2026-10-28 - Planning Commission

00:26Welcome to the October 28th, 2026

00:29meeting of the Redmond Planning

00:30Commissioner Commission. I'd like to

00:32call this meeting to order.

00:34We'll start with the roll call.

00:35Commissioner Aparna.

00:36>> Present.

00:37>> Commissioner Gong.

00:39>> Present.

00:39>> Commissioner Ganye.

00:41>> Present.

00:41>> Commissioner Van Niman.

00:43>> Present.

00:43>> Vice Chair Coleman.

00:46>> Present.

00:47>> And I'm Chairperson Woodyear.

00:49Um

00:51I'd like to also thank the following

00:52staff for being present tonight. Lauren

00:55Alpert, Becky Fry, Michael Hinz, Glenn

00:57Coyle, and Chris Wyatt.

00:59I'd like to look for a motion to approve

01:01the agenda.

01:04>> So moved.

01:05>> Second.

01:06>> All in favor.

01:07>> I.

01:07>> I.

01:08>> Thank you. Thank you. That is approved.

01:10Any corrections to the meeting summary

01:12from October 14th?

01:15Looking at this document. I don't think

01:16there are.

01:17I'd like to

01:18I'll look for a motion to approve the

01:19meeting from October 14th.

01:22>> So moved.

01:23>> Second.

01:23>> All in favor.

01:24>> I.

01:25>> I.

01:25>> Thank you. That is approved. All right,

01:28so we move to the first agenda uh for

01:31tonight. Um it's time for us to hear

01:34public comment on items from the

01:36audience that is not subject to a public

01:38hearing. So that means any topic that's

01:40not related to

01:42uh TFP projects, annual docket item, or

01:45the repeal of the neighborhood

01:47connections map.

01:48Um a reminder that the verbal comments

01:50are closed on that. So do we have any

01:54speakers?

01:59>> We have two speakers this The first is

02:01Susan Weston.

02:08>> Please keep your comments to 3 minutes.

02:10State your name and address, and

02:13you're ready to go.

02:14>> All right. Susan Weston, Redmond 98052.

02:18>> [sighs]

02:18>> So, hi everyone. It's nice to see you

02:21tonight um to talk about the drone

02:23question. As the commission knows, but

02:24the public does not, I resigned as chair

02:26of the planning commission 4 weeks ago

02:28due to profound concerns with the way

02:30the city has been trying to push through

02:32major changes without adequate community

02:34information or involvement. My

02:36opposition to the drone port is well

02:37known.

02:38In reading this week's packet, I would

02:40like to back up and ask the commission

02:43to evaluate a few questions. First,

02:46what's the rush? City Council passed a

02:4812-month moratorium for drone ports in

02:51late July. Why is the planning

02:53commission being asked to create a side

02:55channel around that decision only 3

02:56months into the moratorium?

02:59Also, why the rush? There's been

03:01significant turnover in city staff

03:03leadership in the last few months with

03:04many open seats. Why push this through

03:07before the city gets new directors and

03:08senior management in place?

03:11Third element of why the rush, is it

03:12this decision will be made with only

03:14four of five sorry, four of seven

03:17planning commission seats filled. This

03:19is not going to get the usual thorough

03:20review that the city expects from a full

03:23commission.

03:24And finally, this week's packet isn't

03:26even complete. Links are broken. SEPA

03:28isn't done. Noise rules are just a

03:30question mark. Why move this topic up by

03:33several months to October 28th when the

03:35details aren't figured out yet?

03:38As a result of all these timing and

03:40oversight factors, I ask again, why now?

03:42What's the rush? I urge the commission

03:44to recommend no to all parts of this

03:47proposal at this time until the city has

03:49had a chance to fill or onboard all the

03:51empty leadership roles, and the city

03:53council's moratorium concludes.

03:56The other two big picture questions I

03:58have are about public transparency and

03:59financial conflicts of interest. The

04:02Planning Commission doesn't have budget

04:04oversight, obviously,

04:05but these are more about ethics and

04:07fully understanding what you're being

04:09asked to recommend.

04:10First, please ask the city to provide a

04:13list of NDAs signed by city employees on

04:15this topic. NDAs have been a new issue

04:18in cities up and down the West Coast for

04:20land use and data centers, and

04:22increasingly in drone and militaristic

04:24tech cases. Has Redmond signed NDAs in

04:27connection with drones or drone port?

04:30Without this information, I do do not

04:32believe the commission can make a fully

04:34informed recommendation.

04:36Finally, it would be helpful to know

04:38what gifts, travel, speaking fees,

04:42consulting fees, campaign donations,

04:44etc. have been given to city employees

04:46and elected officials or their families

04:49by drone companies, data collection or

04:51storage companies, investors, and others

04:53in this space. We already know that in

04:55September the chief of police started a

04:57side business consulting about drones,

05:00and it's important to understand if

05:01other city decision-makers or staff have

05:04similar financial entanglements in this

05:06decision. Thank you.

05:09Thank you.

05:12Next up, we have

05:19Dr. Morton.

05:24Dr. Morton, please state your name and

05:26address, and you

05:28>> [laughter]

05:28>> Just in case you change your name.

05:30And you have 3 minutes.

05:33>> [gasps]

05:33>> Good evening, commissioners. I'm David

05:35Morton, Redmond 98053.

05:38I'm speaking about two matters that came

05:40up at the October 22nd Council budget

05:43deliberations. Both have land use

05:45implications that belong in front of

05:47this commission. First, drinking water.

05:50Redmond's wells one and two contain PFOS

05:54at roughly five parts per trillion. In

05:562013, a fire at Allwood Recycling was

06:00fought with foam that likely contained

06:02PFOS. That site is about 1 and 1/2 miles

06:06east-northeast of those wells.

06:09At the budget deliberations, the interim

06:11public works director said staff are

06:13developing a cost estimate for PFAS soil

06:17testing within the Evans Creek project

06:20and determining where testing is

06:22authorized and found warranted. I

06:25appreciate that, but it covers the creek

06:28relocation project soils, not the fire

06:31site and not groundwater between that

06:34site and the drinking water wells.

06:36Whether that site is a source of PFOS is

06:39a question only testing can answer, and

06:43that answer matters to zoning,

06:45permitting, and wellhead protection

06:47decisions.

06:49Second, trees. The parks director

06:51explained that the new urban forestry

06:53program administrator will be a strategy

06:56role, not a certified

06:58arborist. Parks has five certified

07:01arborist who review third-party

07:03assessments when planning staff raise

07:06questions. In the draft tree code, I

07:09find no requirement for that review.

07:12Third-party peer review of exception

07:14requests happens only at the

07:17administrator's discretion.

07:19The code should state when independent

07:21review is required. I'm not asking for

07:24any formal action tonight. During the

07:26staff and commissioner updates, please

07:29consider requesting two briefings from

07:32staff. One, what PFAS testing is planned

07:36for soil and groundwater at the Allwood

07:38recycling site?

07:40And how would those results inform land

07:42use review?

07:44Two, will it be written into the tree

07:46code that parks arborist review

07:48applicant arborist tree reports? Does

07:51sufficient parks arborist capacity exist

07:54for permit review? And when will the

07:57rewrite of the tree canopy plan decide

07:59on additional arborist capacity?

08:03Written follow-up from staff would let

08:05the public follow this work. I'd welcome

08:07a report back at a future meeting. Both

08:10issues share a common principle,

08:13independent verification before

08:15irreversible decisions. Trees and

08:17drinking water are difficult to restore

08:20once lost. Residents deserve to know

08:22these protections are written down,

08:25tested, and enforced, not left to

08:27chance. Thank you.

08:29>> Thank you. Thank you.

08:33All right, so we're going to transition

08:34to the next agenda item, the TFP

08:37projects update. This item is part of

08:39the 2026-2027 comprehensive plan docket.

08:43Um the verbal portion of this meeting

08:45was of this hearing was already closed,

08:47and I'm now closing the written portion.

08:49Um the scope for discussion is planning

08:51commission will consider the approval of

08:53the planning commission report and

08:55recommendation to council on these

08:56proposed amendments. And so, I'd like to

08:58invite Well, okay, Michael Hints from

09:00staff um will walk us through the um the

09:04issues matrix.

09:10>> Thank you, commission. Michael Hints,

09:12transportation planning

09:13manager for the city of Redmond.

09:16And let me just pull up that matrix.

09:24Do you have another matrix?

09:33The um

09:34I guess I I can't remember what's on on

09:36the matrix. Um

09:38the two items on the TFP

09:42>> I think there are four items.

09:44>> Four items.

09:45One second, I'm just pulling that up.

09:49Should have that up here.

09:51Here we go.

10:04>> I sent it Corrected it. The first one

10:06was already closed, so there are three

10:07items.

10:11No. I can't read. No, they're all

10:13opened.

10:16>> Okay, one second here.

10:26Stanley closed all my tabs here.

10:29Okay, here we go.

10:35Okay, uh so, let's see.

10:38From our

10:40October 14th

10:42meeting, uh there was

10:45uh still an open

10:47item uh related to

10:51Oh, sure. Yeah.

11:01For the TFP.

11:02>> Yeah, that's that's correct. They're

11:03about four or four items.

11:05>> Appreciate that.

11:07So, issue one regarding prioritization

11:10uh was closed, but um I did want to

11:14go down to item three. Uh just a

11:16clarification on that. Um I

11:20I partly misspoke uh when I said it was

11:23not prioritized at all.

11:25Um

11:27as is stated in the issues matrix, we

11:30didn't rank We don't rank the projects,

11:32but we do show um

11:35which overarching strategies,

11:38transportation strategies

11:40that particular TFP project aligns with.

11:43So, it does show sort of the level of

11:46alignment with our transportation

11:48strategies.

11:50But, given the fact that most of these

11:51TFP projects will be

11:54implemented um by private development.

11:58Um

11:59it's really hard to know when they're

12:00going to be implemented cuz it's really

12:03dependent on that private development

12:04happening. So, in that sense, they're

12:06not prioritized or ranked, but they are

12:09shown as their relative importance

12:12in terms of alignment with the

12:13transportation strategies.

12:16>> I'm satisfied with this item, but I know

12:18that a partner you also raised this.

12:20>> I. We can close this down.

12:21>> Okay. All right.

12:24Uh let's see.

12:26>> We missed number two though.

12:27>> Yeah, I I'd skip down to that one just

12:29because um

12:31uh number one was about uh

12:33prioritization. So, environmental

12:35analysis um

12:37the commission uh the the comment was

12:41>> [snorts]

12:41>> uh related to

12:44uh

12:48the uh SEPA analysis environmental um

12:52analysis

12:54uh not um being completed for the

12:56addition of the the projects in um

13:01uh Southeast Redmond

13:03and um

13:05so, just to be clear, the projects in

13:07the TFP are planning level and really

13:09that environmental determination can't

13:12can't be made at that at level and the

13:14environmental review for those projects

13:16when they're going to construction or in

13:18design rather

13:20um the environmental review would happen

13:22at that

13:23at that point during the permitting

13:24phase.

13:26>> My only comment is that um

13:29if the impacts can't be determined yet,

13:31it's perhaps not accurate to say it

13:33meets. So, what if you can make the

13:35clarification, then I'm fine with

13:37closing this this item.

13:42>> Yeah, we can uh it's

13:44probably a a wording issue we can

13:46clarify.

13:47>> I I would concur because uh this gives

13:50an impression that nothing

13:52it's all done.

13:53>> Yeah.

13:53>> That's right.

13:54>> What you're saying is it's not yet done.

13:57Therefore, um or you say meets

13:59applicable criteria for planning

14:03um the the planning review environmental

14:06thing. Little clarification on the text

14:08would be great.

14:09>> Sure.

14:10>> Thank you.

14:12We can close this.

14:13>> can Yeah, I would say that we can

14:15conditionally close this. So, we make

14:16the the adjustment to the language and

14:18then we're I'm good with closing this.

14:20>> Same here. Thank you.

14:24>> Okay, item three we've covered. Going

14:26down to

14:29item four.

14:30Uh it was pointed out that um

14:34Well, we had pointed out earlier that

14:36the cost would be um updated or

14:38developed for those new projects and

14:41then there was a comment pointed out

14:42that

14:44for the project on Northeast 72nd Street

14:47that is currently in the TFP as uh just

14:50a new street, but we needed to um add

14:55detail that that was also going to

14:56include the construction of a shared use

14:58path. It was pointed out that we were

15:00showing the same cost um

15:04despite the fact that the

15:06um shared use path was added and that

15:07would be an additional cost. So, we have

15:10um

15:11included the cost in the issues matrix.

15:16Uh that is

15:18Sorry.

15:19It's not the right uh there is another

15:21We updated the issues matrix.

15:24Yeah.

15:27Sorry.

15:28There was some confusion with the um

15:30>> When was that update? Was that

15:32>> It was this afternoon.

15:34So, let me let me pull that up.

16:07Okay.

16:28>> Sorry, I'm having trouble sharing here.

16:34Here we go.

16:54Okay, that's strange. I went back there

16:57this

16:57>> [snorts]

16:57>> afternoon and saw that it had been

17:00added.

17:09Sorry about this. This This is a strange

17:12thing happening here cuz I know that

17:17we had that updated this afternoon and I

17:20even opened it and it was there.

17:23>> Do you recall what the the changes were?

17:26>> I Yeah, I could use that. So, I'm here,

17:29Glenn. I know you updated this.

17:30>> Yeah, so if you write write

17:47>> [laughter]

17:53>> So, yeah, I don't under I item four now,

17:56uh we've inserted the uh planning level

17:59cost estimates for each of these

18:00projects, including the one on Northeast

18:0272nd Street, in which we're adding the

18:04shared use path. So, these updated cost

18:07will be also inserted into the TFP.

18:14>> I'm I'm fine. I'm I'm satisfied with the

18:16response of partner you as well.

18:18>> Yes, uh as long as it's added to the

18:20final thing, that's good. Thank you.

18:22>> Yep.

18:24Okay. Uh moving on to item five, the

18:27last one. Um there was pointed out in

18:30public comment that there was some

18:32discrepancies in

18:35some of the dates um that were shown in

18:37the memo as well as some uh errors in

18:40terms of

18:42uh headings. And so um

18:45we've addressed that. All planning

18:46commission materials and the technical

18:48committee reports have been corrected to

18:50fix

18:51those typos and revisions have been

18:53incorporated into the materials for the

18:54October uh for tonight's meeting.

19:02>> I'm satisfied with

19:03>> Yes, uh we can close this as well. Thank

19:05you.

19:06>> Sure.

19:10>> And that covers all of the open

19:14questions. Okay, so

19:16um this we can open up to the the the

19:19commission. Does anyone have the

19:21questions? Are there any lingering

19:23questions that you have or

19:25um are you are there any additional

19:27information that you need to have

19:28provided to you to be prepared to make a

19:30vote on whether we should move move

19:33forward?

19:37>> None.

19:38>> Okay.

19:41That's in in that's uh uh

19:43Uh

19:43let's see. Did we lose him?

19:45He's on there. Okay, then I think we're

19:48ready with the with the provisions that

19:49we the conditions that we've made, we're

19:51ready to um ask staff to move forward

19:54with a formal um

19:56report and recommendation for us to

19:59to weigh in on.

20:01>> Okay, we will do that.

20:02>> Thank you very much.

20:06Okay, so now we're ready for our second

20:09um

20:10agenda item and that's the repeal

20:11neighborhood connections map. Um I'm

20:14closing the written part of the hearing

20:17so the public part of the public hearing

20:19is officially closed.

20:21Uh Um, session will include discussion

20:23of pausing this IM and a new public

20:26hearing to add additional amendments to

20:29this package. Michael, is this just you

20:31representing staff?

20:32>> Yes.

20:33>> Okay.

20:34All right, what do you have for us?

20:36>> Uh, yeah, so I um

20:40So, the last meeting um, it was

20:43requested before

20:45uh, rec

20:45>> The issues matrix?

20:47>> Yep, it's right here.

20:54Okay, so the last uh, meeting on October

20:5714th,

20:58um, it was requested that before

21:01Planning Commission approves

21:02recommendation of the um

21:05removal of the neighborhood uh,

21:07connections maps in the neighborhood

21:09element, that we first present a uh, a

21:12list of those

21:15um

21:16connections that were removed. That

21:17means not carried over from the

21:19neighborhood element into the

21:21Transportation Master Plan maps.

21:23So, we uh, have went back [snorts] and

21:26looked at that list uh, just to double

21:28check it and we found that in fact there

21:30were five connections that should have

21:33been brought over from the neighborhood

21:34element maps to the Transportation

21:37Master Plan maps. So, we've identified

21:39those uh, they're included in

21:43uh, a list that has been in your

21:45material was put in your materials.

21:47And um, so we are reopen or

21:51uh,

21:52opening a new public hearing. The notice

21:53went out today and we'll come back on

21:56December 2nd

21:58to um, hear any any comments that have

22:01come in regarding those additions.

22:04And then um

22:06assuming that that item is um, there's

22:09no other comments on it and um,

22:12commission is satisfied, we would

22:14anticipate approval at that time.

22:17>> Great. Thank you. I want to thank staff

22:19for finding and and Commissioner Gagne

22:21for finding those five missing maps.

22:24Um, and certainly be by December 2nd

22:26we'll do a full scrub to make sure there

22:28are no other missing maps.

22:30Um but I really appreciate the due

22:31diligence. So, thank you for that.

22:33>> Yeah, I assure you we have done a full

22:35scrub. So, I do appreciate the request

22:37and um just that made us go back and

22:39take a closer look.

22:41>> I'd like to One moment. I'd like to just

22:43officially close item number one just as

22:45a matter of hygiene since

22:47Yeah. Oh, sorry. Commissioner

22:50Meydenbauer. I just wanted to point out

22:51Commissioner Ganye is going out on a

22:53high note.

22:54>> She certainly is.

22:57>> That's a real value add.

22:58And and real

23:00um

23:01indication of what this process is all

23:03about.

23:06>> Appreciate that.

23:08Appreciate Ganye, Commissioner Ganye.

23:10Um as well as the rest of the

23:11commission, but let's officially close

23:13out item number one.

23:15And with regards to the second item, it

23:18looks like we're all heading in the path

23:19of option one given the

23:22item number three. So, unless anyone

23:25objects, we can close out item number

23:27two.

23:28Um

23:29>> Yeah, sorry.

23:37>> And leave three open um pending the

23:39outcome of December 2nd.

23:44Okay?

23:45>> Okay.

23:46>> Thank you.

23:47>> Thank you very much.

23:48>> Thank you. Thank you. All right. So, our

23:50next uh agenda item is our

23:52uh Redmond zoning code amendments, the

23:55permanent regulations for commercial

23:57drones. And I'd like to invite staff

23:59member Glenn Coyle, who's going to walk

24:02us through the presentation

24:04um and start us on this study session.

24:30>> Sorry.

24:32That would just feel very awkward.

24:55>> All right. Good evening, commissioners.

24:57I'm Glenn Coyle. I'm a planner with the

24:59long-range planning team, and we'll be

25:02introducing

25:04um

25:05proposed permanent zoning code

25:06regulations around commercial drones.

25:12Uh the purpose of this is to develop

25:15permanent zoning regulations for

25:17commercial drone land uses that balance

25:19the city's goal for innovation, economic

25:21development, and sustainability with

25:23community concerns around safety,

25:25privacy,

25:26and quality of life.

25:28Um So, you also know that uh this

25:30process is part of a interim official

25:32control that council adopted in April of

25:35this year, and um part of that work plan

25:38and state requirements is that they have

25:411 year to adopt permanent regulations,

25:43or those um

25:45um

25:46interim regulations expire.

25:52Um

25:53Some of the opportunities um on this uh

25:56new land use um

25:58is that um it's noted that it is

26:00consistent with Redmond 2050 goals, uh

26:02especially around economic vitality and

26:05sustainability.

26:08Um

26:10Um also recognize that um there are

26:12challenges um

26:15by introdu- um

26:16by introducing land use regulations for

26:19kind of um kind of a novel land use. Um

26:23it is a new and kind of dynamic emerging

26:26emerging industry, and it is a challenge

26:28to develop a fair and consistent

26:29regulatory framework.

26:32Um

26:32should also note that um and I think uh

26:36issues have been raised before, but uh

26:38city's land use regulations cannot uh

26:40fully address um

26:41all of the community's concerns, uh a

26:44lot of which are outside the city's

26:45purview or powers uh related to land use

26:49or are being addressed through other

26:51means uh such as through business

26:53licensing.

26:54Um and like the um but to particular

26:57focus on the box on the right um

27:00is that uh commercial drone operations,

27:03and that's outside of land use, uh have

27:06will happen in the city um irregardless

27:09um

27:10because um local regulation of airspace

27:12is um restricted by

27:15or the city's regulation of local

27:16airspace is restricted by federal law.

27:19Um

27:20enacting land use regulations will

27:21limit, but not eliminate, impacts.

27:25Um

27:25I should note that uh

27:28the city, by enacting meaningful

27:30regulations, um

27:32will have more control on how that

27:34happens

27:35um by enacting meaningful and fair land

27:38use regulations.

27:41Um

27:42and uh this slide just kind of notes um

27:45kind of the timeline that the council

27:47adopted on its work plan. Um there's

27:49actually kind of um

27:51uh three three tracks on on this

27:53process. Uh the first one is around land

27:56use regulations, which is the purview of

27:58the planning and commission. Um

28:00we're [snorts] also um concurrently um

28:03working on some business licensing,

28:04which is being led by the finance

28:06department. Um and then the police

28:08department is also working on um

28:12concepts on um coordinating kind of

28:15drone operations, uh but that also has

28:18kind of a more regional state uh federal

28:21kind of track in there, so

28:23uh but can kind of concurrent processes.

28:27Um as part of the work plan, um

28:30the city worked with communications and

28:32had a communications plan.

28:34Um

28:34There's a lot of uh updates and

28:36announcements in our newsletters, press

28:37releases.

28:39Um we have two different web pages on

28:41this uh questionnaire.

28:43Um was conducted uh over the summer.

28:46There were 69 responses.

28:48City Council held two public hearings.

28:51Um and there was also some

28:53um industry kind of engagement.

28:59So, to the development of the draft

29:01regulations. Um

29:03So, um ultimately they're based on a

29:05framework and approach of Redmond 2050,

29:08uh supporting um

29:10innovative ways to achieve

29:11sustainability, transportation, economic

29:12development goals. Um Tried to attempt

29:15community concerns um

29:17and challenges and um

29:20you know, uh definitely looked at some

29:21of the public comments from the

29:23questionnaire and other comments. Um

29:26also researched similar operations in

29:27other cities.

29:29Um particularly around in the United

29:31States, um but a little bit

29:32internationally, but um when it comes to

29:34land use regulations, um definitely in

29:36the US as we have a similar framework.

29:39Um There's also a lot of research,

29:41stakeholder meetings. Um uh site tour to

29:44better just understand the technology.

29:47Um

29:47And then also over the summer, um WSDOT,

29:50the Washington State Department of

29:51Transportation, uh provided um kind of a

29:54guidance document on uh drone hubs and

29:58uh land uses, um

30:00which was a a great tool

30:02um to kind of help on this.

30:04Um

30:05And again,

30:06we'll just re-reiterate that uh

30:09um a lot of these proposed regulations

30:11are just based on kind of um

30:13the our current understanding, our kind

30:15of current public understanding um cuz

30:18we cannot read into the minds of a lot

30:20of these different industries, but we

30:21can um try our best based on the

30:24knowledge we have, um

30:26also recognizing it is a dynamic uh

30:28field.

30:30Uh so,

30:32again, here's the scope of the proposed

30:34regulations. that's on the left. Um

30:38It speaks to um some definitions, which

30:40I'll get into, our land use

30:42classification table.

30:45Um

30:46We have a section uh that was passed in

30:47the IOC um

30:49on specifically commercial drones, and

30:52then kind of a more technical edit um on

30:55building height exemptions. And um

30:58you know, we'll note on the right

31:01uh that zoning regulations um

31:03you know, do not cover airspace

31:05regulation or management. Um

31:08Does not deal with business licensing.

31:10Um

31:11Um the city does have some uh

31:13regulations about um flying drones or on

31:17city parks. Um

31:18we we did not um

31:20deal with that at this time because it's

31:21not really related to commercial drones.

31:23Um and of course um our land use

31:26regulations uh do not have um any

31:29regulatory power over people flying

31:32drones from outside the city.

31:36So,

31:37uh to get into a little bit more detail,

31:39um

31:40>> [snorts]

31:40>> we are um proposing

31:43uh three uh definitions or types of

31:46drone land uses, uh kind of based on

31:49most impact to least impact.

31:52Um

31:53Uh the highest uh the the first one

31:56would be what we're calling drone hubs.

31:58And again, this terminology comes from

31:59the Wash Doc guidance. Um we had some

32:02different definitions in the IOC. Uh so,

32:04we're lining kind of um with these kind

32:06of standards. And um

32:09this is what one would probably would

32:10think of most, um

32:11kind of a fixed or mobile facility

32:14that's used for like the repeated

32:15launch, land, and charge, and storage,

32:16etc. of uh commercial drone operations,

32:20but also could also be a government or

32:22institutional.

32:23Uh accessory drone ho- uh drone hub

32:26um

32:27is something that would be uh smaller

32:29um

32:30or accessory kind of use. Um

32:34to say a primary use. And um on this, it

32:38would be um

32:39kind of a more limited so

32:41you know, maybe two launch pads or a

32:44facility that would

32:45accommodate less drones

32:47that would kind of increase the density

32:49there

32:50and

32:51this one it's important to point out

32:53before the IOC the city had permitted

32:56what I guess would fall under the

32:58definition of an accessory drone hub and

33:00that was for the Pagliacci Pizza

33:03in downtown Redmond

33:05at the time the city had no regulations

33:07around this at all

33:09so that was permitted the city I don't

33:12believe Pagliacci has taken advantage of

33:15that but

33:16it is permitted and um

33:19um

33:20what's what's the

33:21the legal term for

33:23it's vested so

33:26yeah it's it's a vested use so

33:29that's kind of here to stay and then the

33:31third type of definition we are

33:34proposing are what are called drone

33:36access points

33:38and these are very just similar

33:40to

33:41like a like a mailbox or an Amazon

33:44Dropbox things like that

33:47and generally the the main thing about

33:49them is that

33:50the drones wouldn't really land on them

33:52you wouldn't use them for maintenance or

33:53things like that or really just

33:56which we're noticing is becoming kind of

33:57an industry standard of kind of the

34:00drones hovering

34:01300 feet in the air and kind of use a

34:03tether kind of literally drop them into

34:06like a storage box or something like

34:08that

34:09so um

34:10with [snorts] those definitions in mind

34:12I just want to provide some visual

34:14examples

34:15um and I'll note these were all from

34:18Google searches these are not our

34:20pictures

34:22and tried our best to

34:24find good examples again it's a very

34:26dynamic industry

34:29but [snorts] you can see some examples

34:32here

34:33um bottom left corner is something you

34:36would see

34:37at a Walmart Um, that could almost be

34:40considered like an accessory except that

34:42there's a lot of drones stored there.

34:44Um, but the more traditional uh drone

34:46hubs, I would say um like Zipline there

34:49on the bottom right, um or Amazon kind

34:52of facility on the top left.

34:56Um.

34:58Next examples.

34:59Um.

35:01Again, um these kind of speak to the

35:03definitions there. Um, the one on the

35:06left on the top left is in Shanghai. Um.

35:10It could be considered kind of the next

35:12one, but the drones do land and kind of

35:14load up and uh stuff on in those um

35:17boxes. You also see um where maybe

35:20there's just one pad. Um.

35:22Another example on the Great Wall of

35:23China. Um.

35:25And

35:26uh

35:27Um, on the bottom left is kind of like

35:29um kind of the little drone docking

35:32trees, but there's just two on there. Uh

35:34so, that would be kind of fall in the

35:36definition of an accessory drone hub.

35:38That's kind of um

35:39incidental to the main use of a facility

35:41or land use.

35:43And then the drone access points, um

35:45as we noted, um

35:47it's kind of where it seems like some of

35:49the industry is moving towards. Um.

35:52The left is Zipline's drop box. I think

35:55that's a really good example of kind of

35:58um

35:59You can almost see that in the picture

36:00there. Um. They just use a tether to um

36:04from 300 ft and just kind of load it

36:06into the box or unload there. And then

36:09um on the right are a couple other

36:11examples um

36:13of ones we've found.

36:16Uh so.

36:18Um.

36:19With those [snorts] kind of visuals in

36:20mind,

36:21um

36:22where a lot of zoning really um is about

36:25where stuff is located in zones. That's

36:27That's what zoning is, right? Um. So,

36:30uh what we're looking um is kind of

36:33as we noted, kind of

36:35um the impacts of use. So,

36:37uh for drone hubs, those bigger uses, um

36:40uh we're proposing that they would only

36:41be allowed in our BP, MP, and industrial

36:44zones.

36:45The accessory drone hubs um

36:48um would would expand um those uh land

36:51areas uh to also include some of our

36:53commercial mixed-use areas.

36:56And then um the access points

36:58um would additionally expand to also

37:00include like some um kind of

37:02multi-family type housing.

37:06So,

37:07uh

37:07just here is some maps um

37:10of [snorts] our city. Uh

37:12and this would be obvious, but the gray

37:14outline is the city limits. The blue is

37:16Lake Sammamish uh to help orient

37:17yourself, and downtown Redmond is in the

37:19center. So,

37:21um

37:22the MP, you know, BP areas are off of

37:25Willows Road or in southeast Redmond.

37:27Um

37:30and then the accessory drone hubs, as

37:32noted, uh would expand to include some

37:34of our uh mixed-use and commercial

37:36zones. So, you see like um

37:38uh the Marymoor District, downtown, town

37:41center, um

37:42kind of the uh Overlake Microsoft type

37:45area.

37:46Um

37:48And then lastly, the drone access would

37:50be uh further um

37:53allowing in some of the um multi-family

37:56areas kind of in that orange and green

37:59type color.

38:02Um and then

38:04unpermitted locations. So, this is where

38:05those three uses would not be allowed um

38:08anywhere in the city um

38:10which is primarily our kind of

38:12neighborhood residential, um which I

38:14guess traditionally would be called the

38:15single-family area, but um

38:17you know, that definition changed in

38:18Redmond 2050, but the neighborhood

38:20residential or RA-5, which is the kind

38:22of a rural um

38:24traditional old zoning, and then our ur-

38:26urban recreation and conservation zones.

38:29And as you know,

38:31um this encompasses still about

38:3340-50% of the land area of the city.

38:36Um and also would include the watershed

38:39uh preserve up on

38:41uh Redmond Ridge.

38:44Um

38:45>> [snorts]

38:45>> So,

38:46another section um

38:48proposed um which was included in the

38:51IOC

38:52um

38:53is like special sections. We have

38:54special sections for for certain uses.

38:57Uh so, this um this section would

38:59include the the three classifications

39:01that were noted above. Uh would have

39:04some uh general requirements

39:06including uh compliance with our uh

39:09noise standards in the municipal code

39:11and um also some technical requirements

39:13around parking.

39:14Um and then uh for the drone hubs, those

39:17most intense uses you saw um would also

39:19have a 150-ft buffer from our residents

39:22and public safety safety facilities such

39:25as police and fire.

39:27Um

39:28and this uh just really uh speaks to the

39:31section in our code around maximum

39:33height exemptions. And basically, we

39:35would add uh those uses um

39:38to the um exemptions um

39:41on buildings um

39:43below uh the maximum zone height. Uh

39:46includes chimneys, antennas, solar

39:48panels um stairwells uh things like

39:51that.

39:53And this would just uh help support uh

39:55any kind of rooftop

39:56type

39:57facilities.

39:59And

40:00um

40:01next steps. Uh so, we have an

40:03introduction today. Uh thank you. Um and

40:07then we're moving to our uh

40:09November-December schedule for planning

40:10commission. So, um just to give uh folks

40:13just enough time to kind of digest this,

40:15but also maybe have questions freshly in

40:17mind. We're proposing to come back uh

40:19next week.

40:21Um and then

40:22uh the public hearing will be November

40:2418th uh with some additional study

40:26sessions uh with the hope that we can

40:29wrap this up in January. Um

40:31and then um

40:33as noted uh council um must take action

40:36uh no later than April of 2027.

40:39Otherwise, the IOC uh expires and it

40:42just goes back to no regulations at all.

40:44So, uh with that uh council um scheduled

40:48to begin in February 2027,

40:51um, which is why, um,

40:53we're having these, uh,

40:54kind of schedule to with the hope to for

40:57a planning commission's recommendation

40:59in January, so uh, council can begin its

41:02review.

41:03So, with that, I conclude my remarks.

41:07Thank you.

41:08>> Thank you very much. What I'd like to do

41:10now is just open it up to commissioner

41:11feedback. We'll go round robin. Um, let

41:14everyone have the opportunity to speak,

41:16and then I'd love to open it up for a

41:18free discussion. So,

41:20um, commissioner Van

41:22Staff, Lauren. Oh.

41:24He's just waving to me. Okay.

41:27Commissioner Commissioner Van Niman.

41:29Okay, there's a lot to cover, but I what

41:31I want to start with is I want to go

41:32back kind of like to the first page, and

41:34like the big picture, because I really

41:39for from my perspective, this is

41:43maybe I just don't have enough, um,

41:45background in

41:47how we got to where we are now. Like,

41:53if you were going to sit next to

41:54somebody on an airplane and explain to

41:56them what you were working on without

41:58getting into all of these very specific

42:00details of drone ports and accessory

42:02drone ports and how many they might

42:03cover, you would say to them what? Like,

42:07do you understand my question? Like like

42:09a very like a

42:10a 30,000 ft level of how we got here,

42:14technologically speaking, what's coming

42:16down the pike, what the city of Redmond

42:18has done to date, and the next actions

42:20that we need to be taking.

42:25>> Uh, we can provide an answer on that.

42:27Uh, specifically, sounds like you're

42:28talking about the interim official

42:30control that the council passed, and we

42:32can provide some more material on that

42:35process.

42:36>> Right, but I also, you know, talk to me

42:38like I'm

42:39like I'm I don't I don't I don't I would

42:41say young, but I guess really the answer

42:42is talk to me like I'm old, and explain

42:44to me like [laughter]

42:46where this technology is, what state we

42:49are at as a country, as a society, what

42:51these are really being used for, how

42:54what what do we expect our world to look

42:56like?

42:58>> So, I I would just ask that we start it

43:00in issues matrix so we can capture this

43:01as well as all other feedback, please.

43:06Commissioner Aparna.

43:08>> I have a separate question. I would like

43:10to know how many regulations have come

43:14forth in front of the Planning

43:15Commission in the past

43:1815 years

43:20that have not gone through a SEPA

43:22process, but are seeing a technical

43:26recommendation

43:27which says go for it.

43:29Um

43:31I

43:31don't understand how that is.

43:34It's dropping from the sky. We're

43:36talking tree code simultaneously.

43:38Uh we have birds we're fond of, fish

43:41that we're fond of. Without the SEPA,

43:45I don't see it, but I would like to know

43:47where's the precedent in this process,

43:51which is separate from the actual drone

43:52discussion.

43:54Thank you.

43:56>> I can answer that shortly. Um

43:58quickly, I know you provided that in

44:00your questions there. Um

44:02yeah, the the city is still working on

44:04the SEPA review um and um that will go

44:07to council.

44:09>> I understand that that was the answer

44:12already in the packet, but my question

44:14was how many regulations have come

44:16forth.

44:18I have not seen either the determination

44:21is made that SEPA is not needed, not

44:23applicable,

44:24or it meets SEPA recommendations. And

44:27then there is a link to the SEPA

44:29documents.

44:30I don't see that.

44:32I don't know how we're expected to give

44:34a response when something's falling.

44:36We're talking tree code, 200 ft tether.

44:41I don't

44:42I don't get it. Noise is an issue. The

44:44public comments talk about it.

44:47All of this points to having some

44:49background

44:52in the environmental impact of this.

44:55We claim this is for sustainability,

44:59but it's coming

45:00to my mind, if we don't answer these

45:03questions, it's coming at an immense

45:05environmental cost,

45:07which we haven't considered right now.

45:13>> Anyone else?

45:14Commission Commissioner Gong.

45:17>> Yeah, thank you. I was actually kind of

45:19curious about the interim official

45:21control cuz there was a little bit of

45:23language that was kind of confusing to

45:25me in this document, which was that it

45:27stated that after the IOC if if the IOC

45:30were to expire without the council

45:32acting on it acting and creating any

45:34permanent regulation, the zoning code

45:36would revert to pre-IOC conditions,

45:38which has quote no regulations on

45:40commercial drone land uses. So, I guess

45:43I was curious about what the IOC is

45:45doing exactly and like to what extent we

45:47had zoning code or regulation on

45:50commercial drone usage before that

45:52because we're clearly still amending

45:54something. So, I just wanted some

45:55clarification on that.

45:57>> Yeah, we can provide more detailed

45:58slides on that. Um, just for brevity, we

46:02didn't want to get get into the whole

46:03IOC and kind of how that works say

46:05regular um, with the

46:07revised code of Washington um, that

46:09governs kind of land use regulations,

46:11but happy to provide that information

46:13at our next meeting.

46:15Thank you.

46:16>> Commissioner Ganye.

46:18>> Um,

46:19two things I'll try to make them quick.

46:21One I wanted to echo what Commissioner

46:22Vandeberg was saying in terms of big

46:24picture. I'm curious if

46:27Redmond is

46:29desiring to sort of

46:32if the goal here is to catch up with

46:36an inevitable

46:37or is the goal to sort of for Redmond to

46:39be an innovator?

46:41Cuz I'm looking at some of the pictures,

46:42it looks like you had to to dig deep and

46:45you know, found pictures of examples

46:48from international. And so, just

46:50wondering if

46:52you know,

46:53Redmond's desire is to be an innovator

46:54or if it's the urgency is to catch up

46:57with something that is inevitably going

46:59to happen because drones are reality.

47:03That's one question. Number two, I was

47:05just curious about I'm looking at um

47:07slide five where it talks about the

47:09timeline, the three tracks.

47:12The drone coordination office, is that

47:15Did I catch it right? Is that going to

47:16be run by the police department?

47:21>> We can get more detail, but um it's been

47:23envisioned by the police department, but

47:25it most most likely would be

47:27um at least coordinated out of the

47:29police department, um but it would be a

47:31multi kind of staff and it wouldn't be

47:33like a physical office. I think it's

47:35more

47:37office like in a coordinate in sense,

47:39but um

47:40I I don't want to speak precisely to

47:41that because um that's not in my um work

47:45program, but um we can definitely

47:46provide some more information on that

47:48and I believe um Chief Lowe, who's our

47:50police chief, um has provided um some

47:53briefings to council um on this

47:55recently. Um

47:57and um I can refer you to those or I can

47:59get the exact meeting stuff cuz I think

48:02he speaks a lot better and eloquently to

48:04that than than I ever could. So.

48:06>> So, if if the chief of police is going

48:08to or if the police department is going

48:09to be coordinating,

48:12you know, that office or something

48:13there, I think I would hope and again

48:15I'm it's my last night. I won't be here

48:17to close anythings, but I think

48:19something that um former Commissioner

48:21Weston shared did pique my interest in

48:23terms of potential conflicts of interest

48:25if the police department is going to be

48:28in charge of

48:29the drone coordination office and if

48:33what former Commissioner Weston said was

48:35true that the chief of police has a

48:38financial interest, I think

48:40um airing on the side of

48:42overcommunication and transparency would

48:45benefit the city. And I hope that'd be

48:46in future materials.

48:49Yeah.

48:49>> Commissioner uh Sorry, excuse me. Vice

48:51Chair Coleman.

48:53>> Uh can you hear me? First of all, can

48:55you hear me okay?

48:56>> Yeah.

48:57Yes.

48:57>> Um

48:58uh I have a number of number of

48:59questions, but I again will keep it to

49:02two. Um

49:03the first one is how seriously do we

49:05take feedback from

49:07the public? Cuz I've looked at it pretty

49:08closely,

49:09um

49:10and it's generally pretty negative

49:12uh from the 69 people. There's a

49:14significant number of them that have

49:16significant problems with this approach

49:18without knowing all the details we

49:20talked about here. That's one. So, I'm

49:22curious to get an understanding of that

49:23and just two, um

49:26what's happening with the rest of the

49:27cities? Like Kirkland or Woodinville or

49:30you know, any of the other surrounding

49:31cities?

49:33W- If Redmond did something differently

49:35from those, would we be a hub delivering

49:37to those cities? Um versus them saying,

49:40"Oh, you know what? Redmond are doing

49:41this. So, you know what? We're just

49:42going to we're going to lock this down

49:43as much as we can." How far can we lock

49:45this down even if we wanted to? So, I'm

49:47just curious about like the the

49:48conversations and if the same

49:50conversations are being had had in the

49:53Kirkland council discussions, the

49:54Bellevue council discussions, etc.

49:57>> Um we can provide a more detailed

49:59answer, but I can say at a very high

50:00level um that um we have spoken to all

50:04our surrounding communities. Um

50:07Um we're actually the only unique one to

50:09actually uh try to do regulations around

50:12this.

50:13Um and I'll also note that uh again,

50:15flights is not something we can control.

50:17So, yes, if there are drone hubs um

50:20operating out of Kirkland or Redmond

50:23Ridge or other places, they will still

50:25deliver to our Redmond and other

50:27communities here regardless.

50:29Um but um we're not aware of um any of

50:31those communities actually um doing the

50:33regulatory approach that Redmond is

50:35attempting. Um other places in

50:37Washington state and really this I just

50:39know from the media is um I believe uh

50:41Federal Way is also doing um

50:45and I hope I'm correct on that quote is

50:47also doing uh a Walmart um with Wing um

50:50kind of drone delivery. And I believe um

50:53um their leadership um um provided kind

50:56of a um press briefing on that. And um

50:58I'm also aware that uh Tacoma is doing

51:01similar. And uh for both those places,

51:04uh

51:04are both treated just as accessory uses

51:08um, and do not have any or attempted any

51:11regulatory approach except to consider

51:13them as regular as just accessory kind

51:15of uses to um,

51:18um, those Walmarts.

51:20Um, but um, actually that's part of my

51:22full answer, but uh, yeah, but I but we

51:24can try to um, provide a little bit more

51:26and research on that.

51:28>> I have um, I want

51:29I

51:30Uh, uh, Vice Chair Com- you're good?

51:32Okay.

51:33I want to share I appreciate that we

51:35can't control what's in the air above

51:37us, but I am concerned about safety and

51:40I am concerned about noise.

51:43Um, so from a and I think a lot more

51:45detail is needed for me to be satisfied.

51:47So for example, the cumulative effect of

51:50drones, the volume, the proximity. I I

51:54you reduce you shrunk the proximity from

51:57500 ft to 150 ft. Drones are not Drones

52:01are annoying from a decibel standpoint,

52:03but they're even more annoying from that

52:05tone standpoint, the buzzing standpoint.

52:07So the the noise is a is a is a huge

52:10concern for me as a as a as a resident

52:13of this community.

52:14Uh, I also concerned about safety,

52:16battery charging, drones flying out the

52:19sky and and hitting kids in parks,

52:21schools, hospitals. And so there's a

52:24there's a lack of detail around how

52:27things that are within the city of

52:28Redmond's control around safety and

52:31around um, noise be be addressed in a in

52:34a in a

52:36in a at a standard that it that is more

52:37rigorous given the

52:39the the evolving technical nature of of

52:42these instruments.

52:45Um, what I'd like to do is um, so if you

52:47can have that add more detail for in the

52:50in the issues matrix. What I'd like to

52:52do now is just kind of see if anyone any

52:54other commissioners have questions. So

52:55Commissioner

52:57>> [laughter]

52:57>> I have a couple of new questions beyond

53:00what I emailed uh, for the listening

53:02public. Um,

53:03I was curious what is the city? So let's

53:06say we approve this land use and

53:09something bad happens it crashes

53:10somewhere. What is the city's liability

53:13in because we have approved the land

53:15use. I understand that there may be

53:18drones coming up from Timbuktu over here

53:20and well, that is a separate story that

53:24we cannot control. That is not up for

53:25debate here.

53:26What we are asking is if the city

53:30is approving something and something bad

53:32happens, who is liable?

53:35And

53:37um

53:38how does one go about managing

53:42this

53:44risk?

53:46>> First I would say that um

53:48the range of drones probably would not

53:50fly from Timbuktu to Redmond, but um

53:53nonetheless uh

53:55>> No, I

53:55>> That was supposed to be a joke, yeah.

53:57>> It isn't, [laughter] but you know what I

53:58mean.

53:58>> But uh

53:59um in terms of safety oh no, in terms of

54:02liability, uh generally um

54:04we'll we'll provide a much more detailed

54:06answer, of course, um but generally it

54:08it's similar to any business that

54:09operates in Redmond, um

54:11whether it's UPS or

54:14um you know, a Fred Meyer's or any kind

54:17of business that that has to be a

54:19liability for their operations. Um so

54:23um

54:23it would generally fall under that.

54:25>> So okay, so let me give you an example.

54:27Let's say we said, "Okay, it's okay to

54:29have a mine over here."

54:31Okay, and it caused like a lot of

54:33pollution and lung cancer or whatever.

54:35I'm just giving very silly examples, but

54:37bear with me. Um

54:39Okay, we go after the mine owner for

54:42causing this pollution and causing this

54:44cancer. But somebody could technically

54:46go after the city when the city has not

54:49done its due diligence in terms of

54:51approving that land use.

54:53So this one

54:55is ripe for a whole bunch of stuff.

54:57Because there's AI drones, what if it

55:01goes rogue? Well,

55:03uh what if it crashes into an electric

55:05pole? We've got all overhead stuff. The

55:08whole lit-

55:10we need to address that

55:12at the get-go.

55:14Um and liability of that company's

55:18um insurance liability insurance may or

55:21may not cover it. The city would still

55:22need to be able to defend this land use.

55:26It's a new It is open to interpretation.

55:31I think.

55:35>> Commissioner Van Nimmen.

55:38I'm just going to go back to what I said

55:39initially and kind of tag on some of the

55:41things other people have said.

55:43I think

55:44I mean, I was kind of surprised at the

55:45approach that this took. And the first

55:47couple pages of that were just like

55:49not nearly enough in terms of saying I

55:52would have expected something like okay,

55:54here's the situation.

55:56And I'm going to explain to you what

55:59has happened in the world of drones. And

56:01I'm going to explain to you the

56:03regulatory framework and where the FAA

56:06is involved and where who controls

56:08airspace and who controls this land use.

56:10This is one component we're going to

56:11come say. And then there's, you know,

56:13who controls the business licensing and

56:15who the state regulations and and put

56:17together some sort of document that

56:18explains

56:20to people, when you get pissed, here's

56:22who you need to go to because this is

56:24going to turn into something I think,

56:27perhaps, something along the lines of

56:29like the data center rebellion that

56:31you're seeing. People may not be very

56:33happy about this when their neighbors

56:36start getting

56:38you know,

56:39their drone deliveries regularly and

56:40their dog gets pissed. And I just think

56:43there's a lot that

56:45again to the public comment, right? Like

56:47and Adam's comment, Commissioner

56:49Colman's comment, if we wanted to

56:50control this, could we? Like I just feel

56:53like there's a lot missing here and that

56:55we need a much more bigger picture

56:57approach of how you're going to explain

56:59to people how we got here, what we think

57:01the right approach is

57:03with a lot of backup of why we think

57:05this is the right approach. Here are the

57:06alternatives. We don't think these are

57:08right.

57:09I just feel like there's a lot missing

57:11and that

57:12you're going to have to persuade a lot

57:14of people in your community as to why

57:16this is the right thing to do.

57:19And I think we need a lot more

57:20documentation around it.

57:26>> I want to really emphasize the noise

57:28piece to this because that impacts every

57:30single person in this community.

57:34>> Are there any other commissioner

57:35comments?

57:41I have a tactical question.

57:43>> I have a comment. Sorry.

57:44>> Sorry. Vice Chair Coleman.

57:47>> Um

57:50I just want to go back to

57:52um Commissioner

57:54uh

57:55uh Neman said I when we look at the

57:58feedback from people

58:00it's generally very negative and I don't

58:02know how much we care about surveys we

58:04put out and what action we take from

58:06that. And I think it's really important

58:07to understand what's the true feelings

58:10of people in in the in the

58:12uh in the Redmond area. I don't think we

58:14have enough of that and I think we need

58:16to know cuz it's going to affect every

58:17single person

58:19in this area. Um and so it makes I'll be

58:22honest it makes my stomach churn a

58:23little bit to think that um even though

58:26we don't we live in a

58:27different part of a neighborhood where

58:29we wouldn't generally see these, but you

58:30could be down in Redmond seeing them

58:32flying around with other place. Uh

58:33that's a personal comment. Um but I

58:35don't think we have enough uh

58:37information from the community and I

58:39could see a a place where we build these

58:42and people go what on earth is going on

58:43here? I've no idea what's happening. I

58:45don't think there is enough community

58:46input for us to make a decision like

58:48this so quickly. Um

58:50the other uh

58:52comment I think I would make here is

58:54what again when you look at all the data

58:55it shows all the all the things that we

58:57really care about this. Also comments

59:00when you look at some of the comments

59:01about inclusivity. You know, who can

59:03afford to have that kind of delivery to

59:05their house? Well, potentially it's

59:07people with higher income um and it

59:09doesn't feel like a particularly

59:09inclusive way of dealing with um what

59:12frankly is just going to be another way

59:13of people getting their their items to

59:15the houses. And I don't see necessarily

59:18that that that is sustainability

59:21perspective because of

59:23that you know, the uh Amazon you know,

59:25trucks that come around are probably

59:26going to continue to do that. I mean,

59:27how they going to deliver other things

59:28that you couldn't possibly do with a

59:29drone? That's I'm sorry, that's a lot of

59:31comments, but I I really don't think we

59:33thought this through properly and I feel

59:34like we're being jammed very hard in the

59:37commission um to give our point of view

59:39on this. So, my position right now is I

59:40don't know what what position we should

59:42take. So, I'll leave it there.

59:46>> Commissioner Uparna.

59:48So, uh you

59:50you gave examples of other cities in the

59:53US having gone through this.

59:56Can we compare it to a like I want an

1:00:00apples-to-apples comparison. If you take

1:00:02Houston, which has

1:00:05a massive sprawl needing drones versus

1:00:09us, 14 square miles.

1:00:11Um anybody else who's had a tree canopy

1:00:15goal that is 40%?

1:00:17Uh anybody else who has put

1:00:20sustainability front and center, equity

1:00:22front and center? Cuz if we just say,

1:00:25"Oh, it got deployed there and it

1:00:27works." If it works in the desert, it

1:00:29may not work here. So, we do need an

1:00:32apples-to-apples comparison for

1:00:35and what kind of drones as well. It's

1:00:37not just oh, if it's Walmart or Amazon.

1:00:41Is it surveillance? Is it a whole bunch

1:00:43of other drones which we haven't even

1:00:46touched on because this is a land use

1:00:48conversation.

1:00:50Um in the Redmond Comp Plan, we do

1:00:54allude to the notion of privacy, the

1:00:56notion of being responsible with data,

1:01:00the smart city with

1:01:02um

1:01:04with like with some kind of guardrails.

1:01:07We don't have any of that right now. And

1:01:09that is very worrisome to me.

1:01:11Um I would prefer

1:01:14if this has to be something that comes

1:01:16in front, it has to be

1:01:19a lot more. And I have one last

1:01:21question, at least for now.

1:01:24When the IOC happened, uh it was only

1:01:28for the business park and the

1:01:29manufacturing park zones.

1:01:32Now it has extended to all other zones.

1:01:34What changed?

1:01:36What changed between July when this

1:01:38conversation last came to council

1:01:41and now where we are saying hey, let's

1:01:43let's go all over the place with this.

1:01:47I really would like to know what

1:01:49changed. We've expanded the drone zones

1:01:52instead of doing this pilot thing of one

1:01:54land use area.

1:01:56So uh land use designation thing. So,

1:01:59yeah.

1:02:00I want to know what changed. Thank you.

1:02:03>> Any other comments?

1:02:07I I had a more tactical question. Um

1:02:09when I when I was looking at the the the

1:02:11maps,

1:02:12does the

1:02:14does that include water? Cuz I see

1:02:16you've got part of um

1:02:17Lake Sammamish. So, are drone ports

1:02:20allowed on the water?

1:02:23>> Um

1:02:24I don't believe our water is zoned,

1:02:27uh but we have uh shoreline regulations,

1:02:30so it'd be prohibited regardless.

1:02:33>> Okay.

1:02:39>> Any additional questions, comments?

1:02:45This is the opportunity to share the

1:02:46those comments that we can fill the

1:02:48issues matrix and um move forward in a

1:02:50way that's satisfactory to to all of us.

1:02:54>> Okay.

1:02:55So, for me, I have

1:02:57like these are all new questions. I've

1:02:59already sent some to be added to the

1:03:00issue matrix.

1:03:02Um the the idea when you shared the map,

1:03:06you said the residential zones are

1:03:08exempt from having this.

1:03:10But

1:03:12if we have all these drone hubs, they

1:03:14are going to crisscross over the

1:03:16residential hubs.

1:03:18So, I don't see how we can say the

1:03:20residential hubs will not see the noise

1:03:22or will not feel the implications of

1:03:26this. Uh

1:03:27we've got it crisscrossing the city

1:03:29entirely.

1:03:31Um

1:03:32so, how how do we prevent that?

1:03:35>> Uh short answer, you can't um because

1:03:39people can still get deliveries to their

1:03:41private residences. We do not These

1:03:44regulations do not speak to actual

1:03:47flights or deliveries.

1:03:50Um

1:03:50delivery, you know, they can come from

1:03:52any location. Um obviously limited

1:03:54range. Um but um whether they As I said,

1:03:57they fly from Issaquah or Redmond Ridge

1:03:59or Kirkland, um you know, they can

1:04:02deliver to your house, any of our

1:04:04neighbors' uh homes. So, um again, these

1:04:07regulations are really a more about the

1:04:09drone hubs and then um to a lesser

1:04:11extent uh those little delivery boxes

1:04:14type things. But, um if you know, a

1:04:17drone can always just fly to your house

1:04:19and drop a box. So, Yeah, that's what's

1:04:22not being regulated.

1:04:22>> a delivery hub

1:04:24uh let's say 2 miles away from my home.

1:04:28It's in It's in the right zoning area.

1:04:31It's not in a residential. I'm on the

1:04:32edge of the residential. All those

1:04:34takeoffs and things, whether it's

1:04:36delivering to my house or not, it's

1:04:38going to crisscross overhead

1:04:41over the city. The city is not large

1:04:43enough that you can escape out

1:04:47overhead a different flight path which

1:04:50won't cross any of the residential

1:04:52neighborhoods.

1:04:54Um

1:04:56so, I would like to know if there is

1:04:58a solution for that or there's a I know

1:05:01that we cannot

1:05:03control the flight path. I get that.

1:05:05But, isn't that a consideration for us?

1:05:09I put it 2 miles down. It's a

1:05:10consideration for us as commissioners.

1:05:13It is going to be more traffic whether

1:05:15you're delivering to your house or not.

1:05:18And that is That would be on us.

1:05:24>> Okay.

1:05:26>> Commissioner Van Weyenbergh.

1:05:29>> Yeah.

1:05:32I was going to just say on top of

1:05:34Commissioner Partners comments, while we

1:05:37can't control the air over us and all

1:05:40the deliveries coming from neighborhood

1:05:41communities, we can control that does

1:05:44have an impact on what we allow from the

1:05:46drone ports within the city of Redmond.

1:05:48And so as we think about noise, as we

1:05:51think about safety, as we think about

1:05:53quality of life,

1:05:55that I'd like to see more detail in

1:05:58terms of how we're going to mitigate

1:05:59that given what will likely become a

1:06:01very noisy sky above us and potentially

1:06:04a dangerous one

1:06:06without data on how we're going to

1:06:08mitigate this.

1:06:12Commissioner Van Weyenbergh.

1:06:13>> Okay, so what

1:06:14I feel like

1:06:16the timeline you put in front of us is

1:06:18super unreasonable and I would like to

1:06:19really understand the ramifications of

1:06:21not meeting those dates because it just

1:06:23seems like that's especially given the

1:06:25time of year and again the fact that

1:06:27we're down to lower levels of

1:06:29commissioners, like it really just seems

1:06:31like that's we're this is huge.

1:06:35>> Yeah, we we can provide a little bit

1:06:36more detailed slide on kind of what the

1:06:39council's I mean sorry, the commission's

1:06:41recommendation, kind of that process,

1:06:43but ultimately it is driven by the IOC

1:06:47which has a one-year deadline. So

1:06:49council has to make their final decision

1:06:51by April and that we also need council

1:06:54needs times for their schedule and

1:06:56calendar. So that's really what's

1:06:58driving it, but we can provide more

1:07:01detail about that process there.

1:07:09>> You guys are all quiet today. Commission

1:07:11Vice Chair Vice Chair Coleman.

1:07:14>> Yeah, sorry cuz we've been quiet. I'm

1:07:16just writing questions. Um

1:07:19uh

1:07:19when we look at the economic vitality

1:07:22and sustainability pieces, I'd like to

1:07:24see more what actually that means. I I

1:07:26don't understand the economic vitality

1:07:28piece. Um what the difference is going

1:07:30to be? What's the additional amount of

1:07:33economic vitality we'll have in the city

1:07:35because we're going to include drones

1:07:37instead of what we currently have. I

1:07:39don't see anything on that. If there's

1:07:40some of that, I'd like to I'd like to

1:07:42understand what the projections are and

1:07:44what the expectations are for drone

1:07:46deliveries, for example,

1:07:48versus reduced deliveries by um Amazon

1:07:52vehicles. If that's If that's one of the

1:07:53things. What are the reasons and the

1:07:55rationale to say and state that that's

1:07:57part of the Reimagining 2050 um element

1:08:00in terms of economic vitality and

1:08:02sustainability?

1:08:03Well, a lot of the vehicles that are

1:08:05driven by again Amazon are electric. Um

1:08:08I don't understand quite the difference

1:08:10between those things. They're going to

1:08:12be driving around anyway with larger

1:08:13larger deliveries. So, I don't quite get

1:08:16the sustainability piece. So, some

1:08:19projections or data or specificity

1:08:21around that would be helpful. Otherwise,

1:08:22it's a throwaway line that we're trying

1:08:24to throw in here because we know we just

1:08:26have to do it. If that's the case,

1:08:28I'd also say, having been technology for

1:08:30a while, even though you can do it, even

1:08:32though you can do it just doesn't mean

1:08:33you should. Um

1:08:35that worries me a lot that we don't have

1:08:36any control over that. I know what

1:08:38you're saying, Glenn, that it could come

1:08:39from anywhere, but I suspect people

1:08:41won't will be very anti if it just

1:08:43appears from nowhere. That's all.

1:08:54>> Okay. Any other comments?

1:08:59You guys are a quiet bunch tonight.

1:09:06>> Um looking back at slide five again, the

1:09:09business licensing,

1:09:12cuz a lot of the community feedback

1:09:13seems to be concerns that it will be

1:09:16used more for personal delivery, like

1:09:19Amazon type

1:09:20drone deliveries versus um

1:09:25like first responder use, right?

1:09:29Things that impact safety and finding

1:09:32things. So,

1:09:34again,

1:09:35I don't want to open issue that I won't

1:09:37be here to close, but I think some

1:09:39clarity on

1:09:42what the city sees as

1:09:46who will receive, I know that's

1:09:48hypothetical, but how those business

1:09:50licenses will be evaluated.

1:09:53If there are parties you've already

1:09:54identified would likely receive, parties

1:09:57that you've or uses that you the city

1:09:59anticipates

1:10:01it wouldn't grant based on community

1:10:03feedback might help

1:10:06alleviate some of the deep concerns that

1:10:08have

1:10:09been raised and

1:10:13just provide clarity.

1:10:23>> Okay, so if there aren't any additional

1:10:25questions, what I'd love to do is just

1:10:27make sure that we've captured the core

1:10:30concerns that each of you have. Um

1:10:33there's a lot that's been that we've

1:10:34thrown at at at staff and I just really

1:10:36want to make sure I want to go around

1:10:37the room and just make sure that the

1:10:39core one to three things that you want

1:10:41depth of response in

1:10:43um is is surfaced.

1:10:51I'll start with a com- a Commissioner

1:10:53Perena.

1:10:54>> I have already sent my questions in and

1:10:56those would be added, so

1:10:58>> So, those are your core? Okay.

1:10:59>> Yeah, those are the core questions and

1:11:01at the risk of I don't want to repeat

1:11:02myself on that one. I've also asked a

1:11:04couple more core questions, so I'm good.

1:11:07>> Good.

1:11:08Commissioner Van Eyman.

1:11:12>> I I've I think I've made my position

1:11:14clear, right? That I just really feel

1:11:15like you're there's going to need to be

1:11:17a persuasive element involved in all of

1:11:19this, which will require a lot of

1:11:21explanation and regulatory explanation

1:11:24of who controls what and why.

1:11:28Um

1:11:29I think the public comment and

1:11:32my gut again, I feel really old at this

1:11:34point looking at this stuff. Maybe I'm

1:11:36wrong. I mean, maybe we need a younger

1:11:38person's perspective, but

1:11:41I don't think this is going to be

1:11:42received very well and I think the city

1:11:45needs to really flush out all of the

1:11:47positions.

1:11:48I understand we're looking at just the

1:11:50land use part, but

1:11:52um

1:11:54I don't know if if if the city has taken

1:11:56that into account that there's likely to

1:11:59be some resistance to this sort of

1:12:01thing. Um

1:12:03anyway, that's just my advice.

1:12:05>> Okay.

1:12:06Commissioner Ganya, did you want to add

1:12:07anything?

1:12:08>> No, nothing further. Thank you.

1:12:10>> Vice Chair Coleman.

1:12:13>> Yeah, if I can go back on just a few

1:12:15things. I think um one is

1:12:18public comment. Like I don't think that

1:12:21I think we need to understand more what

1:12:23people really think cuz I don't think

1:12:24what we've currently got is good enough

1:12:26uh for people across the city to

1:12:28understand. So, if we're going to do it,

1:12:29we should have a much stronger um

1:12:32feedback mechanism so that more people

1:12:34can actually comment either one way or

1:12:36another. Um that's one. Two, the

1:12:39economic vitality and sustainability

1:12:41pieces. What are the projections there?

1:12:43Can we understand what that looks like?

1:12:45And three, what is the minimum that we

1:12:48would have to do to have this? It feels

1:12:50like we don't have a choice. So, what's

1:12:52the most limited choice that the council

1:12:54could could possibly do

1:12:56um if we have to go through with some

1:12:58form of of drone delivery cuz I think it

1:13:01feels to me like we're at um at being

1:13:03experimented on here in Redmond and I

1:13:05don't think experiments should be large.

1:13:07I think experiments should be small. So,

1:13:09that's that would be the other other

1:13:10comment. What's what's the minimum is

1:13:12necessary to to to follow up to to be

1:13:15able to do this.

1:13:17>> Commissioner Aparna.

1:13:19>> I just wanted to kind of uh talk about

1:13:21what uh Commissioner Coleman just

1:13:23brought up. Um it is

1:13:26I think we need to understand that we

1:13:28could technically say we don't want

1:13:32We should be able to say

1:13:34we like part A, part B, part C

1:13:37all three, all two of the above, or none

1:13:41of the above.

1:13:43I don't think we we can reject the

1:13:46position entirely and say that

1:13:49make a recommendation

1:13:52that if we are not comfortable with it

1:13:54and if there is a rush timeline, we

1:13:57should be able to say, "Hey, we are not

1:13:59comfortable right now. We don't want to

1:14:01have any drone ports, hubs, or any form

1:14:05allowed. If anything flies over, that's

1:14:08not on us.

1:14:09But we should have the ability to reject

1:14:12it and say that there should be a ban on

1:14:15all such things." That is a proposal I

1:14:18I'm tending to make without more data.

1:14:21I'm hoping if somebody's able to give me

1:14:23more stuff, great.

1:14:25Um

1:14:27>> Commissioner Gong.

1:14:29>> Yeah, I just like to echo off what a lot

1:14:31of the other commissioners have

1:14:32commissioners have just said, which is

1:14:33that context would be really, really

1:14:35helpful here. Like for an example

1:14:37one thing that was in this document was

1:14:39the whole

1:14:40you know, overhaul of the definition of

1:14:42drone port and changing it to that like

1:14:44tiered system of like accessory drone

1:14:46hubs and stuff like that. And like you

1:14:47have descriptions of what each of these

1:14:49definitions are, but in essence it's

1:14:51just like big drone thing, medium drone

1:14:54thing, small drone thing, right? And

1:14:56it's like on a day-to-day basis, I'm not

1:14:58going out and I'm like bothered by

1:15:00constant noises of drones around me.

1:15:02It's not a constant issue for me, but I

1:15:05want to know like what the potential

1:15:06consequences of this developing

1:15:08technology are and why like these

1:15:10different different definitions and

1:15:11tiers have made. So why these why a

1:15:14certain type of drone hub is allowed in

1:15:16this space versus not allowed in another

1:15:18space, you know, that kind of clarity

1:15:19would be really, really helpful.

1:15:22>> And I would add, just going back to the

1:15:25to the quality of life, I'd like to

1:15:27understand worst-case scenario, what

1:15:29mitigations, what data do we need to

1:15:31consider to to feel assured that opening

1:15:35up the city of Redmond to drone ports of

1:15:38the three categories you've you've

1:15:39referenced don't really create a bad

1:15:42experience for residents in terms of

1:15:44noise and as as well as in terms of

1:15:47safety.

1:15:48I don't want a drone falling on my dog.

1:15:50I don't want a drone falling on my head

1:15:52or kids parks. So so

1:15:55but I don't have the data to to feel

1:15:57comfortable and confident.

1:16:01All right. So did I leave anyone out?

1:16:05Okay. Commissioner Commissioner Van

1:16:07Eyken.

1:16:07>> understand about this topic. So from a

1:16:09regulatory legal perspective, you say

1:16:11the drones are the deliveries are going

1:16:13to happen anyway.

1:16:15But the the ports have to exist

1:16:17somewhere.

1:16:18The drones have to start somewhere. So

1:16:21as a community

1:16:22like I just keep coming back to the data

1:16:24center thing. Like people are in up in

1:16:26arms over this stuff.

1:16:28And if as a collective community

1:16:32including King County out in Redmond

1:16:34Ridge and Kirkland and Woodinville and

1:16:37Bellevue all said no and I don't know

1:16:39that we're going to I'm just like you

1:16:41you say they're going to come from

1:16:43somewhere. But if all the communities

1:16:45said no, you cannot have a drone port

1:16:47here then where would they come from?

1:16:52>> Well, that leads to a question that was

1:16:54that that building on your question and

1:16:55I think a question that was answered

1:16:56earlier today is is what is the status

1:16:58of all of our surrounding communities.

1:17:00So we're having this conversation today.

1:17:02Where is Bellevue, Kirkland, Sammamish,

1:17:05Woodinville, who have I left the city of

1:17:07Seattle? So all of those are potential

1:17:09places where there are drones drone

1:17:12ports and deliveries.

1:17:14Understanding the status of of those

1:17:16communities helps us understand the

1:17:17magnitude of the impact both positive

1:17:20and quite likely adverse that we would

1:17:23impact that we would feel here in the

1:17:24city of Redmond.

1:17:31>> Yeah. And as we noted I believe Right

1:17:33now from our understanding is Redmond is

1:17:35actually the only city attempting to

1:17:37even provide some regulatory

1:17:39stuff around this. So, they're pretty

1:17:41much fully permitted every other place

1:17:44right now.

1:17:44>> So then if if that's the case, if

1:17:47businesses decide that they want to open

1:17:50up drone ports and drone deliveries in

1:17:52the city of Bellevue or Kirkland or

1:17:54Woodinville,

1:17:55in absence of any

1:17:57policies or regulations, that those

1:18:00cities would be required to say yes,

1:18:02correct?

1:18:04>> Generally, this gets into the nuance of

1:18:07some city codes.

1:18:10How they do administrative

1:18:11interpretations for uses. I know that's

1:18:13going to sound really technical, but

1:18:15there's usually statements in code about

1:18:17how they interpret how interpret

1:18:20undefined uses and generally they're put

1:18:22into existing categories. Um

1:18:25Generally from our quick survey is that

1:18:28most of these cities it is right now

1:18:30allowed by right. So.

1:18:33>> Commissioner Prerna.

1:18:34>> So if

1:18:35we wanted to say not permitted use, is

1:18:38that the term that we would use? If you

1:18:41say, oh, you know what, I don't want to

1:18:42ABC, if somebody else does it and it

1:18:45goes over my head, so be it. Um

1:18:47>> You lean into the mic. Sorry, I can't

1:18:49hear you back here.

1:18:50>> Oh, sorry about that.

1:18:51>> That's That's right.

1:18:52>> What the What the phrase be? And this is

1:18:55where I'm headed because I also read the

1:18:57public comments and they're

1:18:59overwhelmingly

1:19:01against this.

1:19:03Um

1:19:05If if that is the case and we say this

1:19:08should not be a permitted use, would

1:19:11that be the correct phrasing? Or would

1:19:14it be like

1:19:17Like how would we resolve it if we're

1:19:19still not comfortable?

1:19:22>> Yeah, we we we can provide a little bit

1:19:24more detailed um

1:19:26of kind of your options on your

1:19:28recommendation. I think that would help

1:19:30address that

1:19:32and I'd rather get into the more

1:19:34detailed explanation of that than just

1:19:36try try provide you a kind of

1:19:38top level quick answer cuz there is a

1:19:40lot of nuance to the PC's

1:19:42recommendation.

1:19:44>> Vice Chair Coleman.

1:19:46>> Yeah, I I want to ask a very direct

1:19:47question. Like, how how I I I asked this

1:19:49just now, but

1:19:50how much of the public comment

1:19:53is being taken into consideration?

1:19:55And And do you feel you've had enough?

1:20:02>> That is a very subjective question. So,

1:20:04I I will refrain from providing any uh

1:20:06comment on that at the moment.

1:20:09>> I I don't understand why. We've got

1:20:10We've had hundreds or I don't know how

1:20:12many public comment data, you know,

1:20:14surveys done. We have 69 people that

1:20:16have commented on this, but we haven't

1:20:18seen that type of data. I haven't seen

1:20:20that data previously. So, if you don't

1:20:23have an answer now, I'd like to have an

1:20:24answer at some point about what we think

1:20:26about the public comment. If we don't

1:20:27have enough, then how do we get more?

1:20:30Because I think it's going to be a

1:20:31problem if we don't if we leave it and

1:20:34say, "Oh, we got public comment now

1:20:36moving forward." I don't think it's

1:20:37enough if that's the case.

1:20:40So,

1:20:41>> I'd like to just note that we

1:20:42we are going to continue this

1:20:43conversation next week as well. We don't

1:20:45have to get through everything this

1:20:46evening.

1:20:50All right. Thank you, Glenn.

1:20:52Um

1:20:54If we will continue this topic next

1:20:56week, but if any additional questions

1:20:58come up, then you can certainly send

1:21:00them through to staff. We'll make sure

1:21:02they're incorporated into the issues

1:21:03matrix.

1:21:05Also, just note that

1:21:06>> because the meeting is next Wednesday,

1:21:08our package usually finished today. So,

1:21:10we'll try our best to get all these onto

1:21:13issues matrix, but probably will not be

1:21:15able to provide responses for those, but

1:21:18um

1:21:19>> Yeah.

1:21:19>> But

1:21:19>> I have

1:21:20>> that at the November, but again, we'll

1:21:22try to capture as best we can before we

1:21:23publish um you know, tomorrow um or

1:21:26Friday, but um just keep that in

1:21:28consideration.

1:21:29>> I I appreciate that. It's such an

1:21:31important topic. We really want to make

1:21:32sure that we have the

1:21:33>> all day so it's [laughter] going to take

1:21:34me a while to to not ignore for you that

1:21:37stuff.

1:21:37>> We'll keep you busy then. But thank you

1:21:38so much. Really appreciate it. and

1:21:40forward to the following conversation.

1:21:42All right. So, let's move to the final

1:21:43agenda item, and that's staff and

1:21:45commissioner updates.

1:21:49Um so, just yeah, as

1:21:51as was just pointed out, we are going to

1:21:54our holiday special meeting schedule

1:21:56starting next week, um November 4th. Um

1:21:59we will have a meeting um just also a

1:22:02note uh the mayor will be joining us at

1:22:05the start of the meeting just as a a

1:22:07greetings from from their office. Um and

1:22:11a greetings to our new youth advisers as

1:22:13well. Um so, Sione, if you are able to

1:22:16uh Commissioner Gagne, if you are able

1:22:17to attend next week, that would be

1:22:18wonderful at least for the start of the

1:22:20meeting.

1:22:21Um also to note um I'd like to say

1:22:25uh from staff uh a thank you to

1:22:28Commissioner Gagne for your service.

1:22:29This will be your last meeting um for

1:22:32your uh attention to detail, especially

1:22:35most recently,

1:22:36um and your thoughtful comments over

1:22:39your tenure as planning commissioner.

1:22:41So, thank you.

1:22:44I'd like to echo that. Really has been

1:22:46such a pleasure and such a valuable

1:22:49contributor to this commission, Danny uh

1:22:51Commissioner Gagne. We're going to miss

1:22:52you terribly. Uh really appreciative of

1:22:55the service you've given to the city and

1:22:57to the commission. Thank you. Thank you.

1:22:59>> Yeah, thank you all. I did want to you

1:23:01know, the decision to

1:23:03um resign before the end of my term was

1:23:06not you know, I

1:23:08I have a new

1:23:10be taking on a new role. That role that

1:23:12I'm taking on soon ethically prevents me

1:23:15from being able to sit on the commission

1:23:17any further. That's the only reason that

1:23:19I'm leaving the commission is because

1:23:20I'm professionally required to do so.

1:23:23This experience has been

1:23:25uh

1:23:26absolutely wonderful. It has made me

1:23:28love and appreciate my city more. I

1:23:31appreciate my fellow commissioners who

1:23:33have been patient with me when I've

1:23:34needed things repeated, who have

1:23:37um inspired really thoughtful

1:23:40ways that I have changed the way that

1:23:42I'm looking at things. Staff has been

1:23:44remarkable. Dr. Morton has

1:23:47all of his weekly um comments, I'm, you

1:23:51know, in full transparency, I don't

1:23:53always look at things through a lens of

1:23:55um environmental impact, and hearing you

1:23:57week after week spend your personal time

1:24:00to come here to make sure that the

1:24:01commission is taking things into

1:24:02consideration has expanded, right, my

1:24:06lens and the way that I'm looking at

1:24:07things. So, I'm deeply appreciative to

1:24:09the staff, to the community who've come

1:24:11here, and to my fellow commissioners,

1:24:13and I hope that we all keep in touch,

1:24:14and I hope that you all will take some

1:24:16of the treats that I brought back there.

1:24:21>> Thanks, Denise.

1:24:24>> With that said,

1:24:26I look for a motion to adjourn.

1:24:29>> So moved.

1:24:31>> Second.

1:24:33>> All in favor?

1:24:34>> Aye.

1:24:34>> Aye.

1:24:34>> Aye.

1:24:35>> Aye.

1:25:50>> Mhm.

```*