Thread by @Deutski1

Tonight's Bellevue City Council meeting will feature discussions around renaming an Environmental Education Center after Jim Ellis (local advocate), the East Main LUCA process, and all the development going on around the city.

I don't mean this as any personal slight against Mr. Ellis or his work, but it's weird hearing this item being introduced when, just four months ago, Council was (relatively) united around no longer wanting to name things after people.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1389400428534632448

As I've made clear, I believe a policy of "never naming things after people" is short-sighted - it's all about *who* you name them after and what they stood for.

But I'd at least appreciate consistency from Council on this issue.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1389401098742501376

Part 2 of that previous thought, to not leave you hanging.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1389401100466331648

5 speakers in support of the East Main LUCA, 2 speakers in opposition - Bellevue Council rules only allow a maximum of 3 speakers on any one side of a topic during Oral Communications, so 2 of the support people will not be allowed to speak.

First speaker is concerned with the pace of tree loss in the community. Acknowledges that some tree losses are due to climate change or disease, but that the city needs to act with urgency to preserve the healthy, older trees that still remain.

Second speaker is speaking with concerns about single family home teardowns and rebuilds. Says the city should help maintain its "existing stock of affordable single family homes. Wants SF redevelopment to be capped at 3800 sq ft.

Next speaker is about the LUCA, is concerned that it doesn't look like Council is examining the possibility to have higher building heights along I-405 and lower heights near 112th Ave.

A Mercer Island resident supports the MFTE program in Bellevue, says that her city recently ended their program. She's a former director of a affordable housing complex that was racistly harassed by a white women who was upset she wasn't placed on a waiting list.

Resident concerned about affordable housing says the East Main LUCA has a chance to bring some real positive public benefits. "Market forces on their own will not ensure housing affordability." Supports a housing incentive that prioritizes affordable housing at East Main.

Bellevue Club representative supports additional height in East Main & supports proposals submitted by WIG Properties. Although they still have concerns around sufficient parking, they support the East Main LUCA process so far.

Land use attorney & rep of the Bellevue Chamber has concerns about staff's proposal this evening. "We absolutely support housing production...but we're concerned with the proposal for a residential minimum." Want an amenity-based, incentive system instead.

After a review of the recent Neighborhood Walks the city held, we're moving onto Councilmember Lee's item - renaming the Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center after Jim Ellis.

I will admit that it is sometimes difficult for me to understand *exactly* what CM Lee is saying because of his accent, but he very clearly just called the gentleman he's honoring tonight "John Ellis".

Okay, this is weird. He then says "renaming 'Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center' to 'Jim Ellis Environmental Education Center at Mercer Slough'. Because John Ellis is such a person..."

Am I missing something? Was "John" a pet name of his?

CM Lee is talking about the legitimately great things this gentleman did during his life, but I'm sorry, all I can focus on is that CM Lee is repeatedly calling this man by "John" when I'm not seeing any record of that being his name.

His name is *right there*.

CM Robertson says "We are very careful about naming things after people, but in this case I think it is very much warranted."

So it *is* a values judgement for you then, not a blanket judgement like was previously discussed. Huh. Good to know.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1389395289337864197

CM Stokes also calls him "John Ellis", so I'll withdraw my criticism.

He says that he knew the gentleman and really admires him, but wonders why this renaming is coming up at this particular time. Also references the conversation back in May about naming things after people.

Okay, criticism reengaged, since Mayor Robinson corrected CM Stokes and clarified that it is "Jim Ellis."

CM Barksdale is curious how naming this place after a person would work programmatically in the future - how naming other places after people in the future could incorporate diversity & equity.

DM Nieuwenhuis says that Jim Ellis is worthy of the renaming of the Environmental Center, is supportive of the renaming and also the greater conversation around naming places after people.

Again, this was not the position months ago. Back then, it was "naming after people = bad"

CM Zahn echoes the comments of her progressive colleagues. Says the Parks Board was "very confused" back in May about why the Council directed that naming parks after people was not okay.

Mayor Robinson feels "conflicted." She admires Jim Ellis & his accomplishments as well as that of his brother, John Ellis (there we go, that was the confusion, criticism 60% withdrawn).

In her ever compromise-driven ways, she would want to move this to the Parks Board to decide.

CM Barksdale emphasizes that such a send-back would be a good time to review policies around naming. Mayor Robinson thanks him for the comment, agrees that it would be a good time to look at naming through an equity lens.

CM Robertson would support sending to PB as long as discussion is just around the limited options of "Jim Ellis" or "Ellis". Says PB is usually only involved when city is asking to come up with something, in contrast to Council already having the idea.

Is now saying that naming parks after people "is a rare thing, but in this case it's worthy of being a rare thing we do." CM Stokes also supports sending to the PB. CM Zahn wants the ask to be around the larger task of naming places after people.

CM Lee is saying that issue of naming the EC after Jim Ellis & larger discussions around naming conventions should be two separate discussions. I'm not really sure why he feels that way though? Surely this is just 1 implementation of the larger naming discussion, like Zahn said?

CM Lee proceeds with his original renaming motion, which gets no second and dies. CM Robertson says she wanted to second the motion but sensed where the Council was. Lee: "You made your choices, you don't need to explain."

CM Robertson puts forward Mayor Robinson's motion, which would just look at this one particular instance rather than the whole naming convention rules. No dissenters, though I believe there were several non-votes, including CM Lee.

Alright, now moving onto East Main LUCA Study Session.

This is just one of many further study sessions to come over the remainder of this year. Vote for final adoption is slated for December.

Staff noting that some of the alternatives being presented tonight deviate heavily from the "wedding cake conception" - having the core of Downtown have the tallest buildings, then gradually taper downwards as you get to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods.

Have a graphic, just in case - as well as a more detailed schedule & topics description of the upcoming study sessions.

Summary of the options available. Option A is what's currently in LUCA, Option B is staff's recommendation, and the stakeholders request is from Wig Properties.

That would see significantly less housing being produced in this area, in a city with a significant housing shortage.

#UpzoneSurreyDowns

Option B, which would see higher building heights for more housing, came about as a response to Council direction saying that certain members would be welcome to higher heights for more housing.

Again, #UpzoneSurreyDowns I'll make this hashtag happen I swear.

Mayor Robinson says she likes what Wig Properties has proposed, but doesn't want to make it blanket for all of East Main to go the same way. Says some of their proposals should go in the LUC, but some should go in a Development Agreement.

CM Robertson agrees. Says that she'd like to right size the amenities code system now so that the housing construction can begin right away. Would be interested in a 400' maximum in a DA, and a housing minimum of 20%, which is apparently Wig's new proposal.

CM Stokes felt "the wedding cake was always going towards a sheet cake," and that the crisis of affordable housing means that we need to move quickly. Wants to bring things to the point where some of the construction can start happening, rather than plans.

DM Nieuwenhuis notes the housing/jobs imbalance pointed out by staff. Supports CM Robertson's comments around expanding the ideas for what counts as incentives - counting things like childcare, pedestrian overpasses, or arts.

CM Barksdale emphasizes the importance of affordable housing. He expands upon Nieuwenhuis's mention of the arts to say he wants amenities that create opportunities for people to "interact rather than just coexist."

CM Lee says the key is economic feasibility. "We can have all the good ideas & thinking but it doesn't happen."

Except, as established, economics/the free market isn't structured to create affordable housing. That's why we're talking about this, man.

CM Zahn likes Option B, but acknowledges concerns expressed by developers that that may not be economically feasible at this time. Acknowledges that it's a difficult needle to thread between looking at short-term and long-term action around affordability.

Supports what I believe other CMs have expressed support for, which is 320' with the ability to get up to 400' with a DA. Think there might be some disagreements around what percentage should be housing, but seems every CM is comfortable deviating from "wedding cake values".

Mayor Robinson corrects: "I'm for the wedding cake in Downtown. This is not Downtown." Says that since this site would have certain affordable housing requirements that Downtown does not have, she's fine deviating from that previous vision.

Staff has received enough direction from Council to have ideas for recommendations at future study sessions, so we're moving on to the final item - an annual update on the development the city has been experiencing.

Staff says that development in the city has been at a "peak level" for 8 years.

Here's a cross-section of some of the significant number of developments going on in Bel-Red.

And some in Downtown - both commercial and residential projects are under construction, though we still *definitely* don't have enough of the latter.

Construction value in Bellevue in 2021 alone is poised to surpass the city's record set in 2020 of $1.2 billion(!) dollars.

Also, can we collectively vote to not use the word "customer" when talking about anything the city does? It feels very neoliberal and I don't like it.

I know staff needs to (at least appear) apolitical, but imo it's sacrilege that staff's presentation tonight doesn't point out the connection between the rapid, outsized development of office spaces vs. housing and the commensurate contribution to our affordable housing crisis.

CM Barksdale advocating for smaller tenant spaces that might support smaller, more affordable mom & pop businesses. Staff says that they're mainly seeing large tenant spaces at this time. Barksdale wants to see ways to encourage smaller commercial spaces.

CM Robertson curious how remote work is going with the permitting department & if the department is sharing info on MFTE & 1590 funds w/ applicants. Staff says that reps from community development are present in permitting process to advertise programs.

No other major comments, so I'll end it there as the meeting adjourns!

If you liked this thread and you want to support the work I do, consider becoming a Patron on my Patreon page below. patreon.com/deutski