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.
Conversation
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".
1
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.
1
Wig Property representatives seem to not understand this.
Quote Tweet
Wig Properties representative wants to discuss block length & perimeter, which is not on the agenda until the next study session. Seems to have concerns around building walkable blocks "where feasible", since this will make surface parking less feasible.
Yes indeed. That's good.
Show this thread
1
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."
1
2
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
1
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.
1
"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."
1
Several PCA Bellevue members asking for similar funding increases. Seems the common ask is $400k to hire three more staffmembers dedicated to ESI implementation.
1
1
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.
1
2
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."
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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."
1
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."
1
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.
1
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...
1
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.
1
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.
1
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)
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
1
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."
1
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.
1
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.
1
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.
1
Show replies