2026-11-04 - Planning Commission

00:421999

04:00>> to go.

04:03>> Yeah, he'll

04:04Abraham

04:11>> We're live.

04:15>> Welcome to the November 4, 2026 meeting

04:17of the Redmond Planning Commission.

04:20I'd like to call this meeting to order.

04:22We'll start with a roll call.

04:23Commissioner Parna.

04:24>> Present.

04:25>> Commissioner Gong.

04:26>> Present.

04:27>> Commissioner Bisht.

04:28>> Present.

04:28>> Vice Chair Coleman.

04:30>> Present.

04:31>> Commissioner Van Nyman.

04:33>> Present.

04:33>> And Commissioner Zishuan.

04:36I'd like to thank the following staff

04:37for being present tonight.

04:39>> Present.

04:41>> She didn't say present. Sorry.

04:43>> Good. I just said that.

04:46>> I I heard something else.

04:47>> And I like to thank the following staff

04:49for being present tonight. Sarah Fialen,

04:50Lauren Anderson, Cameron Sabada, Becky

04:53Fry, Glenn Coyle, and Abraham Mowenda.

04:56And I like to just note for the record a

04:57warm welcome to our newest member of the

04:59commission, Commissioner Zishuan.

05:01Otherwise known as

05:03>> Thank you, everyone.

05:04Glad to be here.

05:06>> I'd like to now welcome Mayor Angela

05:07Birney, who will share a few words with

05:09us. Mayor Birney, the floor is yours.

05:12>> Well, good evening, everybody. I am so

05:14happy to be here with you just for a few

05:17minutes just to say hello and we have a

05:19new commissioner. Welcome. And really

05:22thank all of you for the work that you

05:24do. I I know we have people in the

05:26public who are listening and in the

05:28audience and our staff, but the Planning

05:30Commission work is so vital to the work

05:32of the city and it's just foundational

05:35to how we move forward with all of the

05:37work in planning and development. We you

05:40know, as some of you know because you've

05:42been a part of the commission for a

05:43while, we're really robust work on

05:45Redmond 2050 and how important that is

05:49for our community and to grow from a

05:51city from a suburb to a city

05:53into the next 20 plus years.

05:56And now we're into a different phase

05:58with the Planning Commission where I'm

05:59working on the docket, which is for some

06:01of you will be a new experience.

06:03But but also, you know, we're a and

06:06developing city and so there's a lot of

06:08exciting things that come before you. I

06:10know you're talking about drones tonight

06:13um and there's just you know that and so

06:16many other things will be coming before

06:17you as this year progresses. Um I also

06:20want to thank the planning commissioners

06:22for having um youth advocates on. I know

06:25we have our inaugural two with us and um

06:29I'm so grateful that you both um and

06:31your very busy lives are willing to

06:32spend a little time with the city. Um

06:34this is a this is a uh

06:36I would say uh a very robust

06:39commission. Some of our commissions have

06:42a little lighter work to them to prepare

06:44for the meetings but planning commission

06:46is um has a lot of reading and thought

06:50that goes into each one of these

06:51meetings and I just want to share with

06:53you how much I appreciate each and every

06:54one of you and the work that you put

06:56into this and um it shows in our in our

06:59city um as things develop and grow. Um I

07:02hope that you can do what I did. I used

07:04to be on the Parks and Trails Commission

07:06and I can look around and see some of

07:07the things that happened when I was on

07:09that and now they're part of the city.

07:11Hopefully now for some of you and then

07:14in the future for some others of you you

07:16can look around the city and say I had a

07:18hand in that and that's why this the

07:20city is so wonderful because of the work

07:22that I put in and the commission put in

07:24um to making Redmond such a wonderful

07:26place to be. So

07:28I just want to thank you. That's why I'm

07:29here today. I didn't know if you had any

07:31questions for me and I know you have a

07:32long agenda. I don't want to hold you up

07:35but if anyone had any questions for me

07:37I'm happy to answer them and if not

07:40I will let you get back to work.

07:42Yes, Tara.

07:44>> As long as you're here you can tell us

07:45about the other two open positions and

07:47how things are coming on that.

07:49>> Uh for the council for the planning

07:50commission. You know actually the best

07:52person to talk about that is Glenn.

07:55[laughter]

07:56So I think we have two we have two

07:58openings.

07:59Glenn?

08:01>> Uh yes. We were going to save that to

08:02the end of the meeting but uh yes we are

08:04currently advertising for the additional

08:06positions

08:08And that will close this Friday.

08:12>> Yeah. And

08:14so if anyone's listening in the public

08:16or if you have friends out there, you

08:17know, please share that this is a really

08:20amazing commission to be a part of. We

08:22need community members to volunteer

08:24their time, but it really

08:26the the fruit is in. As you see the city

08:28grow, you know you've had a hand in it.

08:29And I think for a lot of people that's

08:30really important to be a part of the

08:32city. So more to come on that.

08:36There's any other questions for me?

08:38All right. Well, once again, thank you

08:40all so much for the work that you're

08:42doing and I look forward to seeing you

08:44around town and

08:46hopefully I will be scheduling this

08:48every year. So I'm I'm around. And

08:50please say hi if you see me. Thank you

08:52all.

08:53>> Thank you very much, Mayor Bernie.

08:56Thank you.

08:59I'd like to now shift attention to

09:03a motion to approve the agenda for this

09:04week.

09:06>> So moved.

09:08>> Second.

09:09>> All in favor?

09:10>> Aye.

09:10>> The agenda is approved. Are there any

09:12corrections to meeting summary from

09:14October 28th?

09:18Okay. I look for a motion to approve the

09:19meeting summary from October 28th.

09:21>> So moved.

09:22>> Second.

09:23>> All in favor?

09:24>> Aye.

09:25>> Aye.

09:25>> Aye.

09:25>> Thank you. That is approved.

09:28It's now time for us to hear a public

09:30comment and items from the audience. We

09:32have one member from the from the

09:35the public who's going to be speaking

09:36this evening and that is

09:38David Morton.

09:44>> [clears throat and cough]

09:47>> Good evening. Oh.

09:49>> David, please state your name and

09:50address. And you have, just as a

09:52reminder, three minutes.

09:54>> Thank you.

09:55Good evening, commissioners. I'm David

09:57Morton, Redmond 98053.

10:00On commercial drones, the evidence shows

10:03real measurable noise effects.

10:05Australian government testing measured

10:07delivery drones at 69 decibels from 15

10:11meters, well above Canberra's 45 decibel

10:14daytime residential limit. Nesting birds

10:17show more disturbance at low altitude

10:20near hubs, but I found no study of

10:22repeated daily hub flights. The FAA says

10:26operators, not the FAA, choose hub

10:29locations. So Redmond's zoning decides

10:32siting.

10:33Washington's [clears throat] attorney

10:34general joined 14 other states suing the

10:38FAA, saying its nationwide drone

10:40delivery review failed to adequately

10:43analyze environmental impacts. I ask the

10:46commission to require site-specific

10:48environmental review for every proposed

10:51hub and measure noise levels at

10:53neighboring residential property lines.

10:55And please address conflicting

10:57definitions. Accessory hubs get one pad

11:00in the technical committee report, two

11:02in the presentation.

11:03On the tree code, I support staff's

11:06recommended edits, and I ask for four

11:08strengthening changes. First, make

11:11third-party review of arborist reports

11:13mandatory, not discretionary, whenever a

11:16hazard finding or the impervious surface

11:19provision in 2172100C2

11:23[clears throat] is used to justify

11:24removing trees. In staff's example, a

11:27project is exempt from the 35% retention

11:31requirement when that requirement would

11:33keep it under 85% of its allowed

11:36impervious surface. Optional review is

11:39not oversight when the applicant's

11:41consultant decides.

11:43Second, I support one-to-one replacement

11:46for hazard trees and a planning

11:48inspection to confirm that replacements

11:50were planted. Together, these close the

11:53loophole where a hazard label means no

11:56replacement. Inspections work only if

11:59enough staff exist to perform them.

12:01Third, please recommend that council

12:03fund the urban forestry program

12:05administrator in the 2027 to 28 budget

12:09along with the updated canopy plan.

12:12Staff say an arborist may be considered

12:14someday. Enforcement cannot wait for

12:17someday.

12:18Fourth, the canopy data are stale. The

12:21tree canopy strategic plan dates to

12:232019. New LiDAR data arrived November

12:2716th, but processing takes months and

12:29may not finish before your

12:31recommendation. Please direct staff to

12:34commit to a date for a follow-up

12:36amendment once the data are processed

12:38rather than an open-ended promise.

12:40With canopy around 37% against a 40%

12:44goal, the code should be tested against

12:46current numbers, not 2023 numbers. These

12:49changes keep your November 18th schedule

12:52intact while giving the city tools to

12:54verify claims, enforce the code, and

12:57measure results. Thank you.

13:00>> Thank you.

13:01Are there any other items from the

13:03audience?

13:05>> There is not.

13:06>> Okay, [snorts] great. Thank you.

13:08We're going to transition to our first

13:10agenda item for this evening, and that

13:11is the commercial drones regulation

13:14study session. And so the Planning

13:16Commission is just going to continue

13:18discussion on the proposed revenue

13:19zoning code

13:21amendments that are regulating

13:22commercial drone land uses in

13:24preparation for our public hearing,

13:26which is on November 18th.

13:28So Glenn, why don't you get us started

13:30with our with your presentation? And

13:32then we'll follow that with the issues

13:34matrix.

13:44Can you hear me now? Is it working?

13:46Okay, thank you.

13:51>> All right. Good evening, commissioners.

13:53Glenn Coyle, senior planner in

13:54long-range planning.

13:55Last week, we presented to the Planning

13:57Commission the proposed

14:00commercial drone land use regulations.

14:03The Planning Commission had a robust

14:04discussion and a number of questions,

14:06which staff have started an issues

14:07matrix for, and we will continue that

14:09discussion tonight.

14:13I'll provide a brief presentation that

14:14goes further into the background and why

14:16the Planning Commission is considering

14:17these zoning code amendments at this

14:19time, as well as provide some assistance

14:21on the Planning Commission's options for

14:23its recommendations.

14:26Uh before I begin, I wanted to

14:28acknowledge and thank Dr. Morton for

14:30identifying the typo in the definitions

14:32of the proposed code included in the

14:34technical committee report. Uh the

14:36correct proposed definitions were

14:37included in the commission's memo and

14:39presentation materials. Uh we have

14:41updated that attachment and added notes

14:43about the correction including on the

14:45website.

14:49Okay, this slide uh provides some

14:51background on commercial drone

14:53operations. It has been grown as a means

14:55for delivering items from grocery

14:57stores, pharmacies, and restaurants.

14:59Um there are at least four operators in

15:01the US market, all with different models

15:04of delivery.

15:05Amazon operates its own network,

15:07currently serving at least 10 metro

15:09areas and expanding to five additional

15:12by the end of the year, serving nearly

15:14500 communities.

15:15Other businesses, such as Walmart,

15:18utilize a drone delivery company called

15:20Wing for its deliveries. Another major

15:22service is provided by Zipline, who has

15:25partnered with Pagliacci's, um local

15:27chain, as well as other fast food chains

15:30including Wendy's, Chipotle, and

15:31Popeyes.

15:33Um also in some markets, they also

15:34partner with Walmart.

15:37And just want to note that the graphics

15:38on the left are from the FAA webpage

15:41and that there are also numerous sources

15:42on the internet that provide a lot of

15:45more additional information about

15:46commercial drones.

15:50Okay, Redmond itself has one permitted

15:52drone tower or port at the new

15:54Pagliacci's in downtown.

15:56Um this was approved uh in early 2025.

16:00As there were no zoning regulations at

16:01the time of permitting, it is currently

16:03allowed, but we are not aware if it has

16:05actually been added yet.

16:08So that brings us to the official

16:10interim control and why the city voted

16:12to go this route.

16:14The city started getting inquiries about

16:16potential drone hubs and where they

16:18could locate.

16:19As this was a novel land use, the city

16:21did not have a clear answer and also

16:24identified potential community concerns.

16:27The city had one vested project and was

16:29concerned that other projects could vest

16:31before the city could research and enact

16:33zoning regulations utilizing the normal

16:36amendment zoning code amendment process.

16:39So the city recommended an interim

16:41official control, which is basically an

16:44emergency zoning regulation that can be

16:46adopted and become effective immediately

16:48while permanent regulations are being

16:50developed.

16:51Uh this IOC allowed drone ports in the

16:54manufacturing park and industry zones,

16:56which is where other delivery and

16:58logistics hubs are located such as UPS,

17:01FedEx, and US in the US Postal Service.

17:04And council adopted this IOC in April.

17:09Council is required to hold a public

17:11hearing, which was held on June 2nd.

17:13Council received public testimony from

17:15community members concerning safety,

17:17privacy, noise, and regulatory approach

17:19and received written testimony

17:21concerning the same.

17:23Council found that the limited drone

17:24land uses adopted in the IOC did not

17:27address the noted community concerns.

17:30Following the hearing, council voted to

17:32amend Ordinance 3257 to further prohibit

17:35commercial drone land uses in the

17:37manufacturing park and industry zones.

17:41Due to the amendment, council held an

17:44additional public hearing in late July

17:46affirming the amendment in the work plan

17:48to develop zoning code regulations.

17:51Although not part of the IOC

17:54or the council's work plan, the city has

17:56identified other areas to manage

17:59commercial drone operations such as

18:01through business licensing, and that

18:03process is ongoing.

18:07Um

18:09we generally have one year to adopt

18:11permanent regulations or the or the IOC

18:13expires, but council does have the

18:16option to extend by six months if they

18:18hold an updated public hearing and adopt

18:21updated findings of fact.

18:25Sorry, I had to jump slides there a

18:26little bit. So, this returns us to the

18:28planning commission's role in this

18:29process. As a reminder,

18:32this process is laid out in the

18:34Redmond zoning code. The planning

18:36commission is to review proposed

18:38regulations for consistency with the

18:40comp plan and make a recommendation to

18:42council.

18:43Recommendations could be to regulate

18:45drones as drafted or with changes and

18:48could range from allowing all types,

18:50some types with or without modification

18:52to the special regulations or zoning

18:54districts or to allow none. And those

18:57options are laid out here.

18:59And that concludes my remarks and I turn

19:02it back to the chair for discussion.

19:03Thank you.

19:08>> [clears throat]

19:08>> Great. Thank you very much for this

19:10update.

19:12What I'm going to recommend is that this

19:15is normally when we would shift gears to

19:18the issues matrix, but since the issues

19:20matrix is

19:23Can you guys hear me now? I don't know

19:25what's wrong with my mic.

19:27This is normally a time where we review

19:29the issues matrix, but since the issues

19:31matrix is not complete and we don't have

19:33responses to questions,

19:36can staff commit to taking the written

19:40comments from Vice Chair Coleman and

19:43commissioners Aparna and myself and

19:45others including public comments and

19:48include them

19:49in

19:50the November 18th package

19:53with responses so that we can have a

19:56more efficient, robust conversation

19:58that's contextually

20:00relevant.

20:02>> Yeah, we are currently working on

20:04responses and

20:06we should have responses for most of the

20:07questions by that date, so

20:09>> Okay.

20:10>> We we will have something to provide for

20:12discussion.

20:13>> Okay, and and include that. So, that's

20:14fantastic. So then what I think would be

20:16a really good use of of of everyone's

20:19time is if we

20:21invite comments from commissioners on

20:24comments, questions, issues

20:28that are coming up from the presentation

20:29that we've seen tonight or any major

20:31concerns that are net new to what has

20:35already been shared in the last meeting

20:37and in the written comments. And we

20:39really want to make sure that we have

20:40captured all of the

20:42outstanding questions so that you have

20:44so the staff has sufficient time to

20:46respond.

20:49>> Yes.

20:50>> Yeah. Okay.

20:51That works for you? Okay.

20:55>> Okay. So I I do feel

20:57like this addresses some of my questions

20:59from last week and that it it lays

21:02things out a little bit better. I like

21:04page six where it walks through the IOC

21:07and the recommendation and the

21:08rationale. The part that I still

21:12want flushed out a little bit more

21:16is

21:19under what

21:24terms did the was for example the

21:27Pagliacci one the one that has been

21:30we call vested which I'm struggling with

21:32that terminology a little bit

21:35like approved effectively, right? What

21:38was the

21:41We're saying the regulations do not

21:43currently exist

21:45to adequately address

21:47this issue today.

21:49So we put a hold on things, but what

21:51snuck through using what

21:54exactly? Like

21:56and we talked about how the like in the

21:58absence of any regulations the the

22:00default position is that this stuff just

22:02gets approved.

22:04And I'm curious what is it in the

22:05current land use code that allows them

22:09to do this

22:10like

22:12and I would want to see that just

22:13flushed out a little bit better in that

22:14language.

22:16Does does my question make sense?

22:18>> I Glenn, do you mind if I jump in?

22:20[clears throat]

22:20And sorry, I was going to also add too.

22:22I wanted to name something we talked

22:24about today is that the we recognize

22:26this these questions are also outside of

22:28the land use regulations, which is while

22:30it's the role of the

22:32um main role for the planning commission

22:34to look more at the land use regulations

22:36that we also want to document all the

22:37other kinds of questions that you're

22:39raising too and that

22:40um in what we've discussed if it's all

22:42right with the commission is kind of

22:43making sure we break out in the issue

22:45matrix items that are more

22:48um specific to the planning commission's

22:50role for land use and then questions

22:53that are related to maybe the more like

22:54the business license or the privacy and

22:56some of the other things. Um so those

22:58are documented uh and that will go

23:01also to um council but it won't be a

23:04part of that kind of technical work that

23:06planning commission does and so I'm

23:08seeing head nods if that works for you

23:10all just in terms of a process.

23:12>> Yeah I would say it works because it

23:14provides the context that the the

23:17questions that we have within our scope

23:19can be more thoroughly explored and and

23:21and and addressed so it works for me.

23:23Does anyone have any um

23:25opposition

23:26commissioner Aparna?

23:28>> I would like to uh emphasize

23:31into the mic. I would like to emphasize

23:34commissioner [clears throat] Van Niman's

23:36question

23:37uh just to understand uh if something is

23:40not mentioned in the land use code

23:42like

23:43nuclear plant, right? No I'm I'm giving

23:46extreme examples. It's not listed as a

23:48non-permissible use anywhere.

23:50>> Yeah.

23:50>> So does that mean if somebody comes in

23:53they like

23:54because what what I'm getting at is

23:56there was there's no and there was no

23:59environmental review related to the

24:01Pagliacci thing, right? A permit was

24:03given.

24:04So how does that work? That part of the

24:06land use thing I think is very key to

24:09understand as a commission also for

24:12everything that we do. So do we go with

24:15the assumption that

24:17things are explicitly denied

24:20or do we say what is here is true and

24:23everything else outside of it is also

24:25true, right?

24:27Uh so a legal interpretation of how this

24:31is applied would be really really

24:33useful. Um, and I really like her

24:36question on this and I just want to kind

24:39of emphasize

24:40just for our understanding of it. So.

24:43>> And I I can get to that get get to that

24:45question. I just wanted to check on the

24:47format of how we do responses first and

24:49whether that was amenable to the

24:50commission.

24:51>> Right. Thank you.

24:53>> So just to be clear, does anyone um

24:55disagree with the format that um staff

24:58has presented? No? Okay.

25:01>> Um, and then to answer the other part of

25:03your question on that, we can definitely

25:05have um our city attorney join later to

25:09answer what we've seen as some of the

25:10legal questions which we're working on

25:12with them on getting responses, but I

25:13think might be useful in a future

25:15meeting and

25:16um she she has said she'd be able to

25:18join and then um in terms of the

25:20question you're asking for like

25:21development staff and um how how how it

25:24worked previously, we can um check in

25:26with the planners, but typically and

25:28right, this is a new use and not

25:31everything we have in the code or zoning

25:33code is something that we have already

25:35prescribed and as these are new

25:36technologies, we're then having to

25:38update our land use codes and update

25:40government is trying to move at the

25:41speed of industry and so this is

25:43Redmond's attempt to move at the speed

25:45of industry and so you know a lot of

25:47these other cities and places, they have

25:49not designated or created drone ports as

25:52a separate land use regulation. They've

25:54just um made them accessory to other

25:58types of land uses and allowed them in

26:00certain areas by right. That's

26:01happening. I think um Glenn mentioned in

26:03Federal Way and Tacoma and other cities.

26:06We heard from community and folks as

26:09these kind of things were coming forward

26:11that there was some real concerns and so

26:13thought that it by we are being

26:15responsive to what we thought our

26:17community would have to bring this

26:19forward as kind of a separate

26:21regulation, which is what brought us

26:22here tonight. And so when you kind of

26:24talk about it slipping forward, I don't

26:26think it was a slip. I think it was just

26:28more of a determination at the time

26:29because it's something that's relatively

26:32When we started hearing from some of

26:33these other companies, the size of what

26:35they were talking about wanting to do a

26:37larger operation, that's when I think

26:40staff were like, whoa, hold on, we need

26:42to check in and make sure that um this

26:44kind of follows at more of a community

26:46process. And that's why the interim

26:48official control happened in the way

26:50that it happened. If we could rewind and

26:53say, hold on everyone, wait to

26:55uh ask for your permit until we have an

26:57opportunity to create some land use

26:59regulations, maybe that's the way that

27:01we would do do that. We wanted to make

27:03sure then that's hence hence what the

27:05interim official control is for is for

27:07when these kind of emerging things are

27:09coming forward and we don't have uh use

27:11to be able to put that towards. Does

27:13that help kind of understand a little

27:15bit more the situation that we're in?

27:17Oh, and then back to your CEQA question.

27:19We I know Glenn's answered that. We are

27:21in the middle of um we'll be including

27:23that in um later parts of the packet.

27:25And again, we because we're trying to

27:27move at the speed of where industry is

27:29at is why we don't have everything in

27:31the traditional ways that we sometimes

27:33always do. And that's that's what we're

27:35working towards, but we'll definitely

27:36make sure that that is included.

27:39Yep.

27:41>> Are there any other commission Vice

27:43Chair Coleman?

27:45>> I'm I just want to

27:47have a question that's outside of the

27:49land use thing or somewhat, but I want

27:51to say thank you for explaining that for

27:53us um and and looking to get ahead of

27:56potential regulations we don't have in

27:58place totally understand that that's

27:59actually helpful. Um I'm curious because

28:02about

28:04where this is already happening because

28:06I know there's background on why we've

28:08we've we thought about that as as a

28:10council. Um but I was looking at the map

28:12in America, right? And there's say

28:15there's 24 places where there's

28:17effectively, you know, this is happening

28:19already and, you know, particularly for

28:21some reason particularly in northeast

28:22Texas, very exciting in northeast Texas

28:24with drones. Um

28:26but what it doesn't say is, first of

28:28all,

28:29where are other things coming up? What

28:31other parts of the country are on cusp

28:33of this. And in particular, in

28:36Washington State, what's happening in

28:39this state in relation to you talk about

28:41Tacoma, but you know, what's happening

28:43on the other side of the other side of

28:44the mountains or you know, somewhere

28:46else.

28:47And and is there an interconnectivity

28:49here? Because that's one of the

28:51questions we were having last week like

28:53so what's happening in Kirkland? What's

28:54happening in Bellevue? But actually my

28:55question's bigger than that. What's

28:56happening in Washington State and what's

28:58happening elsewhere that we're not

29:00seeing? Because on this map it says

29:02there's 24 places and my question

29:03initially would be why little old

29:05Redmond? Because they're doing it in

29:06Arizona, but why why isn't there you

29:08know, why is it why is it here? So I'm

29:10just in general I think people would

29:12want to understand in the community like

29:14what's what's the emphasis and impetus

29:16and reason and some of that is like

29:18what's the volume of this stuff coming

29:19up? Like is this just going to happen in

29:21America and nobody's going to notice

29:22until it just appears? I don't know.

29:25>> I think that's a good question and I

29:26know Glenn has done more research on and

29:29talked to other communities, but I guess

29:31the best the other example I could think

29:32of I think it went like Uber and Lyft

29:34first started and they were popping up

29:36in cities and we weren't sure how to

29:39regulate that like new use. See this is

29:42something kind of similar to that,

29:43right? And seeing and you know, and what

29:45we've also heard from a lot of these

29:47companies is not seeing themselves much

29:49different than delivery trucks in a lot

29:51of ways and should they be regulated

29:52different than delivery trucks and

29:54that's um you know, how how a lot of the

29:56how that's come to pass in a lot of

29:58these other communities. I think what

30:00we've heard is from our community is

30:02that they wanted us to look at this in a

30:03different way. Um

30:05I don't know how to answer in the

30:07future. I when I first heard of it I

30:09thought of the

30:10um you know, Star Wars little delivery

30:13drones, right? Those kinds of things. I

30:15think this is going to be a new emerging

30:16thing and 10 years from now we might

30:18look back at this conversation and laugh

30:20at ourselves of what we were trying to

30:22to manage. Um so I guess that's the kind

30:24of simple answer I think to say, but

30:26Glenn maybe you can talk a little bit

30:28more about what we've heard from other

30:29communities as well.

30:33>> Yeah um

30:35really a lot of the information

30:37available is what we hear in the news.

30:40Um,

30:41you know, there was a New York Times

30:43article uh a couple weeks ago, last

30:45month. Um, that was actually a lightning

30:48um

30:49you know, I tend to you know, skim

30:51newspapers just for a lot of different

30:53stuff. I know there's um Amazon was also

30:57proposing some uh projects in

30:59Massachusetts that where I'm from. So,

31:01you know, I I track the Boston Globe. Uh

31:03but

31:04you know, generally a lot of what we're

31:05hearing from other communities, apart

31:06from you know, that we actually directly

31:08had reached out to uh especially for the

31:10IOC, like where we knew there was

31:12operations like in Texas and stuff like

31:14that, a lot of it we're just really

31:16hearing from from the media um

31:19that's going on. And a lot of these

31:20companies the the important thing is

31:22they work directly with cities or

31:24counties on this and those kind of

31:26negotiations of course

31:28unless we're actually looking at

31:29building permits for the thousands of

31:31cities and counties in America, there

31:33would sometimes be difficult to actually

31:35know what's going on everywhere.

31:36>> Now, that's that's helpful. Just one

31:38let's just a quick follow-up there.

31:40Thank you for that, both of those

31:41answers. Um, I think it was Wilmington,

31:43right? Was it in Wilmington in

31:44Massachusetts? Is that right?

31:46>> It was actually Westborough.

31:47>> Okay. Okay. Yeah, I was just I I knew it

31:49started with the W. Um,

31:51the question the follow-up though was

31:54the thing the thing that I feel is is

31:56missing somewhere is how we address this

31:59within the state as a whole and even

32:01locally within um you know, Kirkland,

32:04Redmond, Bellevue. I'm not talked to

32:07somebody last night, won't mention who

32:08said, hey, we haven't had conversations

32:10about this in Kirkland. I'm like,

32:11really? That's interesting. Um, they're

32:14only over there. So, I'd encourage us to

32:17if if it's not happening to understand

32:19I'd like love to understand what's

32:20happening maybe even just in King County

32:22and and and how councils are addressing

32:24that together.

32:25>> Yeah, so I I can answer that because we

32:27so we um Glenn has reached out to ask

32:29other cities because as we said, part of

32:31this was that we heard some and I want

32:33to be clear, there were no um companies

32:35that had been filing permits or things.

32:37They just they also wanted to be

32:39followed. They knew this is a new use

32:41and wanted to know how they could work

32:43with us to work with communities. So I

32:44want to be clear about that too. Um that

32:47there's uh we didn't have anyone saying

32:49they were going to be citing um but that

32:51they wanted to work with us. Um

32:53[clears throat and cough] and

32:55um the uh second part of that is that we

32:57um have been talking to different cities

32:59and I brought I brought this topic up a

33:01couple times on our planning directors

33:03call which includes all of our our King

33:04County um folks and I also was at the

33:06planning directors conference in

33:08September and asked if they'd heard it

33:10and people were like, oh, we have kind

33:12of heard about it, but what are you

33:13doing? We'd like to know what you're

33:14doing. So we've [clears throat] been

33:15getting a lot of questions and people

33:17asking and seeing actually because we

33:20ended up taking this direction with the

33:21interim official control and um

33:24need to work on creating these

33:25regulations now because of that that

33:27they're really interested in knowing how

33:29we're how we're going to be approaching

33:31it um as well.

33:33>> And I was going to just add one thing.

33:34Um I I know that um the FAA doesn't have

33:37any influence outside the United States,

33:40but are are there any innovative

33:42approaches that we're seeing from our

33:43neighbors up north or elsewhere in in

33:46Europe or Asia that we might learn from?

33:48I know the context is different, but

33:50there may be some areas of of learning

33:52and insight that we might gain.

33:57>> I think the challenge is the regulatory

33:59environments are so different. Uh we did

34:02have some example pictures of operations

34:04in other countries, but

34:06um

34:07how they frame that might be a little

34:10challenging to apply to Washington with

34:12our

34:13laws. So I think there's definitely

34:16inspiration especially seeing how they

34:19operate in different countries, but

34:21when it gets to the nitty-gritty of like

34:24staff and regulatory processes, I I

34:26don't you know, it'd be a challenge to

34:28kind of mimic that just

34:31different context. Um

34:33>> Commissioner Aparna.

34:35>> I was just curious uh if these

34:38conversations are happening at the state

34:39level, right? Let's say we approve of

34:41something, right? And how do we put the

34:43genie back in the bottle if it goes

34:45backwards or we fine yeah, we think oh,

34:49we thought it's going to be delivery

34:51drones, but it turns out to be

34:52surveillance and everybody's up in arms

34:54like

34:55the flaw camera thing happened, right? I

34:56mean, it's perfectly reasonable and it's

34:59a real fear and the public comments are

35:01saying so as well. So

35:04what would happen? How how how do you

35:06put that genie back in the bottle? Um

35:09because you've already given the

35:10licenses, you've already permitted the

35:12land use. Typically these things are

35:14very hard to ungrandfather

35:18you know, sort of. I don't know what the

35:19word is, but yeah.

35:21>> I I just also just want to on the

35:23earlier topic regarding other

35:25communities and statewide at the same

35:27time was that

35:29the Washington Department of

35:30Transportation Aviation Division had

35:33developed and put out a white paper on

35:35on drone regulation, commercial drone

35:37regulations and they actually cited

35:40Redmond's IOC and that we were actually

35:42the like the only community in the state

35:44to actually attempt at regulatory stuff.

35:48We've also heard

35:49from MSRC which does the the municipal

35:53data stuff.

35:54They're also interested in hearing kind

35:56of what Redmond's doing

35:58just so they can update some of their

36:00materials on on commercial drone

36:02delivery. So we actually are the kind of

36:04innovator one, but there is some

36:06conversations at the state level like at

36:08at Washington and stuff like that. So

36:11>> One And sir, I wanted to add

36:13>> Just one moment, please. Um staff.

36:15>> That Glenn had I mean, the the I know

36:18that the a lot of the regulations too

36:20are what Glenn specifically modeled

36:22after the Washington guidance that we

36:23received. That was not there before when

36:25the IOC was created and then they

36:27created some and so we were like

36:28fantastic something to refer back to

36:30that's at the state and I know that

36:32there had been some questions around the

36:35kind of drone coordination office.

36:37That's an attempt to answer and what the

36:40council has been discussing and this

36:42will be this is why this will kind of be

36:43more of a full council package is um

36:47something does go wrong who to contact.

36:49And so that is a part of um not related

36:52to the land use but connected that um

36:55we're be going to be working with our um

36:58other departments and the council to

36:59help try and address um.

37:02>> Okay. And I want before we go back to

37:04Commissioner Parno, I want to just uh

37:05look around the room and see if there's

37:07any other commissioners with questions.

37:09Commissioner is this one?

37:11[snorts]

37:12I'm going to get I'm going to get it

37:13right, I promise.

37:14>> Thank you. So I do have a couple of

37:16questions and apologize um if I can

37:18organize my question very well since

37:20this is my first meeting.

37:22[snorts] Uh so

37:24when we talk about land use and how this

37:27align with the land use

37:30um and then we use like Tacoma some

37:33other places for example, I just want to

37:35bring up that if we compare the size of

37:40the land use

37:41let's say

37:42um near near SeaTac or near Tacoma,

37:45what's the size of the industrial

37:47zoning? And what's the size of the

37:49industrial zoning within Redmond? That's

37:51totally different, right? Let's say if

37:53we we are flying a a drone within the

37:55city's Redmond industrial zoning

37:58deliver something from that zone let's

38:01say to a residential part

38:04the impact could be much bigger compared

38:08to if there's a drone flying from I

38:11don't know near SeaTac to Tacoma

38:13somewhere to deliver a good, right?

38:16How close the space

38:20or like what's the distance between

38:23that industrial zoning we're looking at

38:24in Redmond between that zoning and

38:27residential

38:29let's say

38:30that could be totally different.

38:32Um

38:33that's a 69 decibel

38:36that's no that just nothing if you're

38:38near SeaTac.

38:40But it would be totally different if

38:41you're in here.

38:43And let's say near Redmond when you get

38:45out of uh 520

38:48close to Avondale, there's like a UPS,

38:50right? There's a couple hubs there.

38:54And there's residential right next to

38:55it.

38:56Really really close. So that'll be a

38:58different impact when we try to compare

39:00these different things. That's from the

39:03scale wise.

39:05And the second is from the dimensional

39:07wise. If we're looking at the Uber Lyft,

39:10yeah, that when they come in, but

39:12they're still running on the ground. We

39:14are comparing it

39:15with taxes in a very traditional way.

39:18There's still four wheels on the ground.

39:20That's just a different operation. But

39:22now we're talking about something that's

39:24flying in the air

39:26that would not just impact on a

39:29two-dimensional, but also

39:31three-dimensional or even four because

39:34that included noise, right? And then

39:37include the environmental things. That's

39:40another dimension.

39:41So um

39:43I would say a lot more consideration

39:45will be will need to be added compared

39:48to okay, just a new devices or new

39:50things coming.

39:51Um

39:53yeah, so let's let me see yeah, aligned

39:56and how this align

39:58with the future planning, not just the

40:00land use. Um for example, if we're

40:03talking about the drone hub, the biggest

40:05one,

40:06what we've been seeing the examples

40:08around the world, they're more aligned

40:10with the um

40:11huge distribution centers.

40:14Is that part of the

40:16city of Redmond future planning

40:18there?

40:19Do we have the land to host that like

40:22Walmart distribution center?

40:24If that's not the cases, if we step

40:27down, let's say the accessory hub,

40:29what's delivery for let's say retail?

40:33Do we have that much population compared

40:36to other places in the world that's

40:38already been doing that? For example, in

40:41some some Europe places, they tested for

40:43for a couple years,

40:45but they're stepping back just

40:48in 26 2026. So the lessons learned from

40:52Dumb White is stepping back?

40:54Um that would be something we can learn

40:55as well.

40:57And I know some of the um the lowest

40:59tier we talk about maybe just some

41:01accessory point uh lockers

41:04um and maybe food delivery.

41:07If we compare

41:09the population and need

41:12between Redmond and let's say

41:15Asian

41:16let's say Shanghai, Shenzhen, do we have

41:18that much population, that much need to

41:23to support this infrastructure? Just

41:26compare what's the uh

41:29what's the cost, right?

41:32If we do this then okay let's say if

41:34you're in Asia

41:36you have so much populations, so much

41:39retail debt people can utilize this.

41:41They say okay maybe 5% of people they

41:44will use this. Then once they come to

41:46the city of Redmond

41:480.1

41:491%, 10% or 30% what would be the usage

41:54and frequency?

41:56Right? Um yeah so that's just something

41:58to consider in a lot more dimension than

42:01just thinking about this is three tiers

42:04um where it could be but maybe step back

42:07and thinking about

42:09does that align with the future

42:11development

42:12um

42:13for city of Redmond?

42:15Maybe the scale wise does that align

42:17with

42:19the square of land we have?

42:22Does that align with the populations we

42:24have in here?

42:26Yeah.

42:28That's my question. Thank you.

42:36>> Hi. Uh first off thanks so much to Glenn

42:38and all the staff for addressing a lot

42:40of the comments. Like for me the IOC

42:42getting that cleared up was super duper

42:44helpful and understanding a little bit

42:45of the context around this.

42:46One thing I was still thinking about and

42:48this is on a sort of more macro level

42:50but it's one thing that's still of

42:52unclear to me is what Redmond's vision

42:56and take on the whole drone thing is,

42:58right? Because

43:00of course like the thing with drones is

43:01that it's an evolving technology. We'll

43:03probably like as a society we'll slowly

43:06end up using more and more of it just

43:07like like with AI, with the internet,

43:09and all of that. And like every city is

43:10taking a different approach when it

43:12comes to how strict its regulations are,

43:14whether whether they have regulations or

43:16not, right? And so the fact that we're

43:17doing something about it in terms of

43:19this implementing this IOC and adding

43:21regulations is really really great. And

43:23there's a lot of really good stuff in

43:24like the the drone code that I'm seeing

43:26here. And what would really help is to

43:29better understand the city's vision and

43:31that would help me better understand why

43:33each of these things exist in in the

43:36drone code because this way and along

43:38with what all the other commissioners

43:40have said about comparing the city of

43:41Redmond to what other cities and what

43:43other communities are doing makes a lot

43:45of sense to me because this way we can

43:46get a better sense of how together we

43:48should move as a community and why

43:51each of the decisions that were we've

43:53made or are making fit within this

43:55vision. But yeah, thank you.

43:59>> So that's yeah, I had something very

44:01very similar to your comment there that

44:04it's like

44:05um

44:06how did we get to this place where

44:10this was the decision? Like I'm still

44:12not really clear on the vision like

44:14you're

44:15saying like how

44:17because one option in theory is we just

44:19say no,

44:21right? So why

44:22where's the decision process and the

44:25policy discussion

44:26around how we landed here?

44:31Because the the council's first instinct

44:33was

44:34wait a minute, we just need to hold on

44:36for a minute. Well, what if and a lot of

44:38the

44:39discussion

44:40at this

44:41table and in the public comment is

44:44what if the answer were just no?

44:47I mean it's an option. I'm not saying

44:48that's the right one, but I 'm not

44:50seeing anything mapped out in front of

44:51me that explains to me why that's not

44:53the option.

44:55What what is the vision of of

44:58of where we're going and how we got

44:59here? And you and

45:01from an economic policy perspective,

45:04where does that play a role in how

45:07we got here?

45:09And maybe you you know, you said there

45:10are some things that are in our purview

45:11and some that aren't.

45:13That's tangential? Like if if it's good

45:16for Redmond from an economic perspective

45:19as an innovator to attract business, you

45:22know, okay, but we haven't seen that.

45:26And that would help us understand

45:29why this is the correct decision to

45:31make, to to say yes, this is the

45:32appropriate land use that we want to

45:34approve.

45:39>> Um I I would add I think that Glenn in

45:41the prior presentation did share some

45:43what we found was what staff analysis

45:46was, which was some opportunities and

45:48some challenges. We do see that there

45:50are some opportunities and things where

45:51it aligns with our vision from Redmond

45:532050 about um

45:56embracing innovation, right? And being a

45:59city that

46:00um is welcoming to industry and that

46:04kind of innovation. And I think you

46:05could fall that in line. We also are a

46:07city that wants to make sure we're

46:09regulating our environmental standards

46:11and balancing those needs. Um we also

46:14want to reduce the amount of use on our

46:16streets through vehicles and deliveries.

46:19And so I think there's lots to balance

46:21here. And I wouldn't say that it's

46:23staff's um

46:25role to tell the planning commission

46:27what to do. We are here to say this is

46:29what our analysis was. And really it's

46:31your role to say whether you think that

46:33the analysis that we kind of came

46:35forward with makes sense. You are

46:37welcome to ask staff to amend what we

46:40presented and maybe add in some

46:43other

46:44interested things, buffers or other

46:47items or things like that would be

46:49definitely something that's within the

46:50planning commission's purview. And I

46:52would just say I think we're kind of in

46:53it together in this way as a community

46:55of thinking about what and how does

46:57Redmond want to kind of handle some of

46:58these challenging questions that we are

47:01on the emerging trend of. And so I think

47:04staff have come up with a recommendation

47:07and the planning commission will work

47:08with you to amend that recommendation or

47:11you're welcome to say a non

47:13recommendation or also say we don't

47:15think it should be allowed anywhere.

47:16That's also within your purview to make

47:19and then that that will go to the

47:21council and then the council will get to

47:22make that decision and um I'd say on

47:25some of these kinds of things it's not

47:26always clear cut, right? It's it's it's

47:28a balance.

47:34>> I do think that I'm really looking

47:35forward to the November 18th meeting

47:37where we get to hear additional comments

47:39from the public as well as the the

47:41issues matrix because I think that's

47:42going to unlock a lot of clarity

47:45and certainly some questions that help

47:46shape where we have gaps and where we

47:48and and and how we should be thinking

47:50about um the decisions that we will be

47:52recommending for you all.

47:54Um commission

47:56I yeah commission Ben I mean

47:58>> My follow-up is that I I guess what I'm

48:00saying is

48:01a little

48:02blurb in a

48:04um

48:05presentation is not a policy paper

48:08and and explaining the rationale behind

48:11how we got to where we are.

48:13>> So what you're asking for is for us to

48:16maybe bring forward the references to

48:18Redmond 2050 and more of a policy paper?

48:20Is that what I'm hearing as a request?

48:22>> like

48:23that

48:26if in in the absence of this

48:30proposal in the absence of these

48:31policies

48:33we've done our research and we think

48:34that this is where we would end up and

48:36that these are the reasons that this is

48:38beneficial to Redmond to to pursue it

48:40this way as opposed to these like what

48:42what are the pros and cons of all the

48:44alternatives?

48:46Um right like I said like not doing

48:48something saying no is an option.

48:51Again I don't know that that's the right

48:53option. I'm just saying it hasn't been

48:55there's been no rationale

48:57fully

48:59flushed out in some sort of policy

49:01discussion and paper that explains why

49:04this is the right place to land. I

49:06understand there's pros and cons and

49:08they were referenced you know in a

49:09little blurb but that's still not really

49:11fleshed out.

49:14And maybe you guys have that somewhere.

49:16>> I I would I would say I think staff's

49:18role is not necessarily to make a

49:20persuasive paper one way or another.

49:22It's to bring forward the facts of the

49:24situation and so I think that's what

49:26we've tried to

49:26>> Okay, so the facts would be what are the

49:29what is the scenario

49:31when we say no?

49:33>> I think like what we've heard from

49:34industry is they would be disappointed

49:37and we would not have that be able to be

49:39provided in Redmond. We've also heard

49:41that if other cities are going to be

49:43having a similar kind of use you're

49:46still [clears throat] going to be having

49:46what we've heard a lot is a lot of

49:48concern

49:49around the drone use not necessarily

49:51where and how they're taking off as much

49:53and that that is still very present even

49:55not the commercial drones yet but drones

49:57in our community and so

50:00um I think again it goes back to that uh

50:02balance and I think we would prefer um

50:05to you know what I've heard from Redmond

50:07in the past to work with industry to try

50:09and find

50:11um

50:12uh ways of working together to kind of

50:14meet meet both concerns and how they're

50:16addressed but also still allow industry

50:18to operate. Um it is also okay for

50:21Redmond to

50:23as it has currently not not allow those

50:25uses and we might see those uses um pop

50:28up over time but that is up to the

50:30planning commission and the council to

50:31determine.

50:33>> Thank you. I want to make sure that we

50:35have sufficient time to hear from all of

50:37our commissioners. We'll start with um

50:39commissioner Aparna and then we'll uh

50:41move over to vice chair Coleman.

50:43>> I just wanted to uh go back to

50:46[clears throat] the the one about the

50:47state the question that I asked about

50:50the state and the policies.

50:52So for me if you are you you're

50:55providing a circular argument.

50:57Uh WSDOT referenced IOC, IOC referenced

51:01WSDOT. I am not a forward path. I'm not

51:04seeing where we're headed with this.

51:06There is no that the it's come back to

51:09the question of vision.

51:10So if we want to be XYZ city is

51:15different from here. We want to be

51:18innovative city is not the vision.

51:22Innovation for the sake of innovation

51:23can have very bad unintended

51:25consequences.

51:27And that's what the public is afraid of.

51:28So we need

51:31you make that compelling case that we

51:34want to be that city and as the newest

51:38commissioner said

51:40does it does a scale make sense?

51:44I think those are the vital questions

51:46because we are not seeing that

51:48compelling reason anywhere right now. So

51:52and saying that

51:55technology the we want to be innovators,

51:59I applaud that, but it cannot be

52:02so random having things flying in the

52:04sky and things that we cannot put back

52:06because we've already given them the

52:08licenses and the permissions.

52:10So really thoughtful exercise has to be

52:14it has to be completed here.

52:15Thank you.

52:16>> Vice Chair Coleman.

52:18>> Yeah, I I won't belabor the point

52:20because

52:20um commissioner Parna's comments are

52:23sort of similar to mine. I was slightly

52:24different

52:26take on the innovation piece. Um I think

52:29innovation I think we've been seen for

52:30innovation. We got SpaceX here and

52:32people like that, right? So we already

52:33have that.

52:35And the fact that's part of the brand of

52:36the city should make us look carefully

52:39innovations we want to include, which is

52:42also if it can be done doesn't mean we

52:45should do it in our community. We could

52:47also say, hey, we're going to, you know,

52:49we look at innovations we think a

52:50moratorium is is is something we should

52:52look at here and see what happens

52:53elsewhere. Um and I think the other part

52:55of it is we're using drones

52:57innovatively. The police are. Uh it's

52:59amazing what they're doing with some of

53:00this stuff. Um I don't have a problem

53:03with drones that, you know, for that

53:05kind of use. I have problems with drones

53:07for all the things we talked about here,

53:08where you could have an explosion of

53:10them downtown for no reason, um and we

53:13have

53:14the public saying, hang on a second,

53:16where did this come from? And it's a and

53:17it's a data center. Um Commissioner van

53:20Neman last week said the same thing.

53:22Like it to me the drone question has to

53:26be done properly because we're going to

53:28get into a data center issue with um

53:31people who don't take notice of this

53:33meeting, any council meetings, or any

53:35communication. All they do is see what

53:37happens downtown because they've got

53:38busy lives. So we have to I think we

53:40just have to be super careful with

53:41whether we let this information

53:43information innovation into our city,

53:46even though we're using drones now very

53:47successfully with the police.

53:49>> And I would add that the the survey is

53:51pretty clear. The our community members,

53:53the 69 who have responded, they care

53:54about the noise, the safety, the

53:56battery, the quality of life. There

53:59you know, and I think that I think the

54:00comments you're hearing from a lot of us

54:02is is echoing that. And

54:04I would only add that you'd want to make

54:05sure that the the public feedback is

54:09representative of the city. You know, a

54:11lot of that concentration within the

54:13downtown

54:14education and snippets of of Overlake,

54:17but the communities the communities

54:19within Redmond that are most impacted

54:22um their voice hasn't been heard. So I

54:23think it really important to make sure

54:25that we're representative.

54:30Any other commissioner feedback or

54:32questions that have not already been

54:34raised?

54:36Commission this one.

54:38>> Uh two on top of uh questions.

54:42Um I would like to see a more I'm not

54:44sure if that's part of the um issue

54:46matrix. I would like to see a more clear

54:49list

54:51talking about what exactly those would

54:53be used. We talk about innovation in the

54:56industry. Would that be in a within

54:59industrial use or that would be a from

55:02industrial to residential delivery or

55:05from commercial to residential delivery.

55:08So what exactly

55:11those opportunity or whoever the vendor

55:14already

55:15approach us. So what exactly they're

55:18looking for the opportunity we're

55:20talking here now. So what exactly those

55:23are.

55:24And then from there we can see if that

55:26align with uh

55:30most people's interest

55:33for the citizens residence here or it's

55:36more aligned with the developer or

55:41or business. So I think

55:43lack of that information is a little bit

55:46hard to just saying

55:48technology is good or bad or innovation

55:51is good or bad unless we know that.

55:54Yeah, I would still

55:57wanted to say again that the scale

55:59really matters.

56:01Let's say the the the the scale of the

56:03industrial zone here

56:05it just small to me compared to let's

56:08say Tacoma, Port of Seattle with all the

56:12loading dock.

56:13Yeah.

56:14And

56:15Yep, that

56:17what else am I here?

56:21>> Let's let's allow

56:22commissioner Van Eyman.

56:25>> So forgive me for for not looking first.

56:28Did we put into the issue matrix the

56:31any sort of is there any sort of data

56:33around

56:35we I know we had talked about it the

56:37this concept of

56:40whether it was really environmentally

56:42friendly to use drones to deliver our

56:44pizzas for example. Like we talked about

56:46I know it was in there in passing we

56:48talked about

56:51sustainability. Like oh this point we're

56:53going to look at Redmond 2050 and we're

56:54going to say this is a sustainable

56:57application that's going to help us with

56:59reduced carbon emissions. Well, is that

57:01true?

57:03Did we put that in the issues?

57:04>> Let's add it to the matrix if we

57:05haven't.

57:07>> Yeah, environmental issues were added.

57:10>> All right, I'm

57:11>> just looking at the time here. Have we

57:12captured all the commissioner feedback?

57:16Okay.

57:17Can I Can I add one thing? Sorry on

57:19that. I just want to say too, thank you

57:21for all your questions. These are a lot

57:23of similar questions that we have had as

57:25well and so look forward to kind of

57:27working through them together.

57:28Especially appreciate you thinking about

57:30the size and that is definitely

57:32something we'd also struggled with and

57:34that's, you know, again trying to be

57:37uh we have certain tools at the city

57:39that we can use trying to answer all all

57:42those kinds of

57:43questions and recognize that it's not

57:45perfect and you know that we'll work

57:48with you in trying to

57:50balance all the all the different needs

57:52on this thing.

57:54>> I really appreciate the thoughtful

57:56commissioner feedback and questions and

57:57and staff as well.

57:59What I would recommend for our public

58:02hearing on November 18th is let's try to

58:04get through the the now growing issues

58:07matrix

58:08followed by the

58:10the the draft and the

58:13followed by the other elements.

58:14>> Yeah, and I did want to ask so in your

58:17packet too, I'm not sure if you had a

58:19chance to look but there was the

58:21as we said we're going to kind of help

58:22distinguish what the land use

58:24regulations are that planning

58:25commission's role will be what you

58:26specifically recommend to the council or

58:29don't recommend to the council.

58:32And then

58:33the

58:35we're going to We have the other items

58:37that our city attorney and finance

58:39department have been working on. Would

58:41it be useful to have them while while

58:43the planning commission's not going to

58:44provide a technical recommendation to

58:46their work, you can be providing

58:48feedback to them and ask questions and

58:51then they'll take that and include that

58:52as a part of the

58:53>> that's going to provide a lot of context

58:55which helps us get through

58:57helps us rationalize your responses to

58:59the questions that are within our

59:00purview.

59:01>> Got it.

59:02>> And this is all new so it's really it's

59:04good learning and I think

59:06I think it may very well spark some

59:08questions and some comments from our our

59:12members who are listening on this call.

59:14And so we would really appreciate that.

59:18All right. Um thank you very much. Um

59:20with that said I want to transition to

59:22our next agenda item which is the

59:25[clears throat] which is the tree code

59:27study session. So I'd like to invite

59:28Cameron Zapata and Lauren Anderson.

1:00:20And while you're pulling up the slides

1:00:21here

1:00:22there is kind of a a direct correlation

1:00:25between the slides and the issues

1:00:27matrix. And so as we go through slide by

1:00:29slide then I invite commissioners to

1:00:32also um

1:00:34um as you provide feedback on the

1:00:35changes also think about how it relates

1:00:38to the questions on the issues matrix so

1:00:39that we um so that we're not

1:00:41contradicting ourselves.

1:00:48>> Good evening everyone. Uh so my name is

1:00:51Lauren Anderson, uh senior planner, and

1:00:53I'm accompanied uh tonight by Cameron

1:00:55Zapata,

1:00:57uh senior parks planner.

1:01:00As we are here tonight for the fourth um

1:01:03tree code update uh study session.

1:01:09So tonight we plan to go over the intent

1:01:12of the meeting,

1:01:14uh look at the issues

1:01:16um which was updated from the October

1:01:1814th meeting.

1:01:20Review the staff recommended revisions

1:01:23based on the planning commission and

1:01:25public comments.

1:01:27And then lastly, we'll go over our

1:01:28upcoming meetings and next steps.

1:01:34The intent of this meeting is to go over

1:01:36the latest issues matrix with staff

1:01:39responses and close out the remaining

1:01:41open items.

1:01:43We are also asking the planning

1:01:44commission for direction on the

1:01:46revisions uh to the code, which are in

1:01:49response to the comments we have

1:01:50received from the planning commission

1:01:52and public.

1:01:54We added slide number nine with

1:01:56recommended revisions based on the

1:01:59October 14th Master Builders

1:02:01Association's letter.

1:02:03Lastly, we'll be seeking direction on

1:02:06the project from the planning commission

1:02:08if they're on board with the next steps,

1:02:11which would be to bring the tree code

1:02:13back to the November 18th meeting date

1:02:15for its last study session and

1:02:17recommendation.

1:02:19Our hope is to keep the project on its

1:02:21timeline while we still have our

1:02:23consultant and stay within the remaining

1:02:25budget.

1:02:30So we'll pull up the issues matrix to go

1:02:32over the staff responses. And we ask

1:02:36that the commission keep the following

1:02:37prompts in mind.

1:02:39As so the first item is to identify

1:02:42which items can be closed.

1:02:45Second, um of the outstanding items,

1:02:48what information do you all need in

1:02:50order for staff to proceed with the

1:02:52draft code?

1:02:54And then third, uh from these comments

1:02:56and proposed revisions, are there any

1:02:58additional revision recommendations for

1:03:01the draft code?

1:03:18So we'll start with item number five.

1:03:23>> It's me again. You can close that. Thank

1:03:25you.

1:03:30>> Item number six.

1:03:33>> It's me again, I think. Um

1:03:37this one this one to me is still

1:03:39something which is a question. I

1:03:41understand the budget the response the

1:03:43budget responses etc. But we're hearing

1:03:45it from public comment from Dr. Morton

1:03:47who's sitting in the back there. Um and

1:03:50how

1:03:53the oversight side of things I think as

1:03:55well is is is still a question.

1:03:58Um

1:03:59the the question I would have

1:04:01just going through all of that is

1:04:04are there arborists separate you know

1:04:05are there third party professionals?

1:04:08There's a list

1:04:09and you have to go to one of those

1:04:11people. It's not just some random person

1:04:14that happens to have written something

1:04:15for um a resident about a tree that they

1:04:19can then go cut down. Um I don't know

1:04:21how that works and if if that's the case

1:04:23then great if that's what happens. But

1:04:25how do you vet the expert who's giving

1:04:29giving the the the feedback?

1:04:31>> So for the third party verification our

1:04:35thought was that it would be um a

1:04:39consultant that the city would work

1:04:41with.

1:04:42Um so it would be someone that we would

1:04:44select and it would be the same

1:04:45consultant and it would be consistent

1:04:48for everyone who would have that third

1:04:50party verification.

1:04:51>> Okay. That's that's that's the answer I

1:04:53was looking looking for. That that makes

1:04:55sense to me hopefully. I still feel

1:04:57there's a degree of something missing

1:04:59with

1:04:59people getting to get get through get

1:05:01through um the gaps somehow. But um that

1:05:04answers my question I think. So thank

1:05:06you.

1:05:06>> Great.

1:05:12>> Yeah, you can close that for six. Um

1:05:15seven you can close as well.

1:05:18And and eight as well cuz that was just

1:05:19a tech technical typo or something.

1:05:22>> I do want to do um add a question on top

1:05:25of number six. So for the oversign, does

1:05:28that mean

1:05:30it's when someone apply for permit that

1:05:34oversign?

1:05:35Is that right?

1:05:37>> Correct. Yeah. So if somebody applies

1:05:39for a tree removal permit and the

1:05:42planner who's reviewing it um they, you

1:05:45know, disagree with their arborist

1:05:47findings,

1:05:48um we can do the third party

1:05:50verification by a certified arborist

1:05:54to verify.

1:05:55>> So let let's say

1:05:57someone submit the the tree permit and

1:06:00city going to review it, right or not

1:06:03for now? [clears throat]

1:06:04Still city will still review that?

1:06:07>> Yes. So technically it would still be

1:06:08the planner who'd be reviewing it. Um we

1:06:11would just have the third party reviewer

1:06:14verify the arborist report and their

1:06:17findings

1:06:18um since we aren't certified arborists.

1:06:22Um but technically it would still be the

1:06:24planner who would be reviewing and

1:06:26making like the final approval.

1:06:29>> Okay.

1:06:30Um maybe this is a little bit go over

1:06:33the question is

1:06:35I just as far as I know a lot of the

1:06:37tree cutting

1:06:40within the neighborhood, they're not

1:06:42going the permit process. So who's going

1:06:45to oversign this?

1:06:47>> So if people aren't getting permits,

1:06:48that would be code enforcement.

1:06:51So um if, you know, somebody in the

1:06:53neighborhood is cutting down trees

1:06:56um without permits, um they would need

1:06:59to contact our code enforcement team and

1:07:02then we would

1:07:03get them involved and then they would

1:07:05have to go through that permitting

1:07:06process and go through those penalties

1:07:08and fees.

1:07:10>> Okay.

1:07:13Let's go back to the slide and make sure

1:07:14that slide by slide um all of the the

1:07:17commissioners are on board with with the

1:07:20changes.

1:07:25>> Yeah. Uh so are you going to go I was

1:07:26going to

1:07:27recommend that we go back to us so you

1:07:29got the issues matrix and you got the

1:07:31slides. I'd like to be able to for each

1:07:33slide that Cameron has asked for

1:07:35feedback on

1:07:36that we also match that with the related

1:07:39issues matrix item.

1:07:41So if we can do that that just that

1:07:43makes sure that we're fully

1:07:45closed

1:07:47>> Okay.

1:07:47>> and we give you the the final feedback

1:07:49as opposed to going back and forth.

1:07:53So I think we're on slide five.

1:07:58>> So we do have

1:08:01so there's the issues matrix portion of

1:08:04our presentation and then there's also

1:08:06the staff recommended changes as well

1:08:10that we were hoping to do after going

1:08:12through the issues matrix.

1:08:15>> Okay, so you want to go through the

1:08:16issues matrix first?

1:08:17>> Yes, that's what we're

1:08:19>> Um

1:08:20Commissioner Van Nieman.

1:08:23>> So we have certified arborists on staff

1:08:25but they're they're in

1:08:27parks operations and so the budget

1:08:30request

1:08:31if if we got to that point would be that

1:08:33this arborist would be hired into the

1:08:35planning department.

1:08:36>> Correct.

1:08:38>> And

1:08:42what is the estimate of

1:08:45of like how how busy would that person

1:08:47be today? Like how often does this come

1:08:49up?

1:08:52>> That's that's something that we would

1:08:54need to look into also with the new code

1:08:58that's probably going to change because

1:09:00even if we use our current data it

1:09:03probably wouldn't be applicable because

1:09:04this is a whole new code. You know we

1:09:06have the two credit system. We have

1:09:09you know more difficult

1:09:11you know criteria for the tree exception

1:09:13requests.

1:09:16So

1:09:18not sure we'd have to be predicting

1:09:21that.

1:09:24>> I do want to clarify the position that

1:09:27the issues matrix is pointing to

1:09:30is the urban forestry program

1:09:31administrator.

1:09:33Um that person would hold the tree

1:09:35canopy strategic plan and be the

1:09:37administrator of the um

1:09:40implementation side of that plan.

1:09:43And so part of their role would be to do

1:09:46analysis to understand

1:09:49what that arborist role would be. We

1:09:51know that Parks does have several uh

1:09:53certified arborists on staff. Um but

1:09:56would adding a certified arborist

1:10:00help Parks part of the time and then

1:10:03planning part of the time? So part of

1:10:04the work will be to analyze the data.

1:10:16>> I would say we're on item six, correct?

1:10:18So yeah.

1:10:19I I would say for item six, I would love

1:10:22the um the draft I would love the the

1:10:24next draft to require this for for

1:10:26hazard for hazardous trees.

1:10:29I don't think the language was had

1:10:31specified that.

1:10:34>> So require

1:10:35>> So the draft should require it for

1:10:37hazard, inappropriate for in for

1:10:40retention and impervious surface

1:10:41removals. Not leave it as optional. Make

1:10:43it required.

1:10:47>> So just to clarify, so require

1:10:48third-party verification

1:10:51for hazard tree removal, um tree

1:10:54exception requests, and then the

1:10:56impervious surface. Okay, great.

1:10:58>> That that would be if you can if you can

1:11:01reflect that in the next draft, then I'm

1:11:03satisfied with closing this topic.

1:11:05>> Great. Great. Thank you.

1:11:07>> Um it

1:11:08And to to clarify um for someone who is

1:11:12wanting to remove a hazardous tree or a

1:11:15landmark or heritage tree, um for hazard

1:11:18trees, we would recommend they that the

1:11:21applicant either provide a photo that

1:11:23clearly shows that the tree is hazardous

1:11:25if if there's like say uh severe

1:11:29um that the planner could clearly see

1:11:31that. If it could not be shown through a

1:11:34photo, then that's when we would request

1:11:37we we can't tell from this photo. We

1:11:39would need a certified arborist. That's

1:11:41just one option. Um so that there there

1:11:44are it's not going to be every single uh

1:11:47tree removal application that would

1:11:49require the the arborist report.

1:11:51Um but if an arborist report were to be

1:11:54suggested or required and that planner

1:11:57does not

1:11:59um maybe there's some discrepancies in

1:12:02in that arborist report, that's when the

1:12:04third party review would be required.

1:12:06>> And I and I would make I would reflect

1:12:07that. That's a that's better that that's

1:12:10a more efficient way to to to look at

1:12:12it.

1:12:18>> The next we have item

1:12:22>> I just wanted to add

1:12:23one thought on top of what you

1:12:25mentioned. If there's a photo available,

1:12:28um then you can see the issue, then we

1:12:30don't need a arborist to be there.

1:12:32But just be aware that with the AI

1:12:34today, what you're seeing in the photos

1:12:36may not be the realistic.

1:12:38So um

1:12:40yeah profit driven sometimes.

1:12:45>> All right, and I think we just closed

1:12:47item seven

1:12:48and that leaves us to item eight.

1:12:54Commissioner Vice

1:12:55>> I closed that too. It was probably a

1:12:56quick one because it's a small item.

1:13:02>> And I'm fine with keeping item nine

1:13:04remained as closed.

1:13:15I'm satisfied with item 11.

1:13:34>> So she can officially close item 11.

1:13:36>> Thank you. And then item 12.

1:13:39>> Okay.

1:13:40Item 12 is me. Um

1:13:43so I I have a little bit of a problem

1:13:47with this

1:13:48because

1:13:51we

1:13:52everything is pointing towards the tree

1:13:54canopy plan.

1:13:56But when we don't reference that clearly

1:13:59in the code, I would like that to be

1:14:02referenced in the code so the documents

1:14:03are talking to each other.

1:14:05We would like to see

1:14:07where

1:14:10the periodicity of how often that tree

1:14:13canopy code is updated.

1:14:15If you're saying the goals reside in the

1:14:18tree canopy code, then you've got the

1:14:20tree code and we don't know if they're

1:14:22talking to each other right now. I I

1:14:25need that to

1:14:27so that we are studying it here, we're

1:14:30setting the aspirations here, and the

1:14:32tree the tree code is reflecting those

1:14:34aspirations and the method to get there.

1:14:37And that is I think what is missing in

1:14:40the bigger link.

1:14:42It would be nice to see that

1:14:44strengthened in the code

1:14:47because I think

1:14:49we are doing this to preserve the

1:14:51canopy, right? Like and to grow the

1:14:53canopy.

1:14:56That's not seen very clearly in the

1:14:58code.

1:14:59So if you could work on the text a bit

1:15:01more

1:15:02and add something in the actual code,

1:15:05that would be wonderful.

1:15:07So we'll keep this open for now.

1:15:10>> Okay. And then item 13.

1:15:12>> 13 is mine again.

1:15:14Now this one I actually wanted to bring

1:15:16up because this is interesting.

1:15:19So for us, 37% canopy

1:15:24according to the stats here,

1:15:2788% of that canopy is coming from the

1:15:30Redmond Watershed, Far Mac Quitter, and

1:15:32Joel Park.

1:15:35Which if you do the math and I think

1:15:37I've done it right,

1:15:38is around

1:15:404 percent, 4 and a half percent close to

1:15:44is the rest of Redmond's canopy area.

1:15:48So

1:15:50this assumption that we are going to get

1:15:52to 40 percent

1:15:55means that let's say we are heavily

1:15:58wooded in

1:16:00the watershed.

1:16:02So

1:16:03everything will be now planting within

1:16:06the city.

1:16:08Right? So we have to grow the canopy

1:16:10within the city, not just preserve it.

1:16:13I just found that very fascinating and a

1:16:15little unsettling because at 37 we we

1:16:18can pat ourselves on the back.

1:16:20But it's actually Redmond watershed is

1:16:23not even within the legal city limits.

1:16:26It's it's it's governed but it's not

1:16:29you know it's not the it's not in the

1:16:31UGA.

1:16:33Right? So

1:16:35my my my point in this is that I think

1:16:38we need to add this

1:16:40into the tree code

1:16:42uh as an aspiration that we are

1:16:46looking to increase

1:16:48not that 37 to 40 percent but increase

1:16:53within the city boundary the tree

1:16:56canopy.

1:16:57That is not seen in the intent of the in

1:17:00the text.

1:17:04>> What I'd like to do is just go through

1:17:05the issues matrix and then we'll open up

1:17:07for broader com

1:17:09>> So I'm I want to leave this open so if

1:17:11you can add some context within the tree

1:17:14code talking about what's happening

1:17:16within the UGA specifically that would

1:17:18be great. And ideally this is like a

1:17:21broader comment which I would like to

1:17:23add in the recommendation in the final

1:17:25recommendation that we in the tree

1:17:28canopy plan we should separate out

1:17:32the UGA and non-UGA

1:17:35um

1:17:36trees.

1:17:37So I think under the UGA would come

1:17:39Fairmount Quitter and Jewel Park, but

1:17:42not the Redmond Watershed.

1:17:45Or is Fairmount Quitter

1:17:48Okay. So we need to kind of separate

1:17:50that out, but that would be a

1:17:51recommendation broader, not in the code

1:17:53itself.

1:17:55Uh so keep 13 open.

1:17:58Um

1:17:5914 I um I I think this is great. Can you

1:18:03please add that and we can close it

1:18:06uh if the text is okay, please add that.

1:18:10Um

1:18:12I already emailed about 14. I'd actually

1:18:14emailed about a lot of the ones to

1:18:16close.

1:18:17>> Let's let's quickly go through the ones

1:18:18that are closed to make sure we've

1:18:19captured that because I want to make

1:18:20sure we

1:18:21>> Yeah, so we're going in sequence, right?

1:18:23So yeah, 15 is done.

1:18:27>> 16 is mine again.

1:18:31So this one I have significant problems

1:18:35with

1:18:36cuz I think the tree credit system, and

1:18:37I've mentioned this before,

1:18:39I really believe they should be a

1:18:42threshold for the development

1:18:44or the tree credit system to come into

1:18:46play. It's extremely complex. For bigger

1:18:49developments, I understand you want to

1:18:51have a formula. You've got like X number

1:18:53of acres to play with and all of that.

1:18:55Smaller plots which might be looking for

1:18:57an ADU or middle housing, it's it's too

1:19:01much extra work.

1:19:02So can we bring that down to X number of

1:19:05trees maintained in

1:19:07some other simplified way, maybe how the

1:19:10city does it or maybe we go back to the

1:19:12non-development table and use that. Oh,

1:19:16you can cut two trees a year

1:19:19with permits for development or

1:19:21non-development.

1:19:23And

1:19:24replacement is where the question mark

1:19:26would come in.

1:19:28Uh maybe we look at that as at a certain

1:19:30threshold. If I'm adding 1,200 sq ft, I

1:19:34don't want to do the mental gymnastics

1:19:35associated with the tree credit thing.

1:19:38So maybe there's a threshold of I don't

1:19:41know 10,000 square feet or 5,000 square

1:19:44feet or something. Something that makes

1:19:46sense to the city in terms of

1:19:48developing this. Anything bigger should

1:19:52go through a tree credit system because

1:19:54it's more comprehensive.

1:19:56Um otherwise the barrier is very high.

1:20:01>> What what are you suggesting in terms of

1:20:02the

1:20:04what would the mechanism be to

1:20:07they what is the permitting process for

1:20:09this ADU that you're talking about that

1:20:11is like 1,000 square feet in somebody's

1:20:12backyard?

1:20:14And they have nice trees back there.

1:20:15Nice big fir trees.

1:20:17>> Right.

1:20:18So right now there's a whole formula and

1:20:21there's a tree credit per parcel. You

1:20:24have to know that. You have to multiply

1:20:26it.

1:20:27>> Saying what are you proposing?

1:20:28>> I'm proposing that for if you're adding

1:20:30an ADU

1:20:32and currently if I have a a lot where

1:20:35I'm allowed one to two trees per year

1:20:37that I can take down if it's less than

1:20:4030 in.

1:20:41I allow that to build that ADU without

1:20:44getting into the tree credit multiplier.

1:20:48If there is if I'm building like

1:20:5110 mini cottages

1:20:53then that goes up a certain square

1:20:55footage. At that point I do need to

1:20:58look at what the full impact is.

1:21:00If you want middle housing you have to

1:21:02you have to balance it out that way.

1:21:04The barrier is too makes the barrier a

1:21:06little lower.

1:21:08>> Does staff have enough information based

1:21:10on commissioner partner's feedback to

1:21:13make the adjustments?

1:21:16Yes, I propose a proposed adjustment.

1:21:20>> Um

1:21:22so thinking about

1:21:25potentially

1:21:27maybe in staff suggest instead of having

1:21:29like a like number of trees per year

1:21:32instead we could have potentially like a

1:21:34percentage

1:21:36like we have in the existing code. So

1:21:37like 35%

1:21:40tree retention if you're only adding 500

1:21:43square feet or a thousand square feet,

1:21:46that would it kind of encompass like

1:21:48small additions or

1:21:51like like ADUs or dadus.

1:21:54Um

1:21:55that's something that we could look

1:21:56into.

1:21:58Um

1:21:59the small lot size.

1:22:05That's another option.

1:22:08But if you're wanting to focus it on

1:22:09like small like additions in that type

1:22:12of development, I would probably focus

1:22:14it on like the size or the type.

1:22:16Um

1:22:17so is that

1:22:19something that you're interested in?

1:22:20>> Yeah, I think I will

1:22:22all I'm requesting is a simplifying for

1:22:25the smaller projects and development

1:22:27projects. So either would probably be

1:22:30acceptable, right? As long as I'm not

1:22:33doing those gymnastics in the tree

1:22:36multiplier table,

1:22:37>> Mhm.

1:22:38>> I'm I'm good.

1:22:41It also like whatever retains more

1:22:44trees. So whichever

1:22:46of the two simpler options would retain

1:22:48more trees, we should go with that.

1:22:51Just don't make it so hard. That's all

1:22:53to calculate.

1:22:54>> Yeah.

1:22:55>> You know? So but otherwise I think it

1:22:58would work for the bigger projects very

1:22:59well, I think.

1:23:01So

1:23:01thank you.

1:23:02>> Thank you. So I think that moves us to

1:23:04question 20.

1:23:07Item number 20.

1:23:13Did I did I miss something?

1:23:15Yeah. So item 20 is myself. I I'm fine

1:23:19with closing this item. I'm satisfied

1:23:21with the answer. I would just certainly

1:23:23encourage staff to really

1:23:26try to find an interactive tool similar

1:23:28to what Kirkland is doing. I think that

1:23:29would be really really beneficial for

1:23:31the community and I'd be really

1:23:32delighted if you can do that.

1:23:35But aside from that, I'm fine with

1:23:36closing item 20 and I'm satisfied with

1:23:39their response to item 21 so we can

1:23:40close that item as

1:23:45So

1:23:47Commissioner Parina, you're item 22.

1:23:50>> 22 I I really liked the

1:23:54if you could scroll down to your

1:23:56response.

1:23:57So I really liked the the revisions, but

1:24:00I think replacing with wrong or lesser

1:24:04trees needs to make it in somewhere,

1:24:06wherever you think fit. Because if we

1:24:09are going to have an arborist or

1:24:11somebody going to code enforce or going

1:24:13to check it,

1:24:15you're going to get a lot of Japanese

1:24:17maples, those mini dwarf trees as

1:24:20replacements, right?

1:24:22So if you really want to encourage the

1:24:24coniferous trees and we are saying this

1:24:27is what we want to plant,

1:24:29then having

1:24:31somebody go up and see it in a year's

1:24:34time, is this the right tree? Right? So

1:24:38>> Can we do include language for

1:24:41replacement trees where if a coniferous

1:24:43tree is removed, it has to be replaced

1:24:45with a coniferous tree? If it's a

1:24:46deciduous, it can be replaced with a

1:24:48deciduous or coniferous tree.

1:24:51Um we also plan to have a list of like

1:24:54approved either native or climate

1:24:56resilient trees where folks can turn to.

1:25:00>> Yeah, I love that. It's just that when

1:25:02the enforcement happens, we need to have

1:25:05enforcement for that beautiful idea.

1:25:08That's what I 'm talking about in this

1:25:10thing. So this paragraph above where

1:25:13you're saying replacing with wrong or

1:25:14lesser trees,

1:25:16this would be an ideal situation in

1:25:19somewhere in the enforcement

1:25:21place in the code.

1:25:23Cuz I don't see this clearly in the

1:25:25code.

1:25:26You you said recommended,

1:25:29but on the other side I need

1:25:31to know that they're actually doing it.

1:25:34That's Does that make sense?

1:25:38>> Yes. Um so I will say that um later in

1:25:42our PowerPoint presentation, we do have

1:25:44a staff recommended change that talks

1:25:46about verification.

1:25:48Um so there is a difference between like

1:25:50enforcement

1:25:52versus verification.

1:25:55Um so that is a staff recommended change

1:25:57just to have the planning staff verify

1:26:00that the trees were planted.

1:26:02>> Okay. So yeah I I would love to have

1:26:04this conversation but keep this open

1:26:06till

1:26:07we we can close this if that answers

1:26:10>> Right.

1:26:10>> Oh would it make sense to pull up that

1:26:12slide so that we can

1:26:13>> then we can yeah that's true

1:26:15>> because I I'd like to move us toward

1:26:16closing item so that you get um time to

1:26:20loop over with your timeline.

1:26:22>> Thank you.

1:26:39>> There we go. Yeah.

1:26:42>> So number one speaks to that

1:26:44verification.

1:26:49>> Yeah this is this is great. Is there

1:26:51like is there do we have to have

1:26:53somebody specifically or is just like

1:26:56like do we know which staff is going to

1:26:58do this?

1:27:01>> It'll most likely be the the planning

1:27:02staff. Um we're keeping it high level

1:27:06though cuz we're not sure um you know

1:27:09what

1:27:11there may be a future arborist on staff

1:27:13in the future so that's why we want to

1:27:14keep it

1:27:15high level and just say that there'll be

1:27:17verification.

1:27:19>> Yeah I would love this added please.

1:27:21Thank you and then you can close that as

1:27:23well.

1:27:24>> So we can close that item but before we

1:27:25leave the slide I want to make sure if

1:27:27any of the other commissioners have any

1:27:28objections with what's on the slide.

1:27:36Commissioner Van Eyman.

1:27:41>> What what does mean exactly like

1:27:44require

1:27:46planning verification? I mean

1:27:48I guess

1:27:49the role of code is not to be that

1:27:51specific. Is that right?

1:27:53>> Mhm.

1:27:55Correct. Yeah.

1:27:55>> At the implementation side they figure

1:27:57out what that means.

1:27:58>> Correct. Yeah. We're still working

1:28:00through that whether it would be, you

1:28:02know, to going out and doing inspection,

1:28:04photos, affidavit. We're still working

1:28:07through the what that would be

1:28:09um based off of like staff capacity and

1:28:11funding.

1:28:13So.

1:28:14>> Commissioner is this one.

1:28:17Exactly like like you mentioned just on

1:28:19top of that in the

1:28:21implementation level, let's say would

1:28:24that confirm be right after let's say

1:28:26the new construction or that would

1:28:28happen like one year after

1:28:31that could

1:28:32be totally different.

1:28:34>> So there's different

1:28:37types of tree removals. So there's one

1:28:39that's related to development.

1:28:42Um so with development tree removal the

1:28:45planners were already going out and

1:28:46doing those inspections

1:28:49um whether that's for a final building

1:28:51permit or that's part of like our bond

1:28:54inspection

1:28:56for tree protection and tree

1:28:57replacements.

1:28:59For non-development tree removal

1:29:01that would be a new verification

1:29:05process.

1:29:06>> Yeah, what I meant is um

1:29:08this kind of verification we want to

1:29:10make sure that's a long-term tree

1:29:12planning.

1:29:13It's not like I just plant a tree there

1:29:15for city's inspection. I think that

1:29:17would be a really important things to

1:29:19make sure

1:29:21the the purpose of our tree code update

1:29:25actually make make it works.

1:29:28>> So you're requesting for all tree

1:29:31removal permits that there would be like

1:29:32a follow-up after

1:29:34>> I would I would say especially for

1:29:37a large DBH trees removal either hazard

1:29:41trees

1:29:42or like redevelopment or just like

1:29:45regular trimming when it comes to a

1:29:47certain size because I saw the the item

1:29:50number something

1:29:52um the city staff

1:29:54response is that okay, what what if

1:29:56somebody accidentally remove a 6-inch

1:29:58DBH trees, right?

1:30:01People may may not know, okay, I need a

1:30:03permit for 6-inch, but it's a very low

1:30:08chance that somebody accidentally remove

1:30:10a 30.

1:30:11Right? So we want to make sure if that

1:30:14happens that replacement actually

1:30:16happens, not just okay, you come in here

1:30:19for inspection, I plant three trees,

1:30:21take a look here's the trees, but after

1:30:23you you leave, I take those three tree

1:30:25out and I put a dad over there.

1:30:28So that's something I want to make sure

1:30:30the enforcement or implementation can

1:30:33make sure there's a long-term

1:30:35um strategy, make sure we achieve the

1:30:39tree canopy goal, not just for

1:30:41inspection purpose.

1:30:46>> Yeah, maybe consider potentially having

1:30:49like a clause that says that, you know,

1:30:51the replacement trees that

1:30:53they have to remain in that, you know,

1:30:55you can't remove them and have, you

1:30:58know, development occurring. And I

1:31:00believe in our current draft we have a

1:31:02timeline set for that.

1:31:05>> Well, I was going to mention that we do

1:31:07have language for replacement trees that

1:31:09they can't be removed um until they

1:31:12become significant, which is a 6-inch in

1:31:146 inches in diameter breast height.

1:31:17If the tree is to be removed prior to

1:31:20that, um we would need to have either a

1:31:22photo or something showing that that

1:31:24tree is no longer healthy.

1:31:28>> Just for the verification, I'm thinking

1:31:30if we

1:31:32keep that verification process a little

1:31:33bit longer, let's say I do the initial

1:31:36inspection right after the project

1:31:39a substantial completion, right? And

1:31:41then you do another round of inspection,

1:31:42let's say two years

1:31:44to officially close this out, something

1:31:46like that.

1:31:49>> Do we have any other commissioner

1:31:51feedback um with the language with

1:31:53proposed edits to slides

1:31:56six.

1:32:00Okay, so does staff have sufficient

1:32:02feedback

1:32:03to make the adjustments?

1:32:07>> Yeah.

1:32:08>> Okay.

1:32:09>> Yes, and then I just wanted to note that

1:32:12for bond inspections

1:32:15for development related we are ensuring

1:32:18that

1:32:19after we have like inspections for like

1:32:22two years and then five years for that

1:32:24bond release, but that is for

1:32:26development only.

1:32:28So that wouldn't include you know

1:32:30somebody coming in

1:32:32for

1:32:33you know removing a landmark or heritage

1:32:36tree.

1:32:38But that's something that we can

1:32:39consider.

1:32:43>> So now what should we now move back to

1:32:45the issues matrix? I think we can keep

1:32:48that item 22 open given that you're

1:32:51making adjustments to the slide.

1:32:58>> I like the

1:33:00for 22 the the red text is fine.

1:33:03For 23 I just had one thing. I would

1:33:06like to see stronger language. I

1:33:08understand that the heritage tree cannot

1:33:10be cut down without being granted an

1:33:13exception request.

1:33:15But I would like to make that really

1:33:17strong language that that is highly

1:33:20unlikely. You know what I mean?

1:33:22We really want to dissuade people from

1:33:25cutting down the heritage trees.

1:33:28I would like to push it to landmark

1:33:29trees as well, but for the heritage tree

1:33:32at least cuz

1:33:34a loss of something like that casually

1:33:36just for cutting makes no sense.

1:33:39So we really want

1:33:41to strengthen the language that while

1:33:43exception requests will be can be

1:33:46granted, they are extremely rare or

1:33:47something to that effect.

1:33:52Yeah.

1:33:54Is that possible?

1:33:57Yeah.

1:33:58All

1:33:59Thank you.

1:34:00>> So is that conditionally closed or?

1:34:02>> Conditionally actually

1:34:05um

1:34:05>> I say we keep it open.

1:34:06>> Keep it keep it open please because I

1:34:08just want to make sure that we've

1:34:09captured this. This is so important.

1:34:1524 I closed via email

1:34:19but I would like this as a special

1:34:20comment in the PC recommendation if

1:34:23possible

1:34:25that

1:34:26when when the study happens

1:34:29people talk equity as part of the study.

1:34:39Um

1:34:40so

1:34:41I if

1:34:43for 25

1:34:45so 24 can be closed as per email as

1:34:48well.

1:34:4925

1:34:50I would like to see whether we can come

1:34:52up with other metrics for the efficacy

1:34:54of the tree code.

1:34:56So if you are saying that you're going

1:34:58to let it talk to the tree canopy plan

1:35:02then maybe that's we call the metric

1:35:04indirectly and say whatever is in the

1:35:06tree canopy plan we aspire to get there

1:35:09but we want to know

1:35:11that

1:35:12whatever we proposed is working and

1:35:15we're not cutting down too many trees or

1:35:16not losing

1:35:18cover too much.

1:35:20So if there are any other metrics if you

1:35:23can think of anything I couldn't think

1:35:25straight off the bat other than calling

1:35:27the tree canopy plan

1:35:28but if there is something you can think

1:35:30of that would be it would be good to

1:35:32have accountability of the tree cone and

1:35:34check how it is doing

1:35:36because I think it has potential to do

1:35:39really well but we won't know.

1:35:42Right? So if if you don't mind please

1:35:45keep that

1:35:47open. If you can come up with something

1:35:49that would be great

1:35:51however small something to get us

1:35:53started in thinking about the efficacy.

1:35:56>> I want to pause here for a moment and

1:35:58see if any of or other commissioners

1:36:00have any feedback on on the metrics

1:36:01piece that might be helpful for staff.

1:36:07No?

1:36:08I wanted to see if if any of our

1:36:10commissioners have any perspectives on

1:36:13metrics for consideration that that

1:36:15might be helpful for staff.

1:36:17>> Um I I had a comment. I don't know if

1:36:19this is actually related. It goes back

1:36:21to number 13 around canopy

1:36:24um and the watershed comments that

1:36:28Commissioner Parner was making. Um

1:36:30the thing that was also included in the

1:36:33public comment tonight was

1:36:36the data we're currently looking at,

1:36:38which is from 2019 and that it's being I

1:36:41believe you should correct me if I'm

1:36:42wrong here, but from what I read it's

1:36:44November 16 is the next kind of LiDAR

1:36:46test data that you get. Is that correct?

1:36:49>> Correct.

1:36:50>> So how are you going to apply that data

1:36:53to these

1:36:55um

1:36:56uh

1:36:58to these recommendations um or code?

1:37:01Uh is it going to affect it? Is it Is it

1:37:03timely enough to affect it? Um how long

1:37:06does it take to to look at that?

1:37:09>> So

1:37:10we're anticipating at least take, you

1:37:12know, a some months um to, you know,

1:37:15once we get the data to analyze it um

1:37:19and then also we have the future um tree

1:37:23canopy strategic update as well that's

1:37:27being

1:37:28in the future budget.

1:37:30Um so we're hoping that the timeline

1:37:32with that

1:37:33that it'll be updated

1:37:34with that and then we would do a code

1:37:36amendment to the tree code

1:37:39um around the same time or at right

1:37:42after the canopy plan is updated. So

1:37:45then that way we have the latest and

1:37:46greatest data

1:37:48and new goals.

1:37:50>> Okay. Yeah I just I just wanted just

1:37:52hypothetically just hypothetically but

1:37:55if most of the most of the tree canopy

1:37:57is already in dense populated, you know,

1:38:00urban watershed etc.

1:38:02and the what we're try to do is increase

1:38:04it within the city. I suspect the city's

1:38:06canopy's gone down given the amount of

1:38:08construction it's happening the city.

1:38:10That's a guess.

1:38:11Um so the you know I just wondering if

1:38:14there's some way of saying if this then

1:38:17that

1:38:18in what you look at in the future versus

1:38:21hey if we see this data we take this

1:38:24decision if it's gone down or gone up in

1:38:26whatever way versus hey let's wait for

1:38:28the data and then once that data is

1:38:31there we would take a good look at it

1:38:32and then make some decisions. Making

1:38:34decisions ahead of time

1:38:36based on certain criteria might be

1:38:38helpful here so that you don't have to

1:38:40wait even if you have to wait for the

1:38:41data. That would be the only suggestion

1:38:43I scenario planning would be the term

1:38:45I'd probably use. That's all.

1:38:48>> And we do mention in the issues matrix

1:38:50we do recognize that the tree code

1:38:53update

1:38:54is kind of out of sequence because

1:38:55usually you would have the strategic

1:38:57plan followed by the code update. Um

1:39:00this tree canopy strategic plan was

1:39:01adopted in 2019. Um previous staff did

1:39:05start that that update to the tree code.

1:39:08Then there were some issues with city of

1:39:10Kirkland's their code got um

1:39:13appealed. We wanted to wait and make

1:39:15sure that our code didn't include that

1:39:16information so we also wouldn't get

1:39:18appealed. Um so that's what brings us to

1:39:21today. It took a few years for Kirkland

1:39:23to settle on on their decision. And so

1:39:27um we also had some staff turnover. And

1:39:30so that's kind of why we're we're

1:39:31playing catch up right now.

1:39:33Um we do recognize that the tree canopy

1:39:35strategic plan will be updated at some

1:39:38time in the future. And after that does

1:39:40get updated and um approved I'm assuming

1:39:44another tree code update will take

1:39:45place.

1:39:49>> Okay.

1:39:54>> We can close 26

1:39:57sort of a repeat.

1:39:5927 is great. Please add it to the code.

1:40:03I really appreciate this.

1:40:05So thank you.

1:40:08Um so we can close that. 28

1:40:13Um

1:40:14this you said that maybe the planning

1:40:16commission needs to weigh in on this

1:40:18one.

1:40:19Uh basically

1:40:22but since there are going to be

1:40:24exception requests

1:40:26for any one of these, I think personally

1:40:28we can close this as well.

1:40:31Uh

1:40:32and thank you for the clarification on

1:40:34this because that really helps.

1:40:36Um

1:40:38that's 28 29

1:40:41>> hold on before we continue, I just

1:40:43wanted to see if any other commissioners

1:40:45had feedback on item number 28.

1:40:47>> Okay.

1:40:51>> Ross.

1:40:53Okay.

1:40:57>> Moving to 29.

1:41:00It's an acceptable explanation. Uh thank

1:41:03you.

1:41:06Uh 30 also we can close.

1:41:11Uh but it would be nice to see somewhere

1:41:14hopefully the commission will

1:41:17you know heritage sorry the plaques and

1:41:20the things should be a better um

1:41:24actually we can close 30. Sorry we can

1:41:27close 30.

1:41:29Um

1:41:33Sorry. Just got a comment that I wasn't

1:41:35speaking into the mic. Um

1:41:37yeah and then I think from a perspective

1:41:40of the large tree removal, I think

1:41:43I know that it's not in our

1:41:47jurisdiction to talk about the fees

1:41:50but it would be nice at some point

1:41:53during the recommendation if the

1:41:54commission would also be okay with

1:41:58suggesting a higher fee for heritage

1:42:00tree removals. We're talking about the

1:42:02mass of

1:42:03trees.

1:42:04Um

1:42:05we should not cut them with impunity.

1:42:07They should cost something.

1:42:10Um, so that would be a recommendation

1:42:12rather than a code change. So you can

1:42:15close this as well.

1:42:18Thank you.

1:42:20>> Thank you.

1:42:25>> So I since we've just gone through the

1:42:28issues matrix getting collecting

1:42:30feedback from the owners of those the

1:42:32individual items, I want to now look

1:42:34around the room and see if any of the

1:42:36other commissioners have feedback on any

1:42:38item on this matrix. Commissioners, this

1:42:40one.

1:42:40>> Yeah, I do have a

1:42:42item at 2 31.

1:42:46So the questions

1:42:48well well the the discussion is bring up

1:42:50if we can apply more

1:42:53fine to removing a larger tree and then

1:42:56the response using a 6 in DBs tree ex

1:42:59example.

1:43:01I just see this a little bit not that

1:43:03comparable.

1:43:04Like I mentioned before, someone just

1:43:06asked to remove a 6 in DBs tree might be

1:43:09the cases.

1:43:10So let's say

1:43:12it's reasonable not to increase a

1:43:14penalty for removing a

1:43:17smaller 6 in tree,

1:43:20but it's a very unlikely

1:43:22someone just accidentally remove a

1:43:25larger tree. So that's why agree that

1:43:27for a larger tree those penalty can go

1:43:30up. The reason for that it is if we

1:43:33compare the current penalties, let's say

1:43:35a remove a a larger tree it's

1:43:38I just made that up. Let's say

1:43:4015

1:43:42115

1:43:44or just 15,000 let's say that. It seems

1:43:46I I saw this number somewhere. But for

1:43:49the $15,000

1:43:51compared to let's say a developer come

1:43:54in

1:43:54and build an extra level extra

1:43:57what they're getting the profit is way

1:44:00way more than 15,000.

1:44:02So if I'm that developer, I would just

1:44:05cut down the tree. I'll pay you 1,500

1:44:08$15,000.

1:44:09I I'll

1:44:10$50,000 maybe, or at least 20

1:44:14from that development.

1:44:16So that's why um I'm green that increase

1:44:18the larger

1:44:20increasing the penalty for a larger tree

1:44:23would make sense. So it doesn't sounds

1:44:25like incentive to someone

1:44:28that just wanted to do a development and

1:44:30meanwhile not hurting

1:44:33the

1:44:34ordinary people who just accidentally

1:44:35cut down

1:44:36a smaller tree.

1:44:39That would be my opinion.

1:44:44>> Do we have any other commissioner feed

1:44:46uh commissioner comments on either this

1:44:48item or any other item uh commissioner

1:44:50Besht?

1:44:51>> Um I just wanted to go back to number 16

1:44:53for a second just saying like if full

1:44:55simplification of the actual code itself

1:44:57wouldn't be possible, I think it'd be

1:44:59really great especially for homeowners

1:45:01who like don't exactly know what they're

1:45:02doing in comparison to like developers.

1:45:04It would be extra

1:45:06um helpful if you could like emphasize

1:45:07like that there's resources available

1:45:09for them like permit calculators or

1:45:10guides or maybe even like examples for

1:45:13common situations that they might be

1:45:15dealing with just to simplify their

1:45:16process too.

1:45:21>> Any other commissioner feedback?

1:45:26Okay.

1:45:28It looks like you have a satisfied

1:45:29conditionally satisfied commission on

1:45:31these issues matrix.

1:45:35>> Thank you.

1:45:37We'll go back into the presentation and

1:45:39then we'll go through the staff

1:45:41recommended code revisions.

1:45:49>> So from our previous meeting we did want

1:45:52to reiterate three of the proposed

1:45:54revisions from the September 23rd study

1:45:56session.

1:45:57Um so these updates included

1:45:59incorporating the third party review

1:46:00option to all tree removal permits. So

1:46:03that includes the standalone tree

1:46:04removal permit like a single family

1:46:06homeowner would get as well as a

1:46:08development related permit.

1:46:10The second one is updating the exception

1:46:12criteria in response to the stormwater

1:46:15concern or comments that we got um where

1:46:18the exception would not impact other

1:46:20properties within the vicinity.

1:46:23And then lastly um clarity within the

1:46:26tree removal table where the 30 in in

1:46:28diameter at breast height specifically

1:46:30that um diameter um kind of left was

1:46:34left out of the table so we clarified

1:46:35that.

1:46:37Um and then we do want to note that if

1:46:38we don't hear any objections to the um

1:46:41revisions you see on screen um then

1:46:43we'll continue with those revisions.

1:46:47>> I was going to say I don't have an from

1:46:48my perspective I don't have objections

1:46:50other than the comment and the the

1:46:51related um item in the issues matrix.

1:46:57Does any other commissioner have um have

1:46:59any objection to the slide?

1:47:03Okay.

1:47:07>> And then here again are the new

1:47:08revisions that are based on the planning

1:47:10commission's comments from and public

1:47:11comments from the October 14th meeting.

1:47:15So that includes adding clarity that

1:47:16confirmation of the replacement tree

1:47:18installation would be required.

1:47:20And the second one is any removal of the

1:47:22hazard of a hazard tree no matter what

1:47:24size would require one replacement tree.

1:47:29>> Any commissioner objections or feedback?

1:47:35Commissioner

1:47:37Commissioner Z.

1:47:40>> [laughter]

1:47:41>> Uh so for

1:47:43so for the second one

1:47:45do we have a specific language talking

1:47:47about the the the replacement tree?

1:47:50Is do we have like a size

1:47:52or something? Okay.

1:47:54>> Yeah in in general um we do have size of

1:47:59the trees at installation for

1:48:00replacements.

1:48:01>> And species?

1:48:03>> And species correct.

1:48:09>> No other objections?

1:48:11Okay.

1:48:14>> Um so we also added

1:48:16with to the applicability section to

1:48:18inform the user when this code applies,

1:48:22specifically calling out residential and

1:48:24commercial properties.

1:48:26Also added to the enforcement and

1:48:28penalties the types of violations list

1:48:31where the removal or damage of trees

1:48:33that have not received approval is

1:48:35considered a violation as well as tree

1:48:38topping.

1:48:40And then we also have proposed incre-

1:48:43uh proposed increases of the height of

1:48:47the tree protection fencing and then

1:48:49that the tree that fencing would have to

1:48:51be chain link fence.

1:48:54And then we've added clarity that

1:48:55hazardous dead disease and dying trees

1:48:58do not receive credit for tree removals

1:49:01associated with development.

1:49:10>> Any commissioner objections or feedback?

1:49:17Commissioner.

1:49:19>> I just wanted to say that I really like

1:49:20the number six.

1:49:30Thank you.

1:49:33>> All right, moving on. We've added

1:49:35language to prioritize replacement trees

1:49:38within that same neighborhood

1:49:40um where that tree was removed. So we've

1:49:42added it in two spots.

1:49:45>> And that makes me very happy.

1:49:49But seriously, do we have any other

1:49:50commissioner feedback on this item?

1:49:58>> And then lastly, we do want to note that

1:50:00we did receive a public comment from the

1:50:02Master Builders Association and so staff

1:50:05has proposed some revisions based on

1:50:07those comments

1:50:09uh which include changing the

1:50:10development incentive to retain

1:50:12additional trees from 5% to 10%

1:50:15additional in gross floor area,

1:50:17modifying the definition of regulated

1:50:20tree to include invasive and

1:50:22noxious trees. This would require a tree

1:50:26removal permit and replacement tree for

1:50:28the removal of invasive or noxious

1:50:30trees.

1:50:32And then lastly, we've defined viable as

1:50:35meeting the tree condition of excellent

1:50:37to fair.

1:50:42>> Commissioner Parna.

1:50:43>> I just have a question on this viable

1:50:46and this

1:50:47fair to excellent scale. Is that a

1:50:50nationally recognized scale?

1:50:54>> Yes. So it's related to our tree

1:50:57condition definition table

1:50:59where it ranks from excellent all the

1:51:02way down to poor.

1:51:05And so having viable mean that it would

1:51:08be fair to excellent.

1:51:11>> And this is coming from all the national

1:51:13arborist definitions. I mean

1:51:16for consistency and

1:51:18being standard.

1:51:20>> Correct. Based off of our from our

1:51:22consultant, yes. But we can verify.

1:51:25>> Right. Thank you.

1:51:30>> Any other commissioner feedback or or

1:51:32objections?

1:51:35Okay.

1:51:38And then lastly, we have next steps

1:51:41which includes attending the November

1:51:4318th meeting for a study session and

1:51:46then seeking recommendation on the code.

1:51:49It's anticipated that the revisions

1:51:51presented today and any discussion from

1:51:53the November 18th meeting will be

1:51:55included

1:51:56in the recommendation as conditions.

1:51:59And then we'll return again on December

1:52:0116th to receive planning commission

1:52:04report approval.

1:52:07>> Great. Thank you. Thank you. This is

1:52:09really a great conversation. I

1:52:10appreciate the staff's preparation. So

1:52:12thank you for that.

1:52:16So with that said, our our next agenda

1:52:18Thank you. Our next agenda item is staff

1:52:20and commissioner updates.

1:52:23They're next in our final agenda item

1:52:25for this evening.

1:52:36>> We'll just note that the next meeting is

1:52:38on our special schedule still for the

1:52:39November December calendar, so it will

1:52:41be November 18th.

1:52:43Um and as noted, we'll be having the

1:52:45public hearing related to commercial

1:52:46drones.

1:52:48And earlier uh commissioner Van Niman

1:52:51asked about the planning commission

1:52:53recruitment process.

1:52:55Uh and as noted that uh current opening

1:52:59call for applications closes on the 6th

1:53:02at which point we'll begin review and

1:53:05that process.

1:53:06And that's all we have.

1:53:09>> Thank you, Glenn.

1:53:11I now look for a motion to adjourn.

1:53:15>> So moved.

1:53:17>> All in favor?

1:53:18>> Aye.

1:53:19>> We are adjourned. Thank you.

```*