Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, welcome to the July 22nd, 2026 meeting at the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We'll start with a roll call. Commissioner Aparna.

Present.

Commissioner Copley.

Present.

Commissioner Gagne.

Present.

Commissioner Van Nyman. Present. Vice Chair Wood here. Present. And I am Chair Weston. Commissioner Coleman is absent tonight. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present. Odra Cardenas, Lauren Alpert, Jeff Churchill, Lauren Anderson, Cameron Zapata, possibly Glenn Coyle, but maybe not. Not Glenn Coyle. And Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved.

Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right, that is approved. And any corrections to the meeting summary from last time? All right, in that case, I look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from June 24th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Great, that is also approved. Now it's time for us to hear a public comment and items from the audience. Who can we start with?

We have one person signed up to speak, Mr. David Morton.

Great. And as always, keeping your comments to three minutes and starting with your name and address.

Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'd like to thank staff for tonight's introduction to the tree code update and for the response I received from the senior planner following my July 7 comments to the City Council. I understand the fee-in-lieu rate, the civil penalty table, and the new tree credit calculations are still being finalized and aligned with surrounding jurisdictions. and that all three will appear in the Version 2 draft expected in a couple of days. Staff's presentation tonight asks what the Commission should focus on for the August 12th study session. I would suggest three things. First, timing. At last night's City Council meeting, I heard that Version 2 will be released in a couple of days. That's welcome news since it's roughly three weeks before the August 12th study session. So I have an ask. Since version 2 will be available about a week before the Let's Connect questionnaire closes on July 31st, should responses submitted that final week of the questionnaire reflect version 2 or version 1? Second, regarding the significant tree definition, I appreciate staff's decision to retain the existing Shoreline Master Program definitions citywide, rather than draft a competing definition. As new definitions of terms like regulated tree, retained tree, and grove are added to Chapter 2178, I would ask only that staff confirm those definitions are checked against the SMP's definition of significant tree. so that the thresholds stay consistent across the code. Inconsistent thresholds create real permitting risk. An arborist and a code enforcement officer could reach different conclusions about the same tree. Third, the shift from a flat 35 percent retention standard to the new tree credit calculation is a significant structural change. Given that Table 2172-090-1 was subject to change in Version 1, I would ask that the Commission receive worked examples, actual before and after credit calculations for typical Redmond lot types, especially for heavily treed lots that your feedback has already flagged, rather than the formula alone. Also, Version 1's heritage tree category and its Culturally modified tree protections are meaningful improvements over the 1998 code. Finally, since the public hearing is on October 14th, I would encourage staff to release the questionnaire summary and comment responses as early as possible ahead of, not simultaneously with, the August 12 packet. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, if that's everyone, Yes, that's all. Great. In that case, we'll move on to concluding our work on the 2026 annual code cleanup with Lauren Albert. While Lauren's coming up, I would like to close the written portion of the public hearing.

Good evening, thank you everyone. This is the formalizing then your report and recommendation and the minutes from the public hearing for the 2026 annual code cleanup.

Great, so does anyone before we actually vote have any changes to make to the packet or report? no okay in that case i look for a motion to approve the report for council on the 2026 annual code cleanup so moved second all in favor aye aye aye all right and that is approved thank you for your time thank you all right now moving on to a briefing um on the update to the tree code this is lauren anderson and cameron zapata

All right, can you hear me? So good evening Planning Commission. We are here today to provide an introduction of the Redmond Zoning Code Tree Code Update. I'm Lauren Anderson, Senior Planner.

I'm Cameron Zapata, Senior Park Planner.

I also want to note that since the slideshow was published, we have included a couple slides on the purpose of this introduction and a context slide as this project has had an unconventional journey. So tonight we plan to go over the purpose of this meeting, provide some background and an introduction to the tree code update. Then we will share the timeline for the project. Staff has held community engagement meetings and we will share the feedback we have heard so far. We also will share the key changes. And then lastly, we will go over our next steps and gather comments. The purpose of today's discussion is to provide an introduction and walk through the overall direction we're proposing and give everyone context as to where the city is at today. We would also like to understand whether this direction aligns with what the Planning Commission expects and that it is on the right path moving forward. And finally, we'd like to hear from you about any specific items you want us to cover in the August 12th Planning Commission study session. If there are any particular topics, questions, or areas that need a deeper dive, this is a good moment to surface them. Our goal today is to make sure we're aligned and that the upcoming session is as useful and as focused as possible. So here's the tree regulation relationships. So we have our comprehensive plan, also known as Redmond 2050, which helps shape our functional and strategic plans. We have five that are listed here on the slide, including our tree canopy strategic plan. And then those plans then help shape our regulations, which includes the Redmond Zoning Code and the Redmond Municipal Code. So this current update is focusing on 2172, True Regulations and the Redmond Zoning Code, as well as 2130, 070, Cultural Resources, and then 2178, Definitions, as well as references to 2172 throughout the code. And then on the right hand side, we have the roles and responsibilities. So the community's role is to provide input and feedback throughout the entire process. And then staff writes the draft code and then post adoption, we implement the regulations. And then the planning commission reviews the code and has the public hearing and then makes a recommendation to the city council. And then the city council approves and reviews the code. And that's the code that gets amended and adopted. So Redmond's current tree protection regulations were adopted back in 1998 and haven't been updated in over 20 years. Since then, the city has experienced significant growth and it's time to align the regulations to meet our intended goals. A major part of this update is consistency and compliance with planning framework that we operate within. Under the Growth Management Act, Redmond is inside an urban growth boundary, which means we will continue to absorb population growth as a part of the effort to limit regional sprawl. Because of this, the city must find the right balance between state mandated growth and maintaining, protecting, and replacing trees. To highlight how much the city has changed between 1998 to recent, we've seen the following growth. So the population grew by 46%, and then 39% increase in single family units, 55% multifamily units, and then 47% increase in jobs. So this level of growth reinforces why this tree code update is needed. The Redmond 2050 comprehensive plan directs most new growth into downtown, Overlake, and Marymoor Village to support light rail and encourage density. Any updates to the Tree Code must align with these policies and accommodate infill development, middle housing, and other tools that help manage growth. Overall, the Tree Code will guide tree removal and protection for both development and non-development activities. Updating the code is an important step to ensure we're supporting growth while protecting Redmond's urban forest. So here's a quick overview of the project's history. So the tree code update began in 2020, followed by planning commission work through 2021 and 2022 with the report approved January, 2022. The city council process ran in early 2022 and was ready for adoption by council before being paused in June of that year. So the reason for this pause is because the city of Kirkland's tree regulations were appealed and they underwent litigation. So we decided to pause that. The project was relaunched in March 2025, but then paused again in the third quarter due to the recent 2050, Redmond 2050 comp plan policy and then also our new middle housing policy and code regulations. So the tree code needed to be rewritten to further align with our comp plan and allow additional alignment. And so that's when we restarted again in February of this year. So here's an overview of our current schedule. So from February to April of this year, staff drafted the code and worked closely with planning, code enforcement, public works, and park staff to ensure clarity and incorporate feedback. Our current step is in the community engagement piece, which Cameron will speak to later. In August, we'll go to the technical committee, and then we are here today to introduce the tree code update to the planning commission, which will begin several months of the planning commission process, which we anticipate will go into December. A revised public draft will be released in the next couple of days, which will reflect the community feedback that we have received so far. There'll be a public hearing in October where the public can submit comments and voice their feedback. After the planning commission recommends approval to the city council, we'll then start the council review and adoption process, which will begin January to March of 2027. Postcode adoption, we're anticipating to start in April, 2027, where we'll host learning sessions for the public and interested parties to help everyone understand the updated code and also do internal training for staff. Our overall goal is to adopt tree regulations that are clear, aligned with community values, and consistent with Redmond 2050. The intent is to strike a balance of protecting and retaining trees while also accommodating the growth we are required to plan for. As mentioned earlier, Redmond must support continued population and housing growth, and our tree regulations need to reflect that reality. To achieve this, we've identified several key objectives. First, we're ensuring strong involvement from both internal and external stakeholders so the regulations truly aligned with the community's vision. Second, we're identifying gaps in the current code to improve clarity around how true protection is applied. Third, provide a clear system for annual reporting so progress can be measured and communicated. We will continue to do this by tracking the amount of tree removals through our permitting system, Intergov. Fourth, build a framework that supports both current and future tree protection. Fifth, alignment with our plans and policies. Finally, we plan to provide accessible informational guides that help residents and interested parties understand tree protection, removal, planting, maintenance, and the broader benefits of trees. Overall, the code needs to be clearer, aligned, and easier for everyone to use and implement. The expanded list of our goals and objectives are listed on the Tree Code Let's Connect webpage, which we provided in the slide at the end.

or Community outreach and involvement we're using several tools to keep people informed and engaged throughout this tree code update process. So first we set up a general tree code update email address so that the Community can email us with their questions or comments. we've also hosted for learning sessions, where we invited the Community to learn more about the direction of the tree code update. And then we also held two office hours to give people a chance to ask questions and provide comments in a more conversational setting. And then we'll also be hosting one more office hour on July 29th from 12 to 1 p.m. at City Hall and also virtually. To gather input, we launched the Let's Connect questionnaire, which is open through July 31st, and so far we've received 35 responses. We're also spreading the word through e-news, newsletters, social media, all to reach broader audiences. We also plan to connect in person at Derby Days, where community members can stop by our booth and learn more about this project and ways to provide their input. After code adoption, we're looking into different ways to alert the community of these changes, entry or removal requirements through media such as notices through utility billing, social media postings, newsletters, and press releases. We'll continue supporting the community and staff with additional learning sessions and produce guides and handouts to ensure everyone understands the updates and how they'll be applied. So I did want to highlight some of the key themes that we heard from the community. Residents shared a strong interest in how hazardous trees are replaced. The code update includes a one-to-one replacement ratio for landmark and heritage trees that are deemed hazardous. We also heard concerns about the tree credit multiplier and how it could impact development, especially heavily treed lots where compliance can be more challenging. Several commenters pointed to the importance of aligning definitions with the American National Standard Institute's A300 or ANSI. These guidelines ensure technical accuracy. There's also concern about property line trees. These questions were about responsibility and how these trees are counted. There was notable support for increasing trees in downtown and our urban centers, as well as ideas for approaching how to address slow deforestation citywide. Some folks asked for clear distinction between what qualifies as trees versus shrubs or hedges. And at the same time, community members had asked for clarity in development flexibilities and more options. we know that outreach and education remains important and people want accessible information and opportunities to ask questions. And so overall this feedback has helped us shape and adjust the draft code and provide that clarity. So now I'll walk through the key changes that are included in the latest draft of this tree code. So we've updated several definitions in section 2178 to improve clarity and alignment with industry standards. The code also refines how tree credits are applied during development, ensuring that the system is more predictable and easier to use. Enforcement and penalties have been strengthened to support compliance, and we've clarified how our tree fee and lieu funds can be used to support our canopy goals. We also updated the criteria for exception requests to make the process more transparent. And as we mentioned earlier, the code includes guidance for replacing hazardous landmark and heritage trees, and also adds development flexibilities to help projects meet requirements while still protecting the critical trees on site. Key addition is the tree protection zone or TPZ, which outlines consistent standards for protecting trees during construction. And then we've introduced a programmatic permitting, which allows city projects to be reviewed in a more streamlined way. We've added standards to regulate and protect heritage trees and then also added standards for identifying and managing culturally modified trees under section 2130.070. And then finally updated tree replacement standards by prioritizing conifers and providing more clarity and aligned location for offsite tree replacements. So our next steps with you, the planning commission is scheduled out here. We plan to hold two study sessions, one on August 12th and one on September 23rd before hosting the public hearing scheduled for October 14th. We'll then have another study session on November 2nd and November 28th with the final report approval anticipated for December 12th. where we will then start the city council process in January through March of 2027, and with the goal to adopt in March of 2027. And then as Lauren mentioned, you can check out our Let's Connect webpage to view the upcoming version two of the draft and also what we plan to do to post the results from the questionnaire that's on the Let's Connect. And that closes July 31st. So tonight, staff is asking if there are specific items that you'd like us to focus on at our upcoming study session and then just also open it up to questions and comments.

All right, so we're not gonna start an issues matrix yet, because we don't have code in front of us, but does anyone have general questions? Okay, we're gonna start in an unusual place here. Commissioner Gagne.

I was, at the study session, I would be really intrigued to hear about the litigation.

It sounds like some work was happening.

We learned from our neighbors that they had litigation. I can't remember now if it was on tree canopy or what it was, and so the work was paused. So deeply curious to know if that litigation that our neighbor went through is complete and if there's any lessons learned from watching our neighbor go through something similar on this topic.

So if we can do answer, if you would have answers now, that would be great. Okay. If it's something that you just want to roll in next time, that's fine too.

Yeah, so the litigation has been resolved. So it was between Kirkland and the Master Builders, and they had some issues with their proposed code that they had adopted. So they kind of had some sidebar conversations and resolved it outside of Kirkland updated their code to add certain language that ultimately said that if these regulations prohibit development that's allowed, like allowed density, then the standards wouldn't apply or that they could still build what they're allowed to build. So that's what went through that. And that's also why we wanted to pause ours to make sure that our code didn't get appealed. But then after that whole litigation process, then we had our middle housing mandates, and then we updated our code to allow for middle housing. So that was another reason why we had to basically restart and rewrite the entire code was to address middle housing as well.

Ms. Sharon Copley.

Could you give me an example of a culturally modified tree?

Yes, so those are trees that have been marked by the tribes. So whether that's used for basket weaving or noting location. So in the future, I guess in the future, the upcoming session, we can provide photo examples of what that is and provide more details on culturally modified trees. So it was actually a, when we were doing our comprehensive plan update, the tribes reached out and wanted us to include it. So it did get added into our comp plan and then now we're adding that into our tree code to be in alignment.

We'll do in the order that popped up. So Commissioner Aparna and then Vice Chair Whittier.

I actually had two questions. I'll say one for later. One thing I would like to see is when we talk about the tree canopy plan and then we look at the potential urban forest or heat islands, is it possible to get an identified map where we see where these pockets can be maintained to maintain the tree canopy. So like how are we gonna achieve that 40% in our current as a zoning overlay to see where we can achieve that. Because I know that the last time this came around, we were heavily dependent on the Redmond watershed, which is great. But within the city, we also recognize that we need the urban forest to cool it down. And there was a mention of heavily forested or heavily treed lots. So I think that conversation goes hand in hand. So something more along those lines to identify, hey, these are the areas we would like to keep as best we can. Thank you.

Vice Chair Whittier.

Yeah, and I'm going to presume that we'll have copies of a detailed summary of the survey and the findings, because I'm really curious about what the details of what the community sentiment is and what their specific concerns and what the opportunities are. Yes.

Yeah, the questionnaire closes on the 31st. We did extend that out because we have the Redmond Derby days. So we wanted to allow more people to be able to complete the questionnaire, but we will include the questionnaire and comments as well as responses to those with the study session coming up. Commissioner Van Diamond.

So I would like to see examples of perhaps a larger lot with a larger number of units going in and then also like what it looks like in an example where you've got a 7,000 square foot lot and they're gonna put an ADU on it, but there's trees and how do we balance that equation? And then I also would like to understand when we talk about prioritizing conifers, what that means in reality.

I'll jump in with a comment too. Mine actually builds on yours a little bit. So one of the things that I really noticed in draft one is that it felt like it would benefit from a more scenario-based view instead of a technical categorization of this. It was a very long document. And I think what I've noticed about complaints that have come into Planning Commission that have had trees involved somewhere is that it tends to be people have a very specific situation in mind so either they own property and don't know what they're going to do on their lot they don't know what rules apply to them or to their neighbor and they're worried about fairness or it's like downtown large developments like figuring out what's going to happen there or I think the new rule is like infill development where it's like lot might have multiple homes on it or there's some sort of replacement happening and so understanding what's happening with that and then maybe like city-owned trees as a category but being able to kind of get exactly where you're going like my neighbor wants to chop down the cedar and it provides shade on my house and i don't want them to do that like that sort of scenario understanding what the rules are and like what size trees we're dealing with and what would the replacement be and just having it because the rest of the tree code is sort of irrelevant at that point. And in the first draft, I got really bogged down in definitions early, including like heritage trees and how are these different than other, you know, it just like, I couldn't get, if I had a like picture in my head of an argument that happened in my neighborhood, grass on this had a ton of trees to come down in the last 10 years. Like, what should have been happening there. And so I think just getting really into the scenarios, expecting the code to do the heavy lifting of that instead of pamphlets later is going to be super helpful.

We'll go back around or actually we'll go the other way. Commissioner Aparna and then we'll go this way. To jump on the same thing, I had a similar comment but in a slightly different way. So if we break it down by scenarios, these are the things which came from the top of my head, right? One is the hazardous and the drying trees. So any property owner, you would have hazardous or drying trees. What does that look like in terms of when they can chop, when they can't chop, what happens, how is the replacement. Then there is a second scenario of development, where either you're subdividing lots or you're building something big somewhere. And the third one is where people are trying to cut down or try to work with for views, light on houses, and the shade that Chair mentioned. And the fourth one for me is a scenario where I understand the hierarchy of the types of trees. So I've had arborists come over to our house, and there are trees that they don't care for because they tend to be hazardous faster, like cottonwoods. The alders also don't have a really long lifespan. And heritage trees and the conifers attached, where conifers just riding it out. We know that climate change is causing some conifers to have a lot more problems. Like the Western Red Cedar just not doing well right now. And so, and if I might jump on to that last point, I would like to see the science behind what has been proposed. the framework is missing climate change and that relates to how you can replace the replacement rate due to development or dying. So we need to have it backed up by science and just saying conifers may not be the answer. So I would like to see some signs, something where you're coding studies by the universities. And all the Pacific Northwest universities are really studying forest die-off, beetles activity, all of that stuff. No point saying replenishment rate if those trees are not going to survive. So we need to be very thoughtful. Thank you.

Great. Commissioner Gagne. Oh, and Mike, please.

The tree plan around the transit center. I'm just curious if there's any interaction or conversations between what's being planned and law enforcement, because I've just seen a couple of situations happen where folks who are Trying to avoid the drones as law enforcement detection are using the trees as sort of a cover to jump on and wondering if there's any communications at all between this planning and law enforcement.

Not that I'm aware of, but we can look into that.

I'll jump in with one last comment. In terms of public feedback, this is a rare area where I think actually asking for people's complaints might be more effective than asking for their positive feelings towards Redmond. Just because in general, asking people to weigh in on the code a lot of people don't feel qualified. but they do have opinions about this. And it's, um, especially like scenarios that they've seen around town, like whether it's a hazardous tree or whether it's missing trees or whether it's, um, like wishes for trees in different places or different types of trees, like people do have opinions. And I think like having a tree complaint board would actually be really like, you might be able to pull just a lot higher quantity, um, without getting too far into the weeds of the actual details. And then you can hopefully use that as good fodder for the details themselves. Any last comments? No. Okay. We can't wait until you come back.

Thank you.

All right. Next up, is going to be our briefing on the Southeast Redmond Market Study with Lauren Alpert.

Okay, thank you for bearing with me while I got the presentation pulled up. So we are here today, my name is Lauren Alpert, Senior Planner, Long Range Planning, to give an update on the Southeast Redmond Manufacturing and Industrial Market Study that was conducted from last spring, or from last summer through this spring. What we're going to do today is we're going to review a background brief on why we conducted the study, the background and the purpose of the study, a brief summary of the findings from the market study, and review some of the strategies, some that are already going on and some of the more future forward strategies. So to better, and this is a great group because you already understand some of the context about Redmond 2050. So to understand the context and purpose of the market study and the Southeast Redmond Manufacturing Industrial Center, we're going to have to understand that timeline of how we got to here. From previous rezoning efforts, the planning process that we went through with Redmond 2050 and the Economic Development Strategic Plan. So if you go back to 2021, this is when Redmond first let the county know of our intention of doing a countywide industrial center in Southeast Redmond. We put in our letter of intent largely to maintain our industrial and manufacturing jobs that we have in this area already. Also as a result of the rezoning that took place in Marymore in 2017, In preparation for the light rail to come, that area became more focused on housing around that transit line. And we knew that it could eventually lead to some businesses being displaced, and so we were looking at where those businesses could potentially go. So the vision for this center is informed by those earlier rezoning efforts and the desire to maintain. It's also informed by the Redmond 2050 planning process. This establishment of the center was part of that planning effort, which you are all, for most of you, a lot of you familiar with, and also in partnership with our economic development team and their development of their economic development strategic plan that was ongoing the last few years. In Redmond 2050, we estimate about 29,000, over 29,000 jobs citywide. 2,600 of those jobs were allotted to Southeast Redmond. The themes of Redmond 2020, if you remember, as we talk about a lot, are equity, sustainability, and resiliency, and that includes a resilient and diverse economy. We often are talking about housing, but it also has to do with the jobs that we have here. So our economic development plan also, I don't have this slide, but if we remember that the chart that we often refer back to, we have our comp plan, we have our strategic plans. This is one of those strategic plans. And so in this following suit with Redmond 2050, it also talks about establishing this center and has policies and plans supporting the market study and the application to the county for the center. So let's talk a little bit about SEMIC. There we go. So Southeast Redmond Manufacturing and Industrial Center. The center is approximately 375 acres. It's primarily zoned. The zoning in that district is industrial and manufacturing park. As I said, it was recognized as part of Redmond 2050. Also we, in August, 2025, so last summer, as we completed the first part of the market study, we put in our application with the county to become a countywide industrial center. We use a lot of that data and analysis as part of our application. And it will be recommended to the county's growth management planning council later this year to be designated. So as part of that market study, we looked at a review of existing conditions and those market drivers that are informing those conditions. We did a lot of stakeholder engagement. We actually pushed out the study so we can do more stakeholder engagement. We also did a look at review of the business opportunities. We did some site analysis and also put together a robust strategy guide. So some of the key findings that we had from this study, there's a limited supply of industrial manufacturing space in Southeast MIC. We have, as of Q2 this year, have an approximate vacancy rate of 3.6%. Seems very low, but a healthy vacancy rate is between that five and 8%. So we have a lower vacancy rate than what's considered healthy. We also found when looking at a specific type of industrial space called flexible space. So this is the space that will have like a mix of offices, some light manufacturing, sometimes there's a retail facing space, side of it so this is kind of our artisanal manufacturing our breweries our distilleries sometimes roasters athletic facilities such as gyms or rock or gymnastics facilities sometimes we'll be utilizing this flex space we've got a mismatch of this so we have a higher we have a high vacancy rate among that space but there's also a lot of demand so there's a mismatch between our supply and demand of flex space and Redmond right now Another thing that came up when we were talking to a lot of our stakeholders was energy constraints. And we've talked about that in this group before. The challenge and cost and timeline of getting energy to some of these sites is a concern to a lot of stakeholders that we talked to. Oops, wait, I'm not ready for that yet. But based on a lot of that stakeholder conversations and looking at the data, there's a lot of opportunity in this area as well. Some of the business opportunities that are present include kind of that high value tech driven industry. We already have a lot of that in Redmond. So looking at advanced manufacturing, robotics, aerospace industries, And these businesses often require specialized facilities with high power, and they're often require like a specific anchor tenant to move in. So someone's not going to necessarily just build this facility and wait for a tenant. They often require that tenant to be ready to move on these properties. Another opportunity is e-commerce and distribution. So businesses focused on that last mile distribution. We have a strategic location here and we have a proximity to a large customer base. for that and then also as we talked about those small scale and legacy businesses so talking about our small scale manufacturing our breweries our distilleries our recreational uses so they're looking for spaces to stay in Redmond so the market study in addition to doing this analysis looked at um actions that we could take short, medium, and long-term to have a successful MIC, to have a successful manufacturing industrial center. So what are some things that are already underway? There's quite a bit of work that's already started to achieve our goals, both by the long-range planning team and also the economic development team. Fortunately, many of the recommendations in the study are advancing through these partnerships and programs within these departments and within these divisions and through partnerships and through this study. So we've talked already in this group about how SB 6026 and this legislation has really jump-started the conversation and the need for preserving and updating our industrial and manufacturing zoning. And so you'll be seeing that on the docket later this year. And next year. And we're going to be looking at making sure the land use strategies and zoning that we're putting into place are going to be aligned with this study and the recommendations here. That also will include addressing some of the issues of that overlapping critical aqua for recharge areas and any other environmental regulations. Um, economic development team, our economic development team is also working with greater Seattle partners, um, in our region's lead business investment and attraction organization. Um, and last year, uh, the mayor actually joined the board of that organization. Um, and by working closely with them, we're going to ensure that the Southeast Redmond center, as well as specific sites are featured for business attraction and site selectors. So working with our, our strategic partners in the region to attract more businesses to this area. We are also working on forming additional partnerships that allow for consolidated just-in-time information on what various industry sectors need in terms of site requirements and infrastructure. And we're striving to implement a coordinating effort across the city, county, and state to meet those needs. We also are already looking at micro transit and pilot programs to bridge transit gaps in this area. So for specifically, Red Link is already being implemented and we're looking at how that can continue. So some stuff was already underway, some stuff is continuing. and some longer term actions. The strategic guide, the strategy guide kind of breaks this up in kind of land use and zoning, business recruitment and retention, infrastructure and environment, funding and funding mechanisms. So there's a lot of more details in the strategy guide. It outlines, for example, the timeline for some of these small, medium and long-term, and also the perceived or the actual effort that the city would have to go to do these. If it's a low effort item, like low hanging fruit, or if this is gonna take a lot of work to get started. So it kind of outlines all of that for us in the strategy guide. So land use and zoning, some of the things that we're looking at in this category are looking at incentives for developers to include small industrial flex space. So similar to how we structured the incentive program in some of our other regions, duplicate that in these industrial areas, increasing allowable floor area ratio and building heights when appropriate and encouraging or requiring shared loading docks. So if we can start to build these things into an incentive program down the line. Business recruitment and retention. It's common phrase, time is money for both the businesses and the city. So some of the actions focused on educating and proactive planning around permit requirements and process. So we're going to work closely with our partners and development services to understand funding and implementing some of these actions on how we can improve our application process. Infrastructure and environment. We wanna create site readiness for business attraction. We need to coordinate infrastructure demand with infrastructure partners such as PSE. So trying to strengthen those partnerships so we can provide timely power capacity required for those at advanced manufacturing. I think you recently, there was recently a grid capacity study report. So that works to address some of those issues or at least start to find out where those issues are in grid capacity in our area. funding mechanisms also. We're going to explore some funding tools and opportunities in partnership with our city's finance department, as well as exploring public-private partnerships and or potentially acquiring a city-owned property to lease or subsidize rent to local manufacturers and makers. So these are some of the long-term things that we're looking at. So let's see. Thank you for that. This has been a group effort between economic development and long range planning. The study really has helped us with some of this data analysis and engagement with our partners that are on the ground to start to make these informed program and policy and land use decisions. We're not asking for any decisions or there's no recommendation that's required of this group tonight, but we wanted to make sure that you received an update on where this study landed and how it was going to potentially inform some of this future land use and zoning decisions that will be here later this year.

Right, so even though we don't have decisions, this was very meaty and I feel like people are going to have questions and comments. So maybe I'm seeing some knowing laughter. So perhaps we can go around and just if people have questions or comments they'd like to make about what they read, this would be a great time. We'll start with Commissioner Aparna.

Thanks, Lauren. I think this is a very exciting project. For me, I have only one and I'm really hoping that at some point this is addressed. When you say manufacturing and industrial, we should actually be creating something. For me, distribution does not qualify as industrial or manufacturing. If we are just going to be warehousing things, that's not the vitality of the city that I would seek in the long term. It's not the kind of jobs. That being said, I love the idea of a flex space, plug and play, just-in-time manufacturing kind of thing. We've talked about this in the 2050 plan, and that would be really exciting. Thank you.

Commissioner Van Adman.

Okay. First off, can you just help me with the definition when we talk about mixed use in this case? What does that mean exactly? Because that was in the report, they talk about mixed use. And to me, that means residential and business. And that's not what we're talking about here. So I don't know what it means.

I'd have to look at where they're referencing it in the report. It may be referring to that flexible space of sort of having office space and manufacturing all in one sort of building, but I'll have to double checking. That might be right.

So then, okay. So on the flex space, I could not make sense of the, you talk about this mismatch of high demand and high vacancy. And I don't understand.

Yeah, so there is a demand for this sort of space, but we've heard from stakeholders for this flexible space, especially from businesses that are being displaced. But if you look just at the vacancy rate for existing flexible spaces, I think it's something when the report was issued to something like 10%. So there's obviously some vacancy of, which is above that healthy vacancy rate. We're looking just at that flexible space, not at their overall vacancy rate of the area. There's that higher vacancy, but the tenants that are looking for the space are not necessarily renting those spaces. So there's a mismatch either of cost or of availability of what they need. in those spaces. So that's where that kind of mismatches. Like there's a lot of availability and a lot of demand, but they're not taking what's available.

And so part of the process that we're going through here is trying to get to the bottom of that.

Kind of trying to, why is that happening? And then how do we address it? And that's some of those longer term goals.

Commissioner, sorry, Commissioner Gagne.

I'll jump in just because my question was sort of similar about the vacancy rates. So there was that, which is over the healthy rate, the 10% for the flex place. But you had talked earlier about a different, or was it the overall, there's a vacancy of like three point something, which is below.

Which is below what was considered healthy, yeah.

So does that mean that sort of overall in that entire area, there is overcrowding or- more businesses the buildings are overflowing or there are too many people who want space in a limited area businesses i don't know if it defines that there's there's um like overcrowding or overflowing there's just not a lot of available space commissioner wood here vice chair wood here

So I'm following the same theme. As we go through this process, will there be additional analyses and or surveys to really understand the mismatch? Because it's hard to make decisions without understanding why we have such a curious mismatch because it's not insignificant.

I'd have to get back to you on what exactly we would be doing. I think we will have continued stakeholder engagement between long-range planning and the economic development team. And they will be talking to a lot of the stakeholders on the ground as we work on the rezoning of this area, as will we. So I think that will be the nature of kind of trying to better understand this mismatch and what businesses are looking for.

I had a comment, just it was surprising to me to read this report, especially for this area and not see any mention of data centers. That was deeply confusing to me. That should have been in here, I think. And I think like we've talked a little bit about the idea of kind of low job, high resource issues when we were talking about the land use for this area specifically a few years ago. I didn't see it anywhere. The closest I saw that there was encouraging of the space industry, but given that a lot of the companies that are currently in Redmond working on space also work on AI, I would be unsurprised if we're opening this up to more of a data center. unless it's specifically limited. So, and I think the comment about expecting that there were some constraints and costs around PSEs ability to provide energy, I think speaks to that, but like just understanding that particular scenario better, I think is really important to people who are in Redmond right now. Well, just so we can respond.

I mean, I think we were pretty clear, too, as we were putting together the study with the consultants that we were working with, that we wanted to not necessarily focus on introducing data centers. And also the power constraints are limited to limiting for the data centers.

Does that mean that Redmond thinks that we won't have data? Like, I actually, it felt like a blind spot. It felt like there should be a policy. There were a lot of goals here, but if, I don't actually know Redmond's stance right now of data centers. We clearly have a lot of big tech companies who do have data centers on the ground right now. So like, I don't know what the city's stance is at the moment on if we're encouraging more or if we're discouraging more, it would be, that feels like a really big part of the conversation. It would be helpful to get, to not omit.

I mean, the city as itself is starting to look into policies and research this effort or data centers. I think I would let the absence of it in the strategy guide speak for itself.

For now.

Ms. Sharaparna.

I think that was my next comment, so you kind of, but for me, it's data center. So obviously in all this, we understand that there are capacity constraints from PSC, but the study does not deal with water, which, or any of the other resources. And you've mentioned the CARA, that it's sitting on the CARA. So anything which... Is going to be a resource hog or a polluter is a question mark. So it's, I think, a very fine balance. And I think it's a very complicated issue. But the data center piece is worrying me as well. And every city that has allowed it has realized that it's not the job created they thought it would be. So it's not going to increase economic vitality either. And it's just going to bring a whole lot of grief on so many levels right now. But that I know is not the purpose of this conversation, but it is a concern. So thank you.

Sure. So Jenny Leibig is putting together right now a group that's going to study resource intensive uses like data centers. And we can bring this back to her, this feedback. That'd be great.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Commissioner Gagne.

This is just a sheer curiosity question. When I was looking through the study, they're talking about how one of the manufacturing and industrial tenants felt that Redmond's parking requirements were excessive and created unnecessary cost barriers to development. I was just trying to picture, I don't know why I couldn't wrap my brain around how that is an issue in that area.

Okay. Yeah.

Great question. Thank you. Yes.

I was like, I don't know if I can answer on behalf of that stakeholder. Okay. Good point, though.

I'll jump in with another one. I did have, this is not actually probably our area in the report, but it jumped out at me in the business recruitment and retention section. There were a few bullet points on trader vocational schools, and I was really surprised to see that given that we do have a public vocational school with Lake Washington Technical Institute. We're one of the only areas that has one. They have a great set of offerings, so I was really surprised if Redmond would feel responsible for providing that versus working with partner just across in Kirkland, like, and that grew out of the Lake Washington school district in the forties. So it's, they've been around for a really long time. They have programming. I really think we should be leaning on existing public education versus creating our own. Commissioner Gagne might have another opinion on that.

I love seeing that. And we have Redmond community court, which has part of what they're doing is trying to help with, you know, unhoused folks and people who have financial insecurity and job insecurity having something very close that could almost be a funnel between community court and... Yeah, my point was maybe not reinvent... Because actually, Lake Washington Tech has had campuses in Redmond as recently as less than a decade ago.

So it comes and goes. And so using the existing tax base and infrastructure, it just seems like it would be easier to start there instead of creating a totally new thing from scratch.

Other comments?

Commissioner Van Diamond.

So there was discussion about, I think it referred to smaller organizations getting pushed out and that when the newer, bigger manufacturing companies facility pushes them out, that the space would have to be replaced. So there was this reference to replacement. Displacement and replacement, basically. when you're talking about a limited amount of land and space, I wasn't clear on what does that really mean? What are we talking about? If it's gonna be a requirement of an organization, if you're gonna push out the local small business that's there and replace it with your larger one, and we're gonna tell them that they have to come up with some sort of offset and replacement of that space, Where, how, what does that look like?

Commissioner Aparna.

In the report, and this might be very nitpicky, but it just caught my eye, so I'm sorry. There was reference to the micro mobility pilot and so on, and for me, I feel like that's putting A, the cart before the horse. You don't know what kind of businesses will go there. If it's a brewery, it's one thing. But I'm seeing freight being an issue, figuring out the big chunks of how the big trucks and things are going to move, versus the people on micro-mobility, which as it is, is just messy right now all around. So for me, that seems like a lower priority. Looking at larger transportation solutions for that area seems like, because the turning radius alone will shift everything. And you don't know what kind of businesses are going to come in, right? So if you have a small artisan manufacturing, the chances of them being on a scooter with extra stuff going up and down is highly unlikely. Now, they might commute that way, but we don't even know what's there. We don't know who's going to commute. And I have one other question. If King County does kind of give blessing, that they give money to with that blessing to encourage and make this truly regional? I hope so, but that's just, I don't know. I know that that's not a question for you, but it would surely be nice if they're able to recognize it and should put some funding behind it to help out with, maybe grid capacity or something.

Thank you. I'll hop on with one last one. I wanted to resurface some things that we talked about ages ago when we were talking about this area in the code, and this report kind of touched on it, and I wanted to go back to it. So in the transportation, specifically the idea of getting from light rail to potential businesses here. I wanted to really go back and say, like, we have an example of that working really well in Redmond with Microsoft's both connector program and their shuttle program. And those are private shuttles run by the business. But in this manufacturing space, I think there could be really interesting opportunities, especially if there's shift work where you're trying to get a lot of people in at the same time. the idea of getting like three people at a time in Red Link or one person at a time in Red Link that's a really high traffic corridor today and so being able to have private shuttles that are going back and forth or shared private shuttles where it's like there's a co-op of businesses in the area and they're like if they start at 9 o'clock and they start at 9.15 and they start at 9.30 you can use these same buses for a while that would be really amazing coordination by the city. And I think it would make the transportation a lot simpler getting in there. And then the other thing that came up when we were talking about that was just the idea of having somewhere to park these shuttles, charge or refuel these shuttles, like actually including that in the code so that it isn't like something where people are fighting for individual space later, that there's actually a plan around it from the beginning could kind of make it more likely to come to fruition instead of just being like, oh, that would be convenient. So anyway, that's like the ghost of two years ago. But back in. All right. Any further comments? All right. This was incredibly interesting. Thank you for bringing it. Thank you for the opportunity. Do people want to break before rules or shall we carry on? Five minute break maybe? Okay, we will be back at 8.13. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. do do Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So we are going to move to our study session on the update to the Planning Commission rules with Jeff Churchill.

I didn't mean to skip right past the first slide. I'm Jeff Churchill, Long Range Planning Manager, and good evening commissioners. I'm pleased to introduce Draft Updated Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, an item that's been of interest to the commission, especially over the last few months. So tonight I will introduce and provide an overview of the draft updated rules, and then commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions and begin identifying discussion issues. By way of background, the Planning Commission must have rules. That's in the code in the RMC. The Commission's rules were last overhauled in 2022. Those rules are a really good set of rules and are the foundation of the draft update that you have before you. A lot of it is pulled straight from what you already have. A lot of that has been migrated into what we'll discuss tonight. and the City Council is the final decision maker for rules for all boards and commissions. This update addresses four areas in particular. It addresses the relationship between the Planning Commission and the City Council, four areas that are, it expands or adds things that are not in your existing rules. First, that relationship, second, lobbying activities, third, it expands on public participation, and fourth, records. So I'm going to go into each of those in a little bit more detail. The Planning Commission has a very important role in city government. It is the hearing and deliberation body for land use policies and regulations for the city. Land use policies and regulations can be controversial. People often have strong opinions about them. In my opinion, planning commissioners have among the hardest jobs on city boards and commissions because of the issues that you all deal with. For the commission to be effective, it must be independent. Community members and city council members must have confidence that commission recommendations are free from bias, prejudice, or any improper influence. And that is why staff recommends adopting rules that are in your packet that state that communications about commission business should be on the record. and that commissioners should not reach out to individual council members to seek direction or guidance on city business. The place that really should happen is in a city council meeting, for example, at your joint meeting or at any study session that they're having that touches on planning commission business. Keeping official business on the record helps ensure that commission proceedings are fair in both fact and appearance. And in addition, doing so helps keep commissioners on the right side of the Open Public Meetings Act, which states in essence that most official business must be conducted in public. Even one-on-one conversations can result in OPMA, Open Public Meetings Act violations when there are serial one-on-one discussions. Those are called serial meetings. I know we've talked about them before, involving a quorum of the commission or indeed any council or any board or commission. So if you do receive a question or a comment about commissioned business from a council member, not in a public meeting, the best thing to do is refer that council member to staff. Have the council member contact the relevant department director or the mayor's office, which is standard protocol for council members, and they're all very used to that. There is not a parallel set of rules in the council rules of procedure about relationships to boards and commissions, but there are references to the OPMA and to serial meetings. And in addition, there is direction in council rules that the committee of the whole should, quote, examine the work of boards and commissions, indicating that it's part of their responsibility to be looking at the recommendations that you're providing to them, which is exactly what they do. So to recap, the purpose of these rules is to safeguard the commission's independence and confidence in its proceedings. The draft rules address lobbying. In short, any lobbying in an official capacity must be consistent with city policy. As a practical matter, commissioners are rarely asked to lobby. And if you were asked to lobby, we would be very likely to provide you talking points that were consistent with adopted city policy. When you are advocating for a policy position representing your own personal point of view, make that explicit. You are entitled to opinions on policy matters, but you can't wear your planning commission hat or use city resources to advance personal opinions. Council rules of procedure do address lobbying in the context of council member duties. So there are similar rules for council. A next public participation, it is essential to the planning commission's work and the rules for public participation are intended to ensure that community members have a fair chance to share opinions while preserving the commission's ability to get his work done. The rule state that there will be items from the audience at meetings as has been the case for a very long time. The draft rule state that items must pertain to a topic in the commission's purview. So it's not just topics that are on the meeting agenda for that night, but really anything in your purview. And that was that commissioner request. Disruptive behavior is not allowed. Unprotected speech is not allowed. And I want to highlight that most speech is protected. Here we are talking about incitement, fighting words, true threats, and obscenity. This has happened at commission meetings in the past, but it's rare. And the chair has the authority to enforce participation rules per the rules. The public participation rules that you see here are largely based on what are in the council rules. And finally, the rules expand on records. These rules are not new and they are based on the Public Records Act and they're part of your training that you receive when you start your commission service. Putting them in the planning commission rules gives them a nice convenient home that you can refer to them, in which you can refer to them. In summary, use your city account for commission business, use your personal account for everything else. If those two streams were to ever cross, forward whatever record was created on your personal account to your city account as soon as possible. Following these rules protects the commission's reputation for fairness because public records are public. And it also protects your private information by making your devices and your private information not subject to public records requests. Okay, timeline for review of these rules. We have another study session scheduled for August 12th. Depending on the quantity and depth of the questions, you may be able to make a recommendation on the 12th. And if not, probably at the following meeting, which will either be I think that date is wrong. That'd be August 26th or September 9th. The reason I put two dates in there is that there is nothing currently scheduled for August 26th. And so if we end up canceling that meeting, then this will just go to September 9th. Cause it's not a rush. There's no public hearing required for updates to planning commission rules, because this is not a change to the comprehensive plan or to the zoning code. However, the city council does review and approve them. So there won't be the same kind of planning commission report that goes along with this, but there probably will be some kind of cover memo that documents your discussion. And if there's an issues matrix, we'll include that for the council as well. So they're aware of the key topics that were discussed. And with that, I turn it back to the chair for questions and discussion.

Great, so I think as we discuss, what we can say is if it's just a comment or a question or a request for us to talk or if it's something where you want it on the issues matrix, that would be great. Does anyone have either questions or comments? Okay, I'm going to kick off with a topic that's actually not on here and I wanted to find out if people wanted it. I think it would be helpful because I think it's been a gap. Um, but I personally find the attendance policy sort of confusing. Um, there's one line in here that says if you miss 25% of meetings, then it's, um, then that becomes like potentially grounds for dismissal. But I've never been clear entirely what constitutes excused versus merely absent and how that plays into that 25%. So for me as chair,

I think it would be useful to have a little bit more understanding of what one is versus the other.

People here are generally so great about attendance that it hasn't been a huge problem, but every now and again, we get a topic where there's a lot of in and out and it's hard to get all the way through. And I think we've done some like policy work in our commitments to each other to just close things before we get, like if we miss a meeting to close before we, come back and like before the missed meeting so that we're not holding up the group. I think having that definition a little bit more solid on what excused is versus absent would be super helpful. And I'm curious if anyone has opinions, Commissioner Van Iman.

So I would just like a little bit more clarification on, I mean, I think I know, but on exactly what this means when you say that we're not having these conversations with city council that are not you know, a part of the public record. You run into somebody on the street, oh, how's planning commission going? It's going well. Oh, it was really interesting. We talked about the manufacturing industrial center. Oh yeah, there's a lot there, isn't there? Like that's all fine, right? Like that's not, like at what point does that cross the line?

You know, I think it, black and white's gonna be hard to do, but I think what you wanna avoid is strategizing, talking about what you think is going to happen, giving or receiving direction on what a body should do, those kinds of things that really would be I think when you're saying, yeah, the meeting was great. We talked about a lot. Here are the things we talked about. The meeting was broadcast is live stream. So that's all information that's already in the public record. I think that's all fine. I think it's when you're talking about what's gonna happen next. What do you think the planning commission is gonna do? What do you think about this council member? What do you think about this commissioner? That's the kind of thing that should be reserved for a public meeting.

If I can hop in on there. I thought it was, there's just been a little bit of discussion putting this together. And one thing that I thought was really helpful was specifically on the serial meeting piece. Because I know that is something we are so careful with in this group. But the interplay with, and like we don't talk about things that are happening. Like we're very, we do it in public. That's great. But then the interplay of once we've handed off a decision and it goes to council, there still could be a serial meeting. If you're talking to multiple council members or like if multiple people are using you as a point of reference, it can kind of like create a chain. And so that's just, that had not occurred to me. I think that's an interesting concept. It's like helpful to have this clarification in here because I'd, like we all care about our work and the packet stands like as a representation of what it was. And so just that line was useful to me because I hadn't considered it before. Oh, microphone.

I had a question about that really, because once we've approved it on like for the record, let's say, And maybe we write a memo to support it or dissent memo, whatever, right? So question for you, Jeff. Like, technically, you feel strongly about an issue, write a memo for Khan, goes to council. Is it because it has already gone as part of the packet to council? Because the letter is first packaged with the report. If I send it again, would that be a serial meeting? Like, hey, take a look at this letter that is coming to you as part of this packet. Would that be like a no-no? That's a follow-up to her question.

You know, I think if you're... if your memo was in the planning commission packet and sent to the council, I don't see a reason to send it again, I guess. I think the one thing that is important is for the record to speak for itself and for the record that the council receives for it to be clear like what the record is and letting the planning commission report and all the attachments and appendices, which include all of the individual letters from commissioners maintaining sort of the integrity of that record is important. And so I would let it stand as it is. I don't necessarily think that it's a violation of the OPMA, but I think just muddies things a little bit.

Okay. I have, for the record, I have done this in the past. I did not know that that was a no-no, and I will step back from it. This is after it's been approved and the letter has gone with the packet. I said, hey, take a look. I've put my viewpoints there. Not reiterated the viewpoints, but said, take a look. In the past, I've done it. And if it's a no-no, won't do it again.

And I think the alternative there is in your capacity as an interested community member, emailing the council is something every community member can do. I think planning commissioners have already have a lot of influence because they're on the planning commission and are part of this deliberative body who hold the hearing and make the recommendation. If it was something that you would choose to do, I would just do it in your personal capacity from a personal account.

And I think the flip of that is also really important that if you're writing a memo for the packet, it has to come from your Redmond email address and go to staff for staff to include in the packet. If you're writing directly to council as a planning commissioner, something's gone awry. So like dialing it back in that our communications are going through staff would be great. And I don't think this has come up like once or twice, but it's not, I think it was just a mistake, but just being really crisp on that would be great for the open records piece. Other questions or comments or requests? Commissioner Aparna.

So I think this, I don't, maybe I missed it in the rules. When we are expected to participate in events or like neighborhood plan, for instance, which might come up, and we actually have an interface with either other commissioners or council members who are there, I think having a good framework at that point might be useful. Because we want to do our bit. We want to go participate, like Derby Days or even an event like that versus an actual planning event. It would be nice to have a framework where we know where we're not overstepping.

Tara, I think that could be really useful.

Yeah, I think so, because I always have a problem trying to figure out where you draw that line. It's partially social, it's partially casual, and maybe it's even a little bit of work, right? So we don't know. So guidance would be great. Thank you.

And I would say both for city events and for private events, like either fundraising events or that sort of thing, it would be really helpful. Either for city offices or for local charities. Because I know there tends to be a lot of shared interests and things like that. So just having a little bit more definition of when is this appropriate and when would it be perceived as perhaps not independent enough would be great.

Okay.

Cool. Anything else?

So I have two issues on the matrix. One is concerning attendance and one is concerning events. And the one concerning events may turn into maybe like a piece of paper that you can just keep with you, a resource.

That'd be great. All right, well, thank you for this.

Thank you.

All right, and so next, just to clarify next steps on this, you'll be back and then we'll vote, or make a recommendation to council.

Yeah, August 12th, we'll be back. And if it's good to go, then you can make a recommendation to city council. Great, thank you.

And Commissioner Gagne, I saw a hand.

oh okay i did not see a hand all right um at that point um let's move on to staff and commissioner updates otra yes so as you may have noticed i'm your planning commission liaison so any communications that you want to give to the plan commission please send them to me i'll also of course the plan commission email So we have quite a few updates from City Council. So last night, City Council received a presentation from Cascade Water Alliance and all the materials are online. If you haven't seen it, please check it out. I know the commission had a lot of interest in this, so everything's online. Plymouth Housing received a Vision 2050 award yesterday. City Council adopted the temporary non-commercial science regulations and there are no permit requirements for now. And finally, City Council held a public hearing on the drone ports, and there are no changes to the moratorium. And finally, just let us know if you're going to miss any of the meetings, just so we are aware who's coming.

That's all. Sorry, let us know if we're going to the City Council meetings. or if you're missing any of these, any upcoming.

Yeah. Okay, great. And yeah, sorry. The next meeting is August 12th and we're continuing with the tree code and also the planning commission rules updates.

Great. I had one more sort of our work update. So if commissioners have any tips or recommendations to include for our new youth advocates who are going to be starting in September, And so this would be things like getting through the reading or norms as we all meet or anything that you want to call out for how you got up to speed and started providing good feedback, that would be amazing. So if you could send them to the planning commission email, Lauren will include them in our orientation packet. And just a reminder for us as we all go, This is a great time to practice that. Communication goes through the staff. We're all really excited about our youth showing up. But we shouldn't be individually contacting them or reaching out. So this is really a staff will welcome them in, and then they will join us when the school year starts. Jeff.

I wanted to add one more staff update. I wanted the commission to know that we have two interns from Western Washington University with us late this summer and early in the fall. Their names are Sarah Quillentang and Christopher Gaffney. Sarah has already started and Chris will start on August 3rd. And they will both primarily be working on some of the early work for the urban mixed use zone master planning. So we're very excited to have them and a lot of appreciation to Western Washington University for making them available to us.

That's wonderful. All right. Other Commissioner updates? Commissioner Van Am.

Are we not doing any staffing for the booth on Saturday?

That's a good question. Anything for Derby Day's?

If my memory serves that this was a topic, maybe a couple of months ago, did it come up in a planning commission meeting? No. Okay. We can check with the clerk's office and get back to you.

All right.

Check your email.

Any other questions, comments, updates? Yes.

Commissioner Copley.

Just wanted to make the comment that Sunday I had the pleasure of joining lots of folks from Redmond at the Meet Me at Marymoor event at Marymoor Park. It was very well attended, very well run. My family went with kids and I saw lots of kids everywhere. It was just a perfect event. And so I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who had a hand in putting that together. It was remarkable. The game was great. My two-year-old is probably really into soccer now. I'm so sorry. Okay, well, for some folks, maybe better than others, but just an awesome showcase of the best that Redmond has to offer. It was just a great mix of our community and people outside the community. It was just lovely. So thank you so much. Yeah, and I'm looking forward to competing in the Cornhole Tournament on Friday.

Commissioner Van Nijmegen.

Yeah, I mean, that event was absolutely fabulous, but more than that, like, all the planning that the city did, you know, we had the meeting over there where we heard about it, and I didn't really get it, and now I do. And it was just, yeah, I was so impressed with the amount of community that was created and that also formed organically. through this process. I thought it was absolutely fabulous.

All right. With that, unless there are more, I look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Then we are adjourned.