Thread by @Deutski1

Tonight's Bellevue City Council meeting is a packed one - testimony on mid-bi budget adjustments, discussion on an affordable housing LUCA, further decisions on the East Main station area, and an ordinance to comply with state law re: unrelated people living together.

I hear there's going to be people testifying in the budget hearing asking for more funding to implement the city's environmental stewardship initiative. As I & others have noted before, the city wants to reduce GHGs by 50% in a little over 8 years' time.

https://twitter.com/UrbanistOrg/status/1460412411199033344

The 1st affordable housing ordinance being discussed tonight is about strategy C1: to allow AH development on public & religious land. Staff are recommending including a 50% density bonus - allowing developments meeting affordability criteria to build 50% above current maximums.

Currently, the LUC only allows for a 15% density bonus for affordable housing, so this net increase of 35 points would allow for over 1400 more units than what's presently allowed. Important to note that this doesn't mean these necessarily get built though.

Packet materials take the time to give the painful reminder that the majority of Bellevue's single family districts are not allowed to have duplexes/triplexes. This ordinance would allow attached multifamily housing in certain contexts through recently-passed fee-simple changes.

Tonight's East Main LUCA discussion will be (for now) the last study session topic before Council votes for final adoption at the December 6th meeting. As such, a lot of decisions to be made tonight that I will cover as they come up.

The final ordinance to be voted on tonight has already been studied by the Council, so hopefully the vote is quick. It would bring Bellevue in compliance with state law by removing limits on the # of unrelated people that can live together.

Polycules everywhere, rejoice!

As always, all land use decisions always have to be run by the EBCC, who has the ultimate say on things within their borders.

It should still be dissolved by the state, but in the meantime, it's nice that Democrat Chiho Lai won his election by a double-digit margin!

After some proclamations, moving onto oral communications. 10 people have signed up to speak, so it is likely this will take the maximum allotted 30 minutes available.

Note that this is separate from the budget public hearing later this evening, which has no max time limit.

Resident of NE Bellevue talking about the Great Neighborhoods Plan, which is up for discussion next week. Says the NE & NW Bellevue neighborhood plans are too similar, given the unique characters of each area. Raises safety concerns, including the Silver Cloud facility nearby.

Another NE Bellevue resident who doesn't give her address, is also concerned about the GN program. Claims that several things previously being considered at the neighborhood level have been moved to the city level. Wants neighborhoods to have choices in how AH gets implemented.

Bellevue Club representative saying that the property should be exempt from providing "AMI housing" and has concerns w/ parking. Bellevue Chamber rep wanting LUCA adjustments that (to me) don't seem great. Making block sizes flexible (ie not small) & not setting residential mins.

Eastside Housing Roundtable rep says their suggestions prioritize middle & low income residences are prioritized and that height & density are maximized. Wants things like FAR to be decided by "this Council, not future Councils through a Development Agreement".

Rep from Wig Properties asking for their suggestions to be incorporated in the LUCA rather than pushed to a DA. Says block size requirements should be thrown out (ick) and that on-street parking would be too confusing. Yeah, good. It's *transit*-oriented development.

Wig Property representatives seem to not understand this.

https://twitter.com/Deutski1/status/1450270486982643712

Amazon rep asking Council to adopt the East Main LUCA before the end of the year, because affordable housing development takes years.

Interpreting this as "pass this as is, don't kick it back to staff to study what incorporating DA stuff into the LUCA would look like."

Now NW Bellevue resident who thinks draft Neighborhood Plan "doesn't represent the sentiment of our neighborhood." Does not want Council to pass the plan if it'll be out of compliance with the Comp Plan updates in a few years anyway.

Housing Development Consortium rep supporting the C1 Strategy LUC. Appreciates the density bonus, and wants the city to develop programs that can help religious organizations take advantage of it.

Pastor from a Bellevue church that's recently established affordable housing on its campus speaking in support of the C1 LUCA this evening. Says the current density bonus of 15% is not enough, so would support further rezones and wants faith communities involved in discussions.

Oral communications are done after 30 minutes, so we now move onto more oral communications!

*Technically,* it's a public hearing, but with comments that are given orally.

There's still a 3 minute limit on testimony but no total limit on the amount of people that can speak.

This public hearing is in regards to mid-biennium budget adjustments. City Council up to this point has stated they're largely going for a "stay the course" policy, given continued uncertainty around inflation and the recovery.

First speaker is a Bellevue resident scared for climate change. Since cities are responsible for 70% of GHG emissions, they have a responsibility to address climate change. Notes only 2 staff members have been hired for the ESI implementation and says the city needs more.

2nd speaker says that budgets are a moral document that allow us "to create the world we want to live in." Wants the city to reduce GHG emission reductions comprehensively and increase climate resilience by improving the city's tree canopy.

Next speaker talking about how heat waves & algae bloom alerts meant she couldn't swim this summer. This and the smoky skies we now regularly experience are reasons the city needs to commit funding the environmental stewardship plan. Asking for 3 more staff members.

Rep of 300 Trees proud of the 300 trees the org planted on Sammamish High School property this past weekend, but notes all the org has done only meets 50% of Bellevue's tree planting obligation to meet the city's goal. Says ESI staff are amazing but overworked.

"We cannot rely on national governments alone to provide all the answers. Cities need to lead, and Bellevue needs to lead those cities... Please meet this moment with courage and vision."

Several PCA Bellevue members asking for similar funding increases. Seems the common ask is $400k to hire three more staffmembers dedicated to ESI implementation.

I estimate between 15 & 20 residents spoke in support of increasing funding for the Environmental Stewardship Plan implementation. About 3 added that funding should also go towards creating tree ordinances. Nobody spoke against either those things.

Moving on to Councilmember discussion. CM Zahn says that the 1 year anniversary of the ESI passage popped up on her Facebook today, notes that the city does have a lot to do to meet its goals. "I do want to have this discussion about what that means... for the budget."

Supports implementing funding for tree protection code and wants more funding for staff. Asking if monies dedicated last year have already been spent and if the city can use undedicated ARPA funds to fund positions, maybe in development services to focus on the building sector.

Finance Director Toni Call responds that 8 of the thus far received $10 million in ARPA has been dedicated, w/ $2 million to be decided early next year. City slated to receive another $10 million in May. Re: tree codes, it's currently hard to fill land use code positions.

CM Zahn also notes that with the passage of the infrastructure act today, having more staff might enable to the city to get more access to funds like grants. She supports dedicating $500k of the $2 million undedicated ARPA funds to ESI & tree code implementation.

Mayor Robinson asking if this should be discussed at a later meeting, whether this year or next. City Manager Miyake says that they could look at CM Zahn's recommendations & bring them back at a future meeting.

CM Stokes is impressed w/ the # of people who showed up tonight. "If this had happened for some other things I could think about, everybody would be saying, 'Hey, let's do this.'" Says it's important to find funding for this to show that the city is responsive to its residents.

CM Robertson seems against the proposal, equating the funding ask to a 1% property tax increase. "We've shown that we value this [by].... having metrics & tracking things, and letting people know the opportunities that they have for reducing their footprint."

Does not support using one-time ARPA funds since staffing is an on-going cost. Also doesn't believe the city needs additional funding to add tree codes into the workplan. Claims that the city is going to have a "big hole to dig out of next year."

CM Barksdale noting that CM Zahn did raise some ideas around raising revenue for the positions, that ARPA was one idea out of several. Says it's important to think about staff burnout, since they're already being overworked on this issue as it is.

CM Lee - "I strongly support what we heard from the people." Proceeds to echo concerns of his conservative colleagues on why this is hard to do. Both seem to be making an argument that this amendment would somehow represent a shift in priorities for the Council, when really...

it's the Council actually fulfilling its already-stated priorities by actually providing (part of the) funding that will be necessary to actually implement the Environmental Stewardship Plan (also unanimously approved, btw) on the timescale that leaders promised.

Progressive environmentalist (/s) DM Nieuwenhuis is "all for looking at the tree protection code." Echoes his conservative colleagues' concerns, saying the city would need to clearly articulate what revenue the city would raise or what expenditures it would cut.

Saying that the $50k he allocated towards a resident & business public advisory group was meant to support staff. Is willing to look at the conversation long-term, but is concerned with widening gaps in revenues and expenditures. Would support a small initial investment ($100k)

Seems Council settled on passing the mid-bi budget as is but punted a discussion around adding more funds to early next year, that passes unanimously. Moving on to the Affordable Housing C1 Strategy LUCA.

Staff say the LUCA is to serve three purposes: 1) be compliant w/ state law pictured below, 2) fulfill a key action in the city's 2017 AH Strategy (which planned for building/maintaining only *2500* affordable units, and 3) advance goals from city's Comp Plan.

Interesting. Planning Commission chair mentioning how the body originally does not support the 50% density bonus because they heard from stakeholders that it wasn't enough. Their recommendation to Council (5-1) is actually to vote against the LUCA.

Staff respond by saying that this LUCA is a first step, and that future Council or State legislative actions can accomplish what the Planning Commission is asking for. Staff supports a second phase of work beyond this one that would look at further steps.

Should Council approve what staff has deemed as "Phase 1" tonight, the resolution would be formally adopted in December, and work for Phase 2 (more in line w/ what the Planning Commission wants) would kick off around February.

Council comments: CM Barksdale, liaison to the Planning Commission, wants to move the LUCA forward, but notes the PC voted against it in part because "they didn't want us to check the box and think we're done." He wants to provide direction for the '22 Phase 2 work plan.

After a question from CM Stokes, staff notes that the EBCC can still use their power to vote this down within their borders.

As I've previously written about though, since this is state law, doing so would be a costly waste of time. theurbanist.org/2021/05/21/eas…

CM Robertson asks if the state law mandated a 50% density bonus, law just says it "needs to be in line with local needs." Asks if staff looked closely at local needs since EBCC might reject if not, but adds, "If anybody from the EBCC is on the call, don't reject this."

She supports moving the LUCA forward and, w/ the amount of planning work to be done, raises the idea that the Commission should meet more often if there's staff capacity to do so. Would also support incentives for properties near high-capacity transit & deeper affordability.

Although we have a lot of disagreements, there *are* definitely times when I can agree with ideas CM Robertson puts forward. Devil's in the details of course, but it's nice to be on the same playing field at least some of the time.

DM Nieuwenhuis w/ further EBCC questions, 1) how many faith properties are in the jurisdiction, and 2) what were concerns expressed at the courtesy hearing?

1) about 20% of the faith parcels are in EBCC borders, 2) EBCC members didn't want AH *just* put in their neighborhoods.

After some confusion from CM Lee, staff note that the developments resulting from this LUCA would be entirely affordable housing no more than 80% AMI. Seems in an ideal world, he would want these density bonuses to apply to market rate housing too. Doesn't have majority support.

Council unanimously directs staff to draft a LUCA based on staff's recommendation of a 50% density bonus. Also asks for staff to draft a map of areas that will be reviewed as part of their Phase 2 work and draft a workplan that'll look at incentives for deeper affordability.

Moving onto the East Main LUCA discussion, which likely will prove to be even meatier than the previous discussion. All the topics highlighted below will be discussed.

I learned what floor plate size is tonight, since IANA architect.

Pushing back against some of the testimony heard this evening, staff is saying that allowing certain things to be decided through a DA will ultimately allow for the development of more affordable housing, so long as Council votes to approve the respective DA.

A side-by-side comparison of staff's recommendations to Council vs. stakeholder requests, many of which were heard in public testimony this evening.

"We have heard from Wig Properties that high-rise residential development w/ affordable housing is not financially feasible at this time, but this position is not supported by the type of development we're seeing DT as well as the city's economic analysis." Staff w/ the 🔥🔥🔥

Basic dynamic I'm hearing tonight is that developers are asking for things advantageous to them to be directly incorporated into the LUCA, whereas staff is sticking with the plan to prioritize housing in the LUCA but allow Development Agreements to contain mods to the LUCA.

Mayor Robinson is going to have Council give their feedback on each staff recommendation individually. Hopefully this is a relatively quick roundrobin, otherwise we'll be here all night.

Building heights:

Stokes: staff rec
Lee: staff rec after some waffling
Barksdale: staff rec
Robertson: building height staff rec, minimum housing stakeholder. References another economic study done by the AH Roundtable, staff says they haven't seen it.

Staff also note that the DA path would allow for more flexibility should the economic conditions change. CM Robertson notes that she herself has not seen the report she's mentioning, but is apparently basing her reservations of staff's recs on it. Hm.

Zahn: staff rec, notes going above 400' would trigger additional SEPA review.
Nieuwenhuis: staff rec for building heights, 30% for minimum housing.
Robinson: staff rec.

Majority of Councilmembers are seeking staff rec for max building height and min housing units.

For public amenity:

Lee: stakeholder request
Barksdale: staff rec
Robertson: stakeholder request
Zahn: staff
Nieuwenhuis: stakeholder
Robinson: staff
Stokes: staff

For affordable housing fee-in-iieu:

Mayor Robinson suggests a "deed in lieu" program, allowing developers to deed a portion of their land to a nonprofit, who would then build the affordable housing. She intends this to supplement staff's recommendation.

Staff says it's an interesting concept, but it would need more study and calibration. It could, for example, be explored as part of a development agreement, but for right now info seems scarce.

Seems nearly all CMs are unifying around staff's recommendation in addition for a deed-in-lieu option in a DA. CM Lee again expressing concerns on if a deed-in-lieu option would pencil out economically for a developer. He supports the stakeholder rec.

On floorplate size & setback, nearly all CMs are actually supportive of the stakeholder's request. CM Stokes expresses concerns about the lack of air and light to the street that would be provided by such buildings but is open to learning more.

Motion to direct staff to draft the LUCA to be given to Council for approval at a later meeting passes unanimously. Moving onto the final item for tonight, which Mayor Robinson notes should mainly be procedural - the LUCA on removing the limit on nonrelated people in a unit.

LUCA passes unanimously and the meeting ends. Thank you for following along!