2026-10-14 - Planning Commission
Summary
Based on auto-generated captions; names, numbers and details may be misheard.
Time on topic (from transcript timestamps; approximate, includes side talk):
| Topic | Minutes | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Tree Code Update | 59 | 60% |
| Neighborhood Connections Maps Repeal | 23 | 23% |
| Transportation Facilities Plan Update | 8 | 8% |
| Other business | 6 | 6% |
| PFAS Soil and Groundwater Testing Request | 3 | 3% |
- Wednesday, October 14, 2026, Redmond Planning Commission.
- Captions start at 4:09 (the first four minutes of the recording have no captions) and run to the adjournment at about 1:43:19, with no recesses or closed sessions.
- Four commissioners were present and Commissioner Coleman was excused.
- Staff named in the roll call were Lauren (surname rendered several ways), Becky Fry, Michael Hints, Cameron Zapata and Abraham Wenda.
- The commission approved the agenda and the September 23 meeting summary by voice vote.
Other business
4:09-6:53, 1:40:34-1:43:19
- Chair Weston resigned from the commission and was thanked for her years of service. To fill the rest of the term (through about March 2027), the commission elected a new chair (name garbled in the captions) and, in his absence, elected Commissioner Coleman vice chair; both votes were by voice.
- Staff updates from Lauren, who is now the commission's liaison for the fourth quarter: the design standards survey is open, the home business questionnaire is extended for at least another month, and pop-up events for neighborhood planning have been held. Council interviews for a vacant commission seat on October 27; applications for the two other vacant seats are due November 6.
- The mayor's proposed budget includes projects that will reach the commission: an urban mixed-use master plan, a universal design study and community engagement staffing (see Mayor's Preliminary 2027-2028 Biennial Budget).
- The October 28 agenda will include approval of the neighborhood connections map repeal and the transportation facilities plan update, plus an introduction and study session on commercial drone use.
PFAS Soil and Groundwater Testing Request
7:02-10:12
- David Morton (general public comment) asked the commission to ask staff whether environmental baseline data, including PFAS, has been collected for parcels in comprehensive plan docket items, and to tell the council it supports funding soil and groundwater PFAS testing at the former Allwood recycling site and the adjacent Evans Creek relocation site in the 2027-2028 budget.
- He noted both sites lie in critical aquifer recharge areas. No action was taken or requested of staff that night.
Neighborhood Connections Maps Repeal
10:20-33:33
- Transportation planning manager Hints presented the public hearing item: repeal the five neighborhood connection maps (Bear Creek, Education Hill, North Redmond, Southeast Redmond, Northeast Rose Hill) in the comprehensive plan because the transportation master plan adopted in February 2026 now carries consolidated maps. Connections were dropped from the new maps because they were already built, outside the city, redundant, sidewalks (covered by the sidewalk plan) or infeasible.
- Option one: recommend repeal now, with a recommendation on October 28. Option two: fold it into the separate neighborhood planning docket item, which staff said would start around the end of February and conclude around April or May 2027.
- Debate: Commissioners Aparna and the chair first leaned toward option two to avoid piecemeal edits and review the neighborhood element as a whole. Commissioners Van Nyman, Bish and Gier favored option one, arguing that two conflicting sets of maps are an existing source of confusion. Commissioner Van Nyman added that the text is outdated either way, so removing the maps now does not change that. Commissioner Aparna asked for a note in the neighborhood element that an update is coming, and staff agreed to add text saying it is a remainder of the earlier plan.
- David Morton spoke in the hearing in support of repeal, with three requests: update policy references that still cite the old maps, provide a crosswalk of what was kept, changed or removed, and clean up blank and duplicated entries in the transportation master plan appendix table.
- Commissioner Gier moved to support option one, conditioned on staff bringing the list of removed connections and reasons on October 28; it was seconded and carried by voice vote. The written comment period stays open until October 28.
Transportation Facilities Plan Update
33:33-41:16
- David Morton (public hearing) supported shared use paths but questioned the record: no stream or buffer analysis shown for the Northeast 70th Street segment, a conflict between statements that projects are prioritized and that they are not, no cost or timeframe for the two new rows, and procedural errors in the technical committee report (wrong page headers, SEPA file number and comment dates). He asked the commission to hold or condition its recommendation until corrected.
- Hints presented the docket item: add two shared use paths (Northeast 40th Street between 158th and 156th Avenues Northeast, near an apartment project in permitting; and Northeast 70th Street from 188th Avenue Northeast to the Evans Creek Trail) and correct the Northeast 72nd Street project description to include a shared use path. Staff said costs still need to be estimated and will be added.
- Commissioner Aparna asked that Morton's comments go into the issues matrix with responses, especially the date discrepancies, and the chair asked for the cleanup before approval. A recommendation is expected October 28.
Tree Code Update
41:23-1:40:32
- Senior planner Anderson (joining virtually) and Zapata opened the public hearing and study session. Key changes: cleaner definitions, a tree credit calculation for development, clearer enforcement and penalties, wider use of fee-in-lieu dollars, new tree exception criteria, one-to-one replacement for hazardous, landmark and heritage trees, development flexibilities, tree protection zones, programmatic permitting for city projects, and a conifer priority for replacements.
- Schedule: study session November 4, study session and recommendation November 18, commission approval in December, council process from January 2027, adoption expected March 2027 and effective June 2027.
- David Morton (public hearing) asked for mandatory, independent third-party review triggers, closing the 35 percent impervious surface bypass, a council-funded city arborist in the 2027-2028 budget, and a tree canopy projection before the November 18 recommendation (canopy was 38 percent in 2019 and 37 percent in 2023 against a 40 percent goal for 2050).
- Staff said they expanded third-party review to all permits involving tree removal, added exception criteria that consider neighboring properties, and added trees at 30 inches diameter to the replacement tables. An on-staff arborist could be considered in future budgets.
- Issues matrix: the code length item was closed and replaced with a new item on structure and navigation (intro explaining how the code is organized, hyperlinks, homeowner versus developer guidance). Items on third-party review and impervious surface, penalties (add a reference to the penalty table) and several others were closed; items raised by Commissioner Coleman stay open in his absence.
- Commissioner Aparna kept open items on canopy data (including the watershed and a current baseline), where replacement trees would be planted, and code enforcement, and called the development tree credit system too complex and a possible barrier to smaller projects; she suggested a size threshold, with a simpler table below it. She said she had emailed about ten more questions, including relief for low-income owners and replacement of hazardous or dying heritage trees. The chair urged simpler rules, replacement of every lost tree and replanting in the neighborhoods losing the most canopy. Commissioners Bish and Gier asked for clearer guidance for homeowners; staff said they would explain their reasoning for the tree credit design.
- Staff did not have a canopy projection and said the tree canopy strategic plan will be updated at a date not yet set. Discussion continues November 4.
Sources
Video
Transcript
These are auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.
Transcript
04:09Welcome to the October 14, 2026 meeting
04:12of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd
04:14like to call this meeting to order.
04:16We'll start with a roll call.
04:18Commissioner Aperna,
04:19>> present.
04:20>> Commissioner Bish,
04:22>> present.
04:23>> Commissioner Gier,
04:25>> present.
04:26>> Commissioner Van Nyman,
04:27>> present. and Commissioner Coleman is
04:29excused for this evening. I'd like to
04:31also thank staff for being present.
04:33Lauren Alpbert, Becky Fry, Michael
04:36Hints, Cameron Zapata, and Abraham
04:39Wenda.
04:41And I just want to just conclude the the
04:43roll call with a note to the listening
04:45public that um chairperson
04:48Susan Weston has resigned from the
04:50planning commission and we thank her for
04:51her many years of service to the
04:52commission and to the community. With
04:55that said, um I'd like to approve the I
04:58look for a motion to approve the agenda.
05:00>> So moved.
05:01>> Second.
05:02>> All in favor?
05:03>> I I
05:04>> Thank you. That is approved. Any
05:06corrections to the meeting summary from
05:09last time from our last meeting?
05:12All right. Then I look for a motion to
05:13approve the meeting summary from
05:14September 23rd, 2026.
05:18>> So moved.
05:19>> Second.
05:20>> All in favor?
05:21>> I. that is also approved. So, our first
05:25item for tonight is the election of
05:27officers and typically elect officer
05:29elections happen once a year for
05:31chairperson and vice chair um for a
05:34one-year term. These elections normally
05:36take place in April. Um but since that
05:39chairperson is now vacant, the
05:40individuals elected tonight will serve
05:43the remainder of the current term, which
05:44will run through roughly uh March of
05:472027. So, first we'll elect our chirp.
05:50Commissioners are welcome to
05:51self-nominate if there are multiple
05:53nominations that will vote in the order
05:55in which they received. Any nominations
05:57for chair?
05:58>> I nominate Janine Voodier for chair.
06:04[snorts]
06:07>> I second that nomination.
06:10>> Okay. All in favor?
06:12>> I.
06:13>> Okay. And then I will serve as chair for
06:16the planning commission for the
06:17remainder of the term. So now we'll
06:20elect a vice chair using the same
06:22process. Any any nominations for a vice
06:24chair?
06:26Right. Then I'd like to nominate Adam
06:28Coleman. Adam Coleman's Commissioner
06:31Coleman, excuse me, is not here this
06:33evening, but he did express his desire
06:35to put his name in the house for the
06:37vice chair. Any seconds?
06:40>> Second.
06:42>> All right. All in favor?
06:44>> I I
06:45>> Okay. Commissioner Coleman is now Vice
06:48Chair Coleman and he'll serve out the
06:50remainder of the one-year term.
06:53Okay. So then that now we are we now
06:56have um now is the time for items from
06:58the audience on topics that are not
07:00related to tonight's hearings.
07:02Um
07:05do we have any any um
07:07>> we have one speaker this evening, Dr.
07:09David Morton.
07:10>> Dr. David Morton, if you can just uh uh
07:14voice out, you go up to the m to the mic
07:16and let us know your name and your
07:18address and you have three minutes to
07:19speak.
07:22Good evening, commissioners. I'm David
07:24Morton, Redmond 98053.
07:27I'd like to raise an issue that sits
07:29upgradient of many of your land use
07:31decisions. What do we know about PAS in
07:34Redmond's soil and groundwater? Two
07:37sites matter here. One is the former
07:39allwood recycling site, also known as
07:42DTG Recycle, listed by the Department of
07:45Ecology as cleanup site 3793,
07:48where a 2013 fire occurred and PAS foam
07:52was likely used. The other is the
07:55adjacent Evans Creek relocation site
07:57whose project depends on industrial
08:00resoning in the SEMIC manufacturing
08:03district. Both are located in Redmond's
08:06critical aquifer recharge areas which
08:09protect the city's drinking water
08:11supply. A 2011 hydrogeeologic assessment
08:15for the allwood recycling site states
08:17that the groundwater gradient is toward
08:20the west southwest. It places the site
08:23in the wellhead protection zone for
08:25Redmond's well number five. Supply wells
08:28one and two at Anderson [clears throat]
08:30Park lie about 1 and a half miles west
08:33southwest of DTG. Here's my concern.
08:36Land use designations, reszones, and
08:39stream relocations are decisions
08:41involving the movement of soil and
08:43water. Once ground is disturbed, a
08:46predisturbance baseline can no longer be
08:48collected. If we don't test before we
08:51dig, we don't know what was already
08:53there before disturbing the soil. That's
08:56why I asked the city council to fund
08:59soil and groundwater PAS testing at both
09:02locations in the 2027 to 2028 budget.
09:06Testing now is far less costly than
09:09discovering contamination after
09:11construction.
09:13I recognize the budget belongs to the
09:15council and that no action will be taken
09:17tonight. My request to you is within
09:20your role, my uh when you review
09:23comprehensive plan docket items and the
09:26zoning that follows, please ask staff a
09:29simple question. Has environmental
09:31baseline data, including PAS, been
09:34collected for the affected parcels? And
09:37if not, why not? Please also consider
09:40telling the council that you support
09:42funding PAS testing. Even a short note
09:45in your recommendations would signal
09:47that baseline data matters. Redmond has
09:50strong critical areas protections on
09:53paper. Their value depends on having
09:55data to apply them to. Baseline testing
09:59is how protection becomes enforcable
10:01rather than aspirational. Thank you for
10:04your service and for your time. I'm
10:06happy to provide the documents behind
10:08everything I've said tonight. Thank you.
10:12>> Thank you very much.
10:14Do we have any other speakers?
10:17>> Not for general comments.
10:19>> All right. Thank you. All right. Now, so
10:20now the transportation planning staff
10:22will hold a public hearing on the
10:24proposed repeal of the neighborhood comp
10:26connections map. This item is part of
10:29the 2627 planning uh comprehensive plan
10:32document. We have Michael Hints
10:34representing the staff.
10:53I'll repeat that. Good evening,
10:55commissioners. Michael Hint,
10:56transportation planning manager now on a
11:00hot mic and my slides are showing. Is
11:03one of the monitors out there? Looks
11:06like it.
11:08Um
11:10yeah, so I am here uh for this docket
11:13item, which is the repeal of
11:15neighborhood connection maps.
11:18And um I'm going to present some of the
11:21same information in a hopefully more
11:24abridged uh version than I presented on
11:26the 23rd of September.
11:29And I will run through these slides.
11:35Okay. So yeah, as I stated, the purpose
11:38um of this this docket item is um we're
11:43seeking planning commission and
11:44recommendation to amend the
11:46comprehensive plan.
11:48The newly adopted neighborhood
11:50connections map is uh in the TMP is
11:53included in the pedestrian uh plan
11:55section and is replicated in appendix G
11:59of the transation master plan. [snorts]
12:02And uh so I'm going to give you a little
12:04background
12:06and uh we'll move through that. The
12:09neighborhoods element was redlinined uh
12:12and remaining policies in that element
12:14have been incorporated by reference into
12:16the community development and design
12:19element as part of the Redmond 2050
12:21adoption process. This was reviewed and
12:24recommended by the planning commission
12:25on July 10th, 24th, 31st in 2024. Future
12:30updates to the neighborhood policies are
12:31included in the 2026 2027 docket as
12:35approved by council on August 3rd, 2026.
12:41Um so these are the maps um that have
12:46been included in the transportation
12:48master plan and they include um most of
12:52the connections that were um pulled over
12:56from the neighborhood elements in the
12:58comprehensive plan. Uh some connections
13:01were removed um due to a number of um
13:06reasons. One being they've already been
13:08built. Two being they are outside the
13:11city of Redmond. Three being um other
13:16adjacent connections uh whether on
13:18street or off streetet are present and
13:22it was deemed redundant.
13:24Uh there were many connections that were
13:26listed as sidewalks. We have our own
13:29sidewalk program and a sidewalk plan. Uh
13:32therefore those were removed from the
13:33neighborhood connections. And then
13:35lastly, a few um connections were deemed
13:39infeasible. Um and that's just due to
13:43constructibility, engineering cost, and
13:46the like. So very unlikely to be built
13:48in the future.
13:54And also um happy to provide a list of
13:57those those um connections that were
14:00removed if if planning commission
14:02desires to see those. So our request
14:05here is um
14:08with the adoption of the uh the
14:11transportation master plan in February
14:1326, neighborhood pedestrian connections
14:16from the neighborhood element and other
14:17city networkings have been consolidated
14:18into those maps in the TMP. And these
14:21new TMP maps replace the five
14:23neighborhood connection maps in the
14:25neighborhood elements of the
14:26comprehensive plan. These repealed maps
14:28include the connections map for Bear
14:31Creek, Education Hill, North Redmond,
14:33Southeast Redmond, and Northeast Rose
14:35Hill. All of these neighborhoods are
14:37shown in the newly adopted map in the
14:39TMP.
14:41References to these outdated maps in the
14:43text of the neighborhoods element will
14:45also be removed.
14:49So, there are two two options uh for a
14:52planning commission to consider. The
14:55first one is approval. Um, make a
14:58recommendation to approve the docket
15:00item to repeal the neighborhood
15:02connections maps in the comprehensive
15:04plan, replacing them with those in the
15:07uh adopted transportation master plan.
15:09Option two is combining this um this
15:12action with neighborhood docket item. um
15:16plan commission could recommend that
15:17this item be combined with the
15:19neighborhood planning project which is a
15:22separate docket item and uh which will
15:24be so amendments in the future uh to the
15:29neighborhood element.
15:33Just in terms of next steps, uh we're
15:35here tonight for the public hearing. Uh
15:38if if the commission chooses option one,
15:40we would return on October 28th for um
15:44the recommendation and report approval.
15:47If option two will be combined with the
15:49neighborhood planning updates, that will
15:50come to commission to review later in
15:522027. [clears throat]
15:57And that's that's all I have.
16:00>> Thank you very much. I think it's pretty
16:02straightforward. So they appreciate um
16:04the the presentation. Does anyone in the
16:06commission have questions? We can just
16:08go around the the room
16:14questions or comments.
16:16Okay. Commissioner Van Nimman. So I
16:20watched the meeting that I missed and I
16:24understand the point of the confusion
16:26but I
16:30from the planning commission's concern
16:32last time there was you know that the
16:34option one would create some confusion
16:36over the date outdated neighborhood um
16:40what are we calling them neighborhood
16:42planning neighborhood
16:44>> neighborhood element
16:46>> element element
16:48Um,
16:50and I understand that, but um, it is
16:54what it is. And cleaning the maps up
16:58right now eliminates a very clear point
17:00of confusion
17:02and that to me seems preferable.
17:05So option one,
17:07>> Commissioner Aparna,
17:09>> I uh would beg to differ and I would go
17:12with option two just because we don't
17:14want to do peace meal changes to the
17:17neighborhood element um everything. So
17:21at one go you would check for
17:22consistency across whatever remains of
17:25the neighborhood element and that would
17:27be the final approval. That would be my
17:29preference is to
17:32technically kick the can down the road.
17:37>> I am of the mindset to go with option
17:40two and the reason for that is just to
17:42create um a more holistic view um
17:46because this is one of of this is one um
17:50straightforward um adjustment but there
17:52are there are going to be others. Um the
17:54modernization is part of the 27 26 27
17:57docket. And I think there's there's we
17:59owe it to the community to provide a
18:01holistic view so that we can um see all
18:04the parts, see how they come together
18:05and really kind of follow the thread um
18:08in a more systematic way. This is a a
18:10substantive um the modernization is a
18:13substant substantive piece of of the
18:16docket and I'd like to see them I'd like
18:18to see us take a consideration of all
18:19the pieces at one time.
18:25Commissioner Van Nyman. So, am I missing
18:27something? Because the the question is
18:30the maps currently exist in two places.
18:32They do not match and we need to get rid
18:34of them in the one place where we don't
18:36like them because they're old and we're
18:38just going to keep them in the new
18:39place.
18:40So,
18:44like I'm not clear on when you talk
18:45about developing the whole doing it all
18:48at once and and you know doing it more
18:51holistically, you're still going to be
18:52referring back to the exact same maps
18:54whether they're in the document or not.
18:56The the question is just do we remove
18:58these maps that are confusing for people
19:01because they're they're not they're they
19:03are in an official document today and
19:06they're wrong. So why would we wait an
19:09entire year to remove something that is
19:11erroneous?
19:13>> Commissioner Aperna.
19:15>> Uh so the reason this whole question
19:17came up was because the neighborhood
19:19elements per se were not reviewed in
19:22detail during the comp plan review. So
19:24what that means is there is whole big
19:27work to be done reviewing the
19:29neighborhood plans. And
19:33so basically we haven't seen this stuff
19:36before and then we just kind of sideways
19:39looking at a couple of documents. That
19:40was one of the reasons. I personally
19:43think repealing two maps or three maps
19:45or 10 maps at a time and then repealing
19:48the text, repealing the thing that just
19:50adds docket noise. It's a it's a in my
19:53mind it's the clean way to do it is um
19:57nobody is looking at the neighborhood
20:00plan right now the plan element right
20:02now as the new set the latest maps are
20:05already in the TMP so that's where it's
20:08going to lie the text is outdated if the
20:12text and the maps are outdated it in my
20:15mind it does not make a difference when
20:17we update the text we remove all the
20:20extra the old stuff and it's a clean new
20:23place. Right? Now, if you update one
20:26part and you don't update the text part,
20:29then you've got a more confused public,
20:32right? Cuz now you've got these maps
20:34gone and then you've got now you can
20:36just say this whole document is old and
20:38antiquated and just wait till we update.
20:41Um, that's how I see it. And it's more
20:44like if you're going to keep doing this
20:46in pieces and it's going to take a few
20:48years because I think from a perspective
20:50of the neighborhood plan uh we are
20:52looking at grass lawn and I correct me
20:55if I'm wrong Lauren um but um I think
20:58one or two neighborhoods are going to be
21:00pilots. So this is probably going to
21:02take a few years. So why would we want
21:05to do this docket little little docket
21:07thing for many years? That's it's just
21:10noise in my mind. I just want to point
21:12out that we are doing the public hearing
21:14this evening. So, typically we do the
21:15the public comment for the public
21:17hearing, the verbal comments, and then
21:18we'll we can have a more robust
21:20discussion as well.
21:22>> Yeah, that Yeah, you need to open the
21:23public hearing.
21:24>> Oh, did I miss that? I apologize. Let's
21:27open the public hearing. We're doing
21:28things in reverse order.
21:33>> Okay.
21:33>> Who do we have from the public speaking
21:35this evening?
21:37>> Uh Dr. David Morton.
21:40>> Dr. David Morton.
21:45>> Good evening, commissioners. I'm David
21:47Morton, Redmond 98053.
21:50I'm speaking on the proposed repeal of
21:52the neighborhood connections maps. I
21:54support replacing the five old maps with
21:57the transportation master plan maps
21:59adopted in February 2026.
22:02Two sets of maps covering the same
22:05connections invite conflict and
22:07developers and staff deserve clarity
22:10about which map applies. My support
22:13comes with three requests. First, the
22:16staff memo says this item proposes no
22:18text changes and no other action is
22:21needed, but the neighborhoods element
22:22still cites these maps. Policy NBC30
22:26directs site plans to follow the Bear
22:28Creek connections map and policy NEH26
22:32refers readers to the Education Hill
22:34connections map. Once the maps are
22:37struck, those policies point to nothing.
22:40Please direct staff to update those
22:42references to the TMP figures. Mr. Hint
22:45just promised that will happen. Second,
22:48the technical committee report says
22:51infeasible connections were removed from
22:53the adopted TMP map. The materials I
22:57reviewed don't identify which ones.
23:00Please ask staff for a crosswalk listing
23:02each connection on the old maps and
23:05whether it was retained, modified, or
23:07removed and why. That lets the public
23:10confirm that nothing was dropped by
23:12accident. Third, TMP appendix G, table
23:161, will now carry the weight these maps
23:19once did. As printed, several entries
23:22have blank from and two fields, and
23:25entries 6 and 26 repeat the same
23:28pedestrian spine description. That table
23:31should be clean before it becomes the
23:33sole reference. I also note the issues
23:37matrix where Commissioner Weston asked
23:39whether this is the right place for the
23:41change. staff responded that appendix H
23:44no longer exists and that remaining
23:46transportation element appendix listings
23:49will be removed from the online
23:51document. Please ask staff to confirm
23:53that cleanup is complete. Option two,
23:57[clears throat] combining this item with
23:59the 2027 neighborhoods update would
24:02address some of this, but it would leave
24:04two sets of maps in force into 2027. and
24:08staff also acknowledge potential
24:11confusion about what applies. I
24:14therefore recommend option one, approval
24:17conditioned on the three requests above.
24:20Clean, traceable plan documents serve
24:22residents, developers, and the natural
24:25areas that these connections cross.
24:27Thank you, and I'm glad to answer any
24:29questions that you have.
24:33>> Thank you. Do we have anyone anyone else
24:35from the public?
24:36No, there's no further comment on the
24:38public hearing.
24:39>> Then we'll close the verbal component of
24:41the public hearing and leave the written
24:43component open.
24:46Okay.
24:47>> And so this we we now segue into the U
24:50study session element of the
24:52neighborhood elements map.
25:01Commissioner um Commissioner Gier.
25:04>> Um I have uh I think a question for
25:07staff and it piggybacks on something
25:09that Commissioner Aparna had said in her
25:11comment. I'm trying to sort of wrap my
25:14brain around who right now is relying or
25:17reviewing the old maps compared to the
25:21new maps.
25:24>> Yeah, great question. It is conceivable
25:26that um a developer development would
25:30reference the neighborhood element. Um
25:33that said, staff are um if they're not
25:38already aware, they could be made aware
25:40that those maps no longer apply and the
25:44the neighborhood connection maps in the
25:47TMP are what should be followed.
25:52>> Can I be greedy and ask a second
25:53question?
25:54>> You may. All right. So, a second
25:55question also to piggyback on um what
25:58Dr. Morton had said because I you
25:59dropped this as an option and it
26:01immediately jumped out to me is I'm
26:03interested in that as somebody who uh we
26:06have used neighborhood connections a
26:08great deal. My family has never been
26:10eligible for the school bus even though
26:12we live 2 miles from the school. So, we
26:14have walked from elementary schools to
26:16middle schools to high schools. And so,
26:20um, the idea that things have fallen off
26:22the map or, uh, I'm sorry, I can't
26:25remember the word right now that you had
26:26used, they're not feasible. There were,
26:30there were several, uh, pro connections
26:33that were deemed infeasible, but I will
26:34say the vast majority of the connections
26:36that were removed from the neighborhood
26:38element maps were uh, due to them
26:41already being built.
26:44uh they were listed as sidewalks and
26:46we're addressing sidewalks through our
26:48pedestrian plan, our sidewalk plan. So,
26:50they're not really considered
26:51neighborhood connections. Neighborhood
26:53connections are off- streetet pathways
26:55as you're familiar with. Um and uh in
26:59some cases there, yeah, there's
27:02redundant street or trail connection
27:04within very close proximity.
27:06>> Okay. I for me having that listing uh
27:10specified in writing gives clarity. Um
27:15when I think about some of the goals of
27:172050 about this being a walkable right
27:20community
27:21>> in areas where that things were deemed
27:24not feasible or they dropped off having
27:26clarity about why that evaluation was I
27:28think will just be helpful. So I echo um
27:33that that piece.
27:40Commissioner Para. So um this is in
27:43advance of if we decide to vote tonight
27:46or not. But if if the commission decides
27:49to go with option two, I would request
27:52staff to have a note uh somewhere in the
27:56neighborhood plan place which says hey
28:00coming attraction you know uh just
28:03because you want to make it clear that
28:05this thing hasn't been updated in a
28:07while and it's not just for the plans
28:09but for the entire neighborhood policies
28:13which are upcoming. Um I may may I
28:17respond? Yeah. Thank you. Um just to
28:20make a note, one of the reasons we left
28:22the um the neighborhood element um in
28:25its current format and didn't update it
28:27to kind of the format that Redmond 2050
28:29was to and included the actual red lines
28:31in that element is to indicate that um
28:34it is still very much um an outdated
28:37document and a draft that's going to be
28:39updated. Um, so I just wanted to make
28:41that note that it's, you know, we can
28:43also add some text to that effect that,
28:46um, it'll be updated and this is a
28:48remainder from the the Redmond 2030 plan
28:51that's still in effect.
28:53>> Thank you. I think that's that's that's
28:55would be great and even if option one
28:57went through, it's the same same logic
29:00because all the rest of it hasn't been
29:02updated. So, uh, thank you for that,
29:04Lauren.
29:06If I may, when is the timing for the for
29:08the um the the follow-up docket item?
29:11>> Um for the neighborhood docket item, we
29:13are anticipating coming to you uh I
29:15think it's slated for an intro in end of
29:18February. Um and
29:20>> conclusion by
29:21>> um
29:22>> roughly
29:22>> depending on the discussion. I'd have to
29:24look at my notes, but April or May.
29:26>> Okay. It's about six months.
29:29Okay.
29:30Does anyone need any additional
29:32information to um weigh in on a on an
29:36option?
29:41Commissioner Bish, did you
29:43>> Yes, please.
29:45Um, I mean, I guess I personally don't
29:47really see the main benefit of just
29:49waiting until the 2027 neighborhood
29:52element update because I guess instead
29:55of just removing the old maps now, even
29:58though there might be confusion, I feel
29:59like it's better or it might be better
30:02if people like are introduced to a newer
30:05map earlier.
30:08Okay,
30:12>> Commissioner Gier,
30:13>> I think ultimately I feel the same as uh
30:16Commissioner Vanimman and Commissioner
30:17Bish that
30:20holding off on this, holding off on
30:22potentially the inevitable. Does it make
30:24sense to me? and especially if we have
30:27folks in the community who are relying
30:29on something that's already maps that
30:31are in the transportation master plan.
30:33Um, option one makes the most sense to
30:36me.
30:39>> Okay.
30:40>> So then is so Michael, so are we at the
30:43point now where we make a we vote
30:45tonight or do we make a vote uh on the
30:4828th helping out with the process?
30:52Yeah, I think we're looking for
30:54direction from commission.
30:56>> Okay.
31:01>> I would just say one more thing.
31:02>> Yes, Commissioner Van. Um, I would just
31:05say that
31:08to to me the the sta staff has come to
31:11us with a request for a reason that
31:16that even though this is outdated.
31:20um that the current maps are a point of
31:24confusion
31:26and that
31:28we can resolve this in a pretty easy
31:32manner
31:34um
31:36instead of waiting. And and I I would
31:39have I I guess what I'm saying is I
31:41trust that staff has come to us with
31:42this for a good reason.
31:49I'm support I'm going to change my mind
31:51on this. Um and I I give myself
31:54permission to um change my mind based on
31:56updated information and I'm going to
31:58support I'm I'm in supportive of of
32:01option one. Oh, Commissioner um Gang,
32:04>> I think can I make a motion that we
32:06support um position number one with the
32:08caveat that Dr. Morton had highlighted
32:10and that um staff had indicated they
32:13would be willing to do to make sure that
32:15by that next then if we hold this for uh
32:19recommendation and report approval on
32:21the 28th can at that time we have what
32:23we've talked about now that additional
32:25information about the things that have
32:27fallen off that next meeting.
32:29>> Yeah, no problem.
32:31>> Yeah, it was [laughter] it was that's my
32:34motion.
32:34>> It was a very big and bold motion and I
32:36think it's a very good one.
32:38>> [snorts]
32:38>> So, so can if staff is willing to do
32:40that um and can do that for the 20.
32:42>> Yeah, we have we have a list. Just need
32:43to clean it up a little bit and
32:45>> yeah,
32:45>> no problem.
32:46>> Okay. So, I think we have a plan
32:47forward.
32:49>> Second the motion.
32:52>> All is this this is where all in favor?
32:55>> I
32:56>> I
32:59>> I
33:01Okay. So, we're going to move forward
33:03with option one with the caveats.
33:07Okay. So, staff will prepare a report
33:10and um for your approval next week for
33:13next meeting.
33:16>> We can do that next session. Can we can
33:18we um actually as a point of
33:19clarification, can we close the written
33:20portion next session or do we have to do
33:22that tonight?
33:24>> Um I think you can leave it open.
33:27>> Okay. Then we'll leave it open till the
33:2928th
33:30and then we'll close it. Yeah. All
33:32right. All right. So, we're going to
33:33move to the next item of the agenda and
33:34that is the p uh the transportation
33:37planning staff will hold a public
33:38hearing on the updates to the trans to
33:40the TFP, the transportation facilities
33:42plan. Um, and this item is part of the
33:452627 comprehensive plan document. So, do
33:48we have any speakers uh for this
33:50evening?
33:52>> Dr. David Morton. [laughter]
33:55>> Dr. Morton, three minutes. And please
33:59state your name and your address,
34:00please. [clears throat]
34:02Good evening, commissioners. I'm David
34:04Morton, Redmond 98053.
34:06I'm commenting on the transportation
34:09facilities plan project updates, and I
34:12support shared use paths. My specific
34:15concerns are about the record supporting
34:17them. First, the environmental analysis
34:21for criteria F and G. The technical
34:24committee reports attachment A says not
34:27applicable and that the projects do not
34:30propose impacts to critical areas, but
34:33it shows no analysis behind that
34:35conclusion. The report's summary table
34:38simply says meets the proposed Northeast
34:4170th Street path runs to the Evans Creek
34:44Trail. Please ask staff whether stream
34:47or buffer review was actually done for
34:50that segment and what is what it found.
34:53Second prioritization. The TFP
34:56introduction states each project has
34:59been prioritized into near and medium
35:02and longer term. But in the issues
35:04matrix, staff answered a commissioner's
35:06question on September 23rd by saying TFP
35:10projects are not prioritized in any way.
35:13These statements conflict. Please have
35:16staff reconcile them because time frame
35:19drives expectations about when these
35:21paths get built. Third, cost and scope.
35:25The technical committee report says this
35:28amendment adds a project ID,
35:30description, and cost for the two new
35:32paths. The memo and presentation I
35:35reviewed show no cost estimate or time
35:38frame for either new row. Also, the
35:41Northeast 72nd Street project now
35:44includes a shared use path. Yet, its
35:47estimate remains $2,17,000.
35:51The TFP is described as financially
35:54constrained, so adding scope without
35:56revising cost deserves explanation.
36:00Fourth, the procedural record. The
36:02technical committee reports running page
36:04headers read repeal neighborhood
36:06connections maps apparently left over
36:09from another item. The report cites SEPA
36:12file number 00136
36:15while the determination of
36:16non-significant sites 00155.
36:21The report says the sea comment and
36:24appeal meth uh the sea comment and
36:26appeal period ran from September 23rd to
36:30October 14th, but the determination
36:33issued August 3rd lists comments due
36:36August 17th and appeals due September
36:391st. Appeals rights depend on accurate
36:43dates. I ask the commission to hold its
36:46recommendation or condition it until
36:48staff correct these items and answer
36:50these questions in the record. Staff
36:52anticipate a recommendation on October
36:5528th. So, there's time to correct the
36:57record before then. Clean documents
36:59protect the city and they protect the
37:01public's ability to rely on them. Thank
37:04you.
37:05>> Thank you very much. Do we have any
37:08other speakers?
37:11Okay. So, this closes the verbal part of
37:14the public um public comments and we'll
37:17keep the written part in the written
37:19part open. So, now we'll segue into the
37:22study session
37:25presentation.
37:29Yeah, I do have a few slides I'd like to
37:30share with you. Um provide some more
37:32information.
37:51Okay. So the purpose of this um docket
37:54item is to seek um planning comm uh
37:59planning commission recommendation to
38:00amend the Redmond comprehensive plan and
38:03specifically the transportation
38:04facilities plan in the transportation
38:07master plan. Um
38:10and I'll give you some background and
38:12walk through exactly what uh changes we
38:14are making or proposing to make or have
38:17been made rather. Um, so the docket item
38:21includes two new projects
38:23that would be added to the TFP. Both are
38:26shared use paths that would provide
38:27additional low stress bicycle and
38:29pedestrian infrastructure.
38:31The locations include Northeast 40th
38:3440th Street between 158th Avenue
38:36Northeast and 156th Avenue Northeast.
38:40Northeast 70th Street uh between 188th
38:44Avenue Northeast and the Evans Creek
38:45Trail. Both locations are related to
38:48adjacent parcels where redevelopment
38:50projects are occur occurring or have the
38:53potential to occur in the future.
38:56Uh the the EES Avalon apartments on
38:59Northeast 40th Street, for example, are
39:01currently in the permitting phase.
39:04uh
39:06project ID number, description, and cost
39:08would be added to tables three and four
39:11in the TFP. And the locations shown on
39:13the reference map on this slide would be
39:15added to the maps in the TFP on page 271
39:20through 275.
39:23And uh just to respond to the comment
39:27about cost, uh staff still needs to
39:30estimate the cost for these projects and
39:32that information will be added as well.
39:37[clears throat]
39:41And then finally, uh there's just a an
39:44an add an edit to an existing project in
39:47the TFP, which is Northeast 72nd Street.
39:50this was an oversight when we were doing
39:53the the TFP update uh that this project
39:57also includes a shared use path. So,
39:59we're just making sure that that is
40:00specified in that project description.
40:06So, uh in terms of next steps, the
40:09public hearing study session is
40:12happening tonight and then uh
40:14anticipated planning commission
40:15recommendation and report approval on
40:17the 28th. And now I open up for the
40:21study session or your questions.
40:24>> Thank you very much. This I appreciate
40:26the the detailed update here.
40:29>> And now I'd like to open up to any
40:30commissioners who have questions or
40:32comments.
40:34Commissioner Aerna.
40:36>> Um I believe Dr. Martin's comments
40:39should be added into the matrix and we
40:41would like responses to that. um
40:44especially related to the dates uh
40:47anomalies that he pointed to um and any
40:51corrections that need to be made before
40:53we sign off on this.
40:56>> I support that.
41:00Anyone else?
41:04>> Okay. So, I I'd like to see that added
41:06to the the the um matrix as well. I'd
41:09like to see the cleanup um prior to
41:11approving this
41:14Okay. So, if there any if there aren't
41:16any other questions, then we have the
41:18next item, which is the um
41:23the uh we'll now hold a public hearing
41:25on and study session on the tree code
41:27update.
41:29Um who do we have from the public?
41:35>> Oh, sorry. Thank you.
41:37>> I forgot my manners. Thank you. Very
41:39appreciative.
41:43Um, we've got
41:47uh Dr. David Morton for the tree code. I
41:50don't know if the staff has a few intro
41:52slides that they'd like to do first and
41:54then we can do the public comment and
41:56then we can address the discussion and
41:59matrix.
42:01>> Okay.
42:01>> Does that work?
42:02>> Yeah, that works.
42:03>> So, we have Cameron
42:04>> Sapata.
42:08We're also joined uh by Lauren Anderson.
42:11She's virtual because she's sick.
42:13>> Cameron Sapata and Lauren Anderson
42:14representing staff.
42:21Um, good evening everyone. Um, I'm
42:23Lauren Anderson, senior planner, and I'm
42:25accompanied by Cameron Zapata, Park
42:28Senior Planner. We are here today for
42:30the Tree Code public hearing followed by
42:33the Tree Code study session.
42:38The layout for this topic includes the
42:41public hearing followed by the study
42:43session where we'll go over growth
42:45protection and tree protection as well
42:48as uh the influence of the tree canopy
42:51strategic plan and then the staff
42:54recommended changes to the code and the
42:57review of the issues matrix.
43:05We have a couple of slides to go over.
43:07Uh so please hold your comments and
43:09questions until we get to um that
43:11portion of the uh slide.
43:17Here are the big changes we're making.
43:20We've cleaned up the definitions and
43:22incorporated a tree credit calculation
43:24for development projects.
43:26[clears throat]
43:27Enforcement and penalties are clear and
43:30we've expanded how fe dollars can be
43:32used. We've also updated the criteria
43:35for tree exceptions and we now require a
43:38one toone replacement for hazardous
43:40landmark [clears throat] and heritage
43:42trees. There are some new development
43:44flexibilities plus clear guidance on
43:47tree protection zones before, during,
43:50and after construction. Programmatic
43:53permitting is also introduced for city
43:55improvement projects and internal
43:57projects. And we now call out heritage
43:59and culturally modified trees.
44:02[clears throat] And finally, the tree
44:04replacement rules are more intentional
44:07where we are prioritizing conifers and
44:10allowing replacements on site, offsite,
44:13or through a fianl.
44:15These changes address clarity,
44:17consistency, and stronger tree
44:19protection.
44:24So we have the following uh planning
44:26commission meetings. So we have November
44:274th study session and then November 18th
44:31study session and recommendation with uh
44:34the approval in December
44:37and then January of 2027 uh beginning
44:40the council process and we anticipate
44:43adoption in March 2027
44:46with the effective date of June 2027.
44:50This allows three months for um post
44:54entitlement or sorry post approval
44:57adoption plan uh which includes public
45:00education, staff training, updates to
45:04applications
45:06and creating easyto read guides and
45:08multiple other items.
45:13And now we're opening it up for public
45:15comment and questions.
45:17[clears throat]
45:19Dr. David Morton.
45:27>> Yes. I'd like to officially open the
45:28public hearing hearing and we have Dr.
45:31David Morton.
45:33Good evening, commissioners. I'm David
45:35Morton. Thank you for putting my
45:37September questions into the tree code
45:39issues matrix. I have four requests
45:42based on staff responses. First,
45:45third-party review. Staff's updated
45:48draft includes third-party permit review
45:51in 217207H,
45:54but only at the administrator's
45:56discretion, at the applicant's expense,
45:58and with mutual agreement between city
46:01and applicant on the choice of reviewer.
46:04No trigger requires it. And 070H.2
46:08two describes reviewing the exception
46:11request against the criteria below that
46:14appear in 21721
46:16150 C. Please define when review is
46:20mandatory such as any hazard
46:22determination or any use of the
46:24impervious surface provision and make
46:27the reviewer independent of the
46:29applicant. Second, imperous surface.
46:33Section 217200C2
46:37excuses a project from the 35% retention
46:41requirement when retention would limit
46:43it to less than 85% of allowed imperous
46:47surface. Staff's matrix says going below
46:5135% requires an exception request, but
46:55the draft exception section does not
46:58list it. And C.2 two requires no
47:01request, no findings, and no proof that
47:04retention actually limits the project.
47:06The exception tests, including
47:09minimizing tree loss and protecting
47:11public welfare, never apply. Staff says
47:15it would review the applicant's arborist
47:17report to verify need. The code should
47:20say so and require independent review.
47:23Third, the arborist position. staff says
47:26an arborist may be considered in future
47:29bud budget cycles and calls third-party
47:32review the solution until then that's a
47:35stop gap not oversight uses uses of the
47:39fee inlue already include hiring or
47:41contracting a qualified tree
47:43professional I ask that the commission's
47:46recommendation urge council to fund a
47:49city arborist in the 2027 to 2028 budget
47:53fourth canopy trajectory Tory tree
47:56canopy dropped from 38% in 2019 to 37%
48:00in 2023 with a 40% goal for 2050. Has
48:05the city modeled where Canopy is
48:08heading? Staff's answer points to the
48:10dashboard and anticipates a dip, but
48:13offers no projection. Please ask staff
48:16for a canopy projection before the
48:18November 18th recommendation so the
48:21commission knows how strong these rules
48:23must be. In short, define when
48:26independent review is required, close
48:29the 35% bypass, fund the arborist, and
48:34quantify the canopy trajectory.
48:36Independent verification makes
48:38protection in Redmond's tree code
48:40enforceable. Thank you.
48:43Thank you very much Dr. Morton.
48:46So this now closes the verbal part of
48:50the public hearing and we'll keep the
48:52written part open.
48:54Okay. And I think the next part of this
48:56uh study session is the issues matrix
49:03>> and we have a couple slides to go.
49:05>> We have a couple slides.
49:06>> Yeah. And then the issues matrix.
49:08>> Okay. Let's do the the slides and then
49:10the the matrix then. Sorry.
49:14The intent of this study session is to
49:17provide a refresher or more context to
49:19other adopted plans and their influence
49:22on this tree code update. Um, we also
49:24wanted to point out uh recommended edits
49:27to the tree code draft which were
49:28influenced by the planning commission's
49:30comments from last month. and then we'll
49:33open it up to the the issues matrix and
49:35determine which of those items can be
49:37closed and if there are any additional
49:39items for staff to respond to or provide
49:42clarity.
49:46So to update the tree regulations
49:48effectively, we first need to understand
49:51the larger framework with which we
49:52operate in. And under the growth
49:54management act, Redmond's located in the
49:57urban growth boundary. And this requires
49:59the city to continue recommending
50:01accommodating
50:03population growth within that boundary
50:06to limit urban sprawl. And so our
50:09challenge is finding the right balance
50:11between those state state mandated the
50:13statemandated growth and the city's goal
50:16for tree retention, protection and
50:18replacement. Um Redmond 2050 identifies
50:22future growth in the three urban centers
50:24downtown Overlake and Marymore Village.
50:27And the proposed tree code must align
50:29with Redmond 2050 and with other code
50:33updates that support infill development,
50:35middle housing, and increased density.
50:37all while moving toward that 40% tree
50:39canopy goal. The tree code guides how
50:43trees are removed and protected both for
50:45development and non-development
50:46activities um from a homeowner removing
50:50a backyard tree um to a major mixeduse
50:53project.
50:56Then we have the tree canopy strategic
50:58plan and this plan was adopted by city
51:00council in 2019 and it's a cross-
51:03departmental strategic plan and it sets
51:05the tree canopy goal and provide
51:07strategies to achieve that goal. Um and
51:11at this time at the time the tree canopy
51:13strategic plan was developed the tree
51:14canopy was at 38% and then the latest
51:18data we have from 2023 puts it at 37%.
51:22The tree canopy um has likely decreased
51:25due to urbanization and then replacement
51:27with different species. Uh delay between
51:30removing those mature trees and um um
51:35the replacement trees maturing and
51:37adding to tree canopy.
51:40To add to the tree canopy, um there's
51:42also invasive species and then limited
51:44resources for natural area management
51:46and restoration.
51:48The plan recognizes that in urban center
51:51in urban centers the canopy is likely to
51:54decrease due to the nature of the uses
51:56for those zones. Um, additionally the
51:59tree canopy strategic plan does lay out
52:01an implementation strategy to achieve
52:04the 40% and that includes these seven
52:07methods shown in this pie chart. Um,
52:09regulation just being one prong or one
52:11one aspect of those strategies to get to
52:15um the 40%. So it's a multi multiaceted
52:18approach.
52:24And so based on the comments and the
52:26questions we received from the September
52:2823rd study session meeting, we've made
52:32some recommended updates to the code
52:34draft. So our first one was to um expand
52:38the third-party review option to section
52:402172070G
52:43which would encompass all permits which
52:45include tree removals. We've also added
52:48um exception criteria which would
52:50consider impacts to neighboring
52:51properties and then also addressed um
52:55the tree replacement tables to ensure
52:57that trees at 30 in in diameter breast
53:00height are included.
53:05And so staff provided the issues matrix
53:07um with the planning commission packet
53:10and um staff has provided responses from
53:15the September study session. And so the
53:17questions that we'll have is um if those
53:20responses will satisfy your comments and
53:22questions and which items can be closed
53:24and of those comments that do remain
53:26open um can there be uh can clarity be
53:30provided?
53:32Um and then we heard recent comments
53:34about the possibility of adding an
53:36arborist to staff and um as we heard at
53:40this time the code is written to allow
53:42for that third party review which means
53:44a qualified external arborist can verify
53:47the arborist reports as part of the
53:50permit process. And in the future um an
53:53onstaffed arborist can be considered in
53:55the f in future budget cycles. And if
53:58you're interested in participating in
54:00that budget process, we did provide a
54:02link in the issues matrix.
54:05Um, and then our last ask is um if the
54:08planning commission is ready to move to
54:10recommendation or if the planning
54:12commission um would require another
54:14study session on November 4th.
54:17Thank you.
54:23>> Thank you very much. So, does this lead
54:25us next to the um issues matrix
54:30issues matrix? Do we
54:33do you want me to pull it up?
54:35>> Yes. I'd like to review the the issues
54:37matrix now because I know there are a
54:38number of items that we need to um go
54:40through and hopefully close.
55:17Yeah. Can we go through the the can we
55:20go through the issues matrix?
55:21>> Okay. Sorry, I'm not used to this
55:23format. Um so the first comment um was
55:26that the code is too long at 97 pages
55:29and so we did clarify that those 97
55:31pages did include um the references. So
55:34in total the 2172 is 39 pages. Um and
55:40then with the with the reference updates
55:44it made it 97 pages.
55:46>> Since this was um since this is Chair
55:48Weston's um question I'm going to I I do
55:51have a comment to this. I do appreciate
55:54the the the response here. The the one
55:57comment that I had as I was going
55:59through the um the draft is that you
56:02have both um
56:06uh you have both developer and homeowner
56:12vacasillating from from chapter to
56:14chapter. And it gets a little bit
56:16confusing because if I'm a homeowner, I
56:17just want to know can I cut my tree or
56:19what are my requirements? And so I have
56:22to sift through the developer um
56:24sections to get to that clarity. And if
56:27I'm a developer, I'm sifting past the
56:29the homeowner piece. So my only comment
56:31is that it would be really helpful if
56:33there's a way in which maybe we have is
56:35it is there is there is it possible to
56:37have maybe two sections. The one is the
56:40homeowner section and one is the uh the
56:42developer section so that it's easier
56:43for people to quickly go through. And
56:46the reason why I say that is because the
56:48requirements,
56:50demands, the the the impacts are
56:53different. They're very they're
56:54materially materially different for a
56:56homeowner than they are from a for a
56:59developer. And it's easy to to
57:02lose track of what chapter you're on and
57:03then make the wrong conclusions.
57:07>> And I will clarify. So for um the what
57:12you're talking about homeowner versus
57:14developer um we do call like the
57:16homeowner section non-development
57:18related. Um so maybe that helps to
57:21clarify
57:22um but as part of our um postapproval
57:26actions. So those three months between
57:28approval and the effective approval by
57:31the city council and the three months to
57:34get to the effective date. We do plan to
57:36have um public engagement or public
57:40education to help folks understand when
57:43a tree removal permit is required. Um so
57:46we do have a postapproval plan that's
57:49pretty robust to help educate the public
57:51as well as staff on what the
57:53requirements are for both homeowners and
57:56developers. Um along with that we'll
57:58include some updates to handouts and
58:01also some easyto read guides so that
58:02people are able to quickly get to what
58:05they're looking for.
58:07>> Okay. So then if I understand you
58:08correctly, you the structure of the
58:12draft would probably would likely remain
58:14the same, but that there would be
58:15perhaps a one page or or an easier to
58:17digest
58:19um visual or document so that a
58:22homeowner can quickly understand what
58:25the the what what the rules are. And the
58:28same thing for a developer. Did I
58:30understand that correctly?
58:31>> That's correct. And the reason for the
58:34complexity or the the technical side of
58:36of the code is because not only are we
58:38having homeowners looking at the code,
58:41but we also have more technical people
58:43looking at it too, like arborists and
58:45developers. And when it does come to
58:48trees, there is a technical aspect to it
58:50that you do have to speak to in order to
58:52get that clarity. So maybe that that
58:56responds to why it is so complex because
58:58we do have the vast um audience reading
59:02the the code.
59:03>> Yeah. No, I appreciate it is complex.
59:05It's just the the way it's presented.
59:07Anyway, uh Commissioner Apara
59:09could tack on to that. I think having in
59:12the introduction a sort of
59:15the structure explained would really
59:18help because that's not seen in the
59:20introduction. you've got like the
59:22principles and the driving principles
59:24and all of that. So if you say this is
59:28how the code is structured like
59:31non-development development uh city
59:34replacement and uh construction post
59:38construction uh those sections if it's
59:41very clear and you maybe even have like
59:44hyperlinks in the eventual document that
59:47will really help because it's sort of a
59:50how-to guide. the introduction has to be
59:52a how to guide as well. Um because
59:55otherwise it's so personally I would say
59:58leave this open with this additional
1:00:02thing and if you could bring it back
1:00:03with that if if chair is okay with that.
1:00:06>> I I'd like to keep this open. I think
1:00:07the navigation point is a really
1:00:09important point for the for the
1:00:10community members who are reading this
1:00:12code. So, Commissioner Van,
1:00:15>> I would just suggest closing the length
1:00:18one and adding another one that's under
1:00:21your name with a new topic which is
1:00:26because you're not discussing length,
1:00:27you're discussing format.
1:00:32>> Yeah, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with
1:00:34for the clar for the purpose of clarity.
1:00:36I'm fine with closing this item, but but
1:00:37that's the the the structure and how you
1:00:41navigate the um the code is is an
1:00:44important piece. So, let's add that.
1:00:46Let's replace this with that.
1:00:47>> That's very clear. Thank you.
1:00:49>> Thank you. Um do any uh can we move on
1:00:52to the uh so that item is closed. Okay.
1:00:58>> So, our next one is to respond to two of
1:01:01uh Dr. Borton's comments. One is to
1:01:04address uh the private arborist. Um and
1:01:08then also for imperous surface
1:01:15and so staff recommended um
1:01:18incorporating the third party review um
1:01:21being required under
1:01:23or for these these following scenarios
1:01:30for the first one.
1:01:32>> Yeah. So
1:01:37>> commissioner comments no commissioner
1:01:40para
1:01:41>> see I know that in a comment below
1:01:44there's questions about hey we don't do
1:01:47scenarios in code but without the
1:01:50scenario this doesn't make sense
1:01:53like it the code is extremely dense
1:01:56maybe people will understand maybe
1:01:58there's an arborist who understands but
1:01:59the arber is not going to understand the
1:02:01ratio of the trees based on the land use
1:02:04and so on like you're expecting
1:02:07expertise on expertise on expertise. So
1:02:10having even if it's in the handout or
1:02:14something a whole bunch of scenarios or
1:02:16not necessarily handout but a an
1:02:18interactive thing which says here are
1:02:21some hypothetical
1:02:23scenarios uh that don't really make like
1:02:26what you've explained is very clear
1:02:28right but it's not it doesn't pop out in
1:02:31the code. Um, so
1:02:36my recommendation would be to have this
1:02:39as a significant attachment to the
1:02:41education component that you are talking
1:02:43about. Um, because if you're saying it
1:02:46can't be done in the code, it has to be
1:02:48done somewhere because the example is
1:02:50clearer to me than the code.
1:02:54Yeah, I I'd add that the complexity does
1:02:57require a lot there's a lot of math
1:03:00[snorts] and there's a lot there's a
1:03:01need to pull out the ruler. So having
1:03:03ways for people to visualize
1:03:06a way to translate this would will make
1:03:08things a little less complicated.
1:03:11>> I do want to recognize that the equation
1:03:14that um does require some math. Um it is
1:03:17an equation that is used throughout
1:03:19other jurisdictions. Um so I do think
1:03:22that um folks who will be re using it
1:03:25will likely be developers or people
1:03:27looking to develop and so they might
1:03:29have a little more familiarity with that
1:03:31equation. Um, just for some context,
1:03:37>> I I would just add that for the um the
1:03:40homeowner who perhaps is not familiar um
1:03:43with with um with algebra or math
1:03:46formulas or the complexity that um
1:03:49arburists are are and developers are
1:03:51familiar with. If we can find a way to
1:03:52help visualize for for them, that would
1:03:54be really beneficial.
1:03:57>> Great.
1:03:59Okay. So, I think we can close this
1:04:02then.
1:04:06Um, and I'm fine with closing item three
1:04:09and four unless someone did you have a
1:04:12>> Yeah.
1:04:12>> So, on on item three, I wanted just for
1:04:17reference in the document. We can close
1:04:18it, but I thought that the answer didn't
1:04:22fully address the question and that
1:04:25there's um I don't have it in front of
1:04:27me, but the table
1:04:30has the penalties listed. If you could
1:04:32reference that table specifically in
1:04:35that answer and then you
1:04:37>> Oh my god, I'm so sorry. So, there's a
1:04:40table in the document that lists the
1:04:43penalties and if you could reference the
1:04:46table specifically in the answer and
1:04:48then we could I mean you you're taking
1:04:50her items. I mean, I'm just saying I
1:04:53didn't think that the answer really
1:04:56addressed the question, which is what
1:04:57are the penalties?
1:05:01And then, um,
1:05:04I did feel like there was still this
1:05:06open question, and I don't know if we
1:05:08want to discuss it further about
1:05:10repeated violations
1:05:12and doing business in Redmond.
1:05:16I don't know if that's anything that
1:05:18would be covered in the code or the
1:05:20penalty table,
1:05:23but that question wasn't really answered
1:05:26there.
1:05:28>> Let's add the the the link to the to
1:05:30that language just for for ease of
1:05:32reference. Thank you. And then I'm fine
1:05:36with closing it once that's done.
1:05:39Um, and then does any do any of the
1:05:41commissioners have qu I'm fine with
1:05:42closing question four unless anyone has
1:05:44questions or need for clarity. I've
1:05:47already read through it and I'm
1:05:48satisfied with the with the with the
1:05:50response from staff.
1:05:54Okay. And that us the next one.
1:06:04Yeah, we're going to keep um the
1:06:06questions raised by commission vice
1:06:08chair Coleman open since he's not here
1:06:10today. So that would apply to item
1:06:12number five and six and seven
1:06:16and eight.
1:06:29So, if you if staff could walk us
1:06:31through the response to um question nine
1:06:34because I do have some additional
1:06:35follow-up questions and I'm sure some of
1:06:36the other commissioners will as well.
1:06:39>> Um so, this question is asking about
1:06:41modeling that's done to um project the
1:06:44canopy loss. Um we currently don't have
1:06:47that data. Um but we do point out that
1:06:50the tree canopy strategic plan, it does
1:06:53have that 40% goal uh by 2050. Um, we do
1:06:58also have the tree canopy dashboard um
1:07:01that does show what the tree canopy
1:07:05looked like from I believe it's 2019
1:07:09um to 2023, but um don't take my word
1:07:12for that. Um but we do have a link to
1:07:15that dashboard. um the tree canopy
1:07:18strategic plan, it does recognize that
1:07:21there will likely be a dip in our tree
1:07:23canopy just because of the nature of
1:07:25increased density within the entire
1:07:27city. Um and um so the tree canopy plan
1:07:32does um recognize that, but it also
1:07:35includes an implementation plan of seven
1:07:39seven different strategies to um help us
1:07:42get to that 40%. And so those seven
1:07:45different strategies include education
1:07:47and awareness, increased city-led
1:07:49planting, private planting by
1:07:52incentives, data analysis, city acquis
1:07:55acquisitions of land, regulation, and
1:07:58partnerships and volunteers. And so what
1:08:01we're meaning to do with this response
1:08:03is just is show that regulations is just
1:08:06one prong of getting to 40%. um we have
1:08:10all these other things that the city is
1:08:12doing or planning to do in order to help
1:08:14us achieve that 40% tree canopy.
1:08:17>> I thank you for for the for the
1:08:19thoughtful response here. I do
1:08:20appreciate it. Um the the loss of tree
1:08:23canopy um is is is a concern as in it's
1:08:28inevitable, but it is a big concern as
1:08:30is loss in areas that are already
1:08:32suffering the most um loss. And I wonder
1:08:34if perhaps we should consider a more
1:08:36pragmatic approach, which is really kind
1:08:38of um focused as much on as much focus
1:08:42on on plantings as opposed to
1:08:45prevention. They're both very important,
1:08:47but I'd love to see more weight against
1:08:49the um the proactive measures we can do.
1:08:52So, for example, you know, a less
1:08:55complicated TDC model um on top of, you
1:09:01know, this principle of a loss is a
1:09:03loss. So if you cut down a tree, whether
1:09:05it's significant, landmark, or other
1:09:06types of trees, they should be replaced.
1:09:09Um, and regardless of the why, they
1:09:11should be replaced. So that takes away
1:09:13the debate of can I take this tree down?
1:09:15Can I not take this tree down? If you
1:09:17take it down, if it falls down, if it
1:09:19flies away, it gets replaced. Um, in
1:09:22addition to that, perhaps there's an
1:09:25opportunity to think about um to
1:09:27consider um fees and lose and and
1:09:30replantings happen within the community
1:09:33with which they're lost because I see
1:09:35trees pop up in Meadow Park and
1:09:37Education Hill. I'm like, where do these
1:09:3810 trees come from? They're probably
1:09:40trees that are ripped down in some of
1:09:42these areas that are experiencing the
1:09:44most loss. And I think it just be really
1:09:45more equitable and and help mitigate
1:09:47some of the environmental concerns of
1:09:49tree loss if we put them in places where
1:09:51they're they're occurring at at the most
1:09:54um rapid um pace.
1:09:58Um the the um replacement alternatives,
1:10:01we did think about that. Um, we do have
1:10:04as a priority for off-site replacement
1:10:07trees that whoever is applying to do
1:10:10off-site replacements that they look
1:10:12within their their HOA to see if there
1:10:16is space for replacement trees within
1:10:19maybe a collective open space. Um, as
1:10:22part of the post-approval plan, uh, we
1:10:24do, um, are looking to have a
1:10:27standardized process to help folks who
1:10:30do pursue off-site replacements to get
1:10:32it back in their neighborhood.
1:10:34>> Right. And I I remember reading um
1:10:38reference in one of the documents about
1:10:41um, sidewalk plantings. Sidewalk
1:10:44plantings are great op. I see that
1:10:46happen in communities like Lindberrook,
1:10:48New York, where the where trees that are
1:10:50lost through a myriad of different
1:10:53reasons. They're they're offering a tree
1:10:55giveaway program where they can where
1:10:57they're planting them in sidewalks. And
1:10:59so if you have to take on take down a
1:11:00tree on a property and there's no space
1:11:03to plant a replacement tree, perhaps
1:11:06perhaps um tree plants could happen in
1:11:08sidewalk sidewalk um medians. So just
1:11:12it's it's just another way to kind of
1:11:13keep trees within the communities that
1:11:15are losing trees. So it's just a
1:11:17suggestion that I would love to see um
1:11:21more proactive ways of growing trees or
1:11:23or or replacing trees. Um
1:11:28that's my comment there. Are there any
1:11:30other commissioners with with comments
1:11:31related to this? Okay. If if not then um
1:11:35then I'm happy with um
1:11:38uh I'm happy with closing this.
1:11:57Yeah, I think I think item 10 was
1:11:59related to a previous one.
1:12:03But it's related to the comment from Dr.
1:12:06Morton about which which number are we
1:12:08on now?
1:12:10>> 10.
1:12:17I would combine that with
1:12:22Yeah. And nine.
1:12:24Can you go back to three?
1:12:47I'm fine with closing that.
1:12:51I'm fine with closing that
1:12:54>> number 10.
1:12:55>> Yeah, I'm fine with I'm satisfied with
1:12:56I'm fine with closing that
1:13:03and then we're on question number 11.
1:13:08Um my only comment on on number 11 is
1:13:11I'd like to see um trees that are taken
1:13:14down and I mentioned this in the
1:13:15previous comment. Trees that are taken
1:13:17down in a community, they're replanted
1:13:19within the community with which they're
1:13:20lost. Same thing with fees and lose.
1:13:24Okay, that brings us to questions. We
1:13:27can close that one and then 12. That's
1:13:31Commissioner Para.
1:13:33>> So I do not want to close this. Um I
1:13:36have uh for the listening public sent
1:13:40out uh detailed followup comments on
1:13:44each of the ones on the issue matrix
1:13:45along with some new questions. Um this
1:13:49is for us to have a discussion but my
1:13:51response to
1:13:53your response is basically that we can
1:13:57use the funds uh and but I I find that
1:14:03we really have not studied where these
1:14:06trees are likely to go. So in I'm
1:14:09concerned that this approach references
1:14:11hypothetical solutions. So oh yeah let's
1:14:14use the let's use the parks. How much
1:14:17capacity does each park have technically
1:14:20if if that information is available
1:14:23that that that is needed for us to know
1:14:26if somebody there would be a lot of
1:14:28people trying to do offside planting or
1:14:31fee in Leo that would be the quickest
1:14:33way for a lot of people. So without
1:14:37knowing where those hypothetical trees
1:14:39are going to go, we shouldn't be
1:14:41offering these solutions cuz we should
1:14:43say, "Okay, you don't want to plant
1:14:45here, we're going to plant there." And
1:14:46that X marks the spot. It has to be that
1:14:49precise. So I've added um I do not want
1:14:52to close this. Can you please give us
1:14:54more information on the capacity? I I
1:14:57know I just sent it yesterday, so not
1:14:59expecting a response back. Um so yeah,
1:15:02please keep this open. Thank you.
1:15:13on number 13 also I have sent in a
1:15:16comment um I would like to keep this
1:15:18open um because for me our reliance as a
1:15:22city is heavily on the watershed piece
1:15:25of it because that's what's not touched
1:15:27by development I would like to know how
1:15:31we're doing at the watershed uh like And
1:15:34I would also like to see overall city
1:15:37canopy numbers beyond 23 even if it's
1:15:40unofficial because we don't know how far
1:15:43from the 40% goal we are. We don't know
1:15:46how to plan for that. If we let's say in
1:15:49the last two three years and I know
1:15:51there's been a die off of a certain type
1:15:53of tree in the area uh because of heat
1:15:56then there's development pressures. So
1:16:00we do need like
1:16:02a current baseline. however unofficial
1:16:05to work off and say, "Hey, this is
1:16:07reasonable. If you're proposing a code
1:16:10to get us to 40%, this is a reasonable
1:16:12way to get there." Um, my guess is it's
1:16:15not 37 anymore. Um, so I'm hoping it's
1:16:21not 32.
1:16:22It could be anywhere in between. I like
1:16:25I could just guess, right? Uh so a
1:16:28little more data especially on the
1:16:30watershed area which is our way of
1:16:33protecting and it's our lung space um I
1:16:37think would be good. Um again not
1:16:40expecting a response just keeping this
1:16:42open
1:16:43>> and I will say I'm not sure if we will
1:16:45be able to get you that data just
1:16:47because it it one might not be
1:16:50available. Um but it does take time to
1:16:52get that
1:16:53>> right. I understand that but we cannot
1:16:56plan for anything without knowing where
1:16:59we stand. Like that's my contention
1:17:01here. We can't work off old data and say
1:17:06hey
1:17:08we will get to 40%. If there is a goal
1:17:10we need to meet it. We we need to try
1:17:13and if there is no data maybe the the
1:17:17response to this would be something like
1:17:20this is the year where we are going to
1:17:22get that data. Maybe it's 27 or whatever
1:17:25right like what is the earliest we're
1:17:27going to recalibrate.
1:17:28>> Thank you for the clarity
1:17:30>> because otherwise you know you we're
1:17:33just kind of throwing darts at the trees
1:17:35unfortunately. So yeah there
1:17:37>> appreciate the clarity.
1:17:39>> All right.
1:17:40Um I just wanted to add that um we are
1:17:45planning on updating our strategic tree
1:17:47canopy plan. Um and at that time we'll
1:17:50have more thorough analysis.
1:17:54>> Oh that that that's wonderful because I
1:17:56think that's what we need to know. What
1:17:58kind of timelines are we looking at and
1:18:00what data will be available to inform
1:18:03this because you're putting the cart
1:18:04before the horse in this situation.
1:18:06Ideally, if we had the numbers, we would
1:18:09then have the code
1:18:11to build forward, right? So, um anyway,
1:18:14if a response beyond what we have would
1:18:17be great
1:18:18>> and I do have a question on top of that,
1:18:20what what what timeline are we looking
1:18:22at for that update?
1:18:25>> So, we're looking to have the
1:18:27recommendation on November 18th and then
1:18:30in December get approval.
1:18:33No, for the updated uh uh
1:18:36>> Oh,
1:18:36>> yeah. The updated strategic
1:18:38>> We don't know yet.
1:18:39>> Okay. Do you think that's pragmatically
1:18:41in the next 12 months?
1:18:43>> Um we can check in on that.
1:18:45>> Okay.
1:18:47And include that in the response.
1:18:52>> Number 14 is mine as well. I'm kind of
1:18:54hogging the limelight here. Sorry folks.
1:18:56Um
1:18:58um I understand that the general fund is
1:19:03beyond the purview of this and in terms
1:19:06of enforcement, but I feel the tree code
1:19:10falls really flat without some stronger
1:19:13references to enforcement. Your response
1:19:17about code enforcement is great, but
1:19:23it it doesn't have to be details of
1:19:26enforcement, but it needs to have a
1:19:28backing of enforcement. Otherwise, it's
1:19:30an honor code that may or may not stick,
1:19:35right? Um, so please keep this open.
1:19:38Again, I've put these comments in. Um,
1:19:42number 15 can be closed.
1:19:48Um,
1:19:51number 16 is a big one.
1:19:55I believe and this is something that I
1:19:58would love to hear from the commission
1:19:59on, but I think we've got the
1:20:02non-development tree removal quite nice.
1:20:06It's clean. It's easy to understand.
1:20:09There is a the code is not simple for
1:20:13the development tree credit system.
1:20:15Personally,
1:20:17I would like to
1:20:20um given your response that we don't
1:20:24have a lot of information and how we are
1:20:27going to see it in the parcel viewer. I
1:20:30think it's overtly complicated,
1:20:33harder [snorts] to enforce and I would
1:20:35really recommend a roll back on that.
1:20:37And what I mean by roll back is not to
1:20:40not have this but have it in a different
1:20:44way. We should go back to a um the
1:20:47non-development table modify that as an
1:20:51option or something where you you talked
1:20:54about the programmatic um city projects
1:20:58how the city projects will deal with
1:21:00tree removal and calculations.
1:21:03the current thing is just way way too
1:21:06complex and um I don't
1:21:12I personally do not appreciate it a lot
1:21:15because I I think it will be a barrier
1:21:19for development.
1:21:21It will not solve us protecting the
1:21:24right trees because it's overtly
1:21:27complicated. It is overtly dependent on
1:21:29enforcement.
1:21:31So I would like to leave this open and
1:21:35also ask the commission what they think
1:21:38about this. So chair um this is the
1:21:41tricky one. This is a little bit more um
1:21:45weighty.
1:21:46>> Yeah, I I I'll add my my two cents here.
1:21:48I I do agree that the code is very
1:21:51complicated. But my bigger concern is
1:21:53that
1:21:54in a world where we don't know the
1:21:57trajectory of loss and we have a very
1:21:59complicated system that doesn't mitigate
1:22:02loss in areas that are suffering the
1:22:04most. I would then I would say that
1:22:07preservation and replantings become the
1:22:10more aggressive thing to focus on. So if
1:22:13we can balance the complex, we can if we
1:22:15can make things a little more
1:22:16complexity, a little less comp complex
1:22:19and be more assertive in plantings in
1:22:22communities and fees and lose with in
1:22:24communities where the loss is happening,
1:22:27then then hopefully the the replantings
1:22:29outpace the the loss. So you don't you I
1:22:33think that's the path we need to take in
1:22:35absence of knowing not knowing how bad
1:22:36the problem is. Commissioner Van Nyman,
1:22:39can I ask you a question? Aparta um
1:22:42when you say complex you say the the
1:22:45actual the code itself is hard to
1:22:49understand and complex or the actual
1:22:52like implementation of it
1:22:56>> actually both uh the mechanism there is
1:22:58a there's a formula and then there are
1:23:01exceptions within that and then it's and
1:23:05it's based on the parcel size it's based
1:23:06on the land use and you have to go
1:23:10through steps and one of my next few
1:23:12comments was hey you know if it is going
1:23:14to be this complex can we have a parcel
1:23:16viewer which says this parcel
1:23:20if you're developing on this parcel with
1:23:22this kind of development model these are
1:23:26this is what your coverage should look
1:23:27like um a great idea but it's not going
1:23:31to happen anytime soon is a you know so
1:23:35um so for me what I'm looking at is We
1:23:39have trouble enforcing. I know for a
1:23:42fact that a lot of people have cut trees
1:23:44without getting the the strongest
1:23:47enforcement is probably in development
1:23:48projects because the permits are coming
1:23:50in there. But everywhere else there has
1:23:54been no enforcement in terms of the tree
1:23:56code. we are suddenly going from 0 to
1:24:00106 seconds with significant
1:24:05um enforcement
1:24:08requirements.
1:24:10I don't see that and I feel that this
1:24:14because it's so complex
1:24:16you're and there are so many exceptions
1:24:19and everything else the midsection of
1:24:21the uh for the development is pretty
1:24:24complex and
1:24:27I have a background in reading code and
1:24:30understanding code but it took me a
1:24:32couple of reads so in for me and like
1:24:38for me what I am seeing is we don't want
1:24:41to complicate something so important.
1:24:45To chair's point, we need to get there
1:24:48the best we can and it has to be a
1:24:50fairly straight line. It's important
1:24:53like if we dig up the comments from the
1:24:56Redmond 2050, the comp plan uh outreach
1:25:00comments, trees were a big part of it.
1:25:04So why would we try to
1:25:09we need to shore up what we have in a
1:25:11better way. Solid enforcement,
1:25:15solid re uh replacement formula.
1:25:20But I am not for this complexity. And so
1:25:23I would like to um kind of ask staff if
1:25:28you could consider an alternative
1:25:31for
1:25:33and see have you considered an
1:25:35alternative as a first step, right? Um
1:25:37did we straight away go into this very
1:25:39complex formula and section or did we
1:25:45can we consider a a variation of the
1:25:48theme? I think in our response we can
1:25:50walk you through our thought process of
1:25:52why we landed here and will that
1:25:54suffice?
1:25:55>> Okay. I So here's the thing. It is still
1:25:58very complex. So you have to be able I
1:26:02don't know about the rest of the
1:26:02commission but for me I need to feel
1:26:06that in all possible solutions that were
1:26:09considered this was the only option that
1:26:11made sense.
1:26:13If that is so, okay, then you know if
1:26:17cuz we have tried and I think Redmond uh
1:26:212050 did a really great job in trying to
1:26:26not oversimplify but get to the right
1:26:28level of clarity. That clarity is
1:26:31missing from this midsection. Like I
1:26:34think the the top part and the bottom
1:26:37part is great.
1:26:39It's it's the midsection which I think
1:26:41needs a little bit like it's not a
1:26:44system that I'm happy about, but it's a
1:26:46vote thing at that end of the day for
1:26:49others.
1:26:50>> Yeah. Commissioner Dier,
1:26:52>> I think this is a a question for
1:26:54Commissioner Aperna to help me
1:26:56understand kind of your push here.
1:26:59I think what I'm hearing is you
1:27:01recognize that developers know how to
1:27:03use the code and likely have an
1:27:06incentive to follow because of the
1:27:07permitting process and some checks and
1:27:09balances. It seems like you feel less
1:27:12confident in
1:27:16how individual homeowners are able to
1:27:18navigate the code and it seems like you
1:27:21have some personal experience with
1:27:23seeing tree loss around you. Am I am I
1:27:26understanding you,
1:27:27>> Commissioner Para? So, so the way I look
1:27:29at it is like this. The bigger projects
1:27:32will have every every resource available
1:27:35to them to understand and parse this
1:27:37code as written. Okay? But if you want
1:27:41your middle housing or anything else,
1:27:43right, where you've got we're we're in
1:27:46the hope that we won't have more smaller
1:27:49parcels
1:27:51developing. The big guys I'm not worried
1:27:53about because they've got attorneys,
1:27:56they've got people staff who will read
1:27:58the code for them. But everybody else
1:28:01the moment you're developing anything
1:28:03smaller
1:28:06I believe it is it is a nightmare to
1:28:08navigate. So what h happens is two
1:28:11things. one when you're over
1:28:13complicating it on the implementation
1:28:15side who's issuing the permit plus the
1:28:18enforcement side
1:28:20they're going to have to be on the same
1:28:22page and it's so layered and so complex
1:28:25interpretations are likely to be
1:28:27different
1:28:28whereas if you have like a to b straight
1:28:31line hopefully we don't get lost along
1:28:33the way so I find that maybe maybe just
1:28:39another way of looking at it could be
1:28:40that We look at anything above a certain
1:28:44size of development would go through the
1:28:46tree credit system and you have
1:28:49development activities of a smaller
1:28:51parcel size. I have a I live in a house,
1:28:55you know, I'm I don't know like 7 8,000
1:28:59square feet of plot area and I have a
1:29:01few trees and I maybe I want to put in
1:29:03an ADU there, right?
1:29:06I would go into that three credit
1:29:08multiplier and get lost and I'd be like,
1:29:10"Okay, you know what? Forget it."
1:29:13Right? So maybe there is a threshold for
1:29:17where you're using a more complex system
1:29:21of maybe the lot size or the square
1:29:24footage that is being built. To your
1:29:26point, there will be people who can do
1:29:28it. And for the rest of them who are not
1:29:32using if it's not development activity,
1:29:35you're using a straightforward table
1:29:37starting now. But it's all hinges on
1:29:40enforcement.
1:29:42>> I'm going to add I'm going to jump in
1:29:43first. Um so Came Cameron, [laughter]
1:29:46you are you tracking all of this?
1:29:49>> Yeah.
1:29:50>> Yep.
1:29:50>> Yeah. because I would add on top of
1:29:52this, you know, you mentioned earlier
1:29:54the [clears throat] the plans for doing
1:29:57more education in the community. So I
1:29:59would assume that education would
1:30:00include homeowners who are looking to
1:30:02develop properties such as ADUs or other
1:30:04types of things. So I think [snorts]
1:30:08simplifying the formula to the extent
1:30:10with which individuals can understand
1:30:11it, whether they're developers or mom
1:30:14and pop trying to understand that would
1:30:16be really super helpful. Um I'm going to
1:30:18still I'm going to reiterate a comment
1:30:20that I made earlier in that I'd like to
1:30:22see um more a stronger emphasis on the
1:30:25replacement formula. You know, as you
1:30:28think about the formula, the replacement
1:30:29element is a really important piece
1:30:31especially given the reality that we
1:30:34don't have the kind of we don't have the
1:30:35the re we don't have the mechanisms or
1:30:37the system rather in place to really put
1:30:40teeth into the enforcement.
1:30:47um we we don't have a prop a process for
1:30:50inventorying, you know, in in tree
1:30:53inventory. We don't have people going
1:30:55around checking, you know, there's a lot
1:30:57of different um gaps in the enforcement
1:31:00piece. And so if we don't have a
1:31:02pragmatic way to to really to to really
1:31:05be enforce to to reinforce, we may as
1:31:07well just simplify the formula so that
1:31:10you're not saying things that we can't
1:31:12you not take into into consideration
1:31:14things that we can't manage. Um and so
1:31:18and and not knowing the the the
1:31:20magnitude of the problem, the
1:31:21replacement becomes really really really
1:31:23important.
1:31:24Yes, Commissioner Bish,
1:31:27>> I agree with you and Commissioner Aparna
1:31:29and I think that the code needs to be
1:31:31developed in a way that more clearly
1:31:32lets homeowners understand which
1:31:34requirements apply to them versus those
1:31:36larger um development projects who
1:31:39already know what to do because they
1:31:40have at like attorneys. And I think the
1:31:42more understandable that the code is for
1:31:44homeowners, the less likely people are
1:31:46like um to go down and cut trees
1:31:49unauthorized.
1:31:52Commissioner Kanye, you had a a question
1:31:54earlier. No.
1:31:57>> Okay. All right. Is there anyone else
1:31:59who has has questions on this topic?
1:32:02>> So, we keep this open basically.
1:32:04>> Yeah, I think we do keep this open.
1:32:07>> Moving on. Uh 17 is mine. Um
1:32:13>> then um so for item number 16 um you
1:32:18spoke about that there's gaps in uh code
1:32:21enforcement. Are you able to expand on
1:32:24that
1:32:28>> like how how staff can um improve the
1:32:33the code enforcement section?
1:32:35>> Yeah. Um so I think personally it hinges
1:32:40on the same question that we've been
1:32:42asking you have a third party verifier
1:32:44city arborist uh that is one part but
1:32:48there somebody has to go and check you
1:32:50know has a replacement so x permits have
1:32:53been issued you have 12 months to
1:32:56replace the trees on on a monthly basis
1:32:59you go and see
1:33:0212 months ago somebody's cut down a tree
1:33:05hasn't been replaced
1:33:06It doesn't require an arborist. It just
1:33:09requires somebody to identify, hey, this
1:33:12is the tree that is acceptable for
1:33:15replacement and it's on the site or
1:33:17wherever it's supposed to be. Right? So,
1:33:21I don't think you need terribly trained
1:33:23people. Somebody from parks and um could
1:33:27do it maybe. I don't know. But that's
1:33:29the kind of enforcement I'm talking
1:33:31about. Somebody coming and checking you
1:33:33cut down a tree. Have you planted a
1:33:35tree?
1:33:36So one part of the enforcement is a
1:33:38permit, right? So maybe I cut down a
1:33:41tree without that without a permit. How
1:33:44are you going to identify somebody's cut
1:33:46down a tree? Uh so that's the part which
1:33:48is scary because I know several people
1:33:51in in the grass neighborhood who just
1:33:53cut down some really lovely trees for no
1:33:58like it was it it wasn't a danger or
1:34:01anything and they didn't get a permit
1:34:04and they certainly have not replaced
1:34:06them and this happened in the last two
1:34:08years. So for me, what I'm looking at is
1:34:14are people getting permits and are those
1:34:16permits being followed through in terms
1:34:17of replacements? That would be
1:34:20enforcement. Does that answer the
1:34:21question?
1:34:23>> Thank you.
1:34:25>> Thank you.
1:34:26>> Next item.
1:34:27>> Okay, we were on
1:34:28>> I think we're on 17.
1:34:30>> Uh 17 can be closed. 18 can be closed
1:34:34though with a caveat that if we could
1:34:36get something which is a visualizer that
1:34:38would be no that is uh yeah that is the
1:34:42one um 19 again it comes down to
1:34:46enforcement so we can close this I know
1:34:48I said we keep it open but because we
1:34:50are already talking enforcement in
1:34:52another one I can we'll close one and
1:34:55keep the other open yes um I I'll make a
1:34:59note and I'll resend this um Yes.
1:35:03>> So that's the end of the issue matrix.
1:35:06Um
1:35:06>> yeah and I was going to just ask um
1:35:08thank you Apara um for the commissioners
1:35:10here. Are there any additional questions
1:35:12you have for the m for the matrix? Let's
1:35:14hold on for one moment. One moment a
1:35:16partner.
1:35:18[laughter]
1:35:19Are there any other questions that u
1:35:21folks need to have clarified and added
1:35:23to the matrix?
1:35:26>> Okay. Commissioner Para.
1:35:28>> Okay. I have 10 questions that I've
1:35:31emailed out. Not going to belabor all of
1:35:34them. I think the commission has seen
1:35:36some of them and please add all of them
1:35:38to the issue matrix, but I do want to
1:35:41call out a couple of them. Okay. Um what
1:35:45I would like to see is again um I've
1:35:50talked about the minimum tree credit
1:35:52again in this that's a separate one
1:35:54because I thought we might decide to
1:35:56close the earlier one. So you could
1:35:58choose to ignore that one. But the the
1:36:00tree credit problem is a significant
1:36:04one. The other one that I do want to
1:36:06call out which is completely missing is
1:36:09the fact that we if we are talking about
1:36:12replacement trees, we don't have a way
1:36:16um or any way to provide relief to
1:36:19low-income homeowners
1:36:21or anybody who's um who runs um uh
1:36:26low-income affordable housing because
1:36:29the landlords then would pass on those
1:36:31costs to the tenants. I uh if there are
1:36:35costs borne for replacing a tree,
1:36:37cutting down a tree um or for whatever
1:36:40reason, we need to cover that.
1:36:42Especially um hardship for low income
1:36:46owners, a hazardous tree has to be
1:36:48replaced for instance, then what
1:36:49happens, right? So maybe we should
1:36:53consider that. I don't know if that's
1:36:54been discussed. And um the other
1:36:58important one that I wanted to call out
1:37:00was the heritage trees. Now I believe we
1:37:05should really really really protect the
1:37:08heritage trees and there are some
1:37:09exceptions in the code currently and um
1:37:13heritage trees that are hazardous
1:37:16obviously you remove them but we want to
1:37:19make sure that if it is hazardous it is
1:37:22replaced correctly.
1:37:24And
1:37:26some of the code says that if there are
1:37:28hazardous or dying trees, the don't need
1:37:31to be replaced. I I particularly have a
1:37:34problem with that because given climate
1:37:38change and given that some of our trees
1:37:40are really old or they are going to die,
1:37:42it's life. If we don't replenish them,
1:37:48that's going to be a problem. The dying
1:37:50trees cannot be given a um
1:37:53they should be allowed to be cut down
1:37:55easily without too many issues. But the
1:37:59replacement should be considered
1:38:02I think um
1:38:05because we did see a die off um right in
1:38:09front of the Redmond Library uh right in
1:38:12the corner there. Um
1:38:14was it last summer or the summer before
1:38:16last? There were two or three trees that
1:38:18just went brown and died and they had to
1:38:21be removed right here.
1:38:22>> So, I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in here. I
1:38:24think unless you have questions to for
1:38:27of clarification from Aperna, I that's a
1:38:30really important point point that I'd
1:38:32like to see on on the um on the issues
1:38:34matrix and it's really around this the
1:38:36topic of just really more assertive um
1:38:40proactive replacement. This is going to
1:38:43what I was saying earlier this evening.
1:38:45You know, a a tree is a tree. You kill a
1:38:47tree, you replace a tree. It doesn't
1:38:49matter how the tree died, whether it's
1:38:50disease, whether it's whether it's, you
1:38:53know, if it it fell.
1:38:55You know, it's a huge part of our
1:38:58canopy. And so, if it's lost for
1:39:00whatever the reason, it may be lost. It
1:39:02should be replaced. And it should be
1:39:03replaced with the with the equivalent
1:39:05volume of trees. I think if we can be
1:39:07more assertive in the replacement piece,
1:39:10that's going to help with the the loss,
1:39:14which we don't even know the trajectory
1:39:15of. Now, I I know that that creates that
1:39:18potentially creates um challenges for
1:39:21developers and for homeowners, and
1:39:23that's where perhaps, you know, a more a
1:39:27more assertive um sidewalk median
1:39:29planting could can offset offset that.
1:39:32you know, you have snippets of land
1:39:34throughout throughout these communities
1:39:36which which could could handle a tree,
1:39:39you know, um and worse comes to worse if
1:39:41you can't replace it within the
1:39:43community of loss, then the surrounding
1:39:44communities start moving outwards. But
1:39:46this idea of planting trees in Ferrell
1:39:48Mcwarter or in Education Hill which is
1:39:51not experienced a loss I think is where
1:39:53we're exacerbating you know some of the
1:39:56some of the some of the um the heat
1:39:59island effect that we're seeing where
1:40:00the trees are are coming down at the
1:40:02greatest rate. So that's something that
1:40:04I really feel um import is an important
1:40:06piece to to really to really um call out
1:40:09in the interest matrix.
1:40:14Have we missed anything? Any questions?
1:40:20No. Okay, then I think we will need to
1:40:22continue this conversation
1:40:25in our next uh mission planning
1:40:27commission meeting which I think is
1:40:29November 4th.
1:40:30>> Correct.
1:40:30>> Okay.
1:40:32>> Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
1:40:34>> We're now at staff and commissioner
1:40:36updates.
1:40:40>> Okay. Thank you. I'll try to make this
1:40:42brief. Um, so as you noticed, I am
1:40:45taking over, Lauren Alfred is taking
1:40:46over as liaison for the fourth quarter.
1:40:49So, um, I'll be your point of contact.
1:40:52Um, and just some other notes, the
1:40:54design standard survey is still open and
1:40:57live and, uh, accepting feedback. Um, as
1:41:00is the home business questionnaire. It's
1:41:02been extended. It'll remain open for at
1:41:03least another month. Um, and I just
1:41:05wanted to point out that we have been
1:41:07doing a number of community pop-up vents
1:41:09events for the neighborhood planning um,
1:41:11docket item um, especially in community
1:41:13parks and community sites um, including
1:41:16meeting with neighborhood watch uh, this
1:41:18time last week. Um, there was also a
1:41:21number of listening sessions for the
1:41:24teen center project in September um, and
1:41:27for that ongoing work. Um we also on a
1:41:31note on um getting some more
1:41:32commissioners, some more uh colleagues
1:41:34for you. Um we have uh there is a um an
1:41:39interview scheduled with council on
1:41:40October 27th uh 27th for uh Commissioner
1:41:44Gaia's seat. Um and there is a new call
1:41:47for applicants to fill the two other
1:41:49remaining vacant uh planning commission
1:41:51seats that we have. Um and those
1:41:53applications are due November 6th. um
1:41:55the applications that we did receive
1:41:57already for the previous open seat um
1:42:00remain active as long as they contact us
1:42:02and let us know that they would like to
1:42:04remain in the applicant pool. [snorts]
1:42:06Um and then also the mayor has published
1:42:08their proposed budget and includes
1:42:10several projects that will come to the
1:42:11planning commission over the next few
1:42:13years including the urban mixeduse um
1:42:16master planning project, the universal
1:42:18design study and community engagement
1:42:21staffing and funding. So, lots of
1:42:24exciting things happening. Um to note
1:42:27for our next October 28th meeting, we
1:42:29will have um the report approval and
1:42:32recommendation for the neighborhood map
1:42:35repeal um and for the updated TFP
1:42:39project um TFP project update. And we'll
1:42:42also begin um the introduction and study
1:42:45session for commercial drone use.
1:42:48So, an exciting meeting ahead.
1:42:51Thank you very much.
1:42:54Anything else? Yes, Commissioner Van.
1:42:56>> Um, you're here. One more meeting.
1:42:59>> Yes.
1:43:00>> Okay.
1:43:04>> All right. Let's move on. Um, I look for
1:43:06a motion to adjurnn.
1:43:09>> So moved. Second.
1:43:12>> All in favor? I
1:43:16>> Sorry. I I didn't mean to throw it.
1:43:19Sorry.