Thread by @Deutski1

Prepping for tonight's Bellevue City Council meeting.

Two interesting topics are being discussed this evening as study session items - the framework plan for Eastrail in the Wilburton area, and another discussion on the East Main LUCA.

Regarding the former - unlike other cities along #Eastrail, Bellevue does not own the trail ROW. The majority is owned by King County, and about 1 mile near the OMFE is owned by Sound Transit. County & city have been conducting outreach to guide trail design standards.

Regarding the latter - tonight is the 5th study session on East Main and the first of several decision points. Staff are asking Council for the following FAR #'s - I'll let somebody else explain to me if they're good or bad.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1437604683661545473

First speaker is founder of Wig Properties. The company agrees with most of staff's recommendations this evening. Has concerns that language rewards amenities for nonresidential development more than amenities for residential development.

Bellevue Club rep supports recommendations from Wig Properties, has some concerns with some of the calculations undertaken by staff. PM at a real estate advisory firm also providing counterarguments to current FAR recommendations.

Next speaker asking for Council to amend the budget to complete Tree Land Use Code work in 2022. Suggests that Bellevue use Redmond's code verbatim, which the commenter sees as good policy.

Another speaker with concerns on East Main, is suggesting that FAR, affordable housing, and height tradeoffs be baked into structure around Development Agreements.

Final speaker is a serial commentator following up with her concerns around parking planned for a neighborhood park. She's disappointed in CMs that ignored her ask and didn't speak with staff about this.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1435411167556485128

I lied - actual final commenter has concerns about smart water meters and the influence of EMF waves. As a person "sensitive to electromagnetic frequency", she has concerns about EMF in her plumbing. Also talking about the energy signature of homeopathic treatments. Yikes.

Moving on to the Wilburton Eastrail study session item. Staff says that some construction, including the Wilburton Trestle & the NE 8th St bridge, is set to start next year. Also praising Amazon for their contribution to Wilburton Trestle funding.

Staff mention that buildings normally are turned away from a rail corridor ("you usually see the dumpsters"), so the goal is to create conditions where, as the properties are redeveloped, buildings are encouraged to orient themselves towards the trail.

Additionally, the publicly-owned ROW is 100' wide, but only about 30' is needed for the trail. That leaves about 70 additional feet that can be activated to interface with adjacent private land.

Public outreach was very clear in its support of public amenities, both natural & cultural. Also an emphasis on making the corridor accessible & friendly to people of all backgrounds, ages, and abilities.

CM Robertson asking about the potential for grade separation at NE 4th & 6th St. Staff noting that they're keeping that option open at 4th (pending funding), but that it would severely impact the ability for adjacent properties to interface with the trail.

Costs for grade separation would also be City's responsibility. Robertson notes that there's a light at NE 4th but she doesn't want to see people "get hit by cars".

That can also be averted by making sweeping revisions to Bellevue's signal policy & giving trail users priority.

She also suggests providing a screening mechanism for allowing private properties to get encroachment permits to be able to temporarily use the public space if it's not fully activated (e.g. providing café seating, art). 👍from me, staff says this process will also examine that.

CM Stokes has been on the Eastrail Regional Advisory Council since 2017. Notes the traffic light at the NE 4th crossing as a "first step".

Asks about the crossing at NE 1st, which the city was petitioning Rep. Smith to get federal funding for, as improvements will be costly.

Staff says federal $$ aren't looking likely but that Amazon investments are expected to cover that cost.

CM Barksdale, always quick w/ his comments, supports the tactical activations suggested by colleagues. Suggests the city look into "festival streets".

Seems CM Barksdale supports the idea of certain streets/ROWs being designated as "festival streets" to allow nonprofits & community orgs to host events on particular streets w/ expedited permitting. Perhaps such streets could be home to night markets? theurbanist.org/2021/08/30/reg…

CM Zahn noting the importance of neighborhood access to the trail. Also floats ideas for place-making - edible gardens, exercise stations, learning pods. Says this could be used in the future for an Eastside Pride walk or triathlon.

All of the above, please.

CM Lee says that the Eastrail can represent "the history & heritage of Bellevue". Says the trail represent an opportunity for technology for Bellevue - *not* sure how supportive he would be of public broadband, but I guess it's worth asking, @STCActionFund!

DM Nieuwenhuis echoes comments from other CMs. A cyclist himself, he adds that staff consider the safety concern of ped/cyclist interactions on the trail. Staff note that that's been a recurring theme from public outreach, separating bike/ped ROW.

Mayor Robinson asking about "last mile connections" and connection to light rail stations. Staff noting there will be access points to several stations.

Final item of tonight's agenda is the East Main LUCA discussion. IANA land planner, so follow along as I do my absolute best to understand planner jargon while trying to convey to you what's happening. :D

Staff contextualizing this discussion by acknowledging there are goals that the city will want to prioritize with the net growth expected in this area. Mentioning the importance of value capture, as upzoning properties does significantly increase property values.

Study session schedule has been lightly modified by staff, but overall timeline is still seeing final adoption of the LUCA terms by year's end.

This is an complete aside of absolutely *zero* consequence, but because I just had to review the City of Bellevue style guide for a previous engagement, it's *really* throwing me off that the visual headers in tonight's Council meeting aren't written in Montserrat, lol

A comparison of City-considered FAR options and the stakeholder proposed option. Seems Option B is meant to be a compromise between A & the stakeholder request, with more public amenity options available for developers to use.

Providing a benchmark to compare - staff provide the current FAR regulations for the East Main area. All recommendations would provide a significant upzone to the area. Light blue areas denote where incentive zoning (providing public amenity benefit) would be used.

Public amenities are "tiered" - so if a project wants to go over base FAR and thus needs to provide public amenities, 75% of the amenities need to be from the first tier, and the remaining 25% will be from the second tier.

Option B was guided by Council asks during the previous public hearing to allow a development agreement (DA) tool to be used for increased building heights. This option also expands the amenity options available - all are second-tier amenities though.

Wig Properties ask would increase base FAR for non-residential to match residential.

I'm not a planner, but it seems developers are consistently seeking provisions that would reduce the amount of (affordable) housing they would be incentivized to build.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1437607764457492484

Wig's also asking for streetscape improvements to be included in tier 1 of public amenities.

As a good urbanist™, I obviously want that too - but I don't want that to be chosen by developers as a public amenity *instead of* affordable housing.

Mayor Robinson setting ground rules that 1) LUCA would apply to all properties in East Main but DAs could be written to add/remove conditions, 2) city's looking for FAR, amenity, and DA provision options. Asking Councilmembers to orient their feedback around those things.

DM Nieuwenhuis appreciates the city adding to the amenities in Option B. Wants to know why pedestrian bridge & streetscape improvements weren't included in Tier 1. Staff says Tier 1 options were reserved for expressed Council priorities.

Staff concerns around increasing the maximum FAR from 5.0 to 5.3 seem to be around SEPA review - staff work up to this point has been exclusively operating under a 5.0 scenario. Increasing to 5.3 would add on time to this process for staff to evaluate SEPA implications.

Staff notes that they're open to including that opportunity for additional FAR in a DA.

I *think* I'm starting to get this. A lot of these land use discussions are like this - I read agenda items & have no idea, but listening to the meeting, I start to wrap my head around it.

CM Zahn: "Predictability is important both for the developers & the public." Supports using DA process to allow for special amenities & increased heights. Implies that "diluting" Tier 1 priorities might be worth it for the pedestrian bridge, given Vision Zero goals.

Also has concerns about putting sustainability planning in Tier 2. CM Robertson notes purpose of the upzone is to maximize density to meet city's "bold" growth goals. Has a fair question about critical areas that I don't understand, will come back with another question later

CM Stokes - likes Option B. Has questions around how 1st & 2nd amenity tiers were decided. Staff noting that the differentiation was based on Council direction and is subject to changes that Council proposes.

CM Lee: "If we don't get projects developed, we're not going to see any public benefits." Is concerned about economic feasibility of projects. Wants to know where differences arise between staff's analyses and the developer's economic analyses re: ideal FAR and heights.

CM Barksdale: is it possible to add a 3rd tier instead of just binary 1st/2nd? Staff hasn't done that analysis.

Ability to incorporate mom & pop shops? Getting that in would take some time to understand how to assess that value in the amenity system.

Mayor Robinson: likes Option B recs and appreciates ability to bargain additional in DA process. Would like to consolidate the "potential street" & "streetscape amenities, or provide an "either/or" option.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1445235611355385857

DM Nieuwenhuis supports increasing non-residential FAR to 3.5 since this area "will have to compete with" adjacent areas that have that FAR, though he's "not sure how [his] colleagues will feel about that." It seems that would disincentivize this area from being used for housing.

CM Zahn notes that MFTE would apply in this area & that both rental & ownership opportunities can exist in this area. Wants provisions that encourage ownership & microhousing. Supports Option B but acknowledges DA can be used to accommodate changing market conditions.

CM Robertson agrees with DM, supports base FAR as 3.5 for both (non-)residential. Supports amenities tiering but wants ped bridge to be Tier 1. Wants a higher AMI threshold for ownership-based affordable housing. Says land use code isn't the place to encourage mom & pop shops.

CM Stokes supports Option B & thinks the DA approach to variations is the way to go. Supports performing arts spaces in this area.

CM Lee supports the stakeholder's request & opinions of conservative CMs w/ 3.5 FAR across the board. "We'd all love more public amenities, but the reality is what the developer can do."

In my (again) unprofessional opinion, seems the conservative CMs are uniting around "let's make affordable housing a benefit for nonresidential development" instead of "let's incentivize residential development & associated affordable housing," which, not sure that's great, guys.

To counter CM Robertson's point, CM Barksdale asks if there's any place where LUC prioritizes use of the space. Staff notes that DT code had certain exemptions, but the difficulty is that that can create longterm vacancies.

Barksdale acknowledges but says that since supporting mom & pop shops is a stated econ. development priority, it's important to do work "sooner rather than later," maybe in another form.

Not opposed to 3.5 FAR across the board but is concerned about amenities city might not get.

Mayor: "I'm not interested in gifting base 1.0 FAR but I'm interested in incentivizing it." Says she's hearing a desire to evaluate amenity priorities w/o micromanaging staff's work, hoping for an additional meeting. Staff needs time but can accommodate, maybe in 1:1 meetings.

Touch of confusion: Mayor corrects CM Robertson on the # of CMs supporting a base 3.5 FAR for both (non-)residential development. Turns out CM Stokes supports Option B but also supports 3.5 for both...? Not sure what's going on there.

CM Stokes didn't understand that by increasing base FAR, you're decreasing the amount of public benefit that can be extracted to get to maximum FAR.

I don't know if he's being coy, but he's pointing out how a higher base FAR gives more benefit to developer at expense of public.

Council foregoes a vote on FAR tonight so that staff can sync with CMs individually to address their concerns, so the meeting is adjourned. Thanks for accompanying me on this (confusing) journey. Consider contributing to my Patreon to support this work? patreon.com/deutski