Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the April 8 meeting of the city of Bellevue Planning Commission. This meeting is held. We have hybrid format with both in person and virtual option via Zoom. Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment to network communication portion of agenda. Our written comments have been submitted prior to 11AM today, Wednesday, April 8, will be summarized into the record. Now let us move forward with the roll call. Commissioner Ferris, you are remote. Are you present? I am present. Vice chair Liu and commissioner Kennedy are absent. Commissioner Go Gueppo?

Here.

Commissioner Valavesses?

I'm here.

Commissioner Vinician?

Here.

And I see that council liaison, Barghava, is absent, and I'm chair Hon Lu. Can I get the motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So moved. Second.

I have been notified that Hannah's is not able to present tonight on the affordable housing strategy. I move that we strike the affordable housing strategy update from the agenda tonight. Is there a second? Sorry. Second. I'll approve of removal of the affordable housing strategy update.

Alright. Fine.

I I'll

I'll approve of the amended agenda. Should I do two? I'm sorry. My notes is bothering me. Can I get another eye for all approved?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Kate, are you having any reports for boards and commission? Nope. Do you have any updates on the meeting of schedule? And

There's not much of an update to the calendar. I'll likely not be able to reschedule the presentation on the affordable housing, strategy, but let me know if you have any questions. I will also note that the April 22 meeting includes a, informational study session on MFTE. And I'm also so another topic. I'm also working with our IndraGov team, to provide you an update on the outcome of the legislative session.

Despite the fact that we've had a single agenda top topics recently, your agenda is pretty packed. So I'm trying to fit these things in, as I can. If I can find time in the next month or two for the legislative update, I'll put it I'll put a presentation in. But otherwise, I'll just opt for a a more timely written update rather than waiting until the fall. So yep.

Thank you. Any question from Kate? Okay. Let's move on on the oral and written communication. Kate, would you provide a summary of written communication that we have received until 11AM today?

Yeah. So I forward you the three comments that came in since the packet was published. Two were regarding the omnibus leuka. Since then, I've received one more comment on the omnibus leuka related to how it impacts critical areas, and I will forward that one to you as well.

Okay. We have thirty minutes for oral communication. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. A staff liaison, Kate Nessie, will call in the speakers 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 comment if there is a remaining time.

Please use the raise hand function in Zoom if you are attending virtually or motion to the 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 meeting under ordinance 6,752. The public may only speak during public comment about subject matters that are related to city of Bellevue government and are within the power and duties of Planning Commission. Additional information about the rules and regulation can be fined in order six seven five two. Kate, can you please call the first speakers?

Yeah. We have four people registered, and the first person is Ali Furtado, who is in person followed by Rupa Santa Santagopan, I think. And I will just get the timer set up here.

Please do not disturb the meeting. This is my first notice to you. And if you repeat in this behavior, you will be this is my first notice. If the second one happens, you will leave the meeting. What's happened with your timer?

The timer is reflected here, but it looks correct online.

It's a mirror. Councilman of Vargala, thanks for joining us. No worries. So I

think if the folks in the room are okay, we'll go with the mirror image of the timer. Hopefully, you can read that backward. So, Ali, if you wanna come up.

Thank you. Yep.

And then just hit the, microphone button.

Good evening, chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Ali Furtado, and and I'm a project design manager with Tesla. And I'm here tonight to express our support for the proposed amendment to LUC twenty point twenty point nine hundred c one b two. I'd like to briefly share how this amendment would help a real project here in Bellevue. We are currently in the permitting process for the installation of an eight stall supercharger site, which would be open to all for all EVs to use at Eastgate Plaza on 38th Street Southeast 38th Street.

The project is straightforward. We're converting three parking stalls to accommodate charging equipment, as well as an accessible charging stall. We're not removing any trees. We're not expanding any buildings, and we're not adding any impervious surface. However, under the current code, converting those three stalls triggers the full tree density requirement for the entire site.

Because this retail center has a historical tree deficit that predates our project, we would be required to plant over 30 trees or pay a fee in lieu of over $40,000 This fee represents approximately 26% of our construction budget for this project. And to be direct, that makes the project very difficult to move forward. This is exactly the kind of unintended barrier that the proposed amendment would address. By removing parking and circulation changes from the development activity definition, the code would be more appropriately matched would appropriately match the compliance requirement to the scope of work. We believe that this amendment, one, preserves the intent of the tree retention ordinance for projects that genuinely impact tree canopy.

Two, it removes an unnecessary obstacle to EV infrastructure deployment. And three, it supports the city's own twenty twenty four EV road map, which calls for 275 additional DC fast chargers by 2030. I would also like to thank director Pratt and Kirsten Mant and the Code and Policy Division for their responsiveness on this issue. When we raised this concern, they listened, and this amendment reflects thoughtful policy work. So we respectfully ask that the commission, recommend approval of this amendment as drafted. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you.

Next, we have, Rupa Sathagopan followed by Jessie Klassen. Rupa, could you raise your hand so I can unmute you? I see you. I'm going to allow you to speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Can you

hear me?

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Good evening, planning permissioning members of the city of Bellevue. My name is Rupa Saragopan, and I am the youth program leadership coordinator for the Indian American Community Services nonprofit organization based in Bellevue, Redmond. Our program is critical community rooted initiative that delivers culturally responsive mental health and wellness support to more than 225 Bellevue based youth members and 450 other youth members across the East Side every year. At a time when many in the Indian diaspora remain unengaged in conversations around mental health, IACS is actively creating a safe, stigma free space where young people feel seen, heard and supported.

Each year, our youth receive twelve hours of mental health first aid training by a diverse multilingual network of behavioral health providers. These sessions go beyond basic awareness. They equip youth with the tools, resources, and confidence to advocate for themselves and others, becoming the voice amongst other contributing members of the society. Our program structure is intentionally designed to build connection and leadership. And through weekly engagement, including bimonthly support groups and youth led service projects, participants co create solutions alongside governing guidance from alumni and young adult mentors.

This model fosters not only leadership and civic engagement, but it also provides access to vocational pathways and nuanced academic support, areas where gaps and apathy towards engagement often exist within our community. In 2025 alone, IACS delivered over five hundred and thirty five hours of direct mental health support, including one on one consulting for 33 youth members. These efforts are essential in addressing the growing mental needs of our community, particularly among youth who often navigate cultural expectations in isolation. Ice IACS is not only supporting individuals' well-being, but strengthening the broader community by uplifting youth across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and ensuring they are equipped to lead, advocate, and thrive. And we ask City of Bellevue support in enhancing this mental health program for our youth, within the community.

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to present this as.

Thanks.

Next, we have, Jesse Clausen who is followed by Alex Zimmerman.

Okay. Chair Honlu and commissioners, I'm Jessie Clausen, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Bellevue Club. I sent a letter regarding our proposed amendment, but we're here tonight to request your consideration of a very targeted addition to the omnibus code amendment, one that would allow a residential fee in lieu option in the East Main sub area. This change accompanies the Belvie Club's proposed mixed use project, which includes a residential tower above structured parking and expanded club space and advances the city's broader housing and urban design goals. This request does not represent a shift in city policy.

Every other sub area with inclusionary housing requirements already provides both residential and nonresidential fee in lieu options. East Main is the sole exception. When the East Main code was adopted, residential development at the Bellevue Club was not anticipated, and so we did not advocate for this option. Also importantly, the fee in lieu in East Main for nonresidential is $30 a square foot, which is almost double the nonresidential fee in the rest of the city. To make the code change very easy and not a policy change, we are not proposing any change to that fee.

So instead, we will apply that same fee to residential in addition to the nonresidential, so it will just be $30 a foot. Since the adoption of East Main, the city has increasingly recognized that Fanlu is a valuable and effective complement to on-site affordable housing. While on-site performance remains important where feasible, Fanlu allows Bellevue to directly fund affordable housing providers that can deliver deeply affordable units, often at income levels and locations that individual projects like the Bellevue Club cannot achieve on their own. As a reminder of the real world impact of this tool, earlier this year, the city awarded its largest ever affordable housing funding allocation, including approximately $3,500,000 toward low income housing projects. Expanding fee in lieu availability only strengthens that momentum.

The Bellevue Club is ready to participate meaningfully in this system, and this modest nonpolicy change code amendment simply brings East Main into alignment with the city's established citywide approach. Thank you. Thanks.

Next, we have Alex Zimmerman.

Oh, he's changed. I'm a magician. I'm president of Stand Up America. I live in Bellevue for forty years, and I 50 time can do that for election. Seven times you prosecute me. All cases dismissed in Bellevue. Trespass me for the last three year probably because I not enough for mayor Robinson here. Okay. It's number one. Number two.

100 times I told you, you're supposed to be show faces. I spoke from Tacoma to a thousand times, 5,000 times. And I speak right now every week, dozen times. Everybody show faces. You're only one acting like a mentally sick people. You don't show faces. To me, you look like you're not a Gestapo fascist. This is exactly Bellevue R, number one fascist antisemitic city in America. And I explained to you why. This is exactly why number one.

Number two, twelve year ago, you make decision, consul make a decision, so only thirty minutes and 12 people possibly speak. It's all because Alexander went guilty. This is all in camera. Guys, can you explain to you how is this possible? No one civilized seat people in civilized city destroy us freedom of speech, first amendment of constitution. What does this mean? This mean, no. You all freaking digging your activity, idiot, or you are Nazi pig. I'm so sorry. Who destroy constitution?

And you're doing this for many year, and I come in every meeting here for many year in talking, start, show, faces. You don't do Just for you, my friend. Yeah. Right now, I wanna speak for our staff. She's one more minute. Situation very simple right now. No analogy in this planet, Homer in city represent contribute who we have a war. It's never happened before. This cannot happen by definition. But we have a mayor right now.

His name Mohammad. Yeah. And he represent Iranian Muslim citizenship. This very interesting Iranian citizenship. She have a dual citizenship, and he as mayor. I don't understand how this possible. First, this not happened in America. Never. But this never happened before in this planet. You cannot have a mayor with who we have war for fifty years. And right now, for the last couple of year, it's a real war for killing American. And he asked, mayor, how is this possible? Viva Trump. Viva new American revolution. Stand up, slap, and happy cow.

We need stop in acting like a Nazi, yeah, or Muslim. I don't know.

Your time is over. Thank you.

Yes.

Member Burgo, do you have any update for us? I know we passed that item, but if you have any update from the commission from any commissions or council?

No specific updates. Council actually has been on recess last last week and this week as well. So nothing beyond what we shared two weeks ago.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We can yeah. We Do we have one more person?

We don't we're through the people who have registered to speak, but we do have some additional time. I can see if there are people in the room or online that wish to speak.

Anyone in the room or online who would like to share? If you're online and you want to give comment, please raise your hand.

I don't see any hands raised.

Okay. Thank you. The first study session and the last is the item about twenty twenty six omnibus land use code amendment. This study session will cover cleanup amendment, amendment required for compliance with the state law, and the minor amendment which require limited policy consideration and clearly advanced established priorities. There are no significant policy consideration associated with the Luca staff are looking for direction from the Planning Commission to set a public hearing. Senior planner, Christine Mint, and code and policy director, Nick Whipple, will provide the presentation. Hello.

Hello, and thank you. So as mentioned, we are here tonight to talk about the 2026 Omnibus code amendments. So this is our first Omnibus that we have done at the city of Bellevue. Typically, we do code cleanups, and they focus more on Scribner's errors or just cross references that needed to be update. Not a lot of

not a

lot to review there. So with the Omnibus, it's it's exciting for us because we are looking to address a few more items. We also see this as a really useful vehicle to kind of maintain our codes. Oftentimes, we'll get requests for items, and it will typically have to wait until we're ready to go address a a full section to be able to scope that. So this gives us that opportunity on a more frequent basis, to update our codes.

And then Omnibus is just referring to kind of separate, code sections that have been published at different times in history, separate ordinances. We're just looking to address those in one package. So it's really just our, kind of new process we're looking forward to. So, Kirsten will be walking us through the presentation, and then, as mentioned, we'll be looking for direction to schedule the public hearing.

Yes. So as Nick mentioned, we're looking for direction to get on the bus and prepare this for a public hearing at a future meeting date. So I'll go over what is the Luca in a little bit more detail. It's a Luca and BCCA, I should mention, mention, but that will obviously be going through the council process. Talk a little bit about the scope and just some of those really key components we're looking for direction on, a bit just on sort of the baseline engagement we've done for this, and why we scoped it that way, and then timeline and next steps.

So what is it? As you've noticed, there's a lot of disparate components in the draft. We kinda split it up by topic area just for ease of kind of understanding what's in it. But in terms of the three buckets we're looking at, one is kinda straight cleanup items, things like errors, clarifications on intent of the code. We maintain a big spreadsheet internally with our land use staff that, you know, collects all different comments we've had, I think, back from, like, 2022.

So combing through those, following up on those, and making sure we understand what we need to do there for clarifications. The state law updates, I think we wrapped in eight different state laws into this one, some of which one of which didn't really have any code components with the historic preservation code since we don't have it. But the rest were just me trying to meet compliance of into state law and take some interpretation there. And then finally, those sort of small scope policy consideration items that normally haven't been in these cleanup code projects, but looking for some direction there for some things we think will just make the code a bit better. So for cleanup amendments, again, it's screen reserves, clarifications, correcting references.

One kind of wonky small thing that I know isn't always an important topic of conversation is our city attorney's office went through our extended vesting language just to make sure we're meeting current practice, and that's really clear in the code because that's obviously a very important topic. And then another one, was consolidation of the permit processes. You'll see in the the process strike draft, we realized and I realized when I first started here, was like, I don't really understand how all these different permits are supposed to work because they're all in the different subareas. So looking to make that consolidated into one place in part 2030 so that if you're looking to see what are the requirements for a master development plan, those are all in one place. But then also making sure it's clear how those apply, what projects those apply to, and any additional components that are subarea specific were also retained.

For state law compliance, these are the bills that we were reviewing as a part of this, some of which are due for compliance this summer, which is what kind of drove the timeline for this project, some of which aren't. But we figured why not just get ahead of the ball and get them done. And I'll go into a little bit of detail on some of these. One that has been a little bit confusing because the state is doing so much with different ways of dividing land is unit lot subdivision reform versus this term lot splits. The lot splitting bill, if you've been following it, has really changed since its initial iteration, which was to make any lot be able to be two lots.

That has since changed that now you still have to meet your minimum lot sizes. So this is really almost an administrative change to make certain types of two lot short plats easier. The main split is that, something to be in order to qualify as a two lot, split versus a two lot short plat is the resulting lots cannot be large enough to then be further subdivided. So you have to get below that threshold. This is a chart from the Department of Commerce's guidance to try and clarify all the differences.

Then a unit lot subdivision is really just a form of dividing land where you don't have to comply with minimum lot standards. So for, like, a townhouse project that was developed under middle housing where you otherwise wouldn't have been able to subdivide, you can then lay down lot lines in between those townhomes and provide a fee simple product. So just providing different options. The lot split process is considered more of an administrative process, really similar to a BLA. So that's the way that we've kind of wrote in the code because you don't have to do a number of things that you would have to otherwise do for a two lot lot split.

And again, we developed this just to meet the baseline requirements of the code or of the law so that we can implement that. Some of the approaches we've taken to some of the other state laws for child care reform, we did expand on this a little bit, but the goal here is to really meet the intent of the child reform bill, which is we have a really big need for childcare in the state. So one thing that we did was created a slightly broader definition for childcare center to include preschools and nursery schools that aren't otherwise a part of a school, so anything that kind of meets that definition but otherwise wouldn't have to be regulated as a school. Another element that we included was we have a current restriction on FAR for the resulting unit lots themselves, but the unit lots have to meet FAR standards. We got some feedback from the development community that was kind of limiting, and there's nothing in the bill that makes us have to do that.

So we figured why not remove that? It sounds like it's kind of an issue that we don't really need to have in there, and just make it that they have to meet the parent lot FAR, which is what is in the bill. And then for the building cladding bill, the general language in there was just that we cannot require any kind of cladding requirements if the what they're proposing meets building code. So we decided to take a simple approach and just remove cladding standards from the code. And then for some of the small policy scope amendments, the kind of metric we use for determining whether or not they should be included is, is there a lot of controversy around this?

If there is, probably not because we're not trying to to do too much engagement on this and not go too deep. Is it consistent with our existing city priorities and the comp plan? And is it pretty straightforward and something we can't otherwise scope in another project? So it would be good to include in this one. So one of the things we've been talking about is whether or not to continue to permit single family in both our high density residential only areas and then our other mixed use areas that allow residential.

This was we did bring this up at council, didn't have any real discussion around it. And the goal here is really to make sure we're meeting the intent of our land use, designations in the in the comp plan, make sure that we can meet that zone capacity and that we're kind of incur. We have uses that align with those designations as well and the intent behind those. So that was a cleanup item we felt would be appropriate in here. We also have had some ongoing discussions on the fairly recently adopted tree code, just a couple of small things here, one being this discussion around property line trees.

They currently don't count towards your retained tree credits on-site, and the discussion we have had as well, what if you have a really, really high quality property line tree that should be retained? So we decided to propose that we count those as a half credit, to encourage some of that and provide a little bit more flexibility for what you have on-site. Another one is to, move the s r one district tree retention require or tree retention credits in line with the other s r districts. We've had some feedback that that was a really challenging threshold for those SR one district parcels, particularly because those minimum lot sizes are more in line with the other SR districts. So, again, a small shift that we thought could create a little bit of flexibility and also makes makes sense.

Another one that was spoken about in the public comment period was the current tree code has a trigger that any parking or circulation area change triggers the tree code. It's followed by a minimum threshold from changes to impervious surface, which we felt like was the more appropriate metric for that. Because if it's already existing impervious, if they're doing something within that that continues to make it impervious, it's not it didn't make sense to us that that would require full compliance with the tree code. So just a few small changes there. And then getting a little bit more into detail on those process changes.

So these are all the different permit processes that we consolidated into the citywide permit section. So that's our master development plans, departures, administrative design review, binding site plans. We didn't actually have any central language around binding site plans currently. It was sort of in within other permit types, so wanted to create some centralized language for that. Process mergers, which was also sprinkled throughout the sub area plans, and then, again, that extended vesting language.

Another component we've been working with the city attorney's office on is understanding where we do and don't need to require general consistency with the comprehensive plan. It's required for certain things like, short plats, but there's a lot of other things it's not required for. And the concern being, well, that could open up, you know, potential permits for a challenge if not it's something we need to do. And really, what's important is meeting the development regulations and making sure they're consistent there. So that was another cleanup item that we have wrapped into that.

In terms of our engagement approach, it was pretty minimal for this project, again, just because we're not looking for a ton of policy direction. So a lot of consulting and reviewing with internal staff on cleanup components, making sure we're understanding the intent of some of the feedback we've gotten, getting feedback from the development community, and any comments we could get through there. We've been working through those. And then, of course, presenting and consulting with planning commission and council. In terms of a timeline, we're kind of in the code refining stage at this point, hoping to move to a public hearing in May and targeting council action. These dates should all be 2026, and I don't know how

I didn't catch that earlier.

We are not a year behind. I promise. So we're looking for council action in July, and that's just because a bunch of the those state bills have July compliance. So that seems like an easy fit. And so, again, we're looking for that direction to hold a public hearing at a future meeting and get on the

bus with us. So that's all we have.

Thank you. I think we can go around with one question, no follow-up. Just make it fast, and then we can go second round and third round. Commissioner Ferris, I saw with you that you are virtual.

Yes. I am. Thank you. One question. So I I'm hoping that we'll be able to talk about the proposed change to the East Main code that Jesse Klassen spoke about and wrote a letter about. I would like to understand from the staff perspective, what is their feeling about that proposed change and whether or not it's something that you would recommend that we that we would recommend.

Yeah. I think from our perspective, again, because the goal of this project wasn't to bring up topics that would require a lot of robust policy discussion, we just didn't include it at this point, mostly just because that was council direction originally. But that said, if that's something that this body is interested in and wants to recommend, we're more than happy to include that and have that discussion with council as well. So I don't know if Nick, you have any other opinion on staff opinion on the background since you were involved in that. But

Just that, you know, at the time that the East Main code was adopted in 2021, the council was really focused on setting a fee for commercial and hadn't really discussed for residential. I think as noted in the public comment, that that sentiment has shifted a bit. We're looking for any opportunity to support affordable housing. And so I think especially when you're thinking about the choices either develop or not, which it sounds like might be the case because no fee is available. It's certainly a worthy consideration for this body to have, and we're open to hearing what you all have to say about that.

And we can carry forward whatever you decide, to the council. We wanna make sure that we highlight that piece as well since we didn't initially scope it, as Kirsten mentioned. It was an intentional policy choice that the council made in 2021. So, one of the aims of this omnibus, Luca, is where we aren't quite hitting the policy mark that was decided, that's where we would entertain amendments. And so that that's part of why it was not really considered as part of our scope, but, again, open to your feedback.

Well, I'll just speak from my perspective. I do support that. I think it will allow some, certainly, additional housing. It's be high end, but it also allows for the fee and lieu to be able to go to other projects that probably wouldn't go forward without it. So I, for one, would appreciate staff bringing that forward to council. Thank you. Commissioner Gueppa?

Good. I had I had two questions, and commissioner Farris took mine already, and I'm gonna plus one her comment. And the other question I had was just about the the and I'm generally supportive of what you talked about in terms of the the the single family residences in areas. I guess I'd like to understand and about not allowing that as a permitted use and densely in areas where we wanna promote density. But I I wanted to understand a little bit more about scope in relation to that because I don't I don't have a good sense of how broadly that is being struck as a, permitted use.

Can you can you help me understand how how broad is that, is that change across the city?

Yeah. So that would apply to what are our formerly multifamily zones. So any of those now zones that are dwelling units per acre, that's driving the density. In terms of policy, I think we're looking at, you know, what does land use designations describe? What is our intent? And also trying to meet our growth targets as well and ensuring that we're meeting that density. Beyond those higher density residential zones, there's just a couple of other multi fit or multiuse mixed use areas that allow residential where, again, we really wanna drive residential growth. That's what we've been targeting, those areas for residential growth. So it just made sense that that that use isn't necessarily consistent with what those areas are envisioned for.

Okay. I just I just wanna make sure it's not overbroad. It sounds like it's it's been well scoped.

Yeah. And and I would just add, it's it's relatively low risk. We did just a little bit of a scanning of our multifamily district to see, are we creating any nonconformities with this policy choice? And it didn't appear so at least at face value. And then, again, if someone finds themselves in a situation where they have valuable land that is zoned for something much higher and they want to do single family instead of more units, they could always add an ADU and then get around this whole rule because that would then put them in a different category. But we did feel like to try and align with our growth targets, which are aggressive, was it gonna be really important to also clarify within multifamily districts, we wanna see multifamily.

Great. I'm I'm on board. No further questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Ning Chan.

Thank you. I wanna start off by plus one ing both of the previous comments. I agree with both the East Main fee in lieu addition and also appreciate the clarity on the residential change. My question is about trees. You know, you mentioned the change for the tree lines to one half credit. Can you just explain to me a little bit more about why do they currently not count for anything and just what the general policy there is? Just give me a little bit more context on how that works.

I have the background on the current code.

Yeah. Well, the current code is silent on this issue. And so what the land use division has done is made some interpretation that if someone doesn't have full control over the tree and their neighbor could, you know, likely with conversation and agreement, remove that tree, then we're risking giving credit to a tree that they don't have full control on keeping. And so, this was kind of trying to find that middle ground with our land use division on the best way to incentivize people keeping the tree. Because what happens when you say you get no credit for that tree, there is no incentive to keep that tree.

And the other thing that's happening is that people are having to deal with we've got a large tree on the property line. And instead of getting some credit for that, they now have to make up their credit deficit with replanting a ton of trees. And so this is just trying to honor that there is a there is, in fact, a tree there. Regulation should acknowledge that tree is there, but maybe finding that compromises will give the half credit since you have half the control over that tree's fate. And so that's really where that kind of came from.

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. It it sounds like if we were to give a full credit, it would risk doubling up on counting a tree twice too as well. So that I appreciate that context. Thanks.

Commissioner, I might have missed this. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to plus one the previous comments on single family and, also on the tree, I wanted to talk about this. I I think we should push a little bit further. When we look at the tree in practical terms, if you're looking at a property, you're not looking just at where the tree is sitting. Mhmm.

The canopy of the tree usually is a good indication of how far the roots extend below ground. And to protect the tree, we really need to step away from those roots. Any excavation needs to be away from those roots. So a tree like a cedar or something like that is relatively shallow, but, like, a Japanese maple could be, like, really, really wide. And the city actually requires that you provide an arborist report indicating the tree protection, requirements or the critical root zone for trees that are in neighboring properties.

Not only in the property line, but in your neighbor's backyard. If there's a tree there, those roots will extend into your property, and you're forced to protect the tree. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that if you're protecting that tree, you're not getting credit for it. I would push that you are actually giving credit for any tree that affects your property and that you need or choose to protect.

So even if the tree is outside of your property line so this is your property, this is your property line, and this is your neighbor's property, and there's a tree here. And And if the root area encroaches on your property, which means that you cannot build here and you have to move your house here and your excavation, you're actually reducing your buildable area because of a neighboring tree, and you're protecting that. You should be getting credit for that. And I would, encourage you to consider, people to allow to obtain credit for tree root zones that are in your property regardless of where the actual trunk is sitting because it is actually affecting you, and you're choosing to actually, you're forced to protect those. But

Are you saying, like, a percentage of how much of the tree canopy is on their site? Or

No. Like Or a full You cannot you cannot partially protect the tree. Right? If you cut half of the root, the tree is gonna die. So if in my neighbor's property, there's a big tree and the root comes into my into my property over here. I need to protect this. So I I cannot build here. I have to step away from that. It affects where I can build. And if sometimes you don't have one tree.

Maybe you have, like, a line of trees or a tree grove, and that really starts to encroach on your property. And then you also have two or three trees on your property. All of a sudden, you're you're left with nothing to build. So if you're able to count those trees that affect you as credits as it probably should be, then that makes it a little bit more fair. And I'm happy to provide examples of real cases, if that's not very clear right

now. But

I I I think it's clear. I think there's some challenges. The example that you're citing around protecting that tree protection zone or the critical root zone, that comes up frequently. Typically, people hire arborist reports. They'll have recommendations.

You can cut roots up to a certain degree. We haven't seen, at least in a lot of the examples, major impacts where they're having to shift their project to respect that tree on the other property. I think the challenge is when a property is having to rely on a tree that is entirely on someone else's property in order to gain an approval, and they have no control over that tree. And so and there's no requirement that that neighbor keep that tree forever. And so you enter a situation where, you know, a decision that's made by your neighbor now puts you out of compliance with your tree credits.

It also adds a whole layer of complexity in terms of how do we monitor how they earned their credits. And oftentimes, people will wanna remove trees after they've gotten their approvals, and our land use team has to go back at their applications and see how did you get your math. And, typically, they have a survey or something that discloses how they kind of got to where their approval was. I think what's challenging is when a neighbor can do whatever they want with that tree, and then that now creates a a problem, basically, for the the project that was approved. We have no way of keeping that tree.

I I understand. I just you're still required to it still affects your proposal. It still affects your application. Yeah. So if it's in your application, it should be considered. And, I mean, cities are evolving. Right? And trees just have a different timetable. They probably

Mhmm.

Change quicker than other stuff like codes. Right? So if the tree gets taken out or gets sick eventually, then that changes compared to what you actually applied for. I understand that. But I I I would love to share some examples of real cases where this has happened that really it it it throws a wrench in a lot of development and is not, something like, we're not overstretching here to, like, request this. I think it it really makes sense. I'd love to explain it, send you some examples if you sense.

And that's not a unique example, of course, to trees. I mean, people can decide in downtown to build up to the property line, and they've now not allowed maybe a neighbor to build to the property line, or it's going to cost them a lot more because they have different maintenance of their facade that they have to consider. There's a lot of situations that people find themselves in because of actions of their neighbors or lack of actions from their neighbors. So certainly not unique, but it's difficult to kind of try and address in a regulatory context. That's really where we have to start working more with with applicants to work with their neighbors, and it's hard to kind of find that perfect code solution for everything.

Oftentimes, the best solutions are not gonna be found in your your regulation book. So but appreciate examples if you wanna share that. We'd that that's some more thought.

That's it. I appreciate the thought into at least providing half of credit for that, but I like I like to follow-up with some information, with Kim separately. That's okay.

I think for my question thank you. Back to Tweet. I thought I'm a tree person. Look at this planning commission. Where did we brought the half a credit? Like, is this, like, some formula that you are going? I'm all return trees, as you know. I've suffered through all the trees that got cut off in Downtown Bellevue in the last twelve years. Is there any way that we give one credit? What was the logic about half a credit?

Yeah. Well, I think Commissioner Neelchin actually brought up a point that was discussed, but I didn't raise myself in this conversation, was just the risk of double counting too. So one neighbor gets to count that tree. The other neighbor also gets to count the tree. They both get the full credit for that tree. So there is some of that as well. But it's kind of you know, it's a joint decision, this tree. It's like their it's like their child that they have to, like, have joint custody over. So they do have to work with each other on it. So it's

Talking about a tree and then their neighbors. Sorry. Are you talking

Property line trees that get a half credit, which was the question you're asking about was the where did the credit come? Why not Yeah.

But the credit?

Is it the property line should be always with the neighbor? It could be on the street. For example, Maury on the 10th And Hundred 3rd Avenue in downtown. Like, we have five trees. They cut four of them, only kept one, which was on the corner of the Southwest, which I assume because it was easier to have all the equipment in and out. Right? Like, I'm wondering there was another way from the other side of the building, but they picked the 10th. Then I'm wondering if we were giving good credit, all those five tree could stay, and they could, like, have the entrance from Harness 3rd, which was super easy. I'm just curious about, like, if that property line is with the street, not with the neighbor. Is that

Yeah. It's it's regardless of, I guess, who who holds ownership on the other side of that property line. And then in the case of the one zero third example, I mean, this they're not required to retain any of those trees. Yeah. So they chose to keep a tree.

One. They didn't have to

keep any of those trees under under the code. But the half credit at least just acknowledges that they're getting nothing now, and that's not really creating a strong incentive to keep the tree. I think we'd often see people decide to have a conversation with their neighbor and say, I need to remove this tree because the city is requiring me to replant a bunch of trees, and I don't have space because this Okay. Big tree's here.

Can we go second round? Commissioner Ferris?

Yes. So there was a letter that Phyllis White sent in late today, and I realized it was late in the cycle. So I'm not expecting to have a reaction, but I would be interested at some point to hear staff's review of the suggestions that miss White provided to say to see whether or not that's something that is in alignment with kind of our intent with this particular code. So that's a comment. And one quick actually, one more comment. Kristen, you used the term BLA. Could you include that in the glossary that you're putting together for us? Because I don't know what that means.

Yeah. Boundary line adjustment. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah. So for for the the letter that you mentioned, I do wanna clarify that there's different sets of regulations that apply to tree retention for critical areas and their buffers Yes. Than for areas outside. Outside. Yes. Yes. And so for the changes to the SR 1 district, those would just apply to portions of the site outside of critical areas and their buffers. The retention standards for vegetation in critical areas and their buffers is a much, much higher standard. Standard. Most of the time, it's it has to be a hazard of some kind. And even then, we prioritize it being cut into a snag or something else that can provide habitat. And, usually, the debris should be left in the area unless it's, you know, diseased or something like that. So the changes we're suggesting are to the citywide tree code and not to the critical areas code.

Very helpful. Thank you, Nikki. And one more clarification, really quick, fast, more in the glossary piece. You talked about extended vested language. That doesn't mean anything to me.

And, unfortunately, it doesn't mean a lot to me because the legal team was the one that was working to put that together. I don't know if you know that anymore.

Well so we have a process in the code right now where if somebody gains an approval with design review application, they get three years of vesting to the code that they were approved under. And if they don't take action on their application, submit a billing permit to to keep their vesting, then they lose that, and then they have to really start over in the process. We have a process to extend your vesting. You could do two two year extensions. And so it was a very complicated section that was written really with a lot of the feedback from the development community in sort of a a forum that didn't allow for the best code writing.

And so this was really an opportunity just to clarify it, not shift policy, just make everything a little bit more clear for for folks that have to apply the language.

Nick, you're amazing. That was really complex, and you described it to a place that I can actually understand it well. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you. Commissioner Geppel?

Yeah. No further questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Nietzsche?

Yeah. This is an unfair question, so I'm sorry. It seems like there's kind of a consensus among the commission of including that East Main fee in lieu. And, you know, from my understanding, the proposal is to to keep the dollar amount as as the same as the nonresidential. I know we've kinda just asked you to to consider this as part of it, but what are your thoughts on keeping that dollar amount the same? Would you want to adjust that? Would you wanna keep it the same? Do you want more time to think about it?

Well, I think the simplest approach is to keep it the same. I also think that the amount shouldn't be sticker shock or scary to you all. I know that $13 is in our heads from Wilburton, $10 from Houma. The that is based on the square footage of the entire building. So the bill is much higher.

In East Main, it is an incentive based approach, and they're only required to earn 75% of their amenity points through affordable housing when they go above the base or if they go above the base height. And so they're only paying on the increment, the bonus kind of increment. And so that is the approach of our downtown code where the fees collected are relatively modest. And so what I would suggest is if this body wants us to open that fee in lieu option up to maintain the fee just for simplicity in recognition that the TOD bill that the state handed down to us needs to be implemented by 2029, and East Main is in the TOD area. We are gonna have to revisit everything in East Main.

So it's either, make a decision now, which is a Band Aid to support Bellevue Club, condo building getting through, and then kind of addressing it more holistically or wholesale with the TOD bill. Or don't do anything now and then wait till 2029, which you might, as you heard, lose the project that's ready to go.

Thank you. Commissioner Vaises?

I would support the Band Aid approach. Also, separate question. If you have a tree in your neighbor's property and it bears fruit and the fruit is in your backyard, Is it your fruit, or is the neighbor's?

As far as I know, when it comes to tree property line disputes, whatever, wherever that line is, like, you could you could cut up to that line.

That's your tree.

Right? That's your fruit, I

protecting that tree, so you should get credit for that.

I do think our attorneys would maybe have some different advice. But yeah. And I think there's Consider. Yeah.

Yeah. Same logic, I guess.

Matt, you're welcome if you want to join us, or we can take it later. Okay. I did not see any motivation. My question is about Main East Main. I think you kinda touched base, Nick. Is there any property that they might say, we didn't know that you guys were gonna go do it. We got left out. Yeah. How many do you know? It's only that's a street on the East Main, or there are more around?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, East Main is, I think, like, 90 acres total. It's not large. And then when you think about the area that the fee applies to, that's in the East Main TOD High Block.

Mhmm.

There are really three parcels that could potentially redevelop under two ownerships. And so and this is a change that is, I think, more friendly for for those ownership groups. The other parcel that's in the High District has a stream running under it, and they built over it. So it's unlikely they're gonna redevelop because they'll never get what they have today. So I I would say, again, the risk is relatively low just because the change is it's pretty minor, and it's also something that's helpful to the other ownership group that we haven't heard from.

Okay. Any other discussion? Are we ready to I don't see if you gave me the public hearing date. Do we need a public hearing, or we just need to vote for some public hearing?

Can just ask Okay. Staff to schedule it. It is on your calendar, I think, for May 13.

May 13?

Tentatively. But, we'll just make sure that it's scheduled. Okay.

Can I make a motion? Sorry.

I would like to make a motion that we, suggest to staff that they've, have a public hearing omnibus motion. Let's get on the bus.

Any second?

Second.

Any discussion?

I have

One discussion.

Do we need to include the

East Main?

East Main?

Do the amendment. Yeah.

We can integrate that into the copies that come out for the planning public hearing.

Okay. I'd like to move that we'll make an amendment to your motion.

Her motion?

To include to commissioner Ferry's motion to include the Spain amendment as discussed during this meeting.

Can I get another second for that?

Second.

And any discussion for that amendment? No. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Can we have a all in favor for the first motion?

Aye.

Aye. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks. We just stuck the second study, as you know. If any commissioner have a question, please set up the call. Reach out to Kate to set up the call about affordable housing. That was informational, basically, and sadly, we couldn't have our staff to be here. Please follow-up with Kate to have a meeting if you would like with the city of staff. And that's all I have. Is there any motion to adjourn the meeting? Yeah. I will sorry. Go ahead. Just a

a separate comment. Okay. Kate was handed a paper

Okay.

Which included some strong language, I guess, by mister Zimmerman. Oh, okay. Know if that is considered bullying or harassment in some ways, and I don't know. I I just don't appreciate that. And

I know.

I'm sorry. Thought somebody needs to look into that.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. I decided not to disturb him. I I gave him the first notice, but I didn't give him the second notice. It was a good opportunity for give him a second notice, but I didn't. Is there any motion to adjourn the meeting?

I will move that we

adjourn our our meeting. Second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Thank you, everybody.