sense for every project, but it is an additional option that could be on the table.

If this were to be included, we'd recommend limiting it to larger sites that do have public street requirements.

And then an important piece there is for us to establish our kind of non-negotiables and desired public benefits that we'd want to prioritize with that option.

So just for a little food for thought, I know it's come up a lot in the past as to like, so how did the spring district happen?

How was it possible data this and this?

Well, we can talk through, we did have a development agreement pathway there.

So those original criteria that we'd established for eligibility in the land use code were that projects would need to be located in Bell Red, larger than four acres in size, achieve an FAR greater than two.

So this is, you know, again, think back to 2009.

That was we really wanted to make something bigger happen.

And the complete master development plan had to be submitted shortly after the East Link decision.

There was also a minimum bar in terms of a developer developer-funded public infrastructure per acre of land.

So, you know, you can see in this eligibility what that's reflecting.

You know, this was about the city said, okay, we want to incentivize a large master plan project as soon as possible after that East Link decision, and really get some solid investments in public infrastructure.

So, you know, you're not trying to maximize everything.

That's, you know, that's the priorities kind of setting things up there.

Um, and so, you know, in 2009, of course, the city knew it's gonna be a while before light rail.

We don't want properties to just sit.

Um, there's a real value in getting development moving.

Uh, and so uh the specific modifications that were set out on the table as negotiable for the DA in this case.

The city offered up a reduced amenity fee in lieu, um, an extended vesting period, uh, relief from proportional compliance requirements, and flexibility on standards for dedicated parks so that they could be a little smaller and still get bonus points.

So these were the options that Bellevue set up to say these are things that can be negotiated in exchange, which again you can see with the extended vesting, with proportional compliance relief, that's really reflecting this.

Okay, we're trying to get projects spurred, but we know that they might take a longer time than the typical NDP.

So again, you're kind of seeing the context and the priorities reflected in the DA options.

But you know, really solid focus that got us a great result.

So one option there.

Uh, next item of follow-up.

Another kind of potential option for flexibility on streets and helping to kind of reduce the impact was whether any of the required components could be smaller if we could get some flexibility there.

So for each of our street typologies, we have a mixture of components.

So a vehicle or active transportation areas, uh, parking lanes, curbs, amenity zones, and sidewalks, kind of different configurations for each type.

Uh some of those have a little bit of flex, uh, and some not so much.

So we are working through some additional flexibility for on-street parking requirements.

Right now, on-street parking is just required with the local streets and green streets.

Um we do have some language in the code that provides flexibility on the location and quantity, but it's a little vague, so we're working on firming that up, thinking about some additional kind of incentive opportunities to reduce that.

That could provide some gains for your developable area for sure.

Which kind of leaves the greatest potential and reduction of widths for those amenity zones and sidewalk widths.

Neither of which we would recommend.

So the amenity zones are really important.

These are areas where we have a street tree planting requirements, it also provides opportunities for landscaping, green infrastructure, other amenities.

Right now, in most of the types, we have a minimum width of five feet.

If that kind of reduces below five feet, there start to be trade-offs for tree planting.

Our parks, best management practices, will have some more challenging requirements for ensuring soil volume through more complex kind of through more complicated, more expensive means in order to accommodate adequate soil volume in a narrower area.

So there's trade-offs there.

Right now, the sidewalks we have at a minimum width of eight feet.

But we would stress that really comes at the detriment to the pedestrian experience.

So with both the amenities zones and the sidewalk, we'd say, you know, I think there's there's areas that it can be shaved off, but the trade-off is the trade-off going to be really worth the benefit to the project.

And we would say likely not.

A couple of other considerations with that six-foot sidewalk.

Common practice is usually, you know, that's a that's a minimum you'll see in lower density residential districts.

In areas with higher foot traffic, like TOD district with mixed uses, the recommendation is usually at least eight.

Our transportation design manual as well.

That's also assuming that there's some kind of a buffer between the street.

Our transportation design manual sets six feet as the absolute minimum for sidewalks.

And if there's nothing between the sidewalk and the road or the parking, we require an additional two feet to allow for you know your door swings for people passing each other, just to keep it safe.

So really recommend eight feet minimum, especially if there's no buffer there.

But to kind of look at it in a little more visual way, you know, one thing that strikes me, you know, looking at these measurements over and over is that there's sort of like a sticker shock when you hear 60 feet wide.

But when you start to break it down, and especially when you experience it in person, I do feel like we tend to kind of uh underestimate how wide that is.

You know, it sounds a lot wider than it than it does in actual practice.

So here we have a shot from Northeast District Way in the spring district in front of GIX.

So what you're looking at, we don't have the whole street in view, but this is about a 60 foot wide street for comparison.

So it's actually in design, other than the fact that it has curbs, our green street typology is curbless in width and components, it's pretty similar to the green street typology.

So we've got a 20-foot vehicle lane in the middle, so that allows for two-way traffic.

Uh then this 12-foot amenity zone that has some nice wide planting areas with that parking kind of embedded in the middle with an eight-foot sidewalk.

So another view of that same street down a block and in better weather, you know, you can really see what that more abundant landscaping contributes to the street, really providing some solid greenery and planting.

Um, you know, if you were to take out that landscaping, it would feel much different.

Um, another consideration here too is that our street grid requirements all apply in places that are zoned for high-rise development, allowing up to 250 feet.

So, you know, looking straight down the street at this angle, um, that's 60 foot width.

Um, you know, even on the right side of the street here, it's a lower intensity.

The left side, that's still what a mid-rise.

So if you can imagine mid-rise or higher on both sides, that 60 feet starts to feel quite comfortable.

Um, and if you start to reduce that further, it's gonna start to feel um pretty claustrophobic.

So another consideration there, too.

Uh so just one more uh going further down the block now towards Bellevue Brewing, just another one here, so you can get a closer view of that parking.

Um let's see what else I have here on the notes.

So that's actually a 10-foot sidewalk on the right side, so a little bigger.

Um, and again, we've got that maximum 12-foot-wide planter.

Uh, so again, uh just yeah, can we shave off some space?

But where do you want to do it?

So food for thought.

Uh, with that, I will pivot to Corbin Hart, a business development manager with economic development, um, to help uh share some more about the 116th corridor.

Do you want to drive your own slide?

Yeah, okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

Uh, happy to talk a little bit more about the one 16th corridor in the life sciences industry uh in Bellevue overall.

So last time I was actually at Planning Commission, we were midway through our economic development plan update uh presenting our data analysis on that project.

Uh we now have an have an adopted economic development plan, so we're pretty happy about that.

And one of the core focuses of that was uh diversification of our economy here in Bellevue.

Um throughout that process.

Uh, and also historically, the life sciences sector has been identified as a really strong potential for Bellevue.

Uh sector we don't have a huge uh weight in right now, but have a good potential future for.

So we have that uh that policy identifying the 116th corridor as having that those foundational elements for a nationally competitive uh cluster.

And that really um feeds into the overall comprehensive plan employment targets.

So as the commission knows, we have a 70,000 additional uh job target by 2044.

Uh, not only is that an aggressive target in the total amount of jobs, but it's also um considering what jobs those are.

So you see on that graph on the right-hand side, uh the professional services and tech sector makes up a uh not insignificant portion of our current employment.

And when you consider the additional jobs that we're adding, a lot of the general office space that we might be adding in the city is really going to be suitable for those type of jobs.

Uh when you look at the gold section, the life sciences and healthcare sectors sort of combined there, there's a really unique typologies that we don't see a lot of growth and development in right now.

Uh, we hope to in the future and have some proposals currently actually that we're hoping go through, but we're hoping to even that ratio a little bit by 2044.

So that's sort of some of the the background rationale for a lot of us.

So to that end, we're uh one thing we're doing here in um economic development in the city as a whole is really trying to promote a sort of a medical innovation district um here along the 116th corridor, including Wilburton and then also the Bell Red portion of this.

Uh that map on the right hand side is not meant to be uh definitive by any means.

Uh what this is really meant to show is national hubs uh for this industry, San Diego, Research Triangle, Boston, really have three to four concentrations within them across the metro area.

Seattle area currently has two, being South Lake Union and Bothell.

Um so there really is space for a third within our region once 16th corridor has really good proximity to talent.

Uh we have actually a lot of workers who are who live in the Kirkland Redmond Bellevue area.

Uh they work in Salt Lake Union or Bothell, however.

Uh, we'd love them to work here.

Uh, and really great transit connections as commission knows, and complementary organizations.

So a lot of those anchors that are sort of foundational to this type of work being overlake, Kaiser, children's, uh, Swedish as well.

And as I referenced before, there is uh currently some private market interest and in projects progressing in the area.

Uh, we're not 100% sure if they're want to move forward and execute, though.

It's it's not definitely not a done deal at this point.

So we really wanted to highlight some of the those risks and why we want to really focus on highlighting the unique strengths of the 116th corridor.

I highlighted all those great foundational strengths we have in the area.

That's not to say that there isn't heavy national competition.

So the Seattle region as a whole is about the 10th largest cluster in the nation.

Definitely not like we are in the tech sector, though, you know, second or third, you know, worldwide sort of location.

And Bellevue specifically really isn't well known in the industry.

We have some programmatic stuff we're working on in the economic development and cultural and economic development to help change that.

But we really want to work with DS Commission and the city as a whole to make sure we have some intentional planning to promote this industry in this area.

You know, tying back to the overall policies.

We really want to make sure that we have those diverse industry clusters to meet our overall employment goals and to make sure those goals have a diverse makeup.

With that, I'll hand it back.

So now we'll uh pivot to an overview of the comment tracker.

There's a lot there, so we're just gonna touch on some of the higher level topics to highlight.

Uh so first, starting with items that have uh been resolved since the first version of the tracker.

Uh we've provided those criteria to substitute public local streets uh with private streets.

Uh we have uh updated the residential base FAR in the 116th corridor to be consistent on either side of the street.

Uh we have expanded the types of projects eligible for the stream restoration amenity, though we've got ongoing work there.

Uh a few more.

These are items where we are committed to to the change.

We've got language in development that we haven't shared quite yet.

Uh so as touched on before, getting some additional flexibility for on-street parking on required public streets.

Uh we want to, we're working on a performance-based standard for stream restoration eligibility, making it based on the improvement to function of the stream so that we don't have to get into whether or not the improvements go beyond the critical areas ordinance requirement.

Um we are working on uh a change to allow projects, multi-phase projects, daylighting in a later phase to be able to draw on bonus points in an earlier phase.

Um, we've got uh, of course, other components underway with the amenity system, but um we are not proposing any limit on the use of fees in loo to earn bonus points.

Um and finally, we're also gonna be offering up some clarifications, which we see as a quality of life improvements to provisions around man-made steep slopes in the critical areas ordinance.

Um, so lots of I think really um lots of stuff in the mix here that is really getting at a lot of pain points that's that have been shared with us.

Um other items that are under review as to how we might want to address them or if we want to address them, um, thinking about providing some form of amenity credit for uh required public streets.

Um we've also gotten a request for looking at bringing forward the commercial catalyst program that we provided with Wilberton, a variation of that to target um life sciences and medical uses as one option in the 116th corridor.

Uh, and uh also that development agreement pathway option for projects subject to local street requirements.

Uh finally, this is a batch that we do keep hearing about.

Um, and at this stage, the staff recommendation is that uh we would not recommend further further changes here.

Uh, first, for us again, we're not asking for the decision this evening, but um, we do recommend against eliminating the required street grid entirely.

Uh we also strongly recommend uh keeping the amenity zone requirement with the enhanced shared use path.

Um, that's uh 14-foot again, you know, that enhanced shared use path can be used to break up a block.

Uh so again, high-rise district with a block broken up by 14 feet is really not gonna provide that meaningful block delineation and a comfortable environment.

Um we uh are also, while of course we're kind of reorganizing Wilburton, we're um not opening up more substantive and also Wilberton-specific provisions just for scope creep reasons with uh the Bell Red Code.

Uh so kind of again checking in where we are on schedule.

So as Nick noted at the beginning, you know, this is our third study session.

Uh, our September study session, we're going to be coming back with a big wrap-up on a lot of these items.

Um, following that, moving forward with a public hearing or more review to follow.

Um, looking at council review and action, uh, likely early next year.

So with that, thank you.

And uh we'll stop for questions.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Um, I'll call on each commissioner sequentially, like we did before.

And uh again, just keeping in mind that we there are several components of this that are being worked on actively.

And so uh if you could keep the comments and questions to kind of what was presented today, I'd really appreciate that.

All right, Commissioner Ferris, would you like to kick us off?

Great.

Um terrific work.

I really, as you listed all the things that you're working on and some of the things that um you've decided upon, I support all of them.

I would just want to highlight a couple of them.

Um I would love to see a stronger amenity program for those property owners that have to develop streets.

I think I've mentioned it before.

It doesn't strike me as being totally fair that you can have two sites and one of them has to do a street and one of them doesn't have to, and there's no differentiation in terms of what what they get.

So I'd love to see an incentive program there.

Um I also support the development agreement for large sites.

Um, and lastly, I I think about the amenities in terms of the sidewalk widths and all of that.

I strongly agree with you in keeping that is it we only have one shot at this.

If we diminish the sizes of those sidewalks and amenity zones, we'll never get them back.

And I think about a six-foot wide sidewalk.

I'm pushing a baby stroller and walking my dog, I have taken up the entire sidewalk.

So anyway, I strongly support staying with the standards that you've established.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you, Chairloo, and and thank you for the presentation.

Um a few questions.

I think on a I can't remember what slide it was that you were presenting the changes for alignment with the CAO in stream restoration uh requirements and for thank you, man-made steep slopes.

The the second bullet here, could can you uh possibly just uh elaborate on what this is referring to in the text and if this is in the new revised red line?

Yes, it's not in the red line, but it will it is coming in the next draft.

So the reference to the text, this is so in the amenity incentive system, we offer an incentive for stream daylighting and restoration, and it's based on um you get bonus points based on the amount of money spent on those activities.

So under the current code, like what's adopted today, we have a very confusing structure where you it's kind of like in some cases you only get credit if you're providing um uh improvements beyond what's otherwise required required for by the CAO.

Um, and of course, that it can be really hard to define.

Um, and so we've we've made some progress initially in trying to clarify that, but we still had okay, if you're just doing like a basic kind of buffer restoration, it has to be an excess.

But then we had in talking it through internally, um, one of my colleagues had the idea to say, like, well, we can we have analysis to define, you know, how much improvement to function in stream health is happening so can we just say your eligibility is based on achieving a certain threshold of improvement and then that project is significant enough to get to get credit outright.

So that's what we're working on now.

We think uh this is a I think could be seen as a performance based standard that would be a lot clearer um so yeah but I just try to to restate that and I'm sure we'll have more clarity when we see the language but effectively what you're saying is this performance-based standard would uh work with the CAO in a way that if a property owner were to do a stream restoration project that exceeded the requirements of the um performance based or um innovative mechanism that is newly instituted into the CAO in in being able to track the performance of of those projects on the stream and it performed even better than that you would see an incentive here.

Oh it's it's a bit simpler actually so basically what this would do is in saying which projects are eligible for because right now the problem is like it's unclear if your project can even get amenity credit.

So we're saying you can set aside entirely what you're required to do by the CAO.

Instead we're saying these are the types of improvements you know whether you're daylighting a stream rehabilitating a stream we want to see what is the level of improvement to function of that stream happening through that project and then um if it's above a certain reasonable threshold then we can say all right you are you can get that bonus which that will be backing out from of course daylighting is always going to be eligible it's really just to say if if this is a really kind of minor project that really is doing something you're going to be required to do anyway perhaps that's that's not something that should get bonus credit but we don't need to get into splitting hairs on really substantial environmental uh projects does does that help I know it'll help a lot when you see the language I think I'll read the language and and come back at that time with additional questions I I appreciate the the explanation just to just to um ask the question though this is not a uh way to get around the CAO requirements you would have the CAO requirements and this we would have this it's not an alternative correct okay but we don't have to do like a complicated calculation of like these improvements the cost of these you didn't have to do and you know it it just gets really complicated having to work with that threshold.

That makes sense and I look forward to seeing it and I appreciate the the the effort to to come up with something innovative like a performance-based standard so I look forward to looking at the language um uh I wanted to ask um for my second question just can you walk through I read through the language in the most recently revised red line and um your slides and explanation at the beginning help but I'm I'm still I'm not clear on what it looks like to do a development review what is that and and where would I get clarity on that it's not in this section of code to better understand okay if I want to do a private street the these are these are the things I would need to prove um and so I have certainty is is that there or are you saying it's intentionally not there it's not in another section of code a development review is a review by the director as is stated in the red line.

So yeah, and when when I say development review, I'm just speaking to, you know, our standard permitting and review processes.

So the what we're just saying there is under kind of this would provide for within the standard review of your project.

This could can accommodate um you know, looking at a transportation analysis to understand the impacts of an alternate proposal or moving around your street a bit.

Just because that's that's a process that allows for um like really looking at the specifics of the site and the proposal.

And if it would help like you know we could come back with maybe a walkthrough of how how this works for typical projects.

I don't know if you have like a 90 second but it could be anyway.

But yeah we can explain like what kinds because it's also you know there's different things that they're going to be looking at with different types of projects and yeah we can we can provide um a better ex a better kind of example there.

That would be incredibly helpful I think I would very much appreciate that at this September study session.

One of the things to incorporate in that would be not only how um how I would get my design through but one of the things I I noticed was still not in the draft is language that brings clarity to how I have to operate that street in perpetuity to meet the to meet this city's standards.

It says I need to design it for instance to enable emergency access but I I didn't see clarity on what does it mean to actually provide that access in the way that is expected of a of a property owner.

That's just one example but um I think that would be a helpful aspect to include in the walkthrough and where where that is in the code.

Thank you.

All right Commissioner Keppel.

Thank you.

I think this is again heading in the right direction um had a couple of um comments um one had to do with the amenity incentive system and I realize that you know a lot of people would like to add a whole bunch of things into that one that stands out for me though is um is grocery stores in particular in areas just because I think it's important that areas don't become food deserts.

So I think that's a win-win if we can consider that um as being different from everything else people want to pile into the amenity system but that's one that this near and dear to my heart um the other um the other thing that I was just gonna talk about a little bit was the street grid piece and I think um what you come up with is a thoughtful approach and I think you know your point in particular about the trade-off between flexibility and predictability is spot on because if you're gonna try and create something that's predictable for people it's gonna be prescriptive and it's not gonna be as flexible it's not going to be as it's not going to have the capability to adapt to site specific um conditions.

And I don't think that's possible to have both here.

And so I I think you're on the right path when it comes to um to that approach in general um I I think um you know as as it relates to this you know private street um idea um I I'm still a little nervous about the private street piece frankly because I have concerns about um uh the private streets being maintained with um that public benefit um you know um intact long term and I'm just wondering if um if you've explored any other ways to um help to ensure that that public benefit you know remains um intact um with uh um with private landowners that opt for that alternative.

I mean, there are a number of different possibilities to include, you know, ability of the city to do abatement, or if there was some other relief that the city could get either adjunctive relief, or you could even look at um, you know, uh, you could look at uh um performance or maintenance bonds that also need to be um posted long term.

I mean, I I think this is a good strategy to um provide for flexibility in the short term.

I'm a little worried about what this is gonna look like, you know, 20 30 years later, you know, when the current developers are not the owners of these properties, somebody else is, and just making sure that that public benefit is maintained without the city having the burden to go in and, you know, go into costly litigation to make sure that things actually are maintained.

So um it would be good to look at what other cities do if you go this private option route.

It would make me feel more comfortable about, you know, about doing that.

So those those are my couple areas of feedback.

Chair, if I could, I'd like to make a motion that we extend our meeting until 9:30.

Yep, uh, is there a second?

So I could any discussion?

All in favor, say aye.

I alright, Commissioner Newshead.

Thank you.

Um, I'll keep my comments brief.

Uh to start to touch on the sidewalks and amenity zones.

Um I like the um plus one, Commissioner Ferris' comments.

I don't think that we should be lowering the sidewalk with standards and uh also not the amenities on standards.

I I think eight feet is it should not be any any lower than eight feet.

Um it would start to get pretty claustrophobic, especially given the the high-rise construction that we hope to see in that area.

Um I had a question on the stream daylighting, um, kind of multi-phase construction provisions here.

I I guess my question is I'm curious about the methodology for ensuring that you know, later state J lighting actually happens.

I you know, I think it's a good thing that we're giving these kind of bonuses beforehand.

I think that will go a long way, but I'm curious if you can speak a little bit as to.

So that's exactly why we don't have the language in the draft yet.

We're working on it.

But that's that's the main concern, right?

Like we are very much, this is this is not something we have picked up when it's requested for other cases in the past, but we also feel this is a different scenario.

And you're right, it's that's the number one thing we're trying to figure out is how do we have some kind of reasonable um assurance in place that that daylighting is still gonna happen.

So yeah, we're working on it.

Great.

Well, I'll leave that to you guys.

Um I liked a plus one, Commissioner Kennedy's comments.

I think it'd be very helpful to see some kind of walkthrough on what exactly a developer will have to do to get these um get approval for some kind of alternative street.

Um that that would be very helpful in in at least my decision making.

Um then my other question is on the life sciences kind of medical district portion of this.

Um from my understanding, in Wilburton, we had shifted to a mixed use district.

You know, I wasn't on the commission back when we did that.

Just hoping you can speak a little bit as to what the decision making process was there and how this area is a little bit different.

I know we have more facilities in this area.

Um, but is that the main difference and uh any guidance you have on that would be great.

Sure.

And actually, I don't know if this could be a one-to-like Nick, do you want to, or either of you, I think uh Corbin was which in process.

It was uh brought in as reinforcements um during the policy discussion.

So he can kind of relay that and then we can talk about the Luca if that's helpful too.

Yeah, so um, I think in the Wilburton process previously, um the discussion was really around the portion of uh medical office zoning directly across from Overlake, it's smaller area than we're speaking about here in Bellred.

Um, and I think a lot of the discussion there was we had we had some overall provisions that were sort of district-wide around stuff like mechanical heights that are really unique to life science developments that we did sort of at the base level um to allow that across the the area, and uh the the discussion at that time was really around north of 12th um there is a lot of this specific medical office zoning at the time when we were going through the Wilburton process um so there was a desire to have more flexibility in Wilburton directly closer to the white rail station um and so we have a lot of those provisions sort of district wide in Wilburton right now um including like the commercial catalyst program that's been discussed um and then but it's really there aren't any other specific restrictions do you have to add to that uh just the one of the uh conversations that I recall the commission having too was questions on what's the capacity we are we have um currently for this industry and can that be accommodated within the Bell Red corridor so that we can offer this flexibility here in Wilburton and so um there was at least on the staff side some concession that you know we think um there's there's adequate area within what we are planning for in Bell Red um so that we can cede some of this area to uh residential or just mixed use in general and so it was um kind of with that understanding too that bell red was going to be maybe the area that we're gonna provide more focus on uh targeting this specific industry and that's also where the comp plan amendment happened to um increase the capacity on one sixteenth corridor we have a medical high rise district now um which is new a new designation um and then also trying to figure out how we implement some of the policies that are specific to the one sixteenth corridor okay great so if I'm understanding that right there maybe were some concessions made there with the understanding that there's capacity to make up for it here in this in this proposal then great thank you.

Commissioner thank you so much I appreciate it.

I think I wanna I want to talk about I believe we have two different landlord developers in Bell red some people want certainty to sell their lot and some people need flexibility to come up with a creative plan to build and I think that's the two things that when we are working on our the Luca we need to think about it.

And I'm fine with both motivation but I think that was something that it got clear in Bill Burton for me.

Then I just want to be careful about we give enough um certainity in the Luka land use code and not be so many what if scenarios that people cannot sell their lots and go somewhere else and next developer comes and buy it and we give flexibility that people can build one of the things it's exactly the same thing that Commissioner was mentioning.

I just want we talk about high security performance bond or whatever is happening in phases for those light streaming if because uh the developer can be bankrupt they can um transfer the ownership and all of those I just want we don't get stuck with the half a lot empty no light streaming happen and then one high rise which is a big ugly box uh because we give all incentive uh over there then I don't know if it's gonna go be some Matt and I don't see Matthew uh some of the legal offices to just think about how we gonna go get the bonds how we're gonna go get something the covenant is in the way that we keep the developer accountable for phase two and the light of streaming.

The second one that I have it um it's about a catalyst program.

I think we can use that one similar specifically in corridor of 130 and Honda 32 because I really really want to see high rises there.

There's a capacity there.

They don't build high rise in that area and we all know that and I think because it's not incentive, but really between 130 and 132, it's the best area.

Like you can have a high rises and the station is there, really walkable, and I want to be incentive, they build it.

If it's gonna go beyond site, affordable housing, amazing.

If not, the fee and do is gonna go cover for sure for that.

And um another one was about um I sorry, I didn't look at the new document.

I did my study on the weekend.

The other one, it's okay.

The other one is about the vesting timeline that we have it somewhere.

I think it was is um in the old document, uh LUC 20.30 v 190, something like that.

And that one, when what when the master planning come massive development plan, what is that?

When that come, I think they're gonna go be in conflict of each other, right?

Because that's different approach.

I think we need to change those language the way that these two don't um compete each other.

Uh so the 2030 v section relates to master development plans, and that allows um, I think it is in that 190 section, um, for extended vesting up to 10 years.

Um, and that would control kind of what the site development um is vested to.

The master development plan itself doesn't vest uh individual um uh redevelopment sites within that plan.

So if someone's doing like three towers, they have to have a design review for the first tower alongside their master development plan to um provide vesting for that tower, but it doesn't provide them vesting for tower two or tower three.

We want those design reviews in to get them vested.

Got it.

Yeah, is that what you're referring to?

Yeah, that was my question.

And I I didn't read the new version.

Maybe it's there, this is my Sunday study.

Um, and then the sidewalk, I'm is it downtown Bellevue, Bell V away 10 or 12?

10.

Yeah, it's it's it is probably 10 or 12.

I think it's 10 or 12, and still sometimes I'm like, oh my gosh, how can I walk through this?

And uh I'm not saying let's go with that the standard, but I'm saying like really eight is like still not the best one, as Commissioner Ferris was mentioning.

If somebody is with the stroller, and then the last question I have it is about um the parking, the 10-foot parking thing.

Uh someone had a comment about it too.

I think it was um floor to the ceiling, right?

Even my AI was shocked, and it's saying is the city of Bellevue doing that because they want to turn it to the apartments eventually.

Then I said, like maybe I need to bring that my AI question to you too.

Yeah, so yeah, thanks for bringing that up because that's when I was like, Oh, I should have listed that on our side.

Okay, so um that's a that's a specific design component that was brought forward and negotiated with the Wilburton Luca.

So this is an existing provision that we want to maintain and apply to Bell Red, and um you're correct.

Like the reason why we're setting that higher um that higher standard for both having level floors and higher levels is that it can be converted to residential in the future.

So it's it's intended to be, you know, a really forward thinking, um, kind of more building sustainability life cycle kind of recommendations.

Yeah, I remember we talk about doing a Vilbert 10, but it felt like million years ago, yeah.

And actually with Wilverton, I think originally we'd set it higher, right?

And we brought that down a bit.

So I think so.

Yeah, those are the points that I think everybody was um touched by saying thank you.

Uh Vice Chair View Vices.

So the 10 foot uh height, really quick.

Um, I think the comment was that is right now a requirement to be floor to ceiling, and it should be floor to floor.

And either way is fine as long as your building heights are measured uh floor to floor.

So if you have 10 foot clear floor to ceiling, that means like 11 foot floor to floor, and then your building high should be able to accommodate that many floors.

Otherwise, you're gonna have very tall parking and you're gonna end up losing floors.

Does that make sense?

In a in effect, like we're we're intending to set it up so that these are floors that could be reused as residential stories.

So if you're doing structured parking or you're doing residential, it's still gonna be the same kind of maximum potential.

Another really important consideration with the structured parking piece is that um you know, remind you, of course, next time we're gonna have the public hearing on parking reform, and we're gonna be removing the um off-street parking requirement for residential and mixed-use projects in you know half a mile of light rail.

So another factor here too is that while there's still gonna be projects choosing to build more of that structured parking, the absolute amount required is also coming down.

So no, my point is if you do 11 feet floor to floor, there's gonna floor to ceiling, that's gonna end up being like 11 or 12 floor to floor.

And then if you're in a zone that allows you to do 45 feet tall building, that's usually four stories.

But when you do 12, you're gonna exceed that height, you're gonna lose a floor.

That's I mean, these are all either I think 160 or 250 foot height limit areas.

Same, same, same prone.

I think the heights that are used in the code, they're assuming typical floor heights of 10 foot floor to floor.

Once you add 10 foot floor to ceiling, then your whole thing kind of slides up and you end up losing floor.

Yeah, but but that's a deliberate choice because we're saying we're reserving space to potentially be used in the future for um non-parking uses, so I don't want to dwell on this.

I tell I just want to highlight it and you can elaborate after that.

There's uh thanks for all the responses to the comments.

I think I agree with a lot of things that have been uh revised.

I agree with eight foot sidewalks, I would even increase to 10 foot sidewalks in some cases.

If you're if we're going back to the visions, the vision here is to create a pedestrian-friendly uh neighborhood, and we need to have good sidewalks, right?

Uh one thing I would like to also uh commend the expansiveness of your view on medical innovation centers, thinking about how this could be competitive across the nation and how Seattle, Bellevue, and and Baudel can work together to create this like cluster of medical innovation.

And I would like to express my support for the catalyst program and the medical science uh part.

The the one item that I want to really uh touch base on is the street grid.

And we've gone through this in several sessions, uh, also several side visits uh with stakeholders.

And to be candid, I I still don't see a convincing or compelling reason that tells me there should be a street grid that is orthogonal, superimposed on this side that is anything but orthogonal that has an existing grid that provides sufficient capacity for transit that has streams crossing through it, and that is clearly causing problems for developers.

I think that when you're talking about predictability and flexibility, I think it's a great approach.

I think the predictive the predictability is baked in.

We're not doing a new house on the prairie, a new city on the prairie somewhere where we're laying down the grid.

We're bound by all these constraints that we already have.

We have Bellred is a very defined district.

There's just existing street grid, there's uh light rail uh location, there's creeks, there's property lines.

Yes, there's gonna be some properties that are gonna have an issue because there's some landlocked properties.

Those can be the exception to the rule, but you have all that is giving you predictability.

The co the zoning code is an instrument for predictability.

When you're packing on top of that uh street grid, like just doing this line across a property is just causing a lot of issues that it's impossible to foresee at this scale of the work.

The only people that are gonna be able to determine where the street will work within a property that's big enough to have streets that divide it, is the team of designers that are gonna be looking at the property very closely, looking at the topography, looking at the transit, looking at the capacity, seeing how they can move these things around to make sure the fits and and maximizes the use.

And imposing this street grid on on this, I still I still don't see that that argument to be convincing.

And I would like to ask you like what would be the answers that you give to the gentlemen that are sitting behind you that are representing Albertsons, that's an example for like what's what's a the convincing argument to say you need to have the street going through it.

Yeah.

Like what's what is driving that and and how do you respond to the fact that there're saying like this is just killing my property?

Like this is just creating chaos in my property.

Well, I'll start with it's a big question that I think we're gonna have more context for next time.

So I'll kick it off and I'll probably pass to Nick.

I do want to start with Albertson's because I I think what's really hard for us is so the first commenter, I remember saying, you know, we have a great proposal, we're gonna break up our blocks, we're gonna have great pedestrian connectivity, we're gonna have great transportation analysis to direct to, you know, understand the impacts.

And great, like that can be reviewed through the proposal we have.

You know, our take is we're saying we need a connection through here.

We can be flexible about where it's located within your site.

We've got options to move it around, kind of looking at all that good site-specific thought.

We just need to kind of see that rationale.

Um, so that's that's just kind of one quick anecdote.

Um, Nick, I don't know if you want to kind of speak to the broader kind of fundamentals of the street grid.

I mean, I I think we said a lot.

I mean, I mean, just to note I mean, we are responding to policy.

I I appreciate the commission has been very thoughtful and how you've wanted policy to be formed.

You've also been very intentional on how strong some of the language should be so that we have clearer direction to move from.

Um, and this is kind of that example of how we move from policy.

There was a lot of intentionality on introducing flexibility to the local street grid, where it makes sense and where um there are constraints to the site.

And that was a lot of the intention behind the the nearly two years of kind of taking a hard look at this was figuring out where where should we be dialing this back?

How can we be responsive to the policy that you all were very thoughtful around?

And so it does feel like the question of whether this should be eliminated all together or not, has been asked and answered in some ways when the policy was formed and adopted by the council in October of 2024.

And so we are really trying to respond to that, um, realizing that this is really uh integral to the vision for Bell Red.

And it's it is about, you know, access and being able to provide some other um uh kind of equity concerns that we have with some of these properties being landlocked, but it's also you know, we're we're having conversations internally with our fire department, with our utilities department, they have concerns uh over kind of going private and how are these sites going to be serviced.

Um so there's a lot more that's tied in with this, and we're happy to kind of bring that full picture for you all together in that September study session.

Um, but you know, we do want to make sure it's it's clear there's a reason why we want to hold the line here and maintain some semblance of a grid and then figure out where does it make sense to introduce the flexibility, and where does it make sense to exercise that flexibility and that we're viewing as most appropriate at a development review application so we can see what are the real trade-offs with that project and what are the considerations?

And it has moved a lot because uh previously our transportation department couldn't review a proposal and just make a decision to go private.

Um they'd have to meet some higher threshold that this you know is impossible to engineer, um, and it would be a really strict deviation process.

So just it's come a long way just in terms of how we can even entertain those types of requests and what the replacement should be.

So, do you want to acknowledge there's been a lot of effort to try and you know respond to the policy and build in that flexibility?

And you know, uh we hadn't seen those proposals um that were shared with you all today.

Um, got a chance to look at it kind of after they were shared.

Um, and I think we have some responses there too, um, which we're happy to kind of address at that September meeting.

Is there a policy that says that we need to have a street grid?

Yeah.

Uh so we can also recall some of the policy language for you all if it's not included in the memo um tonight.

Um, but we've had some other um focus on what are we where are we moving from when we're bringing this LUCA forward, the land use code amendment forward for you all.

Um there's specific policy language um that is asking for us to uh look for those opportunities to provide flexibility with the local street.

Um there was no um uh effort to delete references to the local street to shift that policy decision.

The um look forward was really a refinement in acknowledgement that there's been some challenges, and we haven't been shy about that either.

Um, and so the policies was was enabling some ability for us to address those challenges.

Thank you.

So in this image that we got today, uh I see a title here, and I I don't know if this is formal or whatever, but it says the street network preferred alignments.

And last session, we talked about hey, if we want to keep a street grid, that could be an option, and that's fine.

That could be the preferred option.

And then we should have a performance-based option that sets out some criteria as to what needs to be connected to what, right?

Uh Leila Kanami's letter today says something very clear.

Existing tools like block size limits and flexible penetration and bi connections go far enough to achieve the city's connectivity goals.

So if the criteria that those tools need to meet should be enough to proceed with a performance that they design if you do choose not to proceed with a preferred uh street grid.

Um, is this the direction that we're heading?

Like two options, you choose which one, both are valid, and that's good, or are we the impression that I'm under and correct if I'm wrong is like this is the option, you have a street grid, not necessarily this map, but you have a street grid, and if you want a DVA, we're gonna need to do some additional reviews.

And that's that's what's causing me concerned because there's no certainty in the fact that those additional reviews will be successful, and that's gonna just gonna cost people to spin their wills, spend a lot of money and time to get the developments over the ground, and might even discourage people to do that.

So is this a two-option thing that we're talking about, or a one-option with some alternatives in the case there's hardship about the property?

Does that does that make sense?

The question makes sense.

Well, I mean, the criteria that we introduced in the draft is that option to explore how you might get some relief from the strict local street standard.

Um so that's the process that we are trying to use here to address the flexibility people are desiring.

And and I'd also call back to you know what what um Commissioner Gappel was noting about, you know, when we talk about that tension with predictability and certainty, that's really what we're talking about.

Is it's like we totally understand that people want to have some certainty to say, okay, if I can hit this metric, I know that my alternative grid will be approved.

The problem there, which we'd welcome suggestions on what those could be, but like we mentioned, if we're gonna define that marker for this is what it needs to be for something as complex as a grid.

Because the big thing with Bell Red is that it's a scale challenge.

Like I think I'm gonna bring some maps to show a comparison of downtown and bell red.

Because when you look at just the public grid that we have now, the amount of area in Bell Red that has no public streets, or you know, and it's just kind of held together with a framework of like connected parking lots essentially, is like the size of downtown.

Like it's a big area where we're gonna be negotiating.

And that's kind of where things get really messy in Bell Red, which is all to say if we're gonna define a metric to say yes, without you know, almost without reviewing it, you can be certain it's gonna be conservative because it's going to have to be something we can be super complicated, I mean super confident can apply for almost any project.

So that's the big trade-off.

Is we we could think about things there, but I don't know if that's gonna be what projects are looking for.

But sure, I'm gonna I'll cut in and just say I think uh a lot of this will be deferred to September, and I think also at the public hearing, you know, you can make a motion also to eliminate street grid if that's uh of choosing.

So I think for now it'd be good if we get another round in.

Uh and then a number of this these things that you know.

I think staff has direction to basically provide answers for a lot of that.

But if we do another round, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

Um all right.

Uh for my for myself, I won't belabor the uh the street grade part of it.

The uh two things, I guess one question for Corbin on the uh the medical and life sciences um uh section.

Are we thinking of this from just a large company perspective, or are we also incorporating um policy or or uh some requirements for uh different sized companies?

I I speak I say this from the perspective of if you look at from what I can see, a lot of the venture capital activity around here is focused on is medical and life science.

And so there's gonna be, there's a lot of incubators, so there's a lot of uh potential small, like small medium-sized companies that may be coming out of the region.

And I hate for us to lose the opportunity to keep those uh companies in the region.

So if you could speak to the kind of size of company.

Yeah, for sure.

We're definitely focused on a diverse range of those companies, and actually we see more potential on the the smaller sort of startup area.

Um initially, actually, a lot of the life sciences companies we do have right now are that sort of startup um ecosystem in various different random places across Belvia right now.

Um as you look at building out that ecosystem, uh the life sciences industry is very unique in that you need specific types of infrastructure in place and highly capital-intensive infrastructure.

So there are a lot of um property owners and developers who are focused on serving that specific niche.

So think about a co-working space, but it's a lab essentially.

Um, so that's what we see having a lot of potential actually within Bellred.

Um, and is when I was referring to some of those programmatic uh interventions we were talking about earlier, we're hoping to um attract more of those within Bellevue and encourage developers who are already here to look at that model as well.

Um so yeah, that's a great point.

And I guess maybe the follow-up for stuff is uh is there Bell Red specific policy that we could do to encourage you know smaller life sciences, uh whether through incentive programs or even just um you know land use code that allows for smaller subsections.

Um if I don't know if it's already in there and uh but it'd be great if if we could include something along those lines.

Um second point here is uh I wanted to ask about the fee and loo that we uh that you guys have proposed for for Bell Red.

And I I know we talked about this last time too, but you know, I it seems like we're mirroring Wilburton, but it does kind of feel like the dynamics are a little bit different with Bell Red.

So could you kind of walk through, you know, whether it's more or less I I don't I don't know what the right amount is, but could you walk through kind of your thought process for establishing what that fee and loo was?

Sure.

So we um we don't have the the specific fee in the draft now.

The way the way it's set up, we have um defined amenities, which are all kind of set up with the exchange rate you get for bonus points for providing those amenities.

Um, but you basically have um an off ramp we're proposing essentially in Bell Red, which is the current approach to say you can choose from the defined menu of amenities, um, or you can provide a fee in lieu to get bonus points that goes towards um defined amenities um or a mixture of the two.

So if you want to do some on-site provision and then pay in, um, and then uh what that's gonna look like is that that fee will have a split between um it will be housing parks and arts would be our proposal um as to you know the specific pools that that gets funded toward.

Wait, sorry.

I guess I thought I read the 13th, yeah.

But yeah, yeah.

Oh yeah.

Not the amenity.

This okay, I'm glad we distinguished that because yes, the mandatory housing is completely separate.

So yeah, the the that's the that's the same as Wilburton.

Yeah, I guess like my question is why is it the same as Wilburton?

Um, or if there's the thought process for should it be more or less than Wilburton.

Um, well, um the uh I I think it's just one of those areas where um because we did have some analysis we can do, yeah.

Yeah, uh so similar scale uh that's being enabled though uh in the urban core in Wilberton, you can get up to four hundred and fifty feet.

So there is some some difference there.

Um, but also the next some proportionality study um did uh analyze kind of what's the max, um, which is not you know saying what's feasible, but what is maybe uh justifiable.

Um, and so uh we did also take a look at that as well.

And it, you know, there is some uh benefit to try and uh set those as equal, um, but that is a policy choice and discussion that the commission can have, especially in light of um some of the concerns that you're hearing around cost drivers.

It is again all about trade-offs so um yeah, happy to tee up a discussion for you all too if that's helpful.

Yeah, I think from direction from us perspective, or at least from me, I I would like to have that discussion.

Um I think it's worth exploring whether or not the fee should be the exact same.

I understand the predictability of having it be the same as what we're gonna, but I do think that there are different dynamics at Bell Red versus Wilberton.

So I think having that as a discussion point and maybe a staff proposal on what you think the right amount should be um would be helpful for us to discuss.

All right, I'm gonna do another round.

Uh so and again, um, you know, a number of these things I think will be deferred until September.

So let's try and keep our comments focused on uh on uh with that in mind.

So Commissioner Ferris.

Nothing more from me.

Uh Commissioner Kennedy.

Nothing more from me.

Commissioner Keppel.

Yeah, the the only thing I was gonna mention was um, you know, during the um the public comment today, the the PBNK site and the conditions related to that concern me a little bit in terms of feasibility.

So I mean, if you can just think about how the you know the program that we're coming up with would address things like that that would be helpful.

Um, I mean, I I think one of the things that's important just for context, too, is that you know, when we look at what the street grid is now that's being proposed, it's been scaled back a huge amount, so it's not where it started.

Um, but I wonder if there are outliers like that where we need to take another look.

Um, because that that grade is a pretty um difficult thing to deal with.

So that's it.

Uh Commissioner Neil John.

Uh the only further comments I have are uh I wanted to plus one Commissioner Epple's uh point on the amenity center program and potentially including grocery stores.

I also think that we should include child care facilities, but you know, I I see the argument of trying to limit it a little bit.

Um I would support adding those two.

Um also I plus one uh Chair Liu's comments about a staff proposal at the next uh study session on this.

I think that would be very useful as well.

Thanks.

Commissioner Kalmu.

I think I don't have any further comment except um I just want the landlords and Barret see the two paths if they want to develop what's the path, if they want to sell it, what's the path?

Like I have seen a couple people they want to sell and they're literally waiting for us to take it to the council, which I'm hearing it's gonna go between 27 for that.

I just want we come up with the solution that's w if they want to sell their land, it's not gonna go be super conditional, just like you know, a person who's buying it doesn't know what's gonna go happen.

Is it gonna go be any street on it, needs to go through the studies and all of those?

I don't know how we can make that easy um to just help the people who wants to move forward to do it and who doesn't want to sell it and stick with the process.

They can have an easy path.

And the second thing is again, I'm totally fine with the private streets.

There's so many private streets in downtown Ballview.

Not so many, but there are, you know, two.

What about two?

Oh yeah, and then some of them are not straight actually.

Uh they're really carrying stuff.

And I think if I think if it was the straight straight the way that we are describing here, it was losing so many MET public space and a uh number of the units, then I think developer did a good job in my opinion.

The design was really good, and that's a flexibility.

I think we need to give it to them.

But again, I trust you all to negotiate about those and figure out a good creative process.

Good luck.

Uh Vice Review Vasis.

Great.

The last question I guess I have is for these streams, is there any provision for connectivity between adjacent parcels that face a stream and they like that stream such that when the whole development is created, you can take your bike or walk along those streams?

Or is that gonna be each project gonna have its own little stream redevelopment?

Does that make sense?

Um are you getting at like can a stream be daylight across different sites?

Or um, I mean, the streams cross Bell Red at different points.

And I'm thinking, like when this is done, it would be very nice to be able to just go work your dog and just go across the entire length of the stream.

Yeah.

Is there a provision that would prevent that, or that it would allow a developer to just do their own little daylighting of the stream that is not public?

Is the stream gonna be public or is there a connectivity requirement between um there's so there are provisions around um encouraging trail access to the greatest extent possible?

There are some tricky bits and accommodating you know protection of critical areas, but we do have provisions that can provide for creative projects that go across different sites.

Um you were like hovering, I don't know if you have it.

I mean, just to note, um, you know, the code as a reminder isn't requiring anyone to daylight a stream.

We are trying to build in that strong incentive.

So it's possible, you know, you may have a property owner that's really bought into that as a vision and isn't seen as a huge cost driver, chooses to do that.

The neighbor property may not feel the same way, and so um we don't have anything to compel that neighboring property to uh do the stream.

It's just as um similar if someone wanted to do a private street, maybe a shared use path that's a bike-only lane, and then their neighbor isn't required to do that because the code says hey, it's flexible, whatever you want to do there.

Um, that could just be a dead-end bike lane.

Great vision, didn't coordinate it with other properties, nothing in the code to make them do any of that.

So that's kind of the challenge that we're always having to contend with.

If you want that outcome, um certainty around it, it's requiring projects that are um adjacent to streams to daylight the streams and then provide those amenities and coordinate with the neighbors, so it's basically like a local street version for streams um if we were doing that.

Okay, is there a way to somehow incorporate that?

Incentivize?

I mean, it would be it's we have a strong incentive now, or that's the feedback we've gotten.

Um, but it's it is completely optional.

And I think you would you would probably hear the same amount of resistance if that became a requirement.

It will just shift kind of yeah what what the angst is around.

Okay, and uh I guess uh final quick one is we talked about shared parking.

Uh Bell Red specifically I understand has poor soils, so underground parking would increase costs.

So I don't know if it's an option uh it would be great to see some capital products of mixed use shared parking buildings so that people could live in the property and then walk a few blocks to their car or to the train and then and then and then go away uh to work or wherever they need to go, but it becomes a more pedestrian city that it enables development of projects at a lower cost because they don't need to provide because it's provide somewhere else across the the neighborhood.

So just sometimes that's that's it for me.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

I won't have anything to add, but I think just going through this uh we talked about stronger amenity incentive program uh and large site developmental review programs.

Uh I think everybody was on board with sidewalk widths and about going a little bit uh more than eight feet.

Uh we requested a overview of developmental review process, uh grocery store incentive, uh and bolstering that.

Um I think uh mentioned security bonds.

I think both of you mentioned that, um, but just exploring that would be great.

Um I think everyone was supportive of the uh life sciences uh proposal, uh commercial catalyst program, and then uh fee and loo, I think covers most of it.

Connectivity of streams if possible, but I think yeah, without making that a requirement, um, and then share parking.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, appreciate you guys.

Uh next up, the would you like to would someone like to approve the minutes for my transition?

We'd like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of June 10th.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion?

All of you say aye.

I think I'd also like to make a motion that we adjourn our meeting.

So, all right, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Under the wire.

I want to say it was actually you did you second or the adjourned meeting?