Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, welcome to the May 27th, 2026 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We will start with a roll call. Commissioner Copley.

Present.

Commissioner Coleman. Present. Commissioner Gagne. Present. and Vice Chair Whittier.

Present.

And I am Chair Weston. Commissioner Aparna and Commissioner Van Nyman are excused tonight. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present. Lauren Alpert, Jeff Churchill, Glenn Coyle, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. All right. That is approved. And any corrections to the meeting summary from last time? Nope. Okay. In that case, I look for a motion to approve the meeting summary from May 13th, 2026. So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. That is also approved. At this point, it's time for us to hear public comment and items from the audience. Who do we have tonight?

We have a few speakers this evening. Our first speaker is Linda S. Great.

And if I can remind you to keep your comments to three minutes, please, and start with your name and address.

Hi, my name is Linda Seltzer and I live on 80th Street. And concerning these incentives for giving potential developers a property tax rebate for eight to 12 years, something like that, to tear down our apartment complexes and to build new ones where we wouldn't even be able to move into... And I looked at these zones, I'm a little bit confused still because some of the documents and the laws refer to NZ neighborhood zone and some of them refer to neighborhood multifamily, NMF. I'm still a little bit confused about that definition, but if you look at NMF, NMF is a huge zone in Redmond. It's not only my neighborhood, but it's also all the way up and down Avondale. It's by the creek, below the creek area. It just covers a huge amount of old apartment buildings. And the two square blocks in which I live and across the street on 82nd, you're talking about six apartment complexes just on those two square blocks that would be incentivized for demolition. And they're talking about, okay, well, we'll just have to consider what is the city's policy towards displacement. But meanwhile, if this passes, developers could accomplish that before that whole displacement policy. And you're not talking about just preventing the whole thing from happening altogether. And that's what I'm really concerned about. Because again, my building is a senior citizen complex, and you're talking about people up into the age of early 90s. You're talking about, in any senior citizen complex, half the people there have had cancer or have cancer of some kind. So I just feel like this whole process is so theoretical. And somebody said, like at a city council meeting last week, that neighborhoods are buildings. And I come from the East Coast, and to me, neighborhoods are people. I grew up in Philadelphia. South Philadelphia is a neighborhood with characteristics and with culture. In New York City, Harlem is a neighborhood with characteristics and culture and people. The same with New York City, like Soho, is a neighborhood with culture and people. And my neighborhood is a neighborhood with culture and people. And it's a different neighborhood, say, from going down 40th Street. Somehow, none of the development is like on 140th Avenue where the wealthy people live. They're only displacing us. I am so sorry to interrupt.

Okay. But we are at three minutes. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Who is up next? Our next speaker is Alex Teeth.

If you can start with your name and address and you have three minutes. Excuse me, you can be at the microphone to give your name and address. You can be at the microphone or you can skip the turn. All right, who is up next?

No problem, don't cut me because you're doing broken law. Rules too. Hi, my name Alex Zimmerman.

And address, please.

And right now, timer. Yeah, where is timer? I don't see timer. Where is timer? Timer not working.

I have the timer, and you are starting right now.

Why no timer? Timer, where is timer? I ask you how many, three minute, where is my three minute? It's not show.

Usually, the chair usually keeps the time or the speaker.

No, she can do in everything. It's not a point. I want speak.

If you don't have a comment, you can sit. Or if you do have a comment, you can start with your name and address. And you have a minute and 28 seconds.

What is recess you're talking? I ask you this because I think in camera. You told me no, so I come here. Where is the problem?

All right. I think you're done.

I'm not done. I want speak. Where is timer?

You don't have one up there. This is a different kind of meeting and I'm running it.

Okay, no timer. I can speak without timer. No big deal.

I'm sorry.

Why are you sorry? I'm sorry you're having trouble. What is trouble I have? I ask you why you don't show calm as faces. It's a trouble. Guys, you make me sick, all of you. Not because you are idiot. All right, you can either sit or I will put us in recess. You're like a robot. It's not government what is behind her. It's a bandita.

We'll be in recess until we have a fair mic.

You don't give me chance.

And you're familiar, but if you could start with your name and address and you are limited to three minutes. Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I spoke to this Commission about nine gaps in Redmond's water management programs, and I spoke to the City Council about two of those gaps, the absence of a citywide recycled water program and Redmond's severely limited greywater reuse policy. Tonight, I want to address the next three critical gaps. Gap 3, the Stormwater and Surface Water Systems Plan, or SSWSPS, is still not publicly available. I am encouraged to see the SSWSP included as a City-initiated application in tonight's annual docket study session. The docketing process is exactly the right mechanism to move this urgently needed plan forward. Gap 4. Redmond has no formal one-water governance structure. Redmond's water programs – potable water, wastewater, stormwater, groundwater, and surface water – are managed in separate silos. There is no unified resource plan, no shared metrics across utilities. and no joint capital investment strategy that connects these five domains. The result is that decisions made in one domain can undermine goals in another. For example, intensifying development in the critical aquifer recharge areas reduces groundwater replenishment, yet the stormwater utility, the water utility, and the planning department have no formal mechanism to coordinate a joint response. The One Water Framework, endorsed by the American Water Works Association and the U.S. Water Alliance, exists precisely to solve this problem. It treats all water as a single finite resource and breaks down the silos between utilities. I urge the Commission to recommend that the City Council direct staff to establish a One Water Interdepartmental Working Group and to explore whether a future docket cycle should include a One Water element in the Comprehensive Plan. Gap 5, Redmond's water shortage response plan is a decade out of date. Last updated in 2016, this plan consists largely of deferred references to Cascade Water Alliance and Seattle Public Utilities documents. It contains no independent local shortage triggers, no demand reduction targets specific to Redmond, and no scenario planning for the kind of multiyear drought conditions Washington has now experienced for four consecutive years running. A climate-informed update is urgently needed, and unlike the SSWSP, it does not require a comprehensive plan amendment. It can be directed by City Council as a work program today. These gaps are practical vulnerabilities that will affect every resident as Redmond grows and our climate changes. Thank you.

I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. That was everyone?

Yes, that concludes public comment.

In that case, we will move on to wrapping up our work on the temporary non-commercial signs in the Redmond Zoning Code, bringing up Jeff Churchill and Lauren Alpert.

Thank you, yes, we, in light of last meeting, we prepared a report that reflected the changes in the draft, and that is in the PC report, and we're asking this evening for you to conclude, or to approve your, that report.

All right, so the report looked great to me. Did anyone see any corrections? Oh, okay. So I think this is going to be very speedy. I look for a motion to approve the report for city council on the temporary non-commercial signs in the Redmond zoning code.

So moved.

Second. All in favor. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

All right. Any opposed? Any abstain?

One abstain.

Great. Thank you. And in that case, that is approved.

Thank you very much. This is going to be on the council's agenda next Tuesday at their committee, the whole meeting. So it's moving right along. So our request is when the planning commission report comes for signature, if the chair can please watch that and sign it, and we'll get it in the council packet ASAP.

Definitely will. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. So as promised, that was speedy. Next up is our study session on the 2026-2027 annual comprehensive plan docket with Glenn Coyle.

Hi, good evening. I am Glenn Coyle, senior planner. I will be on the lead on this presentation tonight. I serve as the coordinator for the annual docket process. I'm also joined by my colleagues via Teams. Peter Holt, he's a senior planner in our utilities division who's working on the stormwater systems plan. And Lauren Alpert, a senior planner in long range who is coordinating our industrial zone study and the neighborhood plans update. I will also try my best to answer any question on the transportation related amendments and will forward any questions I can't answer to appropriate staff. Tonight we will provide a brief overview of the docket process and why we do it. Then we will introduce the proposed docket items and review the docket and threshold analysis and finally review next steps in the process. And as a reminder, All information on the current and past annual dockets can be found on the city's docket webpage, and there's a link to the most current docket page, but it also provides a link to all the dockets. Okay. What is the docket? So under state law, the city may amend its comprehensive plan no more than once per year.

I'm so sorry to interrupt. I'm not sure you're getting picked up by the mic.

Can you hear me here?

Yes, so much better. Thank you.

Do you want me to start from the beginning? Hopefully not.

Maybe just this paragraph.

Okay. So what is the docket? Under state law, the city may amend its comprehensive plan no more than once per year. Keeping the comprehensive plan updated assures that it remains a useful and relevant guide for planning Redmond's future. State law requires that items are reviewed concurrently so that the cumulative effects of the amendments can be assessed. The planning commission's role is to hold a public hearing and to provide a recommendation that the amendments are consistent with state law and the comprehensive plan. This slide highlights the process. After the commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation, council will review and adopt by ordinance the annual docket. Final review will then occur over the next year. This slide summarizes the five city-initiated amendments that are proposed. There is one other proposal that we will discuss after. So the first is the stormwater and surface water systems plan, and that is basically a functional plan that will be adopted by reference into our capital facilities element that will fulfill our Growth Management Act state requirements for capital facilities planning. namely identification of our capital projects along with some other requirements. The second amendment is our land use zone and maps amendment regarding our industrial zones. And that really is going to be more of a kind of a study on this that may lead into a comprehensive plan or map amendments. And it's really related to looking at our business park manufacturing and industrial zones. The third proposed amendment is, and I believe you've been briefed on by Lauren previously, but it's updating our neighborhood element and policies to align with Redmond 2050. This is one of the items that wasn't completed during Redmond 2050, so we're initiating this process there. And then the last two items are kind of more technical in nature. The first one is repealing the neighborhood connections map. Um, and really what this is, is that when the transportation master plan was updated, uh, we adopted a new neighborhood connections map, uh, but the old neighborhood, uh, element has some of these older maps. Um, so the, the, the process here is just repeal those old maps. Um, and lastly, um, update to our transportation facilities plan, which is part of the transportation master plan, which was recently adopted. And again, these are just some, um, minor changes related to there was some projects that were not included that were supposed to be included and then believe adding kind of a revised project as that was needed in for our capital planning so the next part of the proposals is Before we go into document criteria analysis, we just wanted to note that in addition at the April 22nd meeting, the commission directed staff to conduct a threshold analysis for this proposal that was submitted to commission for its consideration. So we'll show the results of that after. See some notes there. And this next slide here shows the docket and threshold criteria that the Commission and Council uses to determine its recommendation and inclusion on the docket, and is found in our Redmond Zone and Code 2176. And as I said here, there's about six criteria. You know, the appropriateness of, you know, proposal being a comprehensive plan amendment as opposed to other processes. whether this is the most appropriate process for this, that it's consistent with state law, county planning policies, et cetera, that there's staff resources to review, it addresses any community interests or conditions, and it has not been considered or rejected in the last two years. And so, This slide summarizes the docket analysis. The full analysis can be found in your packet as attachment A. As this table shows, all the items met all of the criteria except regarding the housing displacement emission incentives that commission requested staff to review. It was found that the proposal does not meet the docketing criteria. And this slide shows the next steps. We will hold a public hearing on June 10th with a recommendation and report approval on June 24th. And the planning commission's recommendation will be presented at council starting July 7th. And I will turn it back over to the chair.

All right, so thank you for the presentation. Just a reminder, our job tonight isn't necessarily to go into the details on any of these items or even our preferences. It's really just to decide if they meet the docketing criteria and then if we send these to council for their review. So we're not, some of these are already meaty and I can tell, but we're not at that stage yet. We're just choosing what would meet the criteria to be evaluated next fall and next winter. With that said, does anyone have questions for an issues matrix or questions of clarification?

Commissioner Coleman. I was already on. My only question is on slide eight. We have meets and does not meet. So you just said that we're just putting this forward to the council for those that meet or do not meet the criteria. So I'm a little confused as to what that means based on the slides. It really kind of tells us what we're doing.

Great. So I think that our role here, or my view of our role here, is to basically, if we have questions about why something was graded as meet or why it was graded as not meet, this would be an excellent time to get clarification. Or if you have questions about the process, this would also be a great time for that. All right, I had just one clarification question that came up in our prep meeting and I just wanted to ask it so that everyone else had visibility. I was confused on side four and then again, seeing the actual list just about how the timing works for city initiated options on this list and just the proposed amendments. So if you could go into a little bit more like why April 1st wasn't the deadline for the city's work.

That would be helpful All in terms of deadlines again You're talking about the process and the zoning code for establishing the docket So this process here is to To manage staff time and also allow for proposals to be reviewed concurrently and cumulatively, because that's what state law says. So we have kind of this flow chart of how this process goes. We have an application period, and then eventually that moves to this first hearing on the docket items, and then we have a public hearing, and then it goes to council for whether to actually establish the docket. You know, We have general timelines here that, you know, says August 31st, councils should take action. They're supposed to take action, final action by August 31st of next year. And that's kind of where we're at. I know we had kind of discussed kind of a little bit of private and, you know, this gets a little technical. It might get out of, I was gonna say, the kind of, what's the word? What's required in state law. But we have kind of, basically we have like pretty much three, four kinds of amendments, right? There's what the public proposes and that probably I would say entails a little bit more staff time and coordination. There's some processes there with pre-application meetings, things like that. Most amendments are usually staff-initiated. Of course, we have a little bit of flexibility there. And then, of course, the most flexibility are amendments proposed by the commission or city council. City council, I would say, has the most flexibility because they can say, by vote, of course, in an ordinance to say we would like this item on the docket. Commissions, you know, always is more of a recommendation body. So, you know, if there was a topic of amendment, you know, that was very important to the commission, you know, you could also recommend that to council. But generally, you know, with these timelines, once the dockets, you know, established again, we're supposed to be reviewing cumulatively and concurrently, uh, which is why we try to do this all at once. So.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And then would we expect any other city amendments to come through now, or is this the final list for the city for this year?

So this is the first official meeting of the docket. Um, these have been noticed on public hearing. They've been, um, All the materials have been submitted. The most important thing is the noticing for public hearing. Once that notice, it gets a little complicated because there is a 21 day notice on that. So that's where it would get a little challenging if we were to add items. Of course, you know, no doesn't always mean no. Uh, you know, there's always that flexibility because ultimately council is the decider on this. Um, so again, if some issue, you know, theoretically emerged, you know, between today and tomorrow or next week, theoretically, yes, it could still get on the docket. Of course, as staff, we would have to figure out how to do the public notice in and all those kinds of things. And how would we get it on, different agendas and things like that. Um, but you know, to stay in the, where I was trying to find is the spirit of the law. Uh, we would still, uh, work, we have to work with council, our clerk and stuff to get this established by the 31st. Um, again, there's, there's no legal penalties, you know, against this. Um, you know, it isn't like, you know, um, to use a hockey analogy, you know, the council will not go into, uh, you know, in the penalty box or things like that. Um, but, um, again, This is really to manage staff time and community expectations on to allow us to kind of review all these proposals at the same time. So it's not staggered.

Great.

That's really helpful. And especially this is our second time through this process as a group. So I appreciate the clarity. I see Denise or sorry, Commissioner Gagne's hand.

Thank you. Glenn, can we go back to the slide? I think it was number eight that had the meets does not meet. Thank you. I just I'm confused by section F. Can you help me understand how all of them? I'm just confused by section F. Can you help me understand?

Yes, and let me just go back to the previous slide that comes from our zoning docket and threshold criteria. Basically, it states the proposal has not been considered and rejected in the last two years. So what that means is that, say, for example, an application was submitted on a theoretical, let's say, policy change. I don't, I don't want to say anything that, you know, sounds like it's like something that really happened. There's, if there's say person A's submitted an application, um, and it went through the process and it was rejected by council, um, they would not be able to resubmit that proposal again until two years later. Um, the idea essentially, and again, this gets more into the spirit of the law, um, is, is to prevent, um, you know, folks from kind of abusing the system and just keep resubmitting a proposal that's been rejected because, you know, certain proposals could entail a lot of staff time, but that's really what the spirit of that criteria is. And, you know, theoretically, you know, it's possible that it could be changed slightly and, or council could again say, well, we'd like this to be reconsidered, but those are all theoreticals, but that's really what the purpose of F is.

Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions or... potentially issues matrix sort of questions.

Just some notes in terms of the process. And if anything, not for the issue, but just in terms of if things were to be added now, it could potentially just lead to more public hearings for both the planning commission and city council, just as a note. But as of now, we also don't know about any additional items from staff.

yeah i should have made that clear is that there aren't any um prospective amendments out there so great commissioner coleman so we have one item that doesn't meet the criteria that we've had comments

around and we discussed at length last time what's the situation here um after tonight if uh we then move forward that doesn't go to the couch is that correct well first we'll have i believe a public hearing on everything is that correct yeah um so we want to note that

If the commission wanted to move forward with this, you would have to direct staff. You only directed us to do the threshold criteria. If you actually wanted this considered as a comprehensive plan amendment, you would have to basically direct us to initiate that. And that gets back to some of the issues with public hearing, things like that. The five items you saw were received formal applications, et cetera, et cetera. It's been noticed for public hearing, things like that. And, but again, like we'd have to go back and kind of develop an application kind of more specific of what the amendments are.

And I want to be really specific on that one. The reason we would have to do that is because there isn't an application in play right now. It would have to be us as the applicant deciding to do the work, even though it doesn't meet the docket criteria, which we talked about previously, which we've talked about previously.

So back to my question, this would come back to us still in our next discussion on this. Is that fair? Or would it disappear from the criteria here?

That's a great question. Then we go just to the list of the existing.

To be honest, my preference is we should bring it back. We had a long discussion about this, and I think just letting it disappear at this meeting seems inappropriate, and we should be talking about it.

Interesting. Okay.

Other thoughts? Commissioner Copley.

I do agree with Commissioner Coleman. I also would mention the fact that we have set a precedent that we're not setting a precedent as a planning commission to recommend things to the council. I think that's kind of the process we went through in the last docket cycle. And so I think that's kind of where we landed on not being a recommendation body for docket items. However, I think we have the ability to do that. So we're kind of in the same boat as we were before with the other item. Is that fair?

So, I mean, I don't think that we've set necessarily a precedent for ourselves, but I think we would have to have a reasonable spirit of conviction about this to bring it forward and ask staff to do the work and change the public hearing if we want to add it to the existing body of docket amendments. So I don't think it should be done passively, but if we had a consensus that we wanted, we thought that was an important process, then we could vote, and if we can get a majority, then we can do that.

So the alternative is we don't vote, or we don't bring it forward, we don't want to do that. And then the situation, this particular situation, and what was said in in public comment tonight is what happens in the interim. If something happens in the interim, and we haven't done this, and something happens basically before these new rules come into place, that for me is an issue.

Yeah, so I'm going to just, this is not a chair hat thing. This is just the way I'm looking at it. So any changes, if we did choose to add it to the docket and it did pass after we've done all the work over the next year, the earliest any changes could go into place is August 31st next summer, I believe. And then the timing on that, the decision has to be made by then. And then I don't know when it would actually go into effect. Is that correct?

So one thing to clarify right now, we're only on the docket in process. First of all, council would have to accept that and then they would actually have to accept a proposed amendment. I pulled up, but I also want to just bring up the docketed threshold criteria. Um, on the issue we're talking about, there was actually no comprehensive plan amendment policies.

I thought really, yes. And then we can go to the criteria. So when I'm looking at one option, there's that timeline. So this isn't like an urgent fix to the way things are now. This is a long fix to the way things are now. I am looking at the docketing criteria.

One of the things is the comp plan, the appropriate remedy for this particular issue.

And one of the things that I think is really important that we've said multiple times on this issue, because I know we all care about this, is that we want to get this in the right place. To me, the right place is still the housing action plan. And I'm forgetting the second one. Human services.

The docket and threshold criteria says human services strategic plan. Thank you. Yep. And housing action plan. Yep.

Appreciate the assist. So to me, that would be something where we're not undoing the work of Redmond 2050. We're completing it. So that's as, again, not chair, just personal, like that's the way I'm viewing the correct routing on this one. But I think that is completely up for conversation. And if people don't see it that way, then we should discuss. Commissioner Copley.

When will the housing action plan and the comprehensive plan come up for discussion next? And is it possible that they come up sooner than August of next year that This could actually ameliorate the problem prior to.

That's why that's been a valuable option.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gagne.

This is sort of similar to what Commissioner Copley was asking, is just to help me understand if there's a mechanism for this issue to come forward on the Housing Action Plan or the Human Services Plan. Like, does the applicant or any interested parties have to go through as formal of a process or can we feel reassured that even if we don't move forward with adding it to the docket that there's a way for this to get in front of council or whomever would be able to sort of us again in a different

know permutation is it possible to clarify how those plans are working right now so the plan the HAP and the HSSP so the housing action plan and the human service strategic plan respectively are being worked on this year we have directed the the person that brought this docket item forward to the staff person that is working on that plan so they can have a conversation with them and how to best incorporate this And those plans will, I believe will be coming to planning commission and council later this year.

Okay. So even if we did not add this to the docket, we still have a chance to make sure that this feedback has been properly incorporated. Yes. Excellent. Balancing all the needs of the community.

Can I ask a follow-up to that answer from Lauren? Yes. So I'm not sure that I still have like real clarity on understanding, like recognizing that going through a formal process can be a barrier for some folks. And I think that adding it to the docket right in this way is somewhat cumbersome. I think I'm wanting some more details if you can offer them on how this individual has been directed to the appropriate staff person, if there are similar hurdles to have it considered, or is it, less onerous, if that question makes sense.

I mean, I think whether it's onerous is often in the eye of the beholder, but I think it's more of a conversation with staff. It's not a formal process that needs to be, to get this information within that plan, there's not a formal process that the individual would have to go through. It would be more of a conversation and to make sure their concerns are addressed in the plan. It's more of a community engagement process. conversation.

Did that answer the question?

Yes, kind of. Will all pieces of community engagement be captured in proposals that are brought forward to the Planning Commission? I just want to understand if it falls off our radar in this way. Is there a guarantee that it will at least be included in the materials that are brought forward to us again in either the Housing Action Plan or the Human Services Plan? Even if staff doesn't agree that that should be part of it, is the community engagement enough that it will be included in the materials?

The staff already knows about this topic and the interest. And typically when we do plans, I think we've brought this to this body before we do have some sort of community engagement summary or a list of comments that is generated. So if this person does engage with staff and even when we have received this feedback already, it will be incorporated in that summary.

Okay, thank you. This helps me to understand the bigger picture. I appreciate all of that.

I was just looking for clarification. So if we were to add something to the docket, can we remove it at a later date or once something is added, it's in the process and it runs through?

So, um, because essentially it's like a placeholder. So we wouldn't be adding it to the docket yet. We would be recommending. Well, no, because that's going to happen after the public hearing. But what is currently happening is this is not included in the public hearings materials. So we're at a point where it is in our slides that, but it's not actually formally announced to the public. So we would have to decide as a group that we thought that it made sense to formally add it now to the staff to the extra work and then bring it before the public in a public hearing. And then we can vote on our actual recommendation at that point. Or we can say that, we probably should not be adding anything to the docket that does not meet the docket criteria. Because this is, again, this is a process. This is, we're following rules.

Once something is added to the docket, it runs, it continues through the process. You can't remove it from the docket, correct?

Yes, but, okay, so we should picture this as right now we are not at the stage of adding things to the docket. Right now we're Do we have the right materials for the public hearing?

I just wanted to understand the process.

Yeah. Does that answer the question?

Sort of. Not really, but that's okay. Do you want to follow up? No, we can move on, and then I'll bring it up again if it further confuses me.

All right. Commissioner Coleman. I'm trying to just work through what the timings are and the scenarios. Scenario A is nothing happens in this situation. We go through this process, not the docket process, but we go through these other two areas that we talk about. They go into play, and if something then happens after that, they have a way to go about this.

Just to clarify, the other two areas that we talk about, you mean the two plans?

Correct, yes. Prior to that and right now, If somebody came forward, a developer came forward to ask for some form of development permission or whatever that is in this particular situation, what happens right now? What happens before these things come in? Because to me, that's the window of time that people are concerned about. That's the issue for me personally is in the interim before these things are put into place, there is a period of time where there's no potential I use the word protection. That's not what I mean. The appropriate process. What is the process right now? So right now, if this happened, if a developer came forward, what would happen right now?

Oh, Jeff is going to join us. Welcome Jeff Churchill.

Good evening. So the question is what happens when a development application comes in or when someone purchases property for development?

Yeah, we've got something specific that's been brought up and the reason that we have this on the docket process is a particular situation. I'm curious, in the interim, what is the process right now if a developer came forward in this situation? What is the process that the individuals who are asking about this right now would need to go through? given that we don't have these other two processes or two approaches in place.

Given the two plans are still being updated to reflect our comp plan changes.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarity, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

I think there's two kind of potential outcomes, and it depends on whether there are property-specific or unit-specific protections in place. So in Redmond, there are a number. There are many. There are hundreds. of specific units that have covenants and they need to remain affordable basically for the life of the project. There are also units owned by nonprofit housing developers, housing authorities, and others. And there are going to be many more hoops to jump through to change something there than in a typical market rate, no restrictions development. So there's the potential where there's something with a lot of hoops or maybe where nothing can happen because there are covenants that prevent it, or if there are no such protections in place, then a developer would someone who buys the property would then go through the process of taking that property down and that would involve the residents having to move. And that would be displacement of the residents. There are not a lot of financial resources that the city has available currently to residents. whom that happens that is certainly a programmatic approach that the city could consider to to change that and that's not something that we have right now for a typical unit that doesn't have any other protections in place

So the potential protections now are not as good as the potential protections later is my question. Like if something happened.

We don't know yet. Like in this particular scenario, I don't know what will change after the plans. The point of the plan is to really get community feedback from a lot of different groups and balance it and try to make a decision that seems fair.

Okay. Thanks, Jeff.

All right. So I think unless people have further discussion, Commissioner Copley?

I think just based on what I'm seeing, I would recommend that we move forward with the items that meet the docketing threshold criteria and remove the one that does not. I also think that the most effective, appropriate, and probably timely a solution to the issue is to go through the commission and the housing action plan. So that would be my recommendation based on what I can see now.

Great, that's helpful. Does anyone wish to propose an alternative? Okay, so in that case, I'm just seeing head shakes. So I'm going to assume that we are going to move forward with just the amendments that do meet the docketing criteria, which I believe are just the ones proposed by the city. And then with the understanding that we don't know what city council's opinions will be, and like last year, we might end up with more than just this set. But we do not need to issue a different packet or a different public hearing. All right. Any further questions or comments here? All right. Thank you for the work, everyone. I think that wraps this item for tonight. And we will move on to staff and commissioner updates. Lauren.

The only update that I have is that we're going to start scheduling interviews or continue our interview process for the youth advisory position. The school year is wrapping up, so we want to kind of solidify who our youth advisor will be by the end of the year. So Chair Weston is going to be attending the final interviews, and we tend to have some time blocked off next week and the week after for that.

Have they been going once so far? Have they been going well so far? Oh, yeah.

Yeah, we're excited.

Good job, Redmond Youth. Jeff Churchill.

A few items are coming to council that you all have worked on for final action or hearings. Next Tuesday will be busy. The council is expected to vote on code amendments related to legislative conformance, fences, and business at their meeting Tuesday at 7. Also, they're expected to vote on the 6900-188th Avenue Northeast Comp Plan Amendment. At their last committee meeting where this was discussed, the path that they're expected to take or that they directed staff to prepare for is to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, which was to reject the plan amendment, and also refer the policy questions that are raised in that back to the Planning Commission. So it is gonna come back in some form as part of your work on Southeast Redmond. So more to look forward to there, here. And then also Tuesday night, there will be a public hearing for the interim official control on commercial drone land use, commercial drone ports. So that's Tuesday night, there'll be a public hearing. I encourage everyone to listen because those comments are certainly pertinent to the work that will come back to the Planning Commission later this year. That's just Tuesday, so we'll keep it there.

Thank you. Any commissioner updates? Commissioner Coleman.

I'd like to ask a question around public behavior in our meetings. Because tonight we had somebody who came, didn't make a statement, and actually abused people here. both from planning department and here as commissioners. What I'd like to understand is what are the rules for that? People, it's freedom of speech and people can say what they want at the mic, but they can't say it to us. And I found it offensive. And so I'd like to understand what we do in this situation. Do we just, if we feel there's a problem, how do we deal with that? I'm curious because I'm sure this isn't the first time that's happened. I just haven't seen that.

So I'll give my opinion as chair and then staff can chime in. So in my opinion, obviously free speech is very important. We all respect that. However, I feel that our time here in this meeting is important and I have started a conversation with staff last month to figure out what rules we can put in place so that we are allowing public comment on issues that face planning. So if we are taking a vote, if we have a responsibility, if there's an issue relating to the comp plan or zoning code or certain functional plans or strategic plans that we actually have influence over, I believe strongly that the community should be here giving public comment on it. Generic free speech comments are important, but this might not be the time and place. So that conversation is working its way through staff and the city's lawyer so that we can do this appropriately. But I really feel like our job is not necessarily a platform for all conversations. It's a platform for planning commission conversations. So I hope that helps and I hope I can give an update soon. Yes.

So I believe there are two things here. One is free speech. I agree with that. The second is abuse. Those are two separate things. And the second should not be allowed in these meetings or here to anybody. And I want to make sure that that is clarified because the two things are not the same.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Other Commissioner comments on that topic or other topics. Okay, I have two things as chair. First of all, I just really like to thank all the commissioners and staff for their time last night, and then especially city council for a joint meeting last night. It's just always really nice to hear people's thoughts in person. Everyone is very thoughtful. It's great to get to see people all together once a year. And so I appreciate the time and everyone making that work for their schedules. And then I also sort of related, just want to say thanks to staff for their work this week to update our website on the topics to review page. So Lauren did great work to get that all updated through the end of September. And then we have like a hazier list out through the first quarter of next year. But it's my interest there is I really want to make sure that the community is aware of what we will be talking about with enough time to formulate an opinion and then tell us about it. People are obviously very welcome to come here and give public comment. And then the other thing is email is also great. So I'm hoping if people have a little bit of advance notice, then we can get a little bit more feedback and we can do our jobs more effectively with that community input.

So huge thanks to staff for making that happen.

Any last pieces? Okay. In that case, I look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. All right.

Oh, thank you. Then we are adjourned.

And you're clear.