Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

They will do it. Right? Right.

Good evening and welcome to the May 13 meeting of the city of Bellevue Planning Commission. This evening meeting is held via hybrid format with both in person and virtual option via Zoom. Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment during the oral communication portion of the agenda. All written comments that have been submitted prior to 11AM today, Wednesday, May 13, will be summarized into the record. We have one public hearing on the agenda tonight, the 2026 Omnibus Land Use Code Amendment. And now let's move forward with a roll call. Vice Chair Liu? Present. Commissioner Ferris? Here. Commissioner Goper?

Here.

Commissioner Valavesses?

I'm here.

Commissioner Neil Cheehan? Here. Commissioner Kennedy? Present. Council liaison, council member Borgava? I'm chair Hon Lu. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? I'd like to move that we approve tonight's agenda. Is there a second?

Second.

I'll approve of the amendment agenda. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Council member, Bhargava, do you have any reports for us?

Yeah. I can brief. Yes. I can briefly give you a quick update. I'm looking at the agenda yesterday.

But before I do that, I wanna say a quick update on, we had a really good great event, at City Hall this week, early this week, where there was a commission appreciation eve evening, and they had all the, different commissions there, including great representation from this planning commission, and it was great. We missed having two of our commissioners there, but overall, it was a really good event. So that was something that happened this week. Yesterday at council, we had three primary things in the agenda. One is the briefing on the King County Wastewater Treatment Division provided by their director who came in and gave us an update on the change in rate and capacity for the sewer system, as well as the forecast for the next twenty years with a specific focus on what's happening in the next six years.

So that was an update. It was really an informational session with some feedback provided from council. We also looked at, the council initiation for the high density residential planned unit development, land use code amendment, and associated rezones. This is a follow-up from the comprehensive plan in 2024 updating the land use maps. So that was pushed forward as a, work item.

And lastly, there was an ordinance defining criminal conduct adopting a new section 10 dot zero six one three zero for the Bellevue City Court related to targeted residential protests and setting an effective date for that. So that was the third piece from the agenda last night, and so that passed six one.

Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Kate, are there any reports from board and commissions? Nope. And then will you provide us the updates of the meeting schedule for 2026?

Sure. You have the updates in your calendar, and I don't have anything to add to that.

Great. Let's move on with the oral and written communication. Would you provide a summary of the written communication, Marissa? Oh, yes.

Schenell's schedule. Just as a note, Kate, it looks like on July 22, we have three public hearings all on the same night.

Yeah. My goodness. I know it sounds like a lot. One of them is a very minor change to the transportation section. Okay. And so I expect that will go extremely quickly. And the other two are are will probably have more engagement, but probably not Do you think it's doable? I think it's completely doable.

Okay. So noted. Do

you have any summary of the written communication?

Sure. I sent four communications that came in to you

guys this this afternoon, and there have been no comments since that time. So you have all the communications.

Thank you. Now we can move on with the oral communication. We have total of thirty minutes for oral communication. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. A staff liaison, Kate Nessie, will call on the speaker in order in which they have registered either in person or online.

If anyone from the public has missed the 6PM registration deadline, you may still provide public comments if there is a remaining time. Please use the raise hand function in Zoom if you are attending virtually or motion to staff if you are in person to indicate that you would like to speak. There are rules adopted by city council limiting the topic about which the public may speak during our meetings under order six seven five two. The public may only speak during public comments about subject matters that are related to city of counts city of Bellevue government and are within the power and duties of the planning commission. Additional information about the rules can be found in order six seven five two.

If you are here to speak about the omnibus land use code amendment, please reserve your comment for the public hearing. Can Kate, can you please call on our first speaker?

Yes. We have only one speaker who has signed up, and that is Alex Zimmerman. So I will bring up the timer. Sorry. Things in a particular form.

Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you, William.

My

name my name My name, Alex Zimmerman. Yeah. And I come don't speak to you because you looking to me like a dirty Nazi bastard. You're absolutely not civilized people. This committee in every committee, what is AC in Bellevue for the last thirty year, this is not civilized people. It's come like a built animal from general. Yeah. All of it without exception. Yeah. Thank you very much. So I speak to people, 150,000. First, I want to understand what's for many year in every meeting I ask what is you don't show faces, and nothing changed. I spoke with counsel.

I spoke mind to pause the timer. Mister Zimmerman, did you hear about the order 6752? Can you talk on the subject of agenda, please?

Yeah. I talking about this

Okay.

But thank you very much for your correction. Thank you. But I talking something. What's

the timer.

Silkyu, don't interrupt me, please. Yeah. But I talking about something what is in policy, something what has happened with us government. You have these rules. You know these rules. Why you interrupt me with a different story? Don't worry. Many thousands of idiots around them Nazi fascist bastard interrupt me approximately every meeting. I have this experience. Yeah. I speak in Consul Chamber 5,000 times. Yeah. So our situation right now, very simple. I want to explain to you why you don't show us faces. In second, what is I explained to you?

This what is talking about why you cut twelve year ago as right for free speech. So right now, this only for twelve year to eliminate and 10 people. And I'm totally confused about this because I have a consul here right now. He from India. He don't understand American constitution. He don't know what is mean freedom of speech. I know India don't have freedom of speech. I know this. So when he transfer your Indian culture to America, he's look like a criminal to me mentally sick man. You know what this mean? Why we keep doing

one Can can you pause the timer? Mister Zimmerman, please talk about the agenda. Based on the order six 752, we need to talk about the agenda. Please correct your verbiage and talk about agenda.

I know their interruption. Your time comes.

Yeah. Please. I understand. Thank you.

Yeah. Absolutely. I understand you. Yeah. Yeah. Twelve year ago, mayor Robinson, you know what this means, consul Robinson cuts this because Alex Zimmerman's so bad. So right now, 150,000 people cannot speak. And I come in every meeting, been talking about this for years, and nothing changed. This what is who you are. You're not only a damn Nazi fascist. You know what this mean? You support what is control us for twenty year. This what is I go 15 time for election because I receive what is I see here. I have experience with Soviet Union KGB Gestapo too. You know what this mean?

German Nazi. You're more dangerous as German Nazi because they don't have freedom of speech. You know communists because they don't have freedom of speech too. We were Trump. We were new American revolution. Stand up, slave, and happy cow. Stop and knock and light up. Animal. It's for you, my friend.

Thank you. Your time is over.

Thank you very much. You are real freaking idiot.

Can we have the next speaker?

Oh, we don't have any other speakers, signed up, but there are some folks attending online. So if there's anybody else that would like to, speak, you can either raise your hand virtually or in person. Oh, okay. See any further folks.

Okay. Then we're gonna go move to the next item. The 2026 Omnibus Luca is a group of amendment with no significant policy consideration. It includes cleanup amendment, amendments required for the compliance with the state law and the minor amendment which require limited policy consideration and clearly advance established priorities. Can I get the motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Motion

carries. The hearing is open. We will start the public hearing on the 2026 Omnibus Land Use Code Amendment with a presentation from a staff. After that, everyone who wishes to speak about the proposal will have opportunity to do so. We have code and policy director Nick Whipple will provide us the presentation. Hi, Nick.

Hello. Good evening, chair Khan Liu, vice chair Liu, members of commission, council member Bhargava. We are here tonight to enter or to ask you all to hold the public hearing on the omnibus land use code amendment. So the direction we're seeking is to hold the public hearing on the proposed Luca. Following the hearing, we are asking that the commission make a recommendation to the city council on this code package.

For our agenda, we'll just reorient us to what is the Omnibus twenty twenty six Luca, the scope categories that we're working within. We also had a study session with you all back in April, and so we'll recall some of the conversation and then what the changes are that we've made since that study session, and then touch on our outreach approach for this project and timeline. So as a reminder of the kind of scope categories that we're working within for this Omnibus project, we are working within cleanup amendments. These are just very straightforward errors, cross references that need updating, minor typos, really that kind of category of change. State law, we'll go through the list of state law changes.

This is all just to meet baseline requirements of state law. And then there were some items that required some small policy considerations, but, really, those were to align with existing policy where maybe the mark wasn't quite hit. So we wanted to pull it closer to what that established policy was. First, with the cleanup amendments, as I mentioned, this is really the category of change that's around Scribner's errors, some clarifications, formatting changes, that sort of item. Our state law compliance, there's a number of bills.

More information is included in the agenda memo and in the previous agenda memo. There was a number of bills passed in this 2025 legislative session as well as the 2024 legislative session that we were needing to address. So those are all listed here, and our aim was to provide baseline compliance with all of these code or state law changes. And then this is where there were some small policy considerations associated with the scopes on these items, we'll kind of walk through these. So the first one was relating more to single family exclusion from of our from some of our high density areas.

So through the comp plan update process, we have our future land use map, which really is a policy map telling us what do we want the use and development to look like on those properties. And our land use code was maybe out of sync with the future policy map because we were still allowing for single family in areas where we wanna see 30 dwelling units for acre, for example. So this is really a targeted amendment to align with the comp plan policy where we're saying the highest and best use of that property is actually more units. We have plenty of land, where we would allow single family. Let's try and get the best use out of our multifamily areas.

And then tree code adjustments, there were a few items that were looked at as part of that update. One of the items was and I believe you had gotten some public comment around this item specifically or a couple of items rather. But one of them was moving, the S R 1 district, that's the suburban residential one, into a new category, for our tree credit approach. So S R 1 was previously lumped with our large lot designations. And for context, our large lot designations are lot sizes that are required to be, I've got it down here, 35,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet.

And the s r one lot sizes are typically 13,500 square feet, which is much closer to the lot sizes in the category below, which is our SR category, which are 10,000 square feet and 8,500 square feet. So this is just trying to group it with the lot sizes that are most similar to that zone. I also wanna note that when the tree code was adopted, we acknowledged it wasn't going to be perfect. We were going to continue to monitor how that was being implemented. We had gotten a couple of, projects in the door that were needing to meet the tree code requirements for this S R 1 district, and it resulted in them needing to plant 90 trees, for example, on their parcel when they were redeveloping the site.

And in other cases, having to provide a fee in lieu upwards of a $150,000. So that was pretty out of line with what we were seeing for most of the city, and so that indicated to us that maybe we didn't get that calibration right. So that's why it's been kind of grouped now with the lot sizes that are more similar to its size. Another area around tree code adjustments is just changing the threshold for when you need to bring your site into compliance. We were seeing examples where people were wanting to reconfigure a parking lot.

They weren't doing any landscaping changes. They just wanted to provide EV parking, which is important, and also restripe some of the areas. We had a threshold in our tree code that said that triggers compliance full compliance with our tree code. So then they were having to do what seemed like a targeted narrow scope project. Their budget had more than doubled is what I understood in needing to meet our tree code requirements.

That wasn't the intent. We'd like to make sure projects aren't prematurely or inadvertently triggering kind of this huge code or this huge improvement requirement. And then our other category around process changes, this is kind of exciting, but maybe a little drier, but exciting for planners. We had our process outlined in multiple overlays. And so if you're in Bell Red, we have your master development plan requirements.

Sometimes they're slightly varied from the downtown requirements, from the East Main requirements, from the East Gate requirements. They were basically scattered throughout the whole land use code. So we took this opportunity to find what is that consistent requirements that we want to apply for our master development plans, our design reviews, and then how should we manage departures citywide. And so trying to streamline our processes and make sure that we're getting some more efficiency in our permitting. So this was an opportunity to establish a new process chapter in the land use code and really slim down the code because it removed all of these process sections from each district.

So a lot of change, but not a lot of policy change. It's really trying to just streamline how our code's presented. So then we all met with you on April 8. There was some discussion and some feedback that you all provided, and then there was also some things that staff had kind of worked through internally and then got some feedback from stakeholders on. First item, discussion at the last commission meeting around East Main, noting there is a fee in lieu option if you're developing commercial.

But if you're developing residential, there is no fee in lieu option. So the commission was interested in us adding that option so residential still can provide fee in lieu just as commercial does. So that change has been incorporated into the draft. Wanted to note our conditional use permit decision criteria. We had a previous strike draft that removed the decision criteria that said CUPs, conditional use permits, have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

After having a bit more internal discussion around that and seeing how this has been this criteria has been applied to schools, for example, it was determined by our internal leadership that it was really important to make sure that conditional use permits still have to be consistent with the comp plan. That should be a criteria that still applies. So we're just restoring that language that's been sort of the rule of the land for a number of years, and just wanted to flag that for you all since that did change since the April 8 meeting. And then the last item was around lot splitting. So this is also another area that we changed.

So staff, we we review statutes, and our attorneys also review those statutes. And then when something is unclear, we look to Commerce and see what is their guidance. Well, Commerce has updated their guidance as of last week. So we got on a call with them, understood where they actually meant to go with the changes. So we have updated our our lot splitting residential lot splitting requirements per Commerce's most recent guidance.

Basically, the effect of that, our previous strike draft said, if you do a residential lot split, which is a more streamlined process, something like a a boundary line adjustment where it's a ministerial decision, it's not an administrative decision. So no noticing, no staff report, no public comment period. It's a more straightforward approach to splitting a lot. The rule that we had before was that if you go through a lot split process, the resulting lot cannot be further subdivided no matter what. Commerce updated their guidance to say, actually, if that resulting lot is still large enough to be subdivided through a normal plotting process, they can do that.

They just can't do a lot split and then another lot splits. They can't use that process twice. So we updated the language to say, you can still further subdivide that resulting lot, but it has to be through a conventional short plat process. So that change has been now incorporated. And I think Commerce noted we're the first jurisdiction to be moving forward plot splitting bills, so that's a kudos to us.

And then in terms of our engagement approach, really took kind of a consult and review internally with staff. This omnibus is always a really exciting time for our land use planners because it's an opportunity to address some of the things that they just have been bothered by. So that was a lot of the outreach. And then, of course, because it's a public process, we still get input and feedback from the development community, from residents. So we take that in as well and incorporate that where it makes sense with our scope boundaries.

And then we've presented to you all. We also initiated with the council to get buy in on the scope. And then, yeah, primarily, we've been sharing information with the public as information only and for feedback and comment. So that brings us to our timeline. So we are here tonight holding the public hearing.

We're asking you all to hold the public hearing and make a recommendation, and then we will head to council. If we get a recommendation from you tonight, we'll be at council in June and hopefully get action by July. And then this is a land use code amendment, so there are decision criteria that have to be met for you all to make your recommendation. This is that decision criteria. It should be very familiar to you at this point, but the LUCA has to be consistent with the comp plan, has to enhance the public health, safety, and welfare, and then it can't be contrary to the best interests of the citizens and property owners of the city of Bellevue.

And the omnibus package actually removes citizens and replaces it with oh god. I forget the term, but we're not using the word citizens. We're just being a little more open to if you live here. So with that, Cher, I will turn it back to

you. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Now we will turn to the public for public testimony. As a reminder, testimony must be related to 2026 omnibus land use code amendments. Kate, will you please call based on the order of the registered name? Sorry.

So we have nobody preregistered for public comment, but if you would like to raise your hand, I see one person with their hand raised online.

So Okay.

Let me just pull up the timer. And

Do we have anyone in person after the online person who wants to have it? Are you should we add your name? Okay. Maybe Phyllis wants to do that. Okay. After the online person.

Alright. Jesse, can you hear me?

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Oh, I'm gonna turn you up. You're very sorry.

I'll I can yell too.

No. It's good. Okay. You're good. You never know.

Okay. Go ahead.

Hi, commissioners and chair. Jesse Clauson, McCullough Hill. Sorry. I was not on my game, and I did not preregister. I'm here tonight to support moving forward this omnibus to city council. We are really appreciative of the planning commission's recommendation and the staff's work to include the in the East Main TOD area. So that's in the code. We're excited about it. We're excited to move forward, and we hope that this is a relatively simple ordinance that can get passed soon. So So we appreciate your help. Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anybody Phyllis, would you like to speak? Okay.

Let's see if we change let's see if we break the record that we have it for the meeting. I know. I was looking at the clock. I'm like, oh.

Hi. Hello. Oops. I didn't, really expect, I mean, to speak, but I'm here representing our neighborhood, and we are SR ones. Many of our homes are first time, you know, homeowners.

They're we're not wealthy people. We we just love our streams and our wildlife, and we can hear the bald eagle's nest in the morning, you know, birds flying and chirping, and it's kinda nice to see them. The blue herons on our neighbor's properties It's really beautiful to us. We take a lot of comfort in that. And, unfortunately, not many people can enjoy it, but we would like to have it protected because our trees are so old.

Some of them are over 200 years old or so. They're very tall. I think in our neighbor's yard, it's a 175 feet tall, and we have many of those around. So we'd like to have some protections. We understand that there will still be growth even in our SR ones, and we're not against it.

In fact, you know, some of us would like to have more growth available for us, but we would like to have our our wildlife protected. And so we would like to have it remain at SR 1 until you can have the city

analyze

our properties to see if it is can be a wildlife, you know, refuge for our animals there. So it's a simple request. We don't have very many streets, like ours, so, we hope you would consider it. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak? If you would like to speak, please raise your hand. I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. And nobody in this room, I believe. Now we come to the end of the public comments. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? I'd like

to move that we close the public hearing. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in pie all in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. The public hearing is closed. Now we can open up to the commissioners to ask question. Please keep it on one. We might finish this meeting earlier. Commissioner Liu, your name is a first.

Oh, great. Thanks for the presentation, Nick. Always appreciate the details. I I had a couple clarifications. I'll keep it to one on the the tree code.

Mhmm.

In the notes, it mentioned the trees that sit on a lot border would end up being a point five split per lot. Could you give us some it's kinda two bundles of one topic. But could you give us details on how that's determined in terms of, you know, how you would count the point five on each side and what happens also if you have it in a corner and it splits across more than just two lots?

The the corner is an interesting take. I I would need to check how often that happens with our our land use team. The comment was really driven by some of our internal folks that are reviewing property line trees, and we're having a a difficult time dealing with how how how we should regulate them. So it was really focused on two properties, but interesting. I I foresee a code interpretation on how to handle now when you've got maybe four or three properties that share a tree, and if you maybe start to break it down further.

But the intent was to provide some credit. The code currently doesn't it's silent on what to do with those property line trees, and so the land use interpretation has been, that that tree does not exist for purposes of regulating it under the land use code. And when you don't give it any credit, you've removed any incentive for them keeping that tree, so that's why this change was made. And it's viewed as the trunk itself. And so if the trunk even if a portion of it is straddling over onto the neighbors, it doesn't have to be a fifty fifty split, but it is now a property line tree, and that's when it gets into this category of being discounted by point five.

So the trunk itself has to exist exactly on the property line rather than resistant or opy. It's just the

Yeah. And it doesn't have to be exactly. But if it you know, surveys, if they show a portion of that that trunk is on the property line, then that's when it would be a property line tree. Got it. Yes. Cool. Thank you. Yep.

Thank

you. I also have a question on the borderline tree calculations. Yeah. I know it was a subject of discussion in our last study session on this, and I've been thinking about it from that time. I I'm wondering if I know some commissioners have expressed an interest or curiosity about whether or not we should increase that point five to a one per tree.

My current thinking is that may result in giving too many credits for too few trees, and we could see some trees lost at that point. I'm wondering if you've seen any data or examples from other cities that maybe have something like a one credit per borderline tree and if what the actual effects of that would be from your perspective.

Yeah. I mean, my so my recollection when Christina was drafting kind of the tree code to begin with, we had pulled a lot of tree codes and specifically ones that were using the credit system. And there is a reason why we didn't have such a requirement in our code initially. It's not really something that's so explicit in regs. So we'd have to do some reaching out to other jurisdictions to see how do they manage those property line trees and how do they kind of regulate them.

And that's just not information that I I have readily available. But I would agree with kind of that concern around providing a full credit is that, you know, we may see less trees as a result, especially if there are a lot of property line trees. Now each one gets kind of full credit for a tree that's shared versus maybe having two trees on the site.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yep. Commissioner.

Thank you. On the same subject, I would like to I guess, I don't know if this is possible now, but encourage staff to consider the at least the inner root zone as the overlap with the property line. So that that would encourage you to protect trees that are on your neighbor's property, but where the canopy and roots are in your property. So you have to protect those anyway. You should be able to get some credit.

And a good way to do that would be maybe not the outer root zone, but the inner root zone, if that is the criteria that is used to because very few trees or I don't know. I'm guessing, there's a lot more trees where the inner root zone actually crosses the property line as opposed to the actual trunk. And, I mean, it's it's the same organism. So if you're protecting the trees the the roots from a tree that is not in your property and that is, impacting your ability to develop your property, you should be able to get credit for that, which was my point before. So Mhmm.

I'm wondering if there's a possibility to I think it's a good approach, in general, but I am wondering if there's a possibility to increase the criteria not from the actual trunk, but to the critical. Mhmm. That's that's my comment.

Thank you. Commissioner Kennedy?

Yeah. Thank you. I had one follow-up question on the tree canopy Yeah. But but two parts. So we received comments from the Kelsey Creek Neighborhood Association both verbally tonight and in writing, as well as Tesla.

I missed the the prior meeting on this, so apologies if if this has already been discussed, but wanted to encourage a conversation with the Kelsey Creek neighborhood to try to determine if there are particulars to that neighborhood that would enable protection of the trees that may be outside of this omnibus Luca. So understand the desire to categorize SR ones with more similarly situated properties. Are there particular situations that are near critical areas or preserves or parks that may make sense to to consider opportunities to protect wildlife? And is there a conversation that could be had with that neighborhood association to enable it? On the Tesla, direction, it sounds like there were some issues associated with the ability to implement EV charging based on on some of these requirements.

Has that already been managed and and dealt with? Or I'm sure you considered this in in writing the the amendments. Was curious where we landed with that and if there's an opportunity to continue to encourage EV charging despite the omnibus amendments.

Yeah. Yeah. So for the Tesla folks, I believe they wrote in supporting the omnibus Luka, the change that they were really interested in is what's the threshold for when they need to comply with our tree code fully? And our threshold, again, tree code wasn't perfect. We knew it wasn't going to be, so appreciate these opportunities to test it and then make adjustments.

And this is one of those such adjustment adjustments where they were triggering our tree code based on reconfiguring the parking lot and trying to add EV parking where they were already having parking. They weren't adding new stalls. They weren't expanding the area that they were paving. They just wanted to deploy some EV charging stations. And when you read our code, that was now considered a reconfiguration of an existing parking lot.

Full code applies. And so that was probably too low of a threshold. We have another threshold where if you're adding 20% of impervious surface or lot coverage, then the tree code applies. So we actually think that's a fairer threshold. We don't need to be concerned if someone wants to restrape their parking lot and then now have to plant a ton of trees. So yeah.

Makes sense. Thank you. Yep. Kosha Geppel?

Yeah. Thanks for the the presentation update. I don't have any questions, and I'm ready to make a motion to, to adopt the, 2026 Omnibus land use code amendment at the proper time. Thanks.

Thank you. Commissioner Farris? I had, like, four or five questions coming into this, and you answered almost all of them in your presentation, which I appreciate. I would also like to take the opportunity to plus one commissioner Kennedy's suggestion about reaching out to the Kelsey Creek neighborhood. They obviously have something very special, and it would be lovely to see if there's something that could work out there. But I too support the omnibus as written. Mhmm. Thank you. Yeah.

And for me, I think I would just wanted to say for SR 1, let's figure out something. Like, it's Anatai. It's, like, Kelsey Creek neighborhood. There's some neighborhood that they're really unique. Bridal Trail. They're not here, but I can I can hear them? I think those are the one if we can figure out something. And and I understand that Christina, she was doing some data when she was working on that tweak canopy. I remembered some of them, but not in detail. Mhmm.

I think it'd be nice if we can figure out how we can do the credits in a way that'd be incentive to keep trees. Because for me, it's the same. Like, I'm in downtown. There's no bird here. We don't have birds. When I open my window, there's no bird because there's not so many trees. There's a eagle who was trying to be somewhere close to my home, but construction literally scared them. Yeah. Should we go second round, or are we okay. Just a second, I think. Do you want to okay. Can you vice chair, Blue?

Just one clarification because I couldn't find it on a cursory look through the actual code itself. We talked during our Trico discussions about exempting Cottonwoods and Alders from getting credits. Yeah. I also just definitely, like, swallowed a bunch of those seeds when I was buying through the other day. Staying last night. Yeah. So just making sure that that was in there. I couldn't find it, but I'm assuming you guys brought it into the code.

Yeah. I think we wanted to do a point five, but then somebody was really opposed. So I think it was zero credit, is my

Oh, yeah. We know we know But we

haven't changed whatever that policy direction. That's still all provided before. Perfect. Yeah. Thank you.

Commissioner, you have any second? And, do have anything?

That's a question more than a comment. What is the reasoning or rationale for allowing allowing one lots played and then not allowing the second one through the same mechanism? I'm just curious.

That's how the statute is written, and it's likely to avoid kind of piecemealing land subdivision and circumventing maybe certain requirements that are tripped if you're a three lot short plat versus you're just a two lot short plat. That's sort of speculation on my end. There is a more straightforward reading of it in the statute, and that's why commerce also kind of reinforced that is how that is intended to be. But, yeah, as far as legislative intent, I'd have to get back to you. That's great. Thank you. Yep.

Commissioner Kennedy, do you have any other question? Okay. Paul. Farris.

Just one more. This is a follow-up to commissioner comment about the root system. I would I would certainly support that, but I would wanna make sure that wherever that tree is located on a on the property, if it's not on the on the actual border that they get full credit as opposed to the half credit, because you don't wanna minimize the amount of credit they would get for keeping that full tree. So maybe you do something odd, like you give the full credit for the property owner that has the trunk, and then you do, like, a 50% count for part of the root system, just as a thought. Quarter.

Should we get the oh, do you feel you want to change the language for that specific one, or should we go oh.

I would suggest that you make the motion.

Should we do that? Okay. Can I get the motion for for the

What what

omnibus 2026?

I'd like to move that the the planning commission recommend to the city council that the 2026 omnibus land use code amendment is adopted because it meets the decision criteria of land use code 20.3 j point one thirty five, and it's consistent with the comp plan. It's in the best interest of the residents and property owners of the city, and it enhances the public safety and welfare.

Okay. Is there any second? One second. Is there any discussion or amendment that we need to add to this motion? If so, please voice it and do the second and vote.

What what is the

You should say I take a motion to give a a quarter of the point to someone who has a root in his life or something better than what I did at

the like to make a motion to amend the motion, I don't know, to to reconsider the criteria for tree credits in the property line.

You need to suggest what is the amendment. Just come up with the don't we cannot do the criteria. Just say, like, if you want to calculate quarter credits for the neighbors that has the roots on it, just amend that one and add it to that language.

Oh, okay.

Does that make sense?

I'm I'm not sure what I need to amend. Do I do I need to Kate, what what do I need If to

you want to change how the the credit is calculated, then you would need to make an amendment to, as the chair said, say, I move to change the credit system to give a quarter credit to a root system?

Or Yeah. To the neighbor or the lot that that that like to

Anyway, just a suggestion. I think the the core of what you're asking for is to change the the designation from the the trunk to the inner root system. Yes. So you'd be amending the focus of the split lot from trunk to inner root system.

Even adding, but diff depends what do you want. Actually, you can keep and add.

So I like to amend the definition of a tree in the property line to be using the root system as opposed to the trunk.

Can I get the second for that?

If you change it to core root system as opposed to you just want the whole

The inner root system.

The inner root system.

Is that defined? Don't Probably not.

I don't know. I can't win that.

So don't

know how to implement that.

I know. Chair Khan Lou?

Yes. Just just a procedural question. Would would it be possible to recommend that staff consider an amendment to add the root system as a potential credit for neighboring property owners before presenting this to council to allow for time to implement the proper language to ensure that that This

is a this is a when we finish today, it goes to the council. We're not changing we're not coming back here. But Specific language.

Tonight, I

think that's most question.

Could we just say we we think that staff should consider this and present it to council as a recommendation for an amendment?

Now to say

There's a motion on the yeah. Okay. Say that. Yeah. Let me let me finish this one. Do you want to remove do you want to remove the current position, the current one, and then you already took your emotion. Is there any second for that? Let me see that one. Okay. There's no second, then it's not going to go carry. Great. I'm sorry. Do you but consider do you want an addition of what is existing, add another line for the routing system and try the?

No. I I think this

is already is constant. Is there any other amendment, any motion for any other amendment?

No. I was gonna say, I feel like we could second it and then do the discussion and then vote on it.

But

This was was asking for a second for the amendment motion, and nobody second that. Do you wanna second it?

I'll second it.

Okay. We got a second. Somebody changed their mind. Great. We have a second.

I think we should just second to have

a discussion. Any discussion about the motion for the amendment that we did it. Yes.

I I think the one thing, and it's consistent with with a comment made earlier. I I just have some question about what what is the definition of an inner root system. I don't I don't really know what that means and if it's a if it's a, if it's an implementable standard. I mean, I don't know if that's a consistent term that people use as a matter of trade or that arborists use. I mean, if if it is, that that makes it

Let me go counsel let me go commissioner with commissioner. Nick, do you have an answer for that? Let's not this one conversational. Let's do the round. Do you have any answer to commissioner Geppel's?

I'm not familiar with the term. I'm not an arborist, though. Okay. We'd wanna make sure the language aligns with industry standards or practice. And then the point five, you know, on a property line tree, I will say, was met with a bit of land use felt like that was going to be really complicated to manage. It sounds like we'd want would wanna go a little more complicated. So I just would just note one of the efforts here is to make sure we have clear and implementable code. And so we don't avoid or so we're gonna come back and do another omnibus to now clarify

Okay. Code. Commissioner Neutrol, do you have any comments about this motion amendment for the motion and the second?

Yeah. I am against this amendment. I I I understand the reasoning behind it. I get that we want to give people some kind of an award for protecting tree root systems. I understand that. But I think the practical implications of this would be that we would see fewer trees Theoretically, if, you know, roots of trees are given these credits, then, you know, someone who doesn't have any trees on their property could have enough credits to meet whatever threshold they need to just because the neighboring properties have trees. And I don't know if that's necessarily what we want to be incentivizing in this amendment. So I am against it for that reason.

I didn't see less trees.

Thank you. Commissioner Ferris, do you have any comment here? I do not. Okay. Commissioner Geppold, do you have any comment here? You already added yours. Commissioner Kennedy, any comments? Any discussion?

Yeah. Sorry. I was just gonna add. I I mean, I just hadn't maybe this is not this is not a complete search, but I just googled what is an inner root

Thanks for googling.

System. You know? And I you know? And it doesn't seem like there's a clear definition, but, obviously, that's not a scientific search.

Okay. And then vice chair, Lou?

I I really like the spirit of the idea. I do think it adds administrative and cost and burden to staff to have to figure out, you know, what's the definition of that and also on a per lot analysis of where the root system does. So I I know I'm second in motion, but I'm generally I guess it's the additional burden.

Can I do do you have anything? I just wanted to see go to vote if

it No. We we can remove

mean No. It's okay. Let me finish the voting. I need to do it. Sorry. It's a process. All in favor? Nay? Nay.

Nay. Nay. Okay.

And I'm Nay too. K. The motion did not carry. For the main motion we had, is there any amendment that you want to take a motion first or you are comfortable with the language? Anything about SR one that needs to get added or any question? Okay. Then all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And the motion carries. Can I and thank you, Nick? Can I have a motion to approve the minutes from April meeting? I'd like to

move that we approve the minutes for April 8.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. And can I get a motion?

We should like to make a motion that

we adjourn our meeting. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay. We changed the record. Cheers. Next appreciation, I'm gonna go have another thing.