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 eleven a.m.

today, Wednesday, May 13, will be summarized into the record.

We have one public hearing on the agenda tonight.

Present.

Commissioner Ferris.

Here.

Commissioner Gopel.

Here.

Commissioner Belaveses.

Oh here.

Commissioner.

Here.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Present.

Council Liaison.

Councilmember Bargava.

I'm Chair Han 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.

All approve of the amendment agenda.

Do you have any reports for us?

Yeah, I can.

Yes, I can briefly give you a quick update.

Looking at the agenda yesterday, but before I do that, uh I want to say a quick update on uh we had a really good great event uh at City Hall this week, earlier this week where there was a commission appreciation evening and they had all the uh different commissions there, including great representation from this planning commission, and uh uh it was great.

Um we missed uh having uh 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 uh uh three primary things on the agenda.

Uh one is the briefing on the King County wastewater treatment division provided uh by um uh their director who came in and gave us an update on the change in um rate and capacity for the sewer system, um, as well as the forecast for the next 20 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 uh some feedback provided from council.

Uh we also looked at um the council initiation for the high density residential plan unit development, land use code amendment and associated rezons.

This is a follow-up from the comprehensive plan in 2024 updating the land use maps.

Um that was pushed forward as a uh work item.

And lastly, there was an ordinance defining criminal conduct adopting a new section 10.

And uh setting an effective date for that.

So that was the third piece from the agenda last night.

And so that passed uh 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 update of the meeting schedule for 2026?

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

Great.

Um let's move on with the oral and written communication.

Would you provide a summary of the written communication?

Oh, yes, Chanelia's schedule.

Um, just as a note, Kate, it looks like on July 22nd we have three public hearings all on the same night.

Uh yeah.

My goodness.

I I know it sounds like a lot.

Um uh I one of them i is a very minor change to the uh transportation section.

Okay.

Um, and so I expect that will go extremely quickly.

And the other two are are we probably have more engagement, but probably not.

Do you think it's doable?

I think it's completely doable.

Okay.

So noted.

Um do you have any summary of the written communication?

Sure.

I um sent four communications that came in um to you guys this this afternoon.

Um, and there have been no comments since that time.

So you have all the communications.

Thank you.

Um now we can move on with the oral communication.

We have total 30 minutes for oral communication.

Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak.

A staff later on 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 6 p.m.

registration deadline, you may still provide public comments if there is a remaining time.

Please use the raise hand function in Zoom if you're attending virtually or motion to staff if you are in person to indicate that you would like to speak.

Um there are rules adopted by city council limiting the topic about which the pup uh public may speak during our meetings under order 6752.

The public may only speak during public comments about subject matters that are related to City of Council uh City of Bellevue government and are within the power and duties of the Planning Commission.

Additional information about the roles 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.

Kate, can you please call on our first speaker?

Yes, we have only one speaker who is signed up.

Um, and that is Alex Zimmerman.

Um so I will bring up the timer.

Sorry, things in a particular one.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

My name, my name, uh my name, Alex Zimmerman.

Yeah, and I come don't speak to you because you look into me like a dirty Nazi bastard.

You absolutely not civilized people.

This committee in every committee, what is I see in Bellevue for the last 30 years?

This is not civilized people is come like a built animal from Jungle.

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 years in every meeting.

I ask what is you don't show faces and nothing change.

I spoke with consulars.

Okay, would you mind to pause the timer?

Uh, Mr.

Zumann, did you hear about the order 6752?

Can you talk on the subject of agenda, please?

Yeah, I'm talking about as you can.

But thank you very much for your correction.

Thank you.

But I talk in something.

Shouldn't you don't interrupt me, please?

Yeah, but I'm talking about something.

What is in public something, what has happened with us government?

You have these rules.

You know this rules.

Why you interrupt me is a different story.

Don't worry, many thousands is idiot around the Nazi fascist busted, interrupt me proximity every meeting.

I have this experience, yeah.

Let's speak in console chamber five thousand.

Yeah.

So a situation right now, very simple.

I want to explain to you why you don't show us faces.

And second, what does I explain to you?

This what is talking about why you cut 12 year ago.

Uh uh uh us right for free speech.

So, right now this only for 12 yeartory minute in 10 people.

And I'm totally confused about this because I have a council here right now.

He from India.

You don't understand American constitution.

You don't know what this means freedom of speech.

I know India don't have freedom of speech.

I know this.

So when he transfer your Indian culture to America, you look like a criminal to me or mentally sick man, you know what this means.

Why we don't know what can you pause the timer?

Mr.

Zeberman, please talk about the agenda based on the order 6752.

We need to talk about the agenda.

Please correct your verb and talk about agenda.

I know that interruption.

Yeah, time capital.

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

I understand you.

Yeah, yeah.

So 12 year ago, Mayor Robinson, you know what is meaning's Consul Robinson because it's because Alexanderman's so bad.

So right now, 150,000 people cannot speak.

And I come in every meeting in talking about this for years, and nothing changed.

This, what is who you are?

You're not only them, Nazi fascists.

You know what this means?

You support junta, what is controllers for Tory year?

This what is I go 15 times for election because I receive what is a see her.

I have experience with Soviet Union KGB.

Stop it too.

You know what this means?

German Nazi.

You're more dangerous, a German Nazi because they don't have freedom of speech.

You know, communists because they don't have freedom of speech, too.

Viva Trump, we have a new American revolution.

Stand up, Slevin, happy cow.

Stop and act in life.

It's for you, my friend.

Thank you, your time is over.

Thank you very much.

You are you freaking you.

Can we have the next speaker?

Uh we don't have any other speakers uh signed up, but there are some folks attending online.

So if there's anybody else that would like to uh speak, you can either raise your hand virtually or in person.

Oh I don't see any uh further folks.

Okay.

Then we're gonna go move to the next item.

Um, the 2026 um omnibus LUCA is a group of amendments with no significant policy consideration.

It includes cleanup um amendments, amendments require for the compliance with the state law and the minor amendment which require limited policy consideration and clearly advance established priorities.

Can I get a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Uh 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.

Um, we have code and policy director Nick Whippal will provide us the presentation.

Hi Nick.

Uh hello.

Uh good evening, Chair Conloo, uh, Chair Liu, members of the Commission, Councilmember Pakava.

Um, we are here tonight to introduce or to uh ask you all to hold the public hearing on the omnibus land use code amendment.

Um so the direction we're seeking is to hold the public hearing on the proposed LUCA following the hearing.

Um 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 2026 Luca, the scope categories that we're working within.

Um we also had a study session with you all back in April.

Um, and so we'll recall um some of the conversation and then what the changes are that we've made since that study session, then touch on our outreach approach for this project and timeline.

So, as a reminder of the um kind of scope categories that we're working within for this omnibus project.

Um, we are working within cleanup amendments.

Um, these are just very straightforward scribner's errors, cross references that need updating, um, minor typos, um, uh really that kind of category of change.

State law.

Um, 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 scriveners' 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.

Our aim was to provide baseline compliance with all of these code or state law changes.

And we'll kind of walk through these.

So the first one was relating more to single-family exclusion 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 want to 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 SR1 district, that's the suburban residential one, into a new category for our tree credit approach.

So SR1 was previously lumped with our large lot designations.

And for context, our large lot designations, our lot sizes that are required to be, I've got it down here, 35,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet.

And the SR1 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 want to 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 SR1 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 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 restrict 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 Eastgate 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 overlook district.

So a lot of change, but not a lot of policy change.

It's really trying to just streamline how our codes presented.

So then we all met with you on April 8th.

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 Maine, noting there is a fee and loo option if you're developing commercial, but if you're developing residential, there is no fee and loo option.

So the commission was interested in us adding that option so residential still can provide a fee and loo 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 CUP's 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 8th meeting.

And then the last item was around lot splitting.

So this is also another area that we changed.

So staff, we uh we review statutes, and our attorneys also review those statutes, and then when something's unclear, we look to commerce and see what is their guidance.

Well, the 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 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 platting process, they can do that.

They just can't do a lot split and then another lot split.

So 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 lot splitting bills.

So that's a kudos to us.

And then in terms of our engagement approach, we really took a 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've just have been bothered by.

Um so that was a lot of the outreach.

Um 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 city council to get buy-in on the scope, and then um yeah, primarily we've been sharing information with the public as uh information only and for feedback and comment so that brings us to our timeline um 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 um if we get a recommendation from you tonight we'll be at council in June and hopefully get action by July.

And then um 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 should be very familiar to at this point.

But the Luca has to be consistent with the comp plan has to um enhance the public health safety and welfare and it can't be contrary to the best interests of um the citizens and property owners of the city bellevue and the omnibus package actually removes um citizens and replaces it with um 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 um so with that sure I will turn 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 pre-registered for public comment but um 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 a should we add your name okay maybe Phyllis wants to do that okay after the online person.

I can hear you can you hear me oh I'm gonna turn you up you're very oh sorry I'll I can yell too no it's good you never know.

Uh okay hi commissioners and chair uh uh Jesse Clausen McCullough Hill um sorry I was not on my game and I did not pre-register um I'm here tonight to support uh moving forward this omnibus to city council um we are really appreciative of um the planning commission's recommendation and the staff's work to include um the uh fee and lo uh in the east main to d 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 we appreciate your help thank you thanks is there anybody 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 on that oh hi oops.

I didn't um really expect any to speak but I'm here representing our neighborhood and we are SR1s many of our homes are um first time you know homeowners they're we're not wealthy people we we just love our um streams and our wildlife and we can hear the bald eagles nests in the morning um you know birds flying and chirping and it's kind of nice to see them um the blue herons on our neighbors' properties is really beautiful to us um 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 um neighbors's yard, it's a hundred seventy five feet tall, and we have many of those around.

Um so we'd like to have some protections.

Um we understand that there will still be growth, even in our SR1s, um, and we're not against it.

In fact, you know, some of us would like to have more growth um available for us, but we would like to have our um our wildlife protected, and so we would like to have it remain an SR1 until you can have the city um um analyze our properties to see if it is um can be a wildlife um you know refuge for our animals there.

So it's a simple request.

We don't have very many streets um like ours, so um we hope you would um consider it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else uh 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.

Um now we come to the end of the public comments.

Uh 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 pi all in favor.

Hi.

Uh 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 just meeting earlier.

Commissioner Lou, your name is a first.

Great.

Um, thanks for uh the presentation, Nick.

Always appreciate the details.

I I had a couple clarifications.

I'll keep it to one on the uh the tree code.

Um in the notes and mentioned the uh trees that sit on a lot border, uh would end up being a 0.5 uh split per lot.

Could you give us some?

It's kind of 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 0.5 on each side and what happens also if you have it in a corner and it splits across more than just two lots.

The corner is an interesting um take.

I I would need to check how often that happens with our our land use team.

Um the comment was really driven by um 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 um it was really focused on two properties.

Um but uh 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.

Um and if you maybe start to break it down further, uh but the intent was uh to provide some credit.

Um 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 um 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 um straddling over onto the neighbors, um it doesn't have to be a 50-50 split, but it is now a property line tree, and that's when it gets into this category of being discounted by 0.5.

Um, so the trunk itself has to exist exactly on the property line rather than resistant more canopy, it's just the trunk.

And it doesn't have to be exactly, but if it um you know surveys if they show a portion of that that um trunk is on the property line, then that's when it would be a property line tree.

Yes, thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner.

Thank you.

I also have a question on uh the borderline tree calculations.

I know it was a subject of discussion or last study session uh on this, and I've been thinking about it uh from that time.

I'm wondering if I know some commissioners have expressed uh an interest or uh curiosity about whether or not we should increase that.5 to a one uh 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 wonder if you've seen any data or um 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 uh when Christina was drafting kind of the tree code to begin with, we had polled a lot of tree codes, and specifically ones that were using the credit system.

And um, 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 uh reaching out to other jurisdictions to see how do they manage those property line trees and how do they um kind of regulate them.

Uh, and that's just not information that I I have readily available, but I would agree with um kind of that concern around providing a full credit um is that you know we may see less trees as a result, especially if there are a lot of property line trees.

Um now each one gets kind of full credit for a tree that's shared versus maybe having two trees um on the site.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner, by the way, 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, uh, 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 uh 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 uh impacting your ability to develop your property, you should be able to get credit for that, which was my point before.

So I'm wondering if there's a possibility to I think it's a good approach uh in general, but I am wondering if there's a possibility to increase the criteria, not from the actual trunk, but to the critical root zone.

That's that's my commitment.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I had um one follow-up question on the tree canopy.

Yeah.

Um, but but two parts.

So um we received uh comments from the Kelsey Creek Neighborhood Association both verbally tonight and in writing, um, 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 SR1s with more similarly situated properties, are there particular situations that are near critical areas or preserves or parks that may make sense 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 uh in the other direction, it sounds like there were some issues associated with the ability to implement EV charging based 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 um for the Tesla um folks, I believe they wrote in supporting um the omnibus Luca, 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, um, 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 um 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.

Um they just wanted to deploy some EV charging stations.

And when you read our code, um that was now considered a reconfiguration of an existing parking lot, full code applies.

And so that was probably too low of a threshold.

Um we have another threshold where if you're adding 20% of impervious service or law coverage, then the tree code applies.

So we actually think that's a fairer threshold.

We don't need to be um concerned if someone wants to restrict their parking lot and then now have to plant a ton of trees.

So yeah.

Makes sense, thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner Geppel.

Yeah, um, thanks for the the presentation and update.

Um I don't have any questions, and I'm ready to make a motion to um to adopt the um 2026 omnibus land use code amendment at the proper time.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ferris.

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.

Um, 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 um as written.

Thank you.

Yeah, and for me, uh, I think I would just want to say for SRSR1, let's figure out something.

Like as Anatai, it's like Kelsey Quake neighborhood or some neighborhood um that they're really unique.

Um Breda Trail.

They're not here, but I can uh I can hear them.

Uh I think those are the one if we can figure out something and uh and I understand that Christina, she was doing some data uh when she was working on that tree canopy.

I remember them some of them but not in detail.

I think it'd be nice if we can figure out how we can do the credits um in a way that'd be incentive to keep uh trees.

Uh because for me is 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.

Uh there's an eagle who was trying to be somewhere close to my home, but construction literally scared them.

Um yeah, should we go second round or are we okay?

Just the second, I think.

Do you want to?

Okay, because Vice Chair Lou.

Uh just one clarification because I couldn't find it on a cursory look through the actual code itself.

We talked uh during our tree code discussions about exempting uh cottonwoods and alders from uh getting credits.

I also just definitely like swallowed a bunch of those seeds when I was buying through the other day.

Yeah, so uh 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.

Um, so I think it was zero credit um is my.

Oh, yeah, we know.

But we haven't changed whatever that policy.

That's still provided before.

Thank you.

Commissioner, do you have any second?

Um, this is do you have any?

Yeah, that's a question more than a comment.

Uh what is the reasoning on rationale for allowing allowing one lots plate and then not allowing the second one through the same mechanism?

I'm just curious.

That's how the statute is written.

Um, and it's likely to avoid kind of um 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 plan.

But that's um sort of speculation on my end.

Um there is uh more straightforward reading of it in the statute, um, 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.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Kennedy, do you have any other question?

Okay, Gap Paul, Kojar Ferris, just one more.

This is a follow-up to Commissioner Vegas's um comment about the route system.

I would I would certainly support that, but I wouldn't want to 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 want to 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 an odd quarter.

Um 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 um for the omnibus 2026?

I'd like to move that the um uh the planning commission recommend to the city council that uh the 2026 omnibus land use code amendment is adopted because it meets the decision criteria of land use code 20.30 J.135, and it's consistent with the comp plan, it's in the best interest um of uh the residents of property owners of the city, and um it enhances uh the public safety and welfare.

Okay, is there any second?

Well, second, um, 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 is the you should say I take a motion to give uh a quarter of the point to someone who has a root in his life or something better than what I did at I'd like to make a motion to amend the motion?

Uh 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 the language.

So okay.

Does that make sense?

Um I'm not sure what I need to amend.

Do I do I need to Kate?

What do I need to uh if you want to change how the the um credit is calculated, then you would need to make an amendment to as the chair said by um move to change the credit system to give a quarter credit to a root system or to the neighbor or the lot that I would like to make a suggestion?

I think the the core of what you're asking for is to change the uh the designation from the uh the trunk to the inner root system, yeah.

So you'd be amending uh the focus of the uh split lot from trunk to inner root system.

It works with an adding, but if depends what do you want it?

You can keep an add.

So I'd 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 don't want the whole system, the inner root system.

Is that defined?

I don't really know.

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

So I don't know how to implement that.

Um I know.

Yeah.

Yes.

Um just just a procedural question.

Um 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 um this is the this is a we when we finish today, it goes to the council.

We're not changing, we're not coming back here, but the fake language tonight.

I think that's a motion.

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

There's a motion on the yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, let me let me finish this one.

Do you want to remove um do you want to remove the current position, the current one, and then um you already took your motion.

Is there any second for that?

Let me see that one okay there's no second and it's not gonna go carry great 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 think that's already 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 I was asking for the second for the amendment motion and nobody second that do you want to second it?

I'll second it okay we got a second somebody change their mind great we have a second I think we should just second to 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 um 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 uh if it's a um 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.

Um 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 uh do you have any answer to Commissioner Gapal's uh I'm not familiar with the term uh I'm not an arborist um though okay we'd want to make sure the language aligns with industry standards or practice and then the point five you know on a property land tree I will say um was met with a bit of um uh land use felt like that was going to be really complicated to manage it sounds like we might want to go a little more complicated um so I just would just note um 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 into another omnibus to now clarify um okay code commissioner neutral do you have any comments about this motion amendment for the motion and the second yeah um I am against this amendment um 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 that the practical implications of this would be that we would see fewer trees um theoretically if you know roots of trees are given these credits then you know someone who doesn't have any trees on their property uh could have enough credits to meet whatever threshold they need to just because the neighboring properties have trees um and I don't know if that's necessarily what we want to be incentivizing in this amendment.

Um so I I am against it for that reason I think we see less trees thank you commissioner Ferris do you have any comment here?

I do not okay Commissioner Gephold do you have any comments here you already added yours commissioner Kennedy any comments?

Any discussion?

Yeah um sorry I was just gonna add I I mean I just and maybe this is not this is not a complete search but I just Googled what is an inner root um system you know and I I you know and it doesn't seem like there's a a clear definition but obviously that's not a scientific search.

Okay and then um 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 um you know what's the definition of that and also uh on a per lot analysis of where the root system does so I I know I second the motion but I'm generally I guess it's just the additional word.

Um can I do do you have anything I just wanted to see go to vote if it oh we can we can remove I mean oh it's okay let me finish the voting I need to do it.

Sorry, it's a process uh all in favor?

Uh nay?

Nay.

Nay.

Okay.

And I'm nay too.

Okay.

The motion did not carry.

Um for the main motion we had.

Uh, is there any amendment that you want to take a motion for it or you are comfortable with the language?

Anything about SR1?

Um that needs to get added or any question?

Okay.

Then all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And the motion um carries.

Um, can I, and thank you, Nick.

Can I have a motion to approve the minutes from April 8th meeting?

I'd like to move that we um approve the minutes for April 8th.

Is there a second?

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

And can I get a motion?

Oh, like to make a motion that we adjourn our meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, we change the record.

Next appreciation.

I'm gonna go have another thing.