2026-09-23 - Planning Commission

00:22All right. Welcome to the September

00:2423rd, 2026 meeting of the Redmond

00:26Planning Commission. I'd like to call

00:28this meeting to order. We'll start with

00:30a roll call. Commissioner Aarna,

00:33>> present.

00:33>> Commissioner Coleman,

00:35>> present.

00:35>> Commissioner Gier,

00:38>> present. Commissioner Gong

00:40>> present.

00:41>> Vice Chair Woodier

00:42>> present.

00:43>> And I am Chair Weston. Commissioner

00:45Vanimman is absent. Um I'd like to just

00:48quickly um conclude our roll call with a

00:50note to the community. Uh Commissioner

00:52Copley has resigned due to mix of

00:54professional and family obligations and

00:56I just want to take a moment to thank

00:57him for his time and hard work. Um he

01:00did a great job on the Redmond Planning

01:01Commission and we're going to miss

01:02working with him.

01:05Um I'd like to thank the following staff

01:06for being present tonight. Odra

01:08Cardennis, Becky Fry, Lauren Anderson,

01:10Cameron Zapata, Michael Hints,

01:12Franchesca Labbertie, um Philly Marsh,

01:15and Chris Chris Wyatt. Before we approve

01:18the agenda, I'd like to update two

01:20items. Um items sixes items six and

01:23seven were listed as 15minute briefings,

01:25but they should have been listed as

01:27study sessions and 45 minutes each, so

01:29we have time to start our work before

01:30the public hearings. With that, I look

01:33for a motion to approve the amended

01:34agenda.

01:35>> So moved.

01:36>> Second. Oh, sorry.

01:38>> Second. [snorts]

01:39>> All in favor?

01:40>> I

01:40>> I

01:41>> I

01:42>> is approved. And any corrections to the

01:45meeting summary from last time?

01:48>> Um, in that case, I look for a motion to

01:50approve the meeting summary from

01:52September 9th, 2026.

01:54>> So moved.

01:55>> Second.

01:55>> All in favor?

01:57>> I

01:57>> I

01:58>> And that is approved.

02:02All right.

02:05Next up is our time for public comment

02:07and items for the audience. Who do we

02:09have tonight?

02:10>> Uh, good evening, commissioners. We have

02:12two people signed up for to speak. The

02:14first one, David Morton.

02:16>> All right. Um, and as usual, if you

02:19could please keep your comments to three

02:20minutes and start with your name and

02:21address.

02:30>> Hold on just a second. Do we have mic?

02:33>> Yes.

02:33>> Great. Thank you.

02:34>> Start the timer. I'm speaking on agenda

02:37item five, the tree code, and briefly on

02:40agenda item six, neighborhood

02:42connections map. Thank you for pressing

02:44staff on enforcement of the tree code.

02:47The draft also reaches contractors and

02:49it lets fee inlue revenue pay for the

02:52city to hire or contract a qualified

02:54tree professional. My central concern

02:57remains. Nearly every discretionary

03:00finding still rests on a qualified tree

03:02professional hired by the applicant.

03:05Whether a tree is hazardous, its

03:07condition, whether a tree protection

03:09zone can shrink, and whether retention

03:11is feasible. Third-party review of

03:14exceptions is optional, applicant paid,

03:16and the reviewer is chosen by agreement

03:19with the applicant. Even removing

03:22required replacement trees depends on a

03:24qualified tree professional confirming

03:26that they are dead, dying, or hazardous.

03:29That matters because a hazard finding

03:31has consequences. Hazardous removals

03:34don't count against a property's removal

03:36allowance, and hazardous trees under 30

03:39in need no replacement. I ask the

03:42commission to recommend independent city

03:45verification at these decision points,

03:48starting with hazard determinations and

03:50retention findings, ideally before your

03:52November 18th recommendation, and to

03:55urge council to fund a city arborist in

03:58the 2027 to 2028 budget. Before the

04:02October 14th hearing, three drafting

04:04conflicts need correcting. First,

04:07section 217250D1

04:11makes a risk assessment optional when

04:13photographs suffice, but 217290

04:17A2C requires an arborist report for

04:21hazardous trees and the definition of

04:23hazardous tree in 2178 requires a

04:27qualified professional's written

04:28opinion. Second, the hazard tree

04:31replacement table lists diameters less

04:34than 30 in and greater than 30 in,

04:37leaving unressed a hazardous tree whose

04:40diameter is exactly 30 in, while the

04:43landmark tier begins at 30 in. Third,

04:472172100C2

04:49waves the 35% retention requirement

04:52whenever retention would limit imperous

04:55surface below 85% of the zoning maximum.

04:59Feasibility comes from the applicant's

05:01arborist report and the draft does not

05:04say how that condition is verified. On

05:06agenda item six, the memo proposes no

05:10text changes to the neighborhoods

05:12element. Yet policy text such as NE73

05:17still says as shown in map NER3,

05:21a map slated for repeal. Please ask

05:24staff to reconcile those references

05:26before the hearing and to identify which

05:28infeasible connections were removed from

05:30the transportation master plan map.

05:32Thank you.

05:34>> Thank you.

05:36Who's second?

05:37>> Next, we have Mr. David David Haynes.

05:41>> Great. And if you could also start with

05:43your name and address and keep your

05:45comments to three minutes, please.

05:47>> Hi, my name is David Haynes. Uh, I

05:50wanted to ask maybe you guys could

05:51resolve the issue with the uh the parcel

05:54and consider connecting to the city

05:57storm water drain if you have it instead

05:58of allowing the water of the front of

06:01the house of 14 ft to absorb it and then

06:04go into the wetlands. I just want to

06:05come down here to complain today because

06:07the planning commission needs to realize

06:09that we need to take the restrictions

06:10off the comprehensive plan and allow for

06:12people to build higher because I've been

06:14looking for an apartment by Mary Moore

06:16Village and those cheap lowquality

06:19buildings that seem to have like a

06:21parking garage structure as the

06:22foundation with a cosmetic pitification

06:24like warehouse echo quality don't have

06:28the strength and sturdiness and I guess

06:30the allowance to build higher to allow

06:32for like a a rooftop view. Why would you

06:36not allow for a rooftop view in Marymore

06:38Park? I don't get it. And then in the

06:40back of it, it's all these gravel

06:42dustified and denied fresh air sometimes

06:45when people drive through there. And I

06:46don't get that. The planning commission

06:48is supposed to provide 21st century

06:50first world quality housing and like

06:53commercial buildouts that are not

06:55accommodating the 20th century car

06:57ccentric laziness of the modern wheel

06:59that drives through every building. One

07:01of the worst places across from the

07:03Charles and all those apartments where

07:04the RVL and all the other ones are it's

07:07like a symphony from hell of all of the

07:09dumpsters picking up right outside

07:11people's residential communities and

07:13just ruining the mental health

07:14destroying like the quality of living

07:17because you have too many roads driving

07:19through all these like little

07:20neighborhoods. It's almost like you got

07:22to take over some of the roads and have

07:23a robust robust buildout, but you got to

07:26allow for bigger floor spaces for the

07:28grace of personal space and to go higher

07:31so people can enjoy living in their

07:32building instead of trying to get out of

07:34it as soon as they sign the lease

07:36because of the warehouse echo or the

07:38like the wall shaking when you slam the

07:40door like and it's a brand new building

07:41and you're wondering why the quality is

07:43not there. But the planning commission

07:45seems to not like well I don't I don't

07:48want to criticize too much. You know, I

07:49know some people want to weaponize the

07:50tree ordinance. It's important for the

07:52tree owners, but sometimes you got to

07:53take away the road, the asphalt and

07:56concrete heat islands and make it a

07:58living hell to go out and all you're on

08:00is concrete and asphalt, but you see a

08:02couple trees here and there, but it's

08:04not enough. But you have to realize that

08:06you still need robust housing buildouts

08:08without weaponizing the tree ordinance,

08:10but you have to stop accommodating the

08:12road and the service road. Sometimes you

08:14ruin the quality of living because you

08:16force the trash pickup right in the

08:18center of like five residential

08:21different buildings. It's like who the

08:23hell's thinking about that type of

08:24planning? You know, 21st century first

08:26world quality based on the pedestrian

08:29ccentric neighborhood that's resident

08:31friendly where you go and walk and

08:33you're not on the side of the road rage.

08:35It might be a walkable sustainable green

08:36build with more houses in the middle of

08:38some sort of particular like

08:39neighborhood. But anyway, I I thought

08:42that like you guys were discussing a

08:43parcel of land and people don't want

08:45them to build in all that, but it just

08:47seems like they should at least be

08:49allowed to build some sort of rooftop

08:50view if they're going to be allowed to

08:51do it. But if you could connect and

08:52bypass the requirement to absorb the

08:54front, that'd be great. Thank you.

08:56>> But I do appreciate your comment. Thank

08:58you so much for coming in.

09:01>> We have additional That's it. That's it.

09:04Thank you.

09:06Um at this point um we are going to

09:09start our study session on the tree code

09:11update and this is with Lauren Anderson

09:14and Cameron Zapata

09:40All right. Uh, good evening everyone.

09:43Uh, so tonight I will be going over the

09:46tree code update uh, which is primarily

09:492172.

09:51Um, I'm Lauren Anderson, senior planner.

09:55And just to clarify, is um Cameron

09:58Sapata with us tonight or is she not?

10:01>> She is not. Um but I am accompanied um

10:04online by Kim Frappier um from Facet.

10:08>> Great. So if we can ever correct that um

10:11in our minutes, that would be great.

10:13>> Okay. Yes. Thank you. We'll

10:14>> do.

10:18So here is our agenda for this evening.

10:20Uh so first I'll go over the timeline

10:24and then go over the key changes and

10:27comparison uh from the current code to

10:30the uh newest uh also known as version

10:34three. Um and then highlight the key

10:37changes from V2 to V3.

10:40um and then go over the previous

10:42questions from the planning commission

10:45um back in July and August

10:48and then go over next steps and then

10:50open it up for questions and comments.

10:56So we have our timeline here. So uh

11:00February through April of this year we

11:03uh started working on drafting the code

11:05and doing some research. May through

11:08July, we did community engagement and

11:10continued to draft the code. Uh July, we

11:14introduced uh to the planning commission

11:16and city council the new code. And then

11:19August through September um began the

11:23planning commission process as well as

11:25uh took this to the technical committee.

11:28And then um September 16th we received

11:32technical committee recommendation of

11:34approval um to the planning commission

11:37which is in the report. Um and then

11:40August through December will be the

11:42planning commission process and then

11:45next year January through March uh will

11:48be the city council uh process with

11:51adoption and then um post adoption um

11:55hosting public learning sessions and

11:58making sure that there's training for

12:00staff and the public. And then um also

12:04hoping to have a um delayed um effective

12:08date by around 3 months. So then that

12:10way it would give um the public and

12:13staff enough time to learn the new code.

12:19So next I'll go over the major changes.

12:26So, here's a comparison of the current

12:30Rebin zoning code sections and the

12:33proposed.

12:34Um, so we did add additional subsections

12:39um to hopefully add more clarity and

12:41make it easier to find uh which

12:44regulations apply for what item.

12:47[snorts]

12:52And as you can see here, we have um lots

12:54of new sections uh which we're hoping

12:57will make it easier for the public and

12:59applicants to find uh the requirements

13:02that apply for either the project or

13:05non-development.

13:10We also added some new uh definitions

13:15um and updated definitions. Uh so that's

13:19Redmond zoning code 2178.

13:22Uh so added uh nuisance tree, heritage

13:25tree, uh definition for hedge versus

13:28tree and then tree condition.

13:34So here is a comparison of the current

13:38and proposed tree code regarding tree

13:40removal not associated with development.

13:43Uh so we still have um limits based off

13:46of the lot size um but it is adjusted

13:50um to be slightly less um for the larger

13:54lots. So um the larger lots um that are

13:5830,000 square ft 30 sorry 30,01 square

14:02ft and greater um that was reduced from

14:07um 8 to five. And then we also added in

14:12the table here um a minimum and maximum

14:16number um to ensure that um people don't

14:20end up clearcutting their entire

14:22property.

14:25And then we have the replacement Oh, if

14:28you go back. Thank you. Um and then we

14:31have the tree replacement requirements

14:33comparison.

14:35Um so ultimately the larger the tree

14:39that was removed um the diameter at

14:41breast height the more replacement trees

14:44are required. Um and then we also added

14:47a requirement that hazardous trees um

14:51that are landmark or heritage require a

14:56onetoone replacement whereas the current

14:58code doesn't require any replacements.

15:06And then we have a comparison of the

15:08tree removal associated with

15:10development.

15:12So currently it's based on the quantity

15:15of trees on site and it's a minimum of

15:1935% significant trees need to be

15:22retained and we're switching to a new um

15:27credit system. Um so the formula here is

15:31on the slide. So it's the tree canopy

15:34site area times the credit multiplier is

15:37the minimum required tree credits. And

15:40then we have um the credits based off of

15:45um the location of the zoning district.

15:48And then also the type of development.

15:52So the more dense areas have a lower

15:55credit.

16:00And then this is the tree removal

16:02associated with development continued.

16:04Um and then one of the major changes

16:08from the second to the third draft is we

16:12added um so we had the in the second

16:16version we had the 35% required tree

16:18credits must be achieved through

16:20retention of existing trees and then

16:23with the third draft we added that um it

16:26would be exempt for lots that are less

16:29than 3,000 square ft. So smaller lots um

16:33wouldn't need to meet that 35%

16:36minimum. And then also we added that um

16:40it would be exempt if development

16:42reduces the allowable impervious surface

16:44to below 85% of the zoning district

16:48maximum.

16:51And then we kept the credits for

16:54retained trees. Um so the larger the

16:57DBH, the higher the credit. and then

17:00still adding that higher credit for

17:03caniferous trees um as we're

17:05prioritizing those.

17:12So here's a comparison of the

17:15replacement trees for landmark and

17:17heritage trees.

17:19Um so we didn't add any changes to this

17:23from the last version that you all saw.

17:26Um and this is located in 2172040

17:33uh landmark and heritage tree

17:35requirements.

17:43And then we added a new section for

17:46hazardous trees and nuisance trees to

17:49make it very clear for everyone um that

17:52these requirements apply in this

17:54situation.

17:56Um and then also added

18:01um a new process on how to remove the

18:04trees and um so that includes having the

18:08hazardous tree declaration form um in

18:12order to remove the tree um and then

18:15updating the hazardous tree definition,

18:18adding the new nuisance tree definition

18:21um and then having the review permit

18:24type and review authority under 2172070.

18:35And here's the tree fee inlue. So, this

18:38did not change uh from the last time we

18:40brought it forward to you all. Um,

18:43however, the inloo fee rates,

18:47um, we did add a for the credit fee,

18:50it's $450 per credit, um, which is

18:54similar to the city of Kirkland's, um,

18:57code.

19:03And then we have the culturally modified

19:05trees. Uh, we didn't make any changes to

19:08this section as well.

19:15And then we have the tree protection. Uh

19:17so we have the TPZ also known as the

19:20tree protection zone. Um this is

19:23unchanged uh from the last version as

19:25well.

19:32And then we have um the comparison of

19:35for regarding slow deforestation. Um so

19:39this was a a topic about um addressing

19:42that. Uh so we added into the code um

19:47that no development permits uh 12 months

19:52after tree removal

19:55and then no development permits 24

19:57months after landmark tree removal.

20:01And then we added credits for smaller

20:05previous uh replacement trees.

20:08And then um so that's a new change. And

20:12then from the last version uh

20:14non-development replacement trees cannot

20:17be removed unless deemed dead, diseased

20:19or hazardous.

20:26So we have enforcement and penalties. Uh

20:30so we added a reference to the RMC 1.14.

20:35Um so we're going we propose to remove

20:38the fees from the RMC and add them into

20:43a fee schedule. That way they can be

20:46continuously updated every year um and

20:50adjusted for inflation and um any you

20:53know best available science. and then um

20:57repealing RMC 1.1460B3

21:10and then the exception request criteria.

21:13Um so we did add clarity

21:17um on what requirements um apply. So we

21:21added that um that the applicant would

21:24need to meet one of criteria

21:28uh 1 through three and [snorts] that

21:31they have to meet criteria 4.

21:35And then we also made it clear that

21:37mitigation is a requirement.

21:46So we uh received some questions from

21:48the planning commission back in July. Uh

21:53so the first question was how does the

21:56current draft help address the urban

21:58heat island effect? Um so I'll speak to

22:02that question first and then I'll pass

22:05it off to Kim. Uh so street trees are a

22:09requirement as a part of development. Um

22:12and if you refer to slide eight, uh the

22:15tree replacement requirements, um we are

22:19now requiring replacement trees for

22:21landmark and heritage tree removal and

22:24mitigating loss by requiring replacement

22:27trees. So ultimately, the larger the

22:29DBH, the more replacement trees are

22:32required. Um there are also development

22:34flexibilities to incentivize retaining

22:37more trees and protecting the existing

22:40canopy. Um so these flexibilities

22:42includes um additional floor area height

22:46um variable setbacks

22:49and then we are tasked with balancing

22:51meeting our statemandated growth targets

22:54and meeting our tree canopy goal. So the

22:57tree code is only one part of meeting

23:00the canopy goal. There are other city

23:02efforts on meeting that canopy goal.

23:07Pass it off to Kim.

23:11Thanks, Lauren. Yeah, and I'll just add

23:13that the provisions that are currently

23:15in the proposed code will all be

23:18contributing to mitigating urban heat um

23:22including the protection of existing

23:25matured trees, retention standards, you

23:28know, during development projects, the

23:30protection of landmark trees, um

23:34replacement plantings, um and

23:36specifically the preservation of canopy

23:39that's adjacent to or over imperous

23:41purposes like roads, sidewalks,

23:45um driveways and and adjacent to

23:48buildings. Um

23:50these will all essentially help in

23:54mitigating

23:55uh the thermal uh you know the thermal

23:59load and the comforts for residents um

24:01you know as the city continues to grow.

24:08>> Right. So the second question,

24:09>> back to Oh, go ahead, Lauren.

24:11>> All right, thank you. Uh, so the second

24:14question, uh, what does prioritizing

24:16conifers look like and why are we

24:18prioritizing them? Uh, so conifers are

24:22required to be replaced with conifers.

24:25Uh, conifers receive a higher credit

24:28value for development for both retained

24:31and replacement trees. And then I'll

24:34pass it off to Kim.

24:40Yeah, and I'm essentially speaking to

24:42the why we are prioritizing them in the

24:45code. And um there are a couple of

24:47reasons why. You know, one is that um

24:50our conifers um provide yearround

24:54um ecosystem service benefits such as

24:57you know, carbon sequestration, storm

24:59water

25:01um mitigation,

25:03you know, and although

25:06um

25:07you know, our deciduous trees are

25:09critical and really important

25:11uh features of the urban canopy. um our

25:15conifers are providing that those year-

25:17round benefits um and are longer lived.

25:20And so those are some of the reasons why

25:24um when we start talking about urban

25:26tree canopy resilience and longevity uh

25:29we're prioritizing we're adding some

25:31incentives and pri some incentives in

25:34place to promote um the conifer

25:36retention and replacement for those

25:38reasons.

25:42>> Right. Thank you. Can [snorts] I ask one

25:44question? Um, just going through these,

25:46I think, um, sometimes it's hard to just

25:49listen out loud and I do want to make

25:52sure that we have a lot of time for

25:53building our actual matrix for council.

25:56So, is it possible um to do concise

25:59answers on these so that people know if

26:01they need to follow up further?

26:04>> Yeah. Yeah, I can share. I think

26:06everyone read the draft and we're um

26:08focusing on what's in that and then

26:10build

26:11>> like the actual packet that we'll bring

26:13to council.

26:14>> Okay. So maybe like a sentence or two.

26:17Is it possible to do that?

26:19>> Um yeah, we can shorten our responses to

26:22move to the uh comments and questions.

26:25>> Thank you so much.

26:26>> Yeah.

26:29Uh so the third question is what is the

26:32science behind the hierarchy of trees?

26:35I'll pass it on to Kim.

26:42>> So, this specific question was in

26:44regards to why we are prior again

26:47prioritizing

26:49conifers over some specific species of

26:53deciduous trees. Um, and I know you

26:56wanted me to keep this short and

26:58unfortunately my draft was a little

26:59long. Um

27:02but uh I'll just say that in terms of

27:05the hierarchy of trees, we're trying to

27:06promote um landmark trees and heritage

27:10trees at the highest level. So those

27:13trees that um provide the most ecosystem

27:16service benefits are considered high

27:17value. Um a couple of trees as you know

27:21are called out to receive less credit.

27:23Those were red alders and cottonwoods.

27:26Um and the reason behind that is because

27:29those are um kind of early successional

27:33fast growing species that often have

27:36proved to have infrastructure conflicts

27:38in the built environment. And so I can

27:41speak to that more if you want me to,

27:42but perhaps I'll just leave it at that

27:44and then I can follow up if needed.

27:46>> Um people look confident with that

27:47answer, so thank you.

27:53Right. Uh so the um is there capacity

27:56for off-site replacements? Uh yes there

27:59are. Um those locations are managed by

28:03Tom Hardy and public works and staff is

28:06looking into creating either a GIS layer

28:09or having a way to make it available to

28:11the public. And then the second question

28:15is what's the city's canopy coverage

28:17today? Um, so it's currently at 37% as

28:21of 2023.

28:23And then if you want more information,

28:25um, we have a link to our tree canopy

28:28web page.

28:30And then question number three, um,

28:33clarify segmentation of conifer species

28:36and whether credit values vary by type

28:38and size. Uh, so the code doesn't

28:41specify conifer species and assign

28:43different credit amounts to different

28:45species. All conifers are treated the

28:48same. We wrote it this way for usability

28:52um of the code for both the applicant

28:54and staff.

28:58Kim, did you need to add any anything?

29:01>> Um I don't I don't have much to add

29:03there. Only that this is a this is what

29:06we're seeing um with our countywide

29:08research um that we've done that this is

29:11also this is consistent with other

29:13jurisdictions

29:14locally.

29:16Great. Thank you.

29:19Question number four, um addressing

29:22categories for large lots, so 30,000

29:25square feet and above and how

29:27requirements scale for even larger

29:29parcels.

29:31Uh so in table 21720901,

29:36um we have the non-development tree

29:37removal. Um so if someone would like to

29:40exceed the maximum number of tree

29:42removal um they can apply for a tree

29:45exception request.

29:48[snorts]

29:50And then question number five, ensure

29:53tree removals are treated with

29:54appropriate distinctions hazardous

29:57versus elective.

29:59Um so hazardous trees need to either be

30:03clearly a hazard as shown in a photo and

30:06if it can't be determined by a normal

30:08person then an arborist report is

30:10required.

30:11Um

30:15and then we can move to the next one.

30:19So question number six um strengthen

30:22civil penalty options uh penalties for

30:25professionals restrictions on working in

30:28Redmond and share responsibility between

30:30homeowners and true removal companies.

30:34Um so this language um in the code is

30:38under 2172180C2.

30:42Um it states that any person or

30:44professional contractor who aids or bets

30:46in the violation may be considered to

30:48have committed a violation for purposes

30:51of fines.

30:55And then question number seven regarding

30:57replacement trees.

30:59Um so we do have size requirements for

31:03the plant stocks and then currently

31:06currently on our true web page we have

31:09resources

31:11about selecting the right tree based on

31:14the mature height and the amount of

31:16light it requires to survive. We also

31:19[clears throat] have a web page about

31:20right tree right place that goes into

31:22detail about where and how to plant.

31:27And then question number eight, I'll let

31:29Kim speak to.

31:33>> Um, [clears throat] yeah. So, I would

31:34say that the tree protection zone is

31:39um the variables that influence that is

31:42both the on-site development and the

31:44conditions, size, species of the trees

31:48themselves. So in some cases I would say

31:51yes driveways or roads um are definitely

31:55considered in most cases they are

31:56considered as part of um the tree

32:00protection zone. Um however sometimes we

32:03find that tree roots can grow underneath

32:06driveways and um and so it's really

32:10sight specific and has to do with you

32:13know what the on-site conditions and the

32:15proposed design are.

32:21And this is based and this is based on

32:22ANC 300 standards um that are that are

32:28followed by UN certified arborists.

32:34>> Thank you. And then question nine um

32:37consider developing a parcel viewer with

32:40automatic tree credit multipliers.

32:43Um, so we recommend against having a a

32:48layer like that um that applicants

32:51should base the calculation off of a

32:53survey. Um, because our layers uh don't

32:57have um the private easements and only

33:00have the estimated critical area

33:02locations. Um, our goal is to create um

33:05a calculator so people can plug in the

33:08information and calculate the minimum

33:10credit requirements

33:17and then um determine whether fees

33:20collected will also fund enforcement. So

33:22code enforcement is funded by the

33:24general fund um not these fees. And then

33:28the last question tonight um how do you

33:31strike the right balance between

33:32mitigation and deterrence and are the

33:36inloo fees sufficient enough? Uh so the

33:40inloo fees are consistent with regional

33:43practice in neighboring cities. The fee

33:46amount uh recoups the cost for the plant

33:49soil prep maintenance and survivability.

33:51Um, and then we have a link on the slide

33:53here, um, which has the King County

33:56jurisdictional tree code summary

33:58spreadsheet to see how other

34:00jurisdictions,

34:02um, have their tree code lined up for

34:04fees and penalties.

34:11And then we have next steps. [gasps] Uh

34:14so we have the public hearing coming up

34:18um October 14th

34:21and then we have November 4th available

34:23for another study session if needed. And

34:27then November 18th is scheduled for

34:29study session and recommendation.

34:35And then now we can open up to questions

34:38and comments.

34:39>> Great. So I think what we're going to do

34:41is start building our issues matrix. Um

34:45so um as usual if your question is ever

34:48not for the issues matrix please specify

34:51that but otherwise we'll just assume

34:52that they all are. Um and we will go

34:55around and I already see commissioner

34:56aarna's hand raised so she can start.

35:01>> Thank you chair. Um thank you Kim. Thank

35:04you. So for me it's like I like the

35:09intent of this whole code but I think

35:12it's extremely complicated. Um I'm used

35:16to reading the code and for various

35:18purposes I'm used to reading dense

35:21technical information and even I found

35:23it difficult. Overall, I think

35:26readability could be improved. And for

35:29me, I also see I understand the need for

35:32a tree credit system, but I think it is

35:37I'm not sure how complex the more

35:40complex we make the entire system, the

35:42harder it is going to be to enforce. Uh

35:44mistakes will be made by public who will

35:47not understand it, who will be

35:48frustrated. Uh developers who will come

35:52several times to the city trying to

35:53figure this out. and enforcement is

35:56going to be a real pain in the wrong

35:59place. Uh, pardon the language, but um I

36:02I wish there was a way to kind of clean

36:06this up. The intent is awesome. I really

36:09think we could get there. Um, maybe

36:11simplify, maybe comb through the whole

36:14thing to simplify. Um, for the listening

36:17public, I have sent several questions uh

36:20breaking some of my concerns down to

36:23staff already.

36:24>> I actually um so I want to make sure

36:26that we're getting um just everyone a

36:29chance to go around. Is this related to

36:31the question of readability or are these

36:33additional topics?

36:35>> Uh no. So it's uh I just want to kind of

36:37say that I've broken the readability

36:40down into several questions in my email.

36:42So, um, it sort of branches out into

36:45more specific asks. So, I, uh, I just

36:48want to let the public know that I've

36:50sent out the questions. I request staff

36:53to please address them in the issue

36:54matrix.

36:55>> Could you just, could you just quickly

36:57summarize them? So, you mentioned um

37:01that the replacement was one of them.

37:03What else?

37:04>> Uh, so I think knowing how it works with

37:09each parcel is key. not knowing that

37:12without that you're flying blind. Uh we

37:14need to have the scenarios which were

37:17explained earlier. The code needs to

37:19reflect the scenarios. Uh we need to see

37:23where um this tree credit is going. Um

37:27that's not clear either for the

37:29readability of the e efficacy of it. So

37:33I'll just leave it with those three top

37:36questions. Not to mention enforcement

37:40issues along the complicated lines that

37:43we have set up.

37:45So I don't want to take up everybody's

37:47time, but I think I've broken it down.

37:50I'm hoping to see more clarity along

37:53that. So thank you.

37:54>> Thank you.

37:56>> Who else?

37:59Um I'm going to jump in here. I would um

38:04actually I have a few. I'm going to

38:05start with something that's very

38:06similar. So, um, I have real qualms

38:10about 97 pages of code as a minimum to

38:13understand the scenario for a homeowner.

38:16So, I think when we're talking about

38:17developer audiences, they might be able

38:19to wade through this. But what we when

38:22our goal as a city is to work on our

38:24tree canopy and preserve some of our

38:26older trees, I really want to make sure

38:29the people coming in can quickly locate

38:32themselves and find their answer and

38:34head out. So, and their answer would be,

38:36"Can I take this tree down?" Right? When

38:38we're um 97 pages to understand that

38:41question is way too long and so, and I

38:45think we've also seen this like the

38:46state update its plain language

38:48standards in 2023. Um basically saying

38:52like people should be there shouldn't be

38:53jargon, people should be in and out,

38:56like there should only take one read to

38:58understand the answer to government

39:00communications. And I know this is code,

39:02so it's much more technical, but I still

39:04think those rules should apply because I

39:06don't think we're going to get the

39:08outcomes that we're hoping for if it's

39:11this complicated and this long.

39:15>> Commissioner Coleman,

39:16>> I just want to add to that a little bit,

39:17and I'm sure this is a solution, but

39:19it's an observation, which is as we move

39:21forward, people are able to access and

39:23assess complex um detailed documents

39:29with AI. Is there some form of other AI

39:32um querying

39:34solution that the council is considering

39:37or thinking about in how people

39:39interact? It's a it's related to this,

39:41but it's maybe a larger question, which

39:43is this might be completely fine if you

39:45have the ability to ask the question

39:47that's going to take you to the answer

39:48you need quickly.

39:50>> That's that's that's where I go to

39:51because there's so many other places now

39:52you can do that.

39:55>> That might be a larger question. Mr.

39:58Woodyear.

40:00>> Um, your comment, um, Chair Wesson,

40:03really resonates with me. As someone who

40:05struggled to get an answer from the city

40:08as to whether my dying tree could be

40:10taken down, I feel the pain. And I also

40:13would would echo the the need for

40:16finding a way to mitigate tree loss

40:18while also making the answers to simple

40:23questions easier. But I do have a

40:25question that's that's separate if I may

40:27please.

40:28>> Um, we're you mentioned that we're at 30

40:3237% tree canopy and that's that's and

40:35that's probably I don't know whether

40:37that's upward or downward given our our

40:4040% target.

40:42Has this has the city done any modeling

40:45to really understand the trajectory of

40:48canopy loss or [snorts] or or

40:52maintenance? Um and and I asked this

40:55question because when I think about our

40:582031 goals, you know, we have capacity

41:00for housing. We are we we still h as

41:04that capacity converts to production.

41:08I got to imagine or or or maybe I should

41:10ask you this is going to put a lot of

41:12pressure and a lot of urgency and a lot

41:14of strain on both property owners as

41:16well as developers. And so um so so so

41:20understanding how big the problem is and

41:23how strong our our policies need to be

41:27to mitigate this is really important.

41:29And I'm going to hold off my third

41:31question. So

41:32>> we're going to go back around.

41:33>> Yeah. Hold off on that.

41:37>> Great. Who's next?

41:42>> All right. I'll jump in with another

41:43one. I would like to add um two of Dr.

41:45Morton's questions from the public

41:48comment today to the issues matrix. So

41:50there were these both concerned um how

41:53we know that a private arborist hired by

41:57the property owner is being

42:00or is reaching the same um decision that

42:05we that other people in the city would

42:06reach if they weren't motivated by um

42:10the potential financials for a

42:12particular parcel. And so I think he

42:16brought up two points and I'd like to

42:18know the answer to both of them. How is

42:19the city verifying that hazardous trees

42:23like that decision is actually accurate?

42:26Because and I've seen this in my

42:28neighborhood where any cedar is

42:31qualified as hazard hazardous by many

42:33arborists because they're so big and if

42:35a limb falls then it will cause damage

42:38and that's not a hazardous tree. That's

42:40a healthy cedar. So like really

42:43understanding is this an honest

42:46decision that meets the city's bar would

42:48be helpful. Um and then his other

42:50question about the imper is surfaces

42:53like how do we actually decide if they

42:57require more space on the lot that

42:59requires taking down trees? That's a

43:01currently a private contractor decision

43:03in this code. But should it be should

43:05the city have additional oversight

43:07there? Um, so both of those would be

43:09really helpful.

43:11>> Commissioner Coleman,

43:12>> this might be included in there, but the

43:13other thing we've talked about and I

43:15know has come from this same public

43:16comment is around whether they should

43:18well where there should be a hiring of

43:20an arborist at the council or who is

43:23responsible at the council for this

43:26oversight as a professional. So I I

43:29don't know the answer to that, but that

43:30was a question came up in our last

43:32conversation is in that public comment

43:34three times, I think. And this is going

43:36to be really difficult because we can't

43:39push for that in the code. But having

43:41code that's written in a way that that

43:43sort of programmatic approach would make

43:46sense I think is really important here.

43:53All right. Commissioner Aara.

43:56So um this is to uh Commissioner

43:59Coleman's comment on the AI use. I I

44:03think that's a much bigger conversation

44:06and if we asking listening public to use

44:09AI and they get it wrong

44:12um by parsing the wrong document because

44:16AI can get things wrong and the so I

44:20think we have to tread carefully and

44:22it's a much larger city conversation. Um

44:26the city could be open to lawsuits. Um,

44:30so I I I'm just putting it out there,

44:32but on the enforcement and fee side of

44:35thing, um, I think having I know the

44:38money part is not in our purview, but I

44:41would like to see where that money might

44:44go. Um, like you said, chair, in a

44:47programmatic way. Um, where are all the

44:50penalties going? Um, is there a way to

44:53do this? Um, that's key, right? Uh,

44:56because we need enforcement. We need an

44:59arborist perhaps. I don't know. But that

45:02black hole we shouldn't leave. So that

45:05was I've added that to the question. So

45:08but I did want to bring it up. So thank

45:10you.

45:11>> Great. Thank you.

45:13>> More vice chair.

45:17I would say as we think about where the

45:20penalty money goes, it would be really

45:23nice to see a more uh assertive tree

45:26growth strategy u put in place. Um as I

45:29read through this document, I don't

45:31really have an a clear understanding of

45:32the magnitude of tree loss. Um are we at

45:3530%, are we at 25%. So it's hard to say

45:38how aggressive we need to be. But the

45:41more aggressive we are on tree loss

45:44mitigation, I think we need we we owe it

45:46to our community members um to have an

45:49equally assertive strategy for growing

45:53the um for replacing the loss.

46:00>> All right, I'm going to chime in again.

46:01Um so I appreciate seeing my comment

46:05from this summer um addressed in the

46:08issues matrix and your summaries. Um,

46:10but I wanted to bring it up again

46:12because I still think that the city

46:14should act more strongly here. So when

46:17we come to what is the penalty for a

46:20business that takes down a tree in a way

46:23that violates the tree code, I think it

46:26needs to be way more clear that um both

46:32both that arborists have the information

46:33that they need to make the right

46:35decisions, but then also they really

46:37risk for like further business in

46:39Redmond if they violate the tree code.

46:42And one, the reason that I brought up

46:44business endorsements as a possible

46:46avenue for that that I think should be

46:48included in the zoning code as a penalty

46:51is when you get a business endorsement

46:53from Redmond, it's an opportunity to

46:55actually like with your business

46:57license, you're actually getting an

47:00information packet from the city about

47:01the expectations. And we do this in

47:04other um business types. So to have a

47:07thing for arborists where we're actually

47:08saying here's the rules now about the

47:11tree code and making it clear that there

47:13is more of a penalty um if they're

47:16involved in a situation where a tree was

47:19taken out that shouldn't be. I think

47:20that would have a lot more teeth because

47:22in my experience even for things like

47:25water heaters or other things where we

47:27have permits people are much more

47:30willing to like stay to the line if they

47:33know there's going to be inspection.

47:34they know there's going to be um a

47:37problem for them that they have to spend

47:38extra money and time to resolve. Um

47:42and so I think making it a little bit

47:44more difficult process on the back end

47:47if someone has found to use their

47:49business to take out trees would be a

47:51real step in the right direction.

47:53Commissioner Coleman,

47:54>> you're asking the questions I'm trying

47:55to ask, which is great. No, [laughter]

47:59I'm half joking. I actually wanted to

48:00add a little bit to that. Um, great.

48:02>> Just as an just briefly like in the UK

48:04there was a there was a sycamore tree

48:06cut down at sycamore gap. It's a very

48:08famous tree and was cut down last I

48:10think three years ago and it looks the

48:13two men that cut it down look like

48:14they're going to go to jail and have to

48:15pay £630,000.

48:17I'm not suggesting we have that in

48:19Redmond. [laughter]

48:21What the reason I bring that up is I

48:22mean that's the height of kind of that

48:24kind of um uh vandalism is what I would

48:27call that. In Redmond though, for a lot

48:30of for a lot of people, like there's a

48:31lot of money that goes around in people

48:32rebuilding houses and stuff like that.

48:34And hey, $10,000, well, that's okay.

48:35I'll just pay that. It's just just part

48:37of the tax of removing these trees to be

48:40able to build my house or for the the

48:42developer to buy the lot and do it.

48:44there needs to be strong for me stronger

48:47things to that developer to say you can

48:49no longer develop in Redmond if you do

48:51this and here's here's here's the

48:53background to that because I don't think

48:55money makes a difference in this current

48:57climate in in when it comes to uh this

49:00this this aspect for a lot of people

49:02>> and especially relative to the host like

49:04the home prices

49:06>> it's a just a very tiny amount even

49:08though it sounds big on a paper

49:12>> further comments

49:16I had one more that I just want to chime

49:18in with because I didn't necessarily see

49:20it specifically, although I might have

49:23missed it. Um, one issue um that has

49:27come up in the past just on the

49:29remediation front, it's not just the

49:31tree canopy. It often also with the very

49:34large trees when they're taken out, the

49:36problem is drainage.

49:38Um because if you add like a very large

49:41Douglas fur or cedar or even hemlock

49:44like sucking up all that water out of

49:47the ground and then you remove it like

49:49that can cause major drainage issues on

49:53that property but also on other

49:54properties and also the storm water. So

49:57um I don't know if the city has looked

49:59into

50:01solutions there requirements. Um but

50:04we've I mean Grasson has lost so many

50:07trees as a neighborhood in the last 15

50:09years. Um and there's been a real step

50:12up in

50:14just additional problems related to

50:18water that doesn't really get removed

50:20the same way cuz we don't have

50:23necessarily drainage like in the

50:25property. But if if people are removing

50:27these large trees, it might make sense

50:29to like have an additional requirement.

50:33um especially if they're moving removing

50:35multiple. So I don't know if that's

50:37something that the code should specify,

50:38but it does seem especially with this

50:40the storm water and cross lot problems

50:44that it could be in the city's purview.

50:49>> Look into that.

50:50>> Cool.

50:51>> All right. Are we done? Oh, nope.

50:53Commissioner Coleman,

50:54>> just one very very small thing. Um, and

50:56this was brought up in public comment on

50:58page nine, but it's kind of confusing

51:00the way some of these numbers are dealt

51:02with. So, in the property size, it's up

51:04to 10,000 square feet or 10,0001 square

51:06ft to 20,000 ft. And then you go to the

51:08diameter of individual trees removed,

51:11it's less than 30 in or greater than 30

51:13in. Um, and as the comment was made,

51:16what if it's 30 in? So, could we change

51:18that language here? And maybe it's

51:20elsewhere is up to 30 in and then

51:23greater than 30 in. tiny thing, but it

51:26could make a difference some at some

51:27point.

51:28>> Yes. Yeah.

51:32All right. Great work. So, we will see

51:34you next time for our public hearing.

51:37>> Thank you everyone.

51:39>> Thank you.

51:40All right. Do people want a quick break

51:42before we move to transportation?

51:45>> Yes. Okay. We will take a five minute

51:47break and we'll be back at 7:57.

52:02Heat. Heat.

52:06[music]

52:14[music]

52:27>> [music]

52:36[music]

52:40>> Heat.

52:42Heat.

52:50Hey,

52:59[music]

53:09hey, hey.

53:21>> [music]

53:31>> Heat. Heat.

53:38Heat. Heat. N.

53:40[music]

53:45[music]

53:52>> [music]

53:58[music]

54:04[music]

54:21[music]

54:27[music]

54:40[music]

54:48[music]

55:05[music]

55:11[music]

55:24[music]

56:13[music]

56:24[music]

56:57[music]

56:58>> I need it.

57:06[music]

57:38Heat. Heat.

57:43[music]

58:03>> [music]

58:12[music]

58:18>> Heat. Heat.

58:26[music]

58:28Heat. Heat.

58:45[music]

58:55Heat. Heat.

59:08[music]

59:49Great. Thank you. All right. Next up is

59:52our study session on the neighborhood

59:53connections map for the 2026 2027 annual

59:58docket with Michael Hint and Franchesca

1:00:00Liberty.

1:00:02>> Great. Thank you, uh, planning

1:00:04commission. My name is Michael Hints.

1:00:05I'm the transportation planning manager

1:00:07for [snorts] the city of Redmond. And

1:00:09today um we'll provide an introduction

1:00:12to a docket item that will make a minor

1:00:14update to the neighborhood element of

1:00:16the comprehensive plan by repealing

1:00:18outdated neighborhood connection maps

1:00:21that have been uh replaced with

1:00:23consolidated neighborhood connection

1:00:25maps in the transportation master plan.

1:00:28This will be the first study session on

1:00:30this item in preparation for October

1:00:3214th public hearing. Uh so we will have

1:00:36um scheduled time for any questions and

1:00:38discussion of this item. Staff are

1:00:40seeking a planning commission

1:00:41recommendation to amend the

1:00:42comprehensive plan. The newly adopted

1:00:45neighborhood connections map is included

1:00:47in the pedestrian plan section of the

1:00:49transportation master plan and is

1:00:51replicated in appendix G with larger

1:00:53scale maps.

1:00:56Just as some background, the

1:00:58neighborhoods element was redlined and

1:01:01remaining policies in that element are

1:01:03incorporated by reference into the

1:01:04community development and design element

1:01:06as part of the Redmond 2050 adoption

1:01:09process. This was reviewed and

1:01:11recommended by the planning commission

1:01:13on July 10th, 24th, and 31st in 2024.

1:01:18Future updates to the neighborhood

1:01:20policies are included in the 2026 2027

1:01:24docket as approved by council on August

1:01:263rd, 2026.

1:01:28So, this is really just a minor cleanup

1:01:31item uh in the interim. Um, and with the

1:01:35adoption of the transportation master

1:01:37plan in February 2026, neighborhood

1:01:40pedestrian connections from the

1:01:41neighborhood elements and other city

1:01:43documents have been consolidated into

1:01:45maps within the transportation master

1:01:46plan. These maps are located in the

1:01:49pedestrian plan of the TMP pages 73 and

1:01:5388 and in the uh appendix G page 314.

1:01:59Uh concurrently we want to um these new

1:02:02TMP maps replace the five neighborhood

1:02:04connections maps in the neighborhoods

1:02:06element of the comprehensive plan.

1:02:08Repealed maps include the connections

1:02:10maps for Bear Creek, Education Hill,

1:02:12North Redmond, Southeast Redmond, and

1:02:15Northeast Rose Hill. All of these

1:02:17neighborhoods are shown in newly adopted

1:02:20map in the transstation master plan.

1:02:23References to these outdated maps in the

1:02:25text of the neighborhood elements will

1:02:26be removed as well.

1:02:29So, as next steps following a study

1:02:31session, we will return August uh

1:02:33October 14th with a public hearing and

1:02:35study session. if needed. Uh we

1:02:37anticipate PC recommendation and

1:02:40approval on October 28th.

1:02:43With that, I open up to questions.

1:02:47>> All right. So, I'm going to jump in here

1:02:48as chair for a second. Um so, I

1:02:52unfortunately wasn't able to resolve

1:02:54this before the meeting tonight. Um so,

1:02:57apologize for putting you all on the

1:02:58spot. Um, I have

1:03:02qualms about updating the neighborhood

1:03:05element um, the way we're being asked to

1:03:08do. I do think that this map change is

1:03:10important, but doing it in this location

1:03:12seems like a problem to me. The way that

1:03:15it's been characterized that the

1:03:18planning commission reviewed the

1:03:19neighborhood element as part of Redmond

1:03:222050

1:03:23is not correct. We reviewed the entire

1:03:26document during the omnibus package that

1:03:29happened in summer 2024.

1:03:31There is one page saying that two

1:03:34policies from the neighborhood element

1:03:36that used to exist in Redmond 2030 would

1:03:39be brought over and then but the

1:03:42majority of that content was split into

1:03:45other places as part of the

1:03:47modernization of Redmond's comp plan.

1:03:50And so places that went were community

1:03:52de design and development. We had some

1:03:55things go to a really nicely revamped

1:03:58transportation

1:03:59appendix section and transportation

1:04:01element. Um and my understanding at the

1:04:03time was that things were being moved to

1:04:06the appendixes to make it easier to do

1:04:08updates like this that the city needs to

1:04:10complete its work. Um and then we had

1:04:13some remaining information in the

1:04:15neighborhoods element that will be

1:04:17reviewed later this year.

1:04:20Um when we actually look at the

1:04:22neighborhood element that was in our

1:04:24packet this week, it is very very old.

1:04:26So um most of it was written based on

1:04:29work that happened between 2004 and

1:04:312008. Um almost all of it's incorrect.

1:04:35Some of it's been repealed. I think we

1:04:37had a public comment tonight that

1:04:38alluded to how confusing this is to see

1:04:41ghost maps and ghost policies come back

1:04:45out of the blue from like 20 years ago

1:04:49us. Um, but I just I cannot imagine

1:04:52sending to council a document that's 20

1:04:54years old and removing a few parts of it

1:04:57and putting in other parts that doesn't

1:05:00match what I believe we accomplished in

1:05:03Redmond 2050. So, what I would like to

1:05:05propose is that we have a chance to

1:05:08relook at what the correct places for

1:05:10these maps are. Obviously, they're in

1:05:12the transportation master plan that was

1:05:14passed by the commission and especially

1:05:16by council um last winter. Um and then I

1:05:20understand that they might be

1:05:22appropriate in um the transportation

1:05:25master plan or sorry, excuse me, in the

1:05:28comp plan as well. But then I would

1:05:30actually think that appendix H would be

1:05:32a much more appropriate place for them

1:05:34because that's where we have all of our

1:05:36other pedestrian and bike maps. Um so I

1:05:40would propose instead of appe repealing

1:05:43these maps from a very very old document

1:05:46that instead we add them to appendix H.

1:05:49But I'm open to other solutions. I'm

1:05:51just I'm I'm very very skeptical of

1:05:55using this body to edit and

1:05:59reintroduce a part of we had no revision

1:06:03of this. We've had no revision for the

1:06:0520 sorry for the seven years that we

1:06:07have recorded record of. So it's just

1:06:09this doesn't feel like the right spot.

1:06:12>> Okay. Um I just want to comment on a

1:06:15couple of your comments and then I'll

1:06:17hand it over to Becky to talk more about

1:06:19the process. um the appendices they were

1:06:22referring to in the transportation

1:06:24element, those were all removed as part

1:06:26of the TMP update and that information

1:06:29was either incorporated directly into

1:06:31the transportation master plan or its

1:06:33appendices. So, appendix H no longer

1:06:36exists in in the comprehensive plan. Um

1:06:40and that was part of the transportation

1:06:42master plan update process that we

1:06:45approved that.

1:06:46>> All right. Then maybe the city could

1:06:47update the comp plan online because the

1:06:50full doc still contains it.

1:06:52>> And Glenn Coyle, we we recognize that

1:06:55and he is working on that.

1:06:57>> Wonderful.

1:06:58>> Update that.

1:06:58>> You're ahead of it. Great.

1:07:01>> Yeah. Um just to provide a little bit of

1:07:02background and then a couple of

1:07:04suggestions of ways to move forward. Um

1:07:06the omnibus package that was reviewed by

1:07:09the planning commission in um the summer

1:07:12of 2024

1:07:14included edits and red lines to the old

1:07:17neighborhoods element. Um and we could

1:07:20provide that out via links to the

1:07:22planning commissioners and then it was

1:07:24also adopted by

1:07:25>> sorry I don't want to let that stand. It

1:07:27really didn't.

1:07:30That was not part of We have never

1:07:32reviewed this.

1:07:34>> Uh in I did send you the link.

1:07:36>> That's why the documents yesterday

1:07:38>> and I checked it and it's definitely not

1:07:40there.

1:07:41>> If you can find a time when we have

1:07:43reviewed the neighborhood element from

1:07:462030

1:07:48as part of our Redmond 2050 work, I am

1:07:50all ears. But that did not happen.

1:07:52>> That it was laid out in the email I

1:07:54sent. It starts on page 256 of the

1:07:56planning commission packet link that we

1:07:58sent as attachment B1 for the omnibus

1:08:01package. Um it was also um so it was it

1:08:05was sent to it is confusing because we

1:08:08took what was left of the neighborhoods

1:08:10plan that we couldn't get to because we

1:08:12just didn't have time to get to all the

1:08:14neighborhood plan updates and we said

1:08:15okay we're going to remove it from the

1:08:17comp plan but keep it over here to

1:08:18continue working on it. It's on the

1:08:21docket under the neighborhood plans work

1:08:23ongoing and we intentionally left it in

1:08:26the old format um to make it obvious

1:08:28that we hadn't gotten to it yet. Um but

1:08:31it does it is confusing. The language

1:08:33and the adoption doesn't necessarily um

1:08:36make sense to an average user. So uh we

1:08:39understand and we apologize for the

1:08:41confusion but it did go to the planning

1:08:43commission as a part of the omnous

1:08:44package. It went to council with their

1:08:47final adoption package. It is actually

1:08:49exhibit one in ordinance 3181 for the

1:08:52adoption of the comprehensive plan.

1:08:54Exhibit 2 is the comprehensive plan. Um

1:08:57so it does exist as a as a document that

1:08:59is current but old and we haven't gotten

1:09:02to it yet. Um but that leaves us with a

1:09:05situation with the TMP work created a

1:09:07new map and this one still lives. There

1:09:11are other old pieces that we haven't

1:09:12gotten to yet. So, um, you could choose

1:09:15to move forward and make this edit and

1:09:16strike it so we don't have two maps out

1:09:18there with the same content. Or you

1:09:21could, uh, push it to the edits that are

1:09:24coming to this chapter or the repeal of

1:09:26this chapter, which is a decision that

1:09:28is going to be made under a project that

1:09:30Lauren's leading for the neighborhood

1:09:32planning process that's currently

1:09:33underway. So, we didn't have the

1:09:36capacity to do in the neighborhoods

1:09:37element during Redmond 2050, but it's

1:09:40already started to actually address that

1:09:43that that was a remaining to-do item.

1:09:46Um, but we could package these together.

1:09:49Um, if the planning commission uh

1:09:51chooses to, they could just recommend

1:09:54denial of it because you don't want to

1:09:56touch it. And that's an action you can

1:09:58choose, too. So, uh there are pathways

1:10:00forward. Um but it is it it is a

1:10:03document that if it is to be edited

1:10:06needs to be edited through this process.

1:10:08>> So my question here um would be where in

1:10:12an ideal world would these replacement

1:10:16maps

1:10:17>> well that's already been done.

1:10:19>> Yeah. We're not replacing the maps that

1:10:21are in this old neighborhood element. We

1:10:24we consolidated those connections that

1:10:27were in those maps into the maps that

1:10:29are currently in the transstation master

1:10:30plan. Okay. I just don't see a conflict

1:10:33because we don't even have a link from

1:10:35the comp plan into these old doc. We

1:10:39would have to go line by line and repeal

1:10:43like dozens of items per section if we

1:10:47were actually going to bring this

1:10:48forward. It is so old. So, I'm just I

1:10:52can't

1:10:57The rest of it isn't really standing

1:10:59either. we've overwritten it. That was

1:11:01the work of 2050.

1:11:07>> Well, I guess we have those two options

1:11:10uh in front of us tonight. I don't

1:11:12actually this is a tough one because I

1:11:14don't feel like the planning commission

1:11:16has the authority to bring back this ele

1:11:20like this is this feels very

1:11:23I I'm not totally what I heard was that

1:11:25it was found on the website and that was

1:11:28why

1:11:30the edit are in front of us but like I'm

1:11:33not exactly sure how we got here. Um I'm

1:11:37not even sure we should really spend

1:11:39time on it. What I would prefer to do is

1:11:40come back with the solution, even if the

1:11:43solution is just no, we're good. We have

1:11:45it in the transportation master plan

1:11:47that was passed by council. Um,

1:11:52as part of all of the work that was done

1:11:55last year,

1:11:58but I cannot I just can't see sending

1:12:01this element back in its current form

1:12:03because I think it's confusing.

1:12:05It's like a ghost from the past.

1:12:13Mr. Wier,

1:12:15>> we owe it to our the role that [snorts]

1:12:17we're playing and we owe it to the

1:12:18community to have clarity. I'm

1:12:20thoroughly confused now. [snorts]

1:12:23Um, and I I don't want to weigh in on

1:12:25something else. I have clarity.

1:12:28So, given that, [clears throat] what are

1:12:30what are our options? Could we possibly

1:12:34come back on October 14th with just a

1:12:37plan forward? I understand that there's

1:12:38a public hearing scheduled. Um,

1:12:42but it's we can't really review this as

1:12:45is. I don't I don't think any of us

1:12:47would feel comfortable.

1:12:49>> Well, as I mentioned, the two options

1:12:51for moving forward are you well, you

1:12:54could move it forward with the edits and

1:12:56approve it or recommend approval or

1:12:58deny.

1:12:58>> I'm sorry. I feel like there's been a

1:13:00mistake here and I don't want to treat

1:13:01this with the same process that we would

1:13:04usually use. I tried to resolve it

1:13:06before the meeting. I don't feel like

1:13:09we're hearing each other exactly, but

1:13:11this is not standard for us.

1:13:18So what we can do is next week in or the

1:13:21next planning commission we can put in

1:13:23your packet the the tracking of why and

1:13:25the history of it and um so that all of

1:13:28the planning commissioners can see why

1:13:30it is on the docket and it has been

1:13:32approved on the docket and then we were

1:13:35here for the docket. We understand why

1:13:37it's on the docket. We sent it like this

1:13:40has been a discussion that we've been

1:13:42part of. The question is where is the

1:13:44appropriate place for these maps to live

1:13:46and what documents do we need to touch

1:13:48in order to make sure that's correct?

1:13:50And I don't feel like those questions

1:13:51are really being answered here.

1:13:54>> I I I guess I'm not following your

1:13:58assertion that there's a some other

1:14:00place for these maps to live. We're

1:14:02trying to repeal these maps so that

1:14:04there's no there's not conflicting

1:14:06information between the transportation

1:14:08master plan and what is in the

1:14:10neighborhood elements. That is the sole

1:14:13purpose of this action.

1:14:16So, we're not looking for another home

1:14:18for the maps. We're looking to remove

1:14:20the maps so there's no confusion.

1:14:27>> Yeah, it's just a deletion.

1:14:30>> All right. Perhaps we'll table this for

1:14:32now then and we can get on the same page

1:14:35for the 14th.

1:14:37Um but probably not with a public

1:14:40hearing that day because we won't have

1:14:41time had time to actually understand

1:14:43what we're

1:14:46hearing has been scheduled but if you'd

1:14:48like to continue the public hearing

1:14:50further out you're welcome to do that

1:14:52like a normal

1:14:53>> vice chairuation of public hearings. Oh,

1:14:56pardon, Commissioner Parna.

1:14:59>> Yeah, I I definitely agree with uh chair

1:15:03and vice chair on this, but I also have

1:15:05another thought. If if the neighborhood

1:15:08element significantly needs updating and

1:15:12for every two little diagrams, you're

1:15:14going to have a a docket item. It makes

1:15:18no sense to me at least. It feels

1:15:21cluttered and peacemeal. uh ideally that

1:15:24whole element whenever the neighborhood

1:15:27plan is ready all of this should come

1:15:30together at that time and uh then it's

1:15:33clarity you moving from old you've

1:15:35already mentioned that it's an older

1:15:37document and so many things were not

1:15:39touched so there's still so many items

1:15:42in the neighborhood element which still

1:15:45have to be touched so why don't we just

1:15:48do the whole thing together it'll also

1:15:51we can check for cohesion We can check

1:15:54for consistency at that point. At least

1:15:56that would be my two penny worth um I

1:15:58don't know if it's making sense to the

1:16:00others, but um doing two maps at a time

1:16:03or two tables at a time makes no sense

1:16:06to me.

1:16:07>> Thank you.

1:16:08>> Yeah, and I mentioned that was one path

1:16:10[clears throat] forward. We could just

1:16:11combine it with the work that Lauren

1:16:13will bring forward to you under the

1:16:14neighborhood planning project.

1:16:16>> All right, so maybe um let's end this

1:16:20item for tonight.

1:16:22um we can figure out or actually I would

1:16:24ask staff to figure out what plan you

1:16:27would like to do going forward and then

1:16:31um I don't see how we can do a public

1:16:32hearing on the 14th given that we

1:16:35haven't published the material yet

1:16:44>> staff will follow up with you after this

1:16:46meeting.

1:16:47>> Great. All right. Thank you for that.

1:16:50And now hopefully something simpler. So

1:16:53next up is our study session on the

1:16:54updates to the transportation facilities

1:16:56plan for the 2026 and 2027 annual docket

1:16:59with Michael Henson and Franchesca

1:17:01Liberty.

1:17:04All right. Hi everyone. I'm Franchesca

1:17:06Liberty, senior transportation planner

1:17:07here at the city of Redmond.

1:17:10Sure I got my slides up. Great. Okay.

1:17:12Today, we'll present uh an introduction

1:17:14to the docket item that will make a

1:17:16minor update to the transportation

1:17:17facilities plan section of the TMP. This

1:17:20will also be the first study session on

1:17:22this item in preparation for an October

1:17:2314th public hearing. So, we will have

1:17:25some scheduled time for questions and

1:17:26discussion.

1:17:30Staff are seeking a planning commission

1:17:32recommendation to amend the

1:17:33comprehensive plan. This small update

1:17:36would be included in the transportation

1:17:37facilities plan section of the TMP.

1:17:40State law requires that comprehensive

1:17:42plans identify state and local

1:17:44transportation system needs to equitably

1:17:47equitably excuse me meet current and

1:17:49future demands. This is fulfilled in the

1:17:51TFP which is adopted by reference into

1:17:53the comprehensive plan via the TMP. Lots

1:17:56of acronyms there.

1:17:59This docket item includes two new

1:18:02projects that would be added to the TFP.

1:18:04Both are shared use paths that would

1:18:06provide additional low stress bicycle

1:18:08and pedestrian infrastructure. Locations

1:18:10include Northeast 40th Street between

1:18:13158th Avenue Northeast and 156th Avenue

1:18:16Northeast, Northeast 70th Street between

1:18:19188th Avenue Northeast and the Evans

1:18:21Creek Trail. And both of these locations

1:18:23are related to adjacent redevelopment

1:18:25projects, the Eve's Avalon Apartments

1:18:28and H Highleberg site, respectively.

1:18:31Uh the project ID number, description,

1:18:33and costs would be added to tables three

1:18:35and four in the TFP, and the locations

1:18:38shown on the reference map on this slide

1:18:40would be added to the maps in the TFP on

1:18:42pages 271- 275.

1:18:45The Avalon Redmond Tech Station

1:18:47development is moving forward. As part

1:18:50of the development agreement, the

1:18:51developer requested that the Northeast

1:18:5240th Street frontage improvements, which

1:18:54include a shared use path, be credited

1:18:56towards the development trans

1:18:58development's transportation impact

1:18:59fees. Carol Heland, while director of

1:19:01planning and community development,

1:19:03determined that they could could with

1:19:04the following rationale. These

1:19:06improvements provide important access

1:19:08and will be used by the broader

1:19:10community uh as they are system

1:19:12improvements and the general goal is to

1:19:14reduce development costs in a

1:19:16challenging development environment. In

1:19:18order to be credited for these

1:19:20transportation impact fees, the

1:19:21improvements need to be in the TFP.

1:19:26In addition, one existing TFP project

1:19:29description would be modified to include

1:19:31the mention of a shared use path.

1:19:34Did I get that? Yeah. Okay. Uh, this

1:19:36project includes the construction of a

1:19:38new street with curb, gutter, sidewalk,

1:19:40landscaping, lighting, and storm

1:19:42drainage on Northeast 72nd Street east

1:19:45of 188th Avenue Northeast. This TFP

1:19:48project would be modified to include a

1:19:50shared use path in the project

1:19:51description as well.

1:19:55Following this study session, we will

1:19:56return on October 14th with a public

1:19:58hearing and and study session if needed.

1:20:00And we anticipate a planning commission

1:20:02recommendation and and approval on

1:20:04October 28th.

1:20:06I'll now open it up for questions and

1:20:08discussion.

1:20:10Okay, great. So, we're going to start an

1:20:12issues matrix

1:20:14for this one. Um, who would like to go

1:20:16first?

1:20:20Um, I'll jump in until I see more hands.

1:20:22Um, so it is so helpful to get the, um,

1:20:26additional detail about the impact

1:20:27statements because I was curious why

1:20:29these are coming in now. Um,

1:20:34just to understand how these fit into

1:20:36the other tables that we've already

1:20:37discussed. Um, when we were originally

1:20:40talking through those tables, we had a

1:20:41lot of questions around prioritization.

1:20:44So, like, are some projects higher in

1:20:46the list than others? Um, and I I

1:20:48remember it being a fairly complex

1:20:50answer at that point. We're not in

1:20:52charge of budget, but in terms of just

1:20:54making sure that this document makes

1:20:56sense when it goes to council, do these

1:20:58have a prioritization weight or is it

1:21:01all one big pot?

1:21:04>> Um, they do not. They're um really on

1:21:08the TFP and anticipation of future

1:21:10development and will be built by that

1:21:12future development.

1:21:14Great.

1:21:16Additional questions, anyone.

1:21:21Um, all right. Any other questions

1:21:26here? All right. 45 minutes was more

1:21:29than we needed here, I think.

1:21:31>> Feeling.

1:21:32>> Yeah. So, as usual, um especially

1:21:36because we're missing one person

1:21:37tonight, I just we will do our usual

1:21:40cadence of if things come to mind in

1:21:42email. Um you could receive one by the

1:21:46end of the week, but we'll try to cap it

1:21:47by Friday. Um otherwise, we'll just head

1:21:50into the public hearing and see if there

1:21:51are any questions there.

1:21:55All right. Thank you. Thank you.

1:22:10All right, now on to staff and

1:22:12commissioner updates.

1:22:13>> Uh, yes. So, we are currently in the

1:22:15process of filling Commissioner Gier's

1:22:17seat and we are hoping to have that

1:22:19filled by November. So, there's a

1:22:21seamless transition there. Uh we will

1:22:24also start advertising for the other

1:22:26vacancy left by Commissioner Copley and

1:22:29we encourage the public to apply uh once

1:22:32we that is um online. Uh next meeting is

1:22:35October 14th and uh we are we've

1:22:38scheduled uh some public hearings. So

1:22:40please let stuff know if you're going to

1:22:42miss any of those the next meeting

1:22:44because we need the quorum. And finally,

1:22:46Lauren Albert is gonna take over for the

1:22:49last quarter of 2026 as um plan

1:22:52commission leazison.

1:22:53>> So, is this your last day?

1:22:54>> Yes.

1:22:55>> Thank you so much for your work this

1:22:56quarter. You've done such a nice job.

1:22:58>> Thanks.

1:22:59>> Always appreciate it.

1:23:01>> Um any commissioner updates?

1:23:05No. All right. Um in that case, I look

1:23:08for a motion to adjurnn.

1:23:10>> So moved.

1:23:11>> Second.

1:23:12>> All in favor? I

1:23:14>> I

1:23:14>> I

1:23:15>> All right, then we are adjourned.