Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, welcome to the February 25th, 2026 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. Like to call this meeting to order. We will start with a roll call. Commissioner Aarna, present. Commissioner Copley, present. Commissioner Van Nyimman, present. Vice Chair Woodier, present. and I am Chair Weston. Commissioners Coleman and Gagner are excused today. Um, I would like to thank the following staff for being present tonight. Jeff Churchill, Glen Coyle, Kim Deetsz, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I

I I. All right, that's approved. And then um any corrections to the meeting summary from last time? All right. I look for a motion to approve the meeting summary from February 11th, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I I. All right. And that is also approved. Um now it's time for us to hear public comment and items from the audience. This is for any comment that's not related to our public hearing on the 2026 code amendments um which include business improvements, fences, and legislative conformance. So, this will be other topics. Who do we have tonight? Glenn,

we just have one person uh David Morton signed up. Signed up. Oh, did I I just signed a piece of paper up here. I thought it was public comments. Sorry, I signed the wrong piece of paper. All right, we're going to hear from David Morton. [clears throat]

Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I ask that you recommend that the city require PAS testing at the DTG recycle site, formerly Allwood Recycling, before any ground disturbance occurs as part of the Evans Creek Relocation Project. The DTG site sits within Redmond's critical aquifer recharge area 1 or CARA 1, where groundwater contamination can reach municipal supply wells in under 5 years. In August 2013, six fire departments responded to a massive multi-day fire at Allwood Recycling. Firefighting foam was used. About 1,900 fish in Evans Creek were killed. The DTG site was already a contaminated cleanup site awaiting cleanup before the fire. Here's the core problem. When the Department of Ecology sampled soil at the DTG site in 2022, they did not test for PAS. The Evans Creek relocation project may disturb that same soil. Digging without first testing risks mobilizing any PAS contamination that is present, potentially increasing the levels of PAS pollution in Redmond's aquifer. Key questions remain unanswered. First, which of the six responding fire departments used Silvex foam during the 2013 fire? And did any of the agencies also deploy firefighting foam known to contain PAS? Second, are there records documenting foam usage at this fire by all six fire departments, and can those records be obtained? Third, where exactly is the groundwater monitoring well described as being just south of the DTG site, and when was it last tested for PAS? Fourth, is that monitoring well properly positioned to detect contamination flowing from the

DTG site given that groundwater in this area flows west southwestward towards supply wells one and two? Fifth, are there any monitoring wells to the west or southwest that would be better situated along the flow path? Sixth, and most critically, has the DTG site ever been tested for PAS in soil or groundwater? The planning commission advises the mayor and council on land use issues and policy. This is just the kind of a situation for that advice. Sound land land use policy demands PAS testing before digging, especially on a contaminated site in Carl 1 over an aquifer that flows towards supply wells one and two. Please recommend that the city require PAS soil and groundwater testing at the DTG site before the Evans Creek relocation project breaks ground. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one add additional person signed up for general comments. Uh Andrew Brown. All right. Um if you could start with your name and address and we'll be keeping comments to three minutes.

Great. Thank you. Andrew Brown, 15602 Northeast 95 Way in Redmond 98052. Um I sent in a PowerPoint presentation uh to the commission. Um and I didn't quite understand the um agenda for tonight, so excuse me on that. Um after the first page on the PowerPoint, the following six pages um are all about uh tree felling and light pollution, which I'll address now. The last four pages um I'll bring up later on. Um I want to address an issue that's uh in downtown Redmond about 5 minutes to 10 minutes walk north of here. Uh you can see that um pictured in one of the slides. Um the uh the area by the side of the river on the west side of the river is light industrial. Uh, and that area is governed by the shoreline management act as is everything within 200 feet of the riverbank. Uh, on uh, September the 4th, 2025, several landmark trees and and a bunch of other trees were cut down over there. Um, one of them was a very significant landmark tree and there are pictures in my presentation that show that that is now an abandoned stump and has a garbage pile u next to it. Um and in the picture that includes the garbage pile uh shows one of the issues with light pollution on the building is one of the exposed um I guess security or nightlights on that building. And now the trees are gone. Uh the barrier uh to to um the spreading of that light um uncontained has gone as well. Um there's a Google Earth picture that shows before and and then some after issues. before shows the extensive array of trees uh that that bordered the buildings along in in a in the sensitive um barrier uh along the river and then the day afterwards um what that did to the light pollution stemming from those buildings. Um next to those buildings on the trail there are additional examples of tree destruction. Um I know that thinning is allowed but the picture in question shows trees that have been basically scalped. Um that's excessive. uh and the light from those trees. There's a

pictures uh of myself and and my wife standing um with the light. We're 400 feet away from these lights and there's shadows cast on the opposite side of the river from um from those buildings. That's incredibly destructive. I'm going to hold up a picture right now. I took this two weeks ago walking home from this meeting. It's in the presentation. It's titled the excessive and misguided use of artificial light at night acts as a severe environmental threat by disrupting ecosystems altering native flora and fauna behaviors and wasting energy. And the extent of this is on the left hand side all the way over to a very slim margin on the right that is uncontrolled light emanating from the light industrial park coming across the river and illuminating the trail on the east side of the river. And the little orange glow on the right hand side that's from the houses that are there. So my request to the commission is that you conduct a thorough review of actions to prevent uh to protect environmentally sensitive areas along the river. Um we need to see consequences for those who illegally cut down protracted vegetation and especially landmark trees. The habitat for animals along the river has been destroyed by these actions that would take decades to regrow and recover. Um issuing a warning and retroactive permits makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand that at all. If I get pulled over for a parking ticket, am I or a speeding ticket, will will you very kindly give me a warning and then uh and then not find me? The trees are gone and there's irreparable environmental damage caused by that. In addition to destroying natural habitat, tree and folage removal causes increased night and lo and noise and light pollution. As I've just

I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut in here. Thank you. Thank you. And we did receive your written comment which included all of the pictures and a lot more background information. So, I do appreciate that. That's part of the public record. Thank you. All right. With that, we conclude public comment. All right. So, at this point, we're going to take on our public hearing on the 2026 code amendment series, including business improvement, fences, and legislative conformance. Bringing up Jeff Churchill and Kim Deetsz. Good evening, planning commissioners. It's good to be with you this evening. Uh tonight we do have the public hearing for the business improvement fences and 2025 legislative conformance code amendments. And I'm just going to briefly recap them um to set the stage for the hearing. Um, and that's b that's basically the entire agenda. Um, this is the first of several uh packages of amendments uh for code amendments in 2026. The most regular update to the zoning code. Uh, the planning commission review actually be began on February 11th. That part didn't get changed. Um, and the details are still in your February 11th packet for that. Um there are two corrections that were brought to our attention earlier this week that I did want to point out to you before the hearing started. One is that there is a typo um in the first sentence related to unit lot subdivision applicability. Um the copy paste apparently got mangled but that bolded underlined text where it says of land that's existing text is not proposed to be changed. Whatever happened to the

copy paste it didn't say of land when it got into the um into the packet. So that's what it should say so that the sentence makes sense but again there's no proposed change to that sentence um in that part of the sentence in any case. Um the second is an omission which is more important um in table 218200B. That's a table that has development standards for lots in the neighborhood residential neighborhood multif family neighborhood mixeduse and the other mixeduse zones. And there are several rows in that table. Um, up until June of 2025, there was a row for open space standards for neighborhood residential and neighborhood multif family zones. It was 20%. Um, that had been in place for a long time, it was readdopted um in November of 2024 with Reban 2050 phase 1. Uh, but when the reformatting of the code happened and the zoning consolidation happened, the new table omitted that. Um and it was our intention to actually have that part of this package. Um the planning director has already signed an administrative interpretation that says that the that based on the evidence that the standard here should be 20%. Um those are short-term fixes. Um this really should be u put back into the code. And so that is our request. Um and that was omitted in the packet. So I did want to make that um part of the discussion this evening by sharing that with you. Uh tonight's the public hearing. Uh the next meeting is March 11th. Um the planning commission may be ready to make recommendation on March 11th. Um we'll see because depend depends on how the conversation tonight goes. Um and then planning commission review or excuse me city council review is expected to begin um in the second quarter. And with that closes the uh introductory presentation.

Great. So, with that, um, I am going to open the public hearing, and this is going to work very similarly to the way public comment worked a few minutes ago, where Glenn is going to introduce people who have signed up to speak. They'll introduce themselves, and then they have three minutes. I will unfortunately jump in if you go much over, but um, we really want to hear what you have to say. Um, and then at that point, we will move on from that to our study session. So, Glenn, who do we have to speak tonight? The first will be Andrew Brown. Welcome back.

Thank you again. Appreciate it. Um, so the second part of my slide deck, I'm sorry I didn't quite understand how things were going to work tonight, but it's all fine because it all flows on. Um, I go on to talk about fences, um, and the the permitting process, especially along uh, the river trail north of here, but I presume south of here as well. Uh there are miles and miles of what I believe are called non-conforming fences, right? That have wire that is far too small to allow animal migration that have bar wire and all kinds of things. Much of it is um is what I call legacy fence um that was probably put in when there were blueberry fields or farms and goodness knows when that was 40 or 50 years ago. Um, I live in Windwood Village and uh in in the packet that I submitted, you'll get to see a picture that has a rather dilapidated looking fence with some steel post, some wire mesh, and some barred wire. We know this is a non-conforming fence. These are there are fences like it up and down the trail. We would like to replace that fence with something that's much more in line with the environmental uh and aesthetic um uh appeal um we think of the neighborhood. Perhaps something as pictured here uh that has a cedar frame instead of metal posts and definitely no bar wire. We've been trying to work with the permit um uh department to to get that and the latest thing we uh were asked was to come back with the original permit for the original legacy fence which I challenge anybody up and down this trail to find including by the way the property that the the um community [clears throat] center is on because I'm sure this fence same fence probably ran through that that property uh and it's not there any longer. I have provided uh views in my presentation from as far back as Google Earth goes that I can find to 1990 that definitively show the same fence was there. You can see the fence, you can see the poppers, you can see the trail. I show examples of the Mondovia Verona development from 1990. You can see when a new fence was built in 2012 and then what it looks like today. So there's pre precedence that fences have been built, that fence has been removed. There's even precedents that the city um and Puget Sound have

built a fence um as well as this big wooden fence that you can you can have a look at there. And I'm like, how how can those be built? And we are trying to get a permit or approval uh to to um to basically fix our fence and make it much more environmentally and aesthetically pleasing. So, the last bullet in the commission request is that um as you debate these uh fence changes, some common sense needs to apply to the replacement of aging uh what I call legacy fences. There's precedents certainly up and down the trail from other fence repairs. We've been a made aware of a no permit required approval for fence repair, but I haven't figured out how to um get that yet. Is it is it real? And how would I secure that on behalf of our HOA? So, thank you again for um listening to my comments.

Thank you. And next up and the last comment is David Morin. Great.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'd like to speak on the proposed 2026 code amendment series. I want to raise a few questions and make observations across the three amendment categories that I hope the commission will consider as this process moves forward. on the business improvement amendments. I appreciate the city's ongoing effort to reduce friction for local businesses. The proposed requirement to post business open signage during sidewalk closures seems like a practical lowcost measure that protects small businesses during construction disruptions. I'd like to understand, however, how the city intends to enforce this requirement and what remedies are available if a contractor fails to comply. I'd also welcome more detail on the proposed updates to homebased business allowances on fences. I think the commission is right to seek clarity here. Several questions came up during the February 11th study session regarding legal non-conforming fences, and I share those concerns. Many residents have older fences that predate current code requirements, and it would be helpful to have plain language guidance, perhaps a simple FAQ or summary sheet about what homeowners can and cannot do when repairing or replacing a fence that doesn't meet current standards. I'd also encourage the commission to carefully examine the proposed restrictions on barbed and razor wire near parks and open spaces given how many trails and natural areas exist in Redmond where neighbors and families regularly walk. On legislative conformance, I'm glad to see the city aligning with state law by

removing the 300 ft spacing restriction on child care centers. Access to child care is a significant challenge in our region and removing arbitrary locationational barriers is a step in the right direction. And I hope the commission will closely monitor how parking changes interact with realworld conditions in neighborhoods, particularly as minimum requirements are reduced. My overall ask is simply this. As these amendments move toward a city council recommendation, I hope staff will continue making the public-f facing materials accessible and easy to understand for everyday residents. Thank you for your service and your thoughtful attention to these proposals.

Thank you. All right, with that, I'm going to close the verbal portion of the public hearing, but keep the written portion open. All right. So, we're going to head to the issues matrix and our study session.

All right. Very good. Uh the issues matrix is up on the screen. Um and we'd like we go from top to bottom. All right. Issue number one was from multiple commissioners uh concerning non-conforming fences. The staff response in summary is just is all of the code provisions that address legal nonconformities um to provide some additional information and context for that issue.

Okay, this was both helpful. I'm going to speak for myself and Commissioner Coleman can weigh in hopefully over email. Um this was both very helpful and didn't actually get all the way there for me. So, um, just in terms of the public comment, this is great because it's a very specific scenario. I'm not trying to like address or solve that scenario here, but I want to make sure that the code makes clear what the answer is. And I kind of went in circles when I was taking the information in the packet and then I got kind of tangled up in the shoreline management piece, which isn't here. Um, and then I think the King County piece doesn't even apply here. So, it's I was just trying to be like what um kind of understand what is a legal non-conforming fence in this situation and I still can't quite figure that out based on the code. Like, I can't figure out if this area is a special case due to the shoreline piece or if it's not.

So, the the answer to whether something is legal non-conforming and whether it's in the shoreline jurisdiction, they don't depend on each other. That's the good news. Um, great. A legal non-conforming fence, and this gets to I think was some um one of the things the community member mentioned in in his testimony. A legal non-conforming fence is a fence where there's a record that it was constructed legally to the standards that existed at the time that it was constructed. Um, and so when someone in permitting is asking for a record of the permit permit for a fence, they're probably trying to establish, is this a legal non-conforming fence or did it go up without a permit at some time many decades ago.

And that makes a difference because all of the code provisions that are in the issues matrix address what you do with legal non-conformities. If something was built um in a way that was not legal, then none of these code revisions apply. Got it. And then if so, different example, if there was a property with no fence in a similar location, would that would a fence be permitted there? If like according to the zone,

I would need to go read the fence regulations to be able to tell you for certain if a fence could be built and at what height. Um, and are you interested specifically in a fence in the shoreline zone? Yeah, that's where I was getting really tangled. Okay. And, um, I want to So, with the information, will that help what kind of question do you want answered with respect to the fence regulations?

So, I guess what I'm what I'm trying to understand here, I think Commissioner Coleman and I had two different versions of this question. Um, I think his was more like it makes sense to be able to repair a fence, which isn't necessarily mine because I think current environmental standards are much more rigorous than previous ones. But what I am a little bit lost on is if you have something that's in an environmentally sensitive area, how do you know whether or not like are there special rules that apply? Redmond would be the ones to set it according I went kind of deep on state stuff too. I was I was really trying to dig. I couldn't reach an answer by reading the code. So I just I found that interesting. So I'm I I'm again not trying to solve this particular problem, but I don't really understand how the overlay works once we're into shoreline world.

Okay. So the the question you're looking for the answer to is do special rules apply to fences in shoreline areas? Yes. Okay. Very good. Great.

Okay. So, we'll keep this open. And any other comments on this one before we go to issue two? Great. Thank you. Okay. Issue two is fences u materials and the um the request was to provide some information about um how the regulations might be amended to prohibit um electric barbed wire raw wire fences um near parks and open spaces and so we have provided some language for consideration for the commission.

I loved this change personally. Um, if commissioners want to discuss at all, I'm open to that, though. I'm seeing general agreement. Yeah. So, I like the new language and would be happy to close. Okay. We will reflect this in the planning commission's recommendation when we get to that point. Thank you. Okay. Issue three was about the incentive package. Uh, Commissioner Partner had emailed earlier to close it, but if Commissioner Partner had any more questions or comments. No, I think this is great. We can just close it. Thank you.

Uh, issue number four is from Commissioner uh Gier about having the community feedback and so we have posted that online and have provided a link in the uh response. Great. and we will wait to close this um but we might um via email if she has a chance before our next meeting. Okay, issue five is about daycarees and I'm going to turn it to Kim Deetsz.

Yes, thank you. Um, issue number five, there was a question as to why the city was remaining retaining a portion of the older code which uh relates to the proximity of daycarees um to one another. Um, and I looked back at the technical committee's recommendation and I wasn't seeing that same thing reflected, but I thought I would take a moment to talk about um what the Senate bill did require of cities. Um so it's um in gross Senate Bill 5509 and it stipulates that cities may not impose re or may impose reasonable restrictions on the permits for child care centers and that could be for example uh pickup or drop off. So it's not specific to where the daycare could locate within a district but it um in instead relates to well how does that daycare exist on the property? it's more of that kind of like sightsp specific um aspect. And so [clears throat] in the end um that provision of proximity of them not being allowed to be closer than 300 ft to one another would no longer apply. Uh we wouldn't be able to maintain that in the code. So I just want to make sure that that is actually struck from um the code in the in the technical committee's recommendation.

That's great. Okay. And I just actually I went digging on this one too. Um, so I did find a little bit more historical information about this specifically in Redmond. So, um, the 300 foot limitation applied to daycare centers. Yes. Not to homebased daycarees. And I know that the traffic consideration was for homebased daycarees, but it was never it never would have applied there. So, um, because of that, I'm willing to close on Commissioner Coleman's behalf unless people think that's unreasonable. Okay. So, we're going to close this item. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Issue six is about co-l livingiving and uh staff attempted to summarize the provisions here in the response and then referred back to the technical committee report for more information. Yeah, I thought the clarification was great. I appreciated it. Um, there's no more ambiguity for me, so I'm comfortable closing. Thanks. Welcome.

All right. Issue seven is about um parking and specifically alternative parking minimums and how how we are determining who is qualified and who is not. Um and the staff response indicates that that is something that happens as part of the development review process um and that we have had not we've not had issues with that um um in the many years that that's been in place and we expect the use of that to decrease and so we're not we're not too concerned about it.

Okay. It's always helpful to know how concerned to be. Um, I'm happy to close, but I just um I do appreciate the clarification here cuz when there are things that are using kind of looser terminology um especially about who's in charge of actually gauging if something's appropriate as a lay reader, I find that confusing. So, this is good and we can close. Okay. All right. For issue eight, I'm going to turn it back to Kim.

Thank you. Uh for issue eight, Chair Weston had provided a list of um various uses and was curious about how each of those would be allowed through our allowed uses um and zoning um districts. Um so I went through each of those, but I also uh provided some information about the different classification systems that the city uses, including one that comes from the American Planning Association, which is a landbased classification system. There's also the North American industry classification system which is used in our business licensing. Um then we also have a tool that the city provides online, our business use lookup tool and that incorporates the landbased classification system with our zoning districts and it helps businesses or anybody who wants to use the system. It's publicly accessible and they can use that to plug in different types of uses. it will categorize them and then um demonstrate where they could go in on a map as well as in a list that then links directly to our zoning code for each of those zoning districts. Um so yeah, there's a variety of of answers to the different uses. Um would you like me to step through any of those?

No, it's um but I loved reading through them. So, it's I thought this was really helpful because I think coming up with a business idea and then knowing where to put it. I actually know several people who've run into that in Redmond and given up because they felt like it was either too hard or obviously outruled where my read would be no, it wasn't. So, and that all predated I think this tool because that was several years back possibly. Yes.

So, I appreciated seeing that. Um, I probably added a ton of data to it just by typing things [laughter] into it. So hopefully that didn't mess things up. But I do really appreciate this because I think um, again, so many businesses are ands like they have one role and something else and fitting that into zoning is a little bit perplexing. Yes. One of the things that um we've been working on during the last year is a series of um little short videos that can help someone who's looking to locate or relocate their business in Redmond and is very is not familiar or just lightly familiar with permitting. Um, so the video series is meant to walk them through all the individual steps and provide a lot of contacts um with staff um so that person can get the assistance they need at any point along that pathway because we do recognize that a lot of this language or the procedures are unique um and a lot of people would not be normally familiar with that or um if English is not the first language then there might be extra assistance needed through translation. um to find out exactly where a specific business type can go. As you mentioned, it's not always a singular type, a singular activity that's happening in those businesses. And so we want to recognize, you know, how does that play out when you're working at the counter with a planter, a planner [laughter] to figure out where exactly you can place your business safely within a zoning district.

Great. Thank you for doing this. um and humoring all the options here. Um I'm happy to close. Thank you.

Issue N is about uh diagrams and graphics for different ways to subdivide property. Um uh we did provide a couple of resources, one from the MRSC, the Municipal Research and Services Center, and another from the Department of Commerce um on that. And I think we are looking back at all of the user guides and tip sheets for the zoning code and really appreciate this input um into what might be useful updates to those. And Commissioner Party had already emailed to close this one, but I did want to provide a little context. Any further? Okay.

Yeah. Uh I I think if we can get diagrams in eventually that would be really nice especially if you're looking at all the single single family homes subdividing not somebody who's you know in the no. So uh thank you for that. You're welcome.

I'm just going to add a comment. Um the tip sheets are so useful or user guides or and I think we had a public comment today that spoke to that. Um that sort of material is very very helpful because it's um for someone who's not used to reading the zoning code like having it condensed into English or like just plain wording um translated or not with an image is super super helpful.

Yes. Unfortunately, we know that many of them are out of date in some important respects and so it is um on our to-do list to get those updated. Sometimes it's just the code references, the numbers have changed, the substance is okay, but we do like them to be accurate, right? Uh issue number 10. Um this was the public comment about fences from the last meeting. Um and this um we think the answers are in issue number one. Um, and so we've referred back to issue number one here.

Yeah, I'd be prepared to close this for now, uh, or just close this in general because I think we're, um, pulling the important pieces in issue one. And that is the end of the issues matrix. Um,

um, and then, Commissioner Van Dyman, I see a hand. So, kind of related to these the public comment and the whole fence thing, when you dug as deep as you did, Chair Weston, did you feel like where's where's the gap and is there anything we can do to help address that? When you when you couldn't get your question answered and when the public commenter couldn't get his question answered, what are we missing?

I think for me there was a combination of different things. So, um I'm always aware when I see environmental protection in general, I'm aware that that's usually state and this is an issue where the state then bounces it back down to the municipality. So, it's um like just trying to make sure that I was correct, that it wasn't at the state level took me a little bit of time. Like I wasn't sure if I was using exactly the right terminology. I wasn't sure if I was in exactly the right place. Um, I found a lot of content from other cities who all handle it very differently. Um, often because their shoreline is very different than ours on the Seamish River. Um, and so that was and then I just found that interesting. So I spent a while on that. But then, um, I think coming back to Redmond, um, I just wasn't entirely sure I was in the right place. And so, um, I think if I like reading the zoning code, I do it a fair amount in this role. Um, if I can't pretty quickly find an answer, then I tend to feel like there might be something a little bit off. And staff is wonderful, but I think it's also nice for people to be able to kind of self-s serve

and so how do we address that? Well, I think the first question like we have the open issue still for item one. Um, and staff will look into that and then if um what they're saying isn't obvious and I'm sure we can propose a solution either to connect better or I think it's going to become more clear depending what the answer is. But I'm hearing interest in getting some sort of further connectivity. Is that right?

Yeah. I mean, we just, you know, if if if you can't figure it out, there's a lot of other people who can't figure it out either. Yeah. I think it's just one of those cases where it seems like it could be more complicated. So, the simple answer is we already know what this like the fence code is for residential. And then I think the question mark is is there a more complicated answer in this particular location? And so once we get there then um then I think we can figure out what needs to be done in the code to make that more obvious. Sounds good.

So any other comments or questions or items to add now that people have had more time with this? No, I have a question. Sure. Issue number two. I wrote down that we like the language and we're going to close the issue. Did we actually close the issue? This is related to parks and barbwire fences. Just want to make sure I got it down correctly. So given that the text now reflects what both Adam or Commissioner Coleman and I were asking for, I think it's appropriate to close. Thank you.

Okay. So for March 11th, we will um uh conduct more research for issue number one. Um, I think we will also update the materials since there was a typo, an omission to make sure they're reflected in everything that's online, um, for the commission and the community and we'll go from there. Um, I don't I it seems like it's possible there'll be a recommendation on March 11th. Um, and so we'll we'll be prepared for that as well. Great. Thank you so much for this. You're welcome.

All right. And at this point, um, we will move to staff and commissioner updates. Glenn, what do you have for us? Uh, no staff updates except to note that the next meeting is March 11th. Great. Commissioner Copley,

just a quick story to share. I was at Starbucks waiting for my coffee and uh, someone I didn't know was talking to me about housing in Redmond. I said, "Oh, I'm a planning commissioner. I'd love to hear what your thoughts are. And they said, "Well, I'm thinking about building more housing on my property." This person's lived here for a long time. And I think the work that staff, commissioners, community members, and electeds are doing to let people know that there's opportunities to build more types of housing um and just, you know, units of housing where there might have just been one unit of housing for a very long time. The word's getting out. So, I just wanted to share that because I thought it was really cool.

So encouraging. That's great. Um, other commissioner comments. So, I just wanted to pro provide um two updates. The first is to the commission. Um, just with an update of status. So, uh we found out this week that Cascade um water allianc's water system plan was approved. Um, and I know this has been of enormous interest to the commission. Um, we've all been following along. Um, and I just wanted to give an update on the plan because I know when we passed Redmond's water plan almost two years ago, there were a lot of assumptions that we made about what Cascade was planning to do. And I know that we all have a feel a sense of responsibility to make sure that those connections um and assumptions are actually correct and that we will have the water that our city needs in 20 years. Um so the plan is um I am reaching out to both the mayor and the current representative for um the Cascade Water Alliance board to find out when council will be receiving a briefing. Um at that point we're welcome to attend um because it's a public meeting as long I'm assured as long as we don't all sit next to each other and gossip we are welcome to attend and not worry too much about quorum. So, we will keep our commentary um for this staff and commissioner update section. I'll update once I actually have a date um so that people can get that on their calendars or can watch online. Um and then the second update that I just wanted to provide was there was a response or there was a um sorry a comment that came in through email about housing displacement. Um, and it just I think it's a really hard subject. It's a very emotional topic. Um, but some resources came out of that that I just wanted to make sure that the community was aware of. Um,

the request in the email was to exclude part of Redmond, a single street from the overall comp plan and um the changes. And that's that's probably not realistic. But what people can do right now, we did a ton of talking about this in the Redmond 2050 process. I know we all like really feel how real this issue is. Um, and so we made a lot of policy changes in Redmond 2050 to specifically address vulnerable populations and displacement. Um, and the things that people can do right now is if you go to the Redmond website, there's a housing action plan that the city is putting together and a human services strategic plan. Um, and both of those community feedback really will make a difference on making those as good as they can be. So, I encourage people to reach out. Um, and then also if anyone is individually worried about displacement, um, staff has suggested working with Arch, King County 211, and King County Housing Authority. Um, I know that's not going to be a magic cure for this. Um, but they have specialized expertise and it's I think it's just good resources for all of us to keep in mind um, for ourselves or for neighbors or for friends. So, um, I just wanted to make sure that that got bubbled up out of our email and out to the community. Um, does anyone have anything else to end on? In that case, I look for a motion to adjurnn.

So moved. Second. All in favor? I I Right. Then we are adjourned.