Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the April 8th, 2026 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. Oops, we have an echo. No, we're good. All right. Um, we will start with a roll call. Commissioner Parna, present. Commissioner Copley, present. Commissioner Coleman present. Commissioner Gier present. Commissioner Van Nyman present. Vice Chair Wood here present. And I am Chair Weston. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present tonight. Jeff Churchill, Lauren Albert, and Chip Cornwell. I look for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

Great. And any corrections to the meeting summary from last time? All right. I look for a motion to approve the meeting summary from March 11th, 2026. Moved. Second. All in favor? I. I. Great. Thank you. And that is approved. All right. Now, it is time for us to hear public comment and items from the audience. Um, and we have no public hearings tonight, so this is simple. Uh, the first public comment is from David M.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. Redmond's drinking water wells 1 and two are contaminated with PFOS at 5 a.5 parts per trillion, and it's slowly rising. This is above EPA's maximum contaminant level of four parts per trillion. The most plausible source of PFOS is the August 2013 3-day fire at the Allwood recycling site, now a DTG recycle, which sits upgradient of Redmond's drinking water supply wells. That fire was fought with firefighting foam composed of roughly 30 to 50% PFOS. Site testing can confirm or refute this hypothesis. Redmond's groundwater protection flyer promises that Sentinel monitoring wells will detect groundwater contamination before it reaches supply wells. It promises that an investigation would take place to find the source of contamination and eliminate it. The Sentinel monitoring wells did not stop PAS from reaching supply wells and there's been no investigation to find the source of PAS. The early warning system failed. The Evans Creek relocation project will disturb soil adjacent to the DTG site which has never been tested for PAS and is upgradient of the water supply wells. Proceeding without first testing the creek relocation site for PAS would be a continuation of the failure to protect Redmond's critical aquifer recharge area or CARA. This commission can influence that outcome. Redmond zoning code section 2164050 requires hydrogeeologic assessment for development activities in cars. Redmond's car regulations require that development in CAR1 implement performance standards protective of

groundwater quality. Predisturbance soil and groundwater testing of the DTG site is a project condition that this commission can help be required. EPA classifies PFOS as a likely human carcinogen with no safe threshold. The most sensitive documented health effect is suppression of vaccine response in children. A focused PAS site investigation and testing costs approximately $50 to $70,000. That's trivial compared to the 25 to30 million cost of wellhead treatment for supply wells one and two. I support the construction of this wellhead treatment facility which will not only remove PAS but numerous toxic chemicals for which Redmond has never tested its drinking water. I ask the planning commission to advise the mayor and city council to require predisturbance PAS testing at the Evans Creek relocation project site as a condition of the project and that the full findings are made public. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? That's it. All right, that's good for tonight. In that case, we will move on to our election of officers. Annually, we'd elect a chair and vice chair of the planning commission. These roles serve a term of one year. Um, first we'll elect our chair. Um, I'll remind everyone, commissioners are welcome to self-nominate. If there are multiple nominations, we'll vote in the order that the commissioners were nominated and the elected chair will run the election of the vice chair and the rest of the meeting. So, at this point, are there any nominations for chair? I'm going to self-nominate Brian. Any add or sorry, Commissioner Copley, any additional?

I guess I'll second. Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, we actually don't need to second on this one. Um, anyone else? No. Okay. In that case, um, I'm supposed to ask, um, all in favor? I I any I I I in favor. Okay. None opposed. None abstain. All right. Thank you very much. And then um next we're going to do the same process um to elect a vice chair. So are there any nominations for vice chair? I'm going to self-nominate. Please do. Vice Chair Woodier would like to self-nominate. Any other nominations?

No. In that case, all in favor? I I I I And any oppose? Any abstain? All right. Thank you for that process. Um our next back to our regular work. Our next item is a study session on the temporary non-commercial signs in the Redmond zoning code. Um bringing up Jeff Churchill and Lauren Alpert.

Thank you very much. I'm just waiting for the presentation to load here. Okay. Redmond zoning code amendment temporary non-commercial signs. So, we're going to do an introduc once again. My name Lauren Alpert. I'm senior planner for those that are watching at home that don't know me. Um I'm joined by Jeff Churchill, long-range planning uh manager. Um so we're going to go over the background of why we're doing this um sort of what we've heard um from the community and from stakeholders um and then kind of go through uh the updates um and the sections of the updates in a little bit more detail. So, uh, the background of this is that we're creating a regulatory framework for temporary non-commercial signs. There's currently not a regulatory framework for these sorts of signs in the city of Redmond. Um, so what are temporary non-commercial signs? These include our camp political campaign signs. These include community event signs. Um, they also include uh philosophical or religious message signs. Um, and now what one of the reasons we're doing this is that our regulations must be contentneutral and consistent with the US Supreme Court president. That's that's part of that. Did you have anything you wanted to add? Um, so one of the conditions of these signs um of temporary non-commercial signs um in keeping with US Supreme Court president is that they should be allowed in the right of way. So, just so everyone's on the same page, what is the right of way? Um, Redmond zoning code defines it as land owned by a public

agency or used or planned to be used in a public thoroughfare. Um, so we kind of have an example of part of a right of way here. Um, that's in the the updated sign code. Are there any questions on that? So what does this uh new code uh create? Um so this temporary non-commercial signs code will allow temporary non-commercial signs to be in the public right of way with limitations. Um some of those limitations it regulates the size, the placement and the durability of the signs. It does not regulate content and the code also creates a nocost renewable permit for signs in the public right of way. So some of the things that you've heard, we did community engagement in February and March. Um we didn't get a ton of feedback or comments at that time. Um what we did receive is in your packet in the tech report under stakeholder engagement. Um, but there were some concerns about the temporary signs blocking sidewalks or impeding people with mobility challenges. Um, there was concerns about not having clear rules about how long signs can be posted. Um, and then some concern concerns about signs being deliberately treated with hazardous substances and be creating nuisances. So, what are some of the updates that we're doing um to so that we can get into uh conformance um and create this regulatory framework? So, we're going to have some updates to our definitions in 2178. So, a new um an updated definition for government sign, uh non-commercial sign, new definition for sign, and a new definition for temporary sign. so that there's distinction and clarity among

these definitions. Now, um there's also updates to 214410D and 214410E. Um but the biggest uh change is the repeal and the replace of the section that deals specific specifically with political signs to make it more broadly to temporary non-commercial signs. Um and so some of those updates include um some of that repeal and right now there's um information about political signs have to be removed within a certain time frame of an election. Um so that's part is being repealed and is being uh replaced. Um so one of the things that it's being replaced with is a permit this permitting system. So it's required for signs in any of the right of way. There is no fee and it's a 60-day duration that can be renewed for any additional 60-day periods. So rather than having to run around right after an election or right after an event and picking up all the signs, there's a little leeway. You get signed for 60 days and you can renew that online or on the counter. Um, so there's also additional regulations on the signed materials and the construction of the signs. um and requirements about the sign placement that we'll get into a little bit more details about. So, a minimum setback requirements, not placing any signs in public parks or trails or open space without the permission of those operators. So, there's a lot of text on this. This is pulled directly from the draft code. Um but it was really important to us and staff in terms of safety to make sure there's no signs in sight distance triangles. So that's what this diagram demonstrates and we wanted to make it clear for um people that would be

putting up signs um where and where they can and cannot. So we tried to make this diagram as um easy to understand as possible like don't put it in these triangles. Um, we also wanted to be clear, um, because we also did hear concerns from the public about signs impeding movement, um, that they're at least two feet away from the curb and then where no curb exists, this sign must be placed outside the roadway, at least six feet from the roadway edge, um, and the five feet away from any building access point and most commonly a door or measured from the edge of the door frame if not attached to the building. So, you're not you're not impeding anyone's flow to and from a building with your with a sign. And this is kind of the other kind of uh regulations on sign placement. And I and won't necessarily go through each of these, but this is in the code um and the draft code, and it really highlights, you know, you don't want to uh impede any ADA accessible parking spots. Um they're not allowed in medians or roundabouts. Um, this is really focused on maintaining public safety um, for both the people placing the signs and for people moving in and around the signs. Um, there's also regulations for signs on private property. Um, you have to have permission to place it on private property. Um, the location um, must be wholly within that private property. Um, and it also has the same size requirements, um, as if it's in the right of way. Um, and the same height requirements. Uh, but there is no limit on the number of signs on private property.

And then, so that's that's an overview of the what the updates are for the and why we're doing this. Um so some milestones for this February and March we did community engagement. Um we refined the drafts in March now we're here with you in April and May and planning commission and then council review June and July. Yeah just a little more details on the schedule link to the documents and thank you. All right. So, at this point, shall we start an issues matrix? All right. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Commissioner Parna.

So, I have a few, but I I'll ask the first one. Um, yeah, we'll go around like prioritize and we'll circles.

Uh, if they are permitted, all these non-commercial signs are permitted and they have the permits to be displayed. What is the implementation plan that what is the point of it if we can't implement it? So like how are we going to implement that people are picking it up before the permit expires? Um is there or on the alternatively is there a penalty for not picking up if the permit expires? Um I don't it's an implementation question partially but it's also what are the consequences of this? So

yeah,

uh sure. So like with all land use regulations, um our hope is that people will follow the rules. Um that doesn't always happen. Uh we have two uh there are two groups of people that are out there in the right-of-way on a regular basis. Um we have a right-of-way group in the public works department and we also have code enforcement staff in the planning department. And so those two groups will be um will have access to the same information u about the signs and the permits um that have been provided. um and um we'll work together um to remediate any violations. Um, our approach typically to code enforcement is getting people to compliance. Um, that's the that's the preferred method um with our code enforcement staff. And with a permit, that means we can contact somebody and we can say, hey, you have some signs out that are beyond their expiration date or, hey, you have some signs um uh that are looking kind of worn. It might be time to go take them out. Um, and so that's the first step is really to contact the um the owner of the sign and let them know that there's something that they need to address. Um, there are this can um escalate to penalties because there are there are penalties for code violations and those are set in the zoning code. But there are also provisions in the in the draft here for staff to remove signs that are not safe, that are um in tatters um that are expired. So, all of those things could happen, too. Just just actually getting rid of the sign. Um, if the if the owner is not going to follow the rules,

it's an on from what I'm hearing, it's an honor code sort of like we're hoping that everybody understands that they need a permit and um follows through by taking it out at time of expiry of permit, right? Because we don't want to add implementation overhead in that scenario. Is there a way of is there something that you're going to put in as communication when this rolls out? Because I think that would be key. If you're doing it in an honor code, most people would comply, my guess would be, but if they don't know, that's so

so the answer is absolutely yes. Um there will be an education and communication campaign around this. Um because you know we can't expect everybody to know what the rules are. We're going to need to provide some education around that. Um and it won't be just be the city. It's gonna be the city and um you know a big user group of these um regulations will be people running for office, people who are volunteers for um initiative campaigns and and the like. and we will ask them to be sharing with their volunteers what the rules are so that their volunteers are going out and placing signs appropriately picking them up um when they need to be we need to be picked up but but absolutely education and communication will be very important.

Thank you Commissioner Vanheim. I want to understand exactly what this it mentioned about the a permit being affixed to the sign. Is this like a sticker?

It could be a sticker. It could be somebody writing it on the sign with a Sharpie. I mean, that would be up to the um that would be up to the person getting the sign. Um we've been um we can provide a permit number. That permit number can be written on the sign. It could be printed on the sign uh from the shop if they have the permit in advance. Um and it could also be a sticker. Like anything that indicates the permit number is acceptable and this durable. It'll stay on the side. It's up to the the sign placer, the person putting up the sign, not the city. The city's not going to provide stickers. I think that's that's something we haven't decided yet.

The sticker would have to be like the metallic type ones that don't um I think an an option that's still open is that the the city may provide stickers if if requested. I think that's still an option that is on the table, but that's not something that needs to be in the code itself. Okay. Just was curious because it's I guess it would just be if you're saying it's renewable and you had the permit in advance, you could run the sign that way because the sticker wouldn't have an expiration date on it. Correct. Since it's renewable, Mr.

Woodier. I'd like to defer to Denise who's patiently waiting with her hands up first and then I'll I'll go if I if I may. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Gier.

All right. Thank you. Um, I did want to disclose to my fellow uh, planning commissioners something that I've disclosed in writing to Chair Weston and to uh, city staff all the way back in January when we first were given a preview of this potentially coming up on our docket this year. Um, so I wanted to share with the fellow commissioners and with just the public and for the record that I have already purchased 100 temporary non-commercial signs myself. I plan to purchase even more temporary non-commercial signs. Um, in the coming months I made a very lengthy full disclosure to staff and was given some feedback. It sounds like the director was even uh looped in, given my disclosure, was told that this wasn't a circumstance where I needed to um recuse myself even after the disclosure, but was suggested that I wanted to make a clear, open, and transparent disclosure to my fellow commissioners and to um the public who might be listening in. So, I'm doing my due diligence and making that disclosure now. And then I did have a question. Yes, thank you for the disclosure and also pleased with the question.

Okay, so um I uh read through the materials. It sounds like there's the goal is to sort of provide a regulatory framework that there's a goal to make sure that this complies with you know Supreme Court president. The question that I have is if the planning the city planners had looked to any local communities or local cities who've done something similar with a similar framework and um if any of our neighboring cities are doing something similar. If so, um have you heard of any, you know, rub or feedback, positive or negative, from folks who've tried to do a similar regulatory framework? Yeah, that's a great question. Um, so we had the assistance of um, Aland's attorney who has a fair amount of experience with this. And so we know from the conversations with the attorney that the draft sign code um, uses provisions that have been used similarly um, around the region um, and so draws from lessons from um, nearby communities. I think we can follow up with the attorney on um any lessons learned or any um any anecdotes or experiences um arising from this, but but we know that the provisions that are in here have been have been used previously and and tested in that way.

Um back to Vice Chair Wood. Thank you, Chair Weston. uh through the permitting process, is there guidance provided on the concentration of signage in a given approved area? And the reason why I ask is I'm concerned about clutter which obviously undermines uh accessibility and safety. Yes. So there are generally there are code provisions in the draft about that are sort of anti-clutter provisions for the purpose of public safety.

May I ask a followup question? In that case, how do you determine who which sign is removed and which sign stays and do so in a way that's fair um and not perceived as um discrimin discriminatory based on political beliefs or other free speech? That's a really great question and I think we will go back and ask our code enforcement staff like how that actually works on the ground when when they're out there. This is a great question. Um, sorry, Commissioner Copley.

Is there any chance this will be preventing the public from getting cold freshsqueezed lemonade when kids are trying to get their signs out in the summertime? Will they need to have permits, too? You know, I'm just trying to think the last time I saw a sign for a lemonade stand. Argue that's commercial. That is commercial actually commercial.

Um so there's a scenario that I was curious to see how we think about this um that happened few years ago where we had a to the point of um where we have concentrations of signs. There was a point where a whole bunch of signs had fallen over as a windstorm and all that kind of stuff. And there was one sign that was put back up by somebody in the campaign, not the others, and um had said that they couldn't touch anybody else's signs. Is it anything about how and the reason there's a broader question which is when you want to put particularly the political signs which are the ones we tend to see, you know, birds with feather flocks because there's loads of them. If they if if you have put signs up, what is your requirement in the time you have your permit for to make sure they are still in place and not floating across the road, which is actually what happens in a lot of different areas.

May I think generally we expect people who are responsible for the signs to be responsible for them from the time they go in to the time that they come out. You know, uh a single person is not going to be able to keep track of a hundred of their own signs. even if they have a a a whole fleet of volunteers, they might not be able to keep track of all those signs. But if someone was to make them aware that there's a sign in the roadway, it would be the expectation that they um address that or if it has fallen into the bushes or something like that. Um this is hopefully an amusing question, which is if you're going to do your communication, you're going to put out your own signs with your own permit in different places and see how it goes. um in terms of communicating the the sign uh um changes that you want to communicate.

That's a good idea.

Um I'm going to do mine and then keep going around. So I had um questions about the timing. I think I have a whole slew of just different implementation questions. Um I haven't run for anything where I've used a political sign, but I've worked on a lot of campaigns, including the Levy campaign for the schools. Um, and signs are obviously a big part of that. Um, and I just I find it as a volunteer who's put up a lot of signs, so it's I'm not the owner of the sign. I'm kind of a unofficial helper. Um, knowing where to put them and when to put them and then when to remove them is actually a weirdly complicated thing right now. Especially because lovey campaign it bridges three different cities rules because it's Kirkland, Redmond, Smamish, but then individual and that would be true for any of the school races. But then um it just there's a lot of confusion about already about when the signs can go, when they can't. And I'm not sure that the rules as written here really solve that for me. Like what I would prefer is that if there's an election, we have a specific number of days before and then you have a grace period of one week, 10 days, something afterwards because I just I think that is so standard and easy for people to follow and it's concrete and it's not variable and if anyone sees signs outside of that window, like everyone knows or people who care like can look up when the election was if they don't know it off the top of their head And it's just like it's very simple to tell if a sign is in compliance or not. Um I don't like the idea of election signs being able to just stay up indefinitely between a primary

all the way to election. That just that seems really like we talked about clutter, but like to me that feels way too long. And then we've had a lot um I don't know if this is across Redmond or if it's just up in Grasson, but we've had a lot of opinion signs in the last year or two that have been kind of nasty. And it's I don't they're definitely protected under free speech, but I don't like the idea of them being renewed indefinitely. like it was a nice thing when those finally came down and it especially because um like the way that just the streets work in that neighborhood in particular. It's you tend to see a lot of signs outside schools, a lot of signs like where kids are. And so to have like a really unwelcoming message that's just indefinite until someone destroys it or like takes there was a lot of like individual people ripping them out. And I just I kind of think the entire point of a sign code is to be able to say okay we have a community value around this. We agree to it. People aren't being like their own enforcer. Like everyone understands like the signs are up now. They're not at a different point. And so I just I would like there's a um there's a balance here to me of like freedom of speech versus just something where everyone is aware that there is a rule and people either are sticking to it with their signs or they're not that I just I would like to see a little bit more and I didn't know if that was something that other people on the commission would relate to. So I kind of wanted to open that up. Vice Chair Woodier,

I have a a related comment that builds off of what you said. Um, I I like the improvement of the language, temporary signage, but it strikes me that as a bit contradictory when you have a sign that's temporary yet it can be renewed um indefinitely. So, it's essentially de facto permanent sign. Um, and there's a bit of subjectivity as to um, some of the elements of that language. So, so I I think there's an opportunity to be really super clear about are we allowing permanent signage or are we allowing temporary signage? And to me, temporary has is time bound. Oh, sorry, Commissioner. So um adding to your point and I know free speech and everything but what if I see the temporary signs have political campaign signs but it doesn't have political signs. So what I mean by that is if you have a political message which is hatefilled or not inclusive um does that is that I'm guessing it's included and allowed but to your point about how far would it be renewed and um that's that's just a a concern which I had um but I had a separate question. Um the it worries me that people are spraying the signs with stuff which

actually let's let's just wrap this one item and then we'll come back to so I'll ask the next question later but yeah the political signs with the hate speech stuff is I know we can't censor but is there is is there recourse like if there's going to be hateful signs everywhere as I walk eventually it is going to bring down from the city. Um, it's going to be one group or the other. Um, I don't know what the answer is. It's tricky, I'm guessing, but um, maybe unlimited permits is probably where I think we can control it. Um, unlimited renewals, I mean. So,

so you you have a preference for limiting the renewals.

Um, I think everything if they're temporary, they should be a limit. Um that's fundamentally what uh vice chair said and I completely agree with her and everything we are trying to do here is allowing people to express themselves but if they want something permanent then it goes into the other section of code. It should go into the other section of code. It shouldn't come in here. Um and whatever opinion you hold, positive, negative, um if you want it to be permanent, the city hold on to it. It needs to have a different space than the canvas should be open to everybody. That's how I look at it.

Commissioner Gier,

um thank you. I wanted to follow up on a question or a comment that I think Commissioner Ben Nyman had made about the placement of the um permit number. When I read through the packet, I frankly had pictured what it is is the city would give you um stickers that you would put on it. So hearing that that's not the planned implementation, I have some worries about a the sustainability of, you know, I think a lot of folks who use um non-commercial signs for election cycles, right, that they'll need to do every four years. If anything about the sticker or the permit makes that sign unusable again or if the permit number is going to change, then that conflicts with some goals that we have for sustainability. That's one comment. And just a second comment is um just my worry if there isn't more clear guidance from the city about sizing for the permit for the sticker or what that's going to look like that you're going to have a pretty wide swath of ways that folks follow through with that. Um and then I had another comment, but I'm going to hang tight and wait until other folks have because I think we all have big big

thoughts. We have so many opinions tonight. Thank you. Yep. Hold this for just a moment. Commissioner Coleman, um, I had a simple question about how do we think about stickers? So, a lot of campaigns have stickers. People stick stickers for their campaign in different places, but a sticker is still a sign um, under different guys. So, how do we think about putting people putting stickers on um, you know, lamp posts and walls and other places? Because it feels the same thing. the same campaign. Is there anything around that we should think about?

Um, a sticker wouldn't meet the definition of a temporary sign only because it's not easily removed because it's going to be stuck with glue. Um, so they wouldn't be regulated by this. They wouldn't be considered temporary signs. So, is it is it under different rules? Is it still a campaign sign, right? But not a sign. It's a signed but not assigned by the Santa thing, so to speak.

So, we can we can look into it and follow up. I there was and then there was a a broad discussion about free speech limiting duration and all of that. And what I would say is we uh cannot legally police other people's speech, other people's protected political speech. So, that's not something we're going to do. Not something the city can do. What we have uh put together as a draft is meant to put us in a place that provides for public safety and provides for the use of the of the public square in in so far as the right of way is the public square in a manner um that is required under the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. So that's where we've tried to land. Having said that, I think we'll bring all of this back to the attorney and just to get his opinions like hey what about this? Hey, what about that? Um, but we're going to be we're going to be bumping up against the law in what we can um and what we can regulate and how.

Um, Vice Chair Wood,

you know, I I love the depth and breath of of rules um and specifications of where signs what what what you can put up on on a public place or right away or not. there's inevitably going to be some conflict um particularly related to one of my previous questions about cluster and congestion. And the concern that I have is that is that when you when you give city workers the right to remove and dispose of a sign, you know, those some of those A-frames are a little bit expensive. So, you know, are you going to store them? Are you going to just destroy them? Are you going to give them advanced notice? How do we ensure fairness in in how you decide and fairness or or notice and how you dispose?

It's a good question. Thank you, Commissioner Partner.

Yeah, I had a question about the disposal also, especially given that if somebody's spraying some stuff on it, I I didn't know about that. I was a little shocked. So for me um the disposal of these signs especially uh whether the city does it or whether the sign owner does it, it has to be done by whatever garbage rules we have established. I mean somewhere in there should be a little bit more on we you don't just don't throw it in the trash. Um if it's recyclable recycle it kind of thing. So, I think responsible disposal should make its appearance here somewhere. I'm hoping. Um, so, but it's also worrisome if they're spraying stuff. That really shook me. So, um, but yeah, Commissioner Copley. um in the sign language, not to be confused, um there was something that said that you cannot put a sign in a roundabout. It struck me that probably the most common place that I see signs when I drive around is in the roundabouts. And it doesn't bother me that they're there because people don't walk through those typically. They're just nice places for greenery and things like that. But I was um curious why they can't be in roundabouts.

The reason that that rule is there is that to get to the roundabout, you have to cross the street and there's never a crosswalk into the roundabout. Um so it's not a safe way to post and dispose of a sign. Um and I've seen as many signs as you have in roundabouts. Same for the medians. That's why um it's in there on medians because you know imagine the median on 148th. You might see signs in there. People are crossing two lanes of traffic moving at 40 miles per hour to get those signs into the median. And

I actually wanted to bring that one up because um grass on like the way the street is, there actually isn't a way to post in the right of way on most of the main roads unless you're in the median because we don't have space between the street and the sidewalk. It's just street, curb, sidewalk. Um, and so I actually I was wondering about this one because I think the medians are often quite a bit safer as a place just from a like driver visibility. Like you can see the sign, it's not blocking the sidewalk. A lot of the medians actually do have I I know this from personal experience. A lot of the medians actually do have sidewalk access. Um, especially on Old Redmond Road and 148th. Um, so they and actually 140th. So it it actually to me seems like a better place to put signs than any of the other places people come up with. So this seemed like one that um I understand the intent, but it doesn't actually match what's in my neighborhood.

Um, I'm going to go oh to you and then Commissioner Gier. So Commissioner Van Dyman,

I had overlooked that. I somehow missed the median and roundabout because to me those are good places for science. Um I'm not I don't know that our role should be to make it easy for them to put their signs out. I mean like those are legitimately good places. they don't interfere with anybody else's rightaway access, all these other concerns that we're talking about. Um so my question though was on the placement um on the um it's on page seven um of the technical report or in the you also had it in the in your um slide deck about like adjacent signs and visibility and I just I didn't I read that a couple times and didn't even understand what it really meant. Um, on the technical part it was H.

So it's almost like you can't chain together signs. I couldn't. Yeah, that's the general idea. not chaining together signs to create a barrier between, say, a parking spot and the sidewalk, a street parking spot and the sidewalk. Somebody puts together a row of signs that might individually be acceptable, but together they create a barrier. You can no longer get from the sidewalk to your parking spot or or vice versa, for example.

Okay, that is the idea. I guess that is what that says. I just couldn't see it in my head. Let you think about that one. We're going to go to Commissioner Kanye and then we'll do another lap. Commissioner Kanye.

Yes. I had um some follow-up comments about the median and the roundabouts because uh I agree with you know echo what other folks have said that it seems you know uh like the lesser of two evils for placement for many things and for whomever wants to have those it it lends great visibility. Um, I think I have a general question of if what was behind this I'm curious about what was behind this. If the city wanted to create some regulations that made it easier for staff to be able to clear out. I recognize fully the expectation I think has always been that whomever is placing the signs bears the responsibility of picking them up afterwards, but we live in a reality where not everybody, right, historically has done that. And I wonder if there had been a barrier that the city felt that they couldn't clean up signs afterwards because they were considered property of the candidate and therefore the city didn't, you know, clean up those efforts. But that this is an effort to sort of curtail that that if the permits, if it's not permitted, they can remove it. If the permits are expired, right, after an election cycle, then they can remove it without liability. So I'm curious about the the impetus to making these changes in the first place. And then I want to express um just a worry that I have about the current language because I think that there are going to be folks who follow the rules, right? And if the specific code says that you can't place it in a roundabout, which is a hot place that many people would want to put it, right? If there are people who are following the rules and don't do it, are the people who are breaking the rules, right, at risk for having their signs removed haphazardly by other candidates, by competitors, by the city. I'm just worried that that specific language is going to create a lot of um calls to the city and some extra unanticipated work.

All right, great. Shall we go around again? I'm gonna actually Everyone has comments, so I'm gonna go around this way this time and we'll just we'll each get our turn. Commissioner Coleman,

I have a question about like not non-political other signs than political science. Um, so just want to give you an example and you tell me if it's if it's in here. So, in our neighborhood, um, somebody had sadly lost their cat, put a sign up, a number of signs up that were actually very well done and used, you know, um, that they look like real signs. Um, the way they they had actually done it with with uh, stakes and all that kind of stuff. Um, and that was fine, but three months later, they're still there, which is very sad. they found their cat, but um I felt after three months probably not, but there were quite a few around the neighborhood and they haven't been picked up. What's the sort of what's the approach for that? How do you see that as somebody putting it up from a personal perspective for those reasons and then um wanting to remove them because they've been there for too long? Um, I'll I'll read for everybody the definition of non-commercial sign, but then I think we'll take this to the attorney and ask him what he thinks about lost cat signs. But it says, "A sign that expresses messages such as public or community events, religious, political, ideological, or other phys philosophical messages. These signs do not promote for-profit endeavors, projects, or services." Um, so I don't know. I'm not sure if it fits that those categories, but it's on the other hand, it's not a commercial sign. Clearly,

it's almost philosophical in some respects, but that's about the only one I could pick. So, I think people should be able to do it, but it's just like how do you you Anyway, yeah, Commissioner Copley,

I want to echo the sentiment of other commissioners about the challenge in having a temporary sign that can be permanent in essence um by getting more and more and more um permits to leave it there. I think that if we allow that, then eventually that could be abused and there could be people that want to put signs up who are unable to do that because there's a sign that's just always going to be there and because it's a community resource, the land or the right of way. Um, I think it's really important that we put some limitations on how long or how many times a sign can be uh repered because it's it's free real estate. So everyone should have access to it.

Vice Chair, when a right ofway staff member or code enforcement officer makes the determination that they're going to remove a sign, do they double check that the permit is valid? And the reason why I ask is because I believe that every day is Christmas and I'm thinking about posting my Christmas sign in July and want to make sure it's not removed. Uh yes, I think part part of the protocol will be checking the permit. They will they will do that with a number.

That's that is really one of the key reasons to having a permit is then it's very easy to determine. The reason why I asked that is because when things appear out of context, it's easy to and that's an exaggeration of clearly, but you know, there are some people who who have a political sign, an election sign, and they want to keep it up. They they they get the permit approved November 1, and they want to keep it up until January, and it's compliant, although it would appear to be out of context and therefore um out of date. And it's easy to make the mistake of removing something that is legally or or or properly permitted.

Okay. Hearing everything here, I've started like secondguessing everything. I feel like having regulations for this may be a bit much beyond a point like maybe we need to consider I'm kind of questioning the premise of this, okay? Because I think the overhead increases tremendously for the city. Like we don't we have trouble implementing tree permits and seeing if the trees are being planted. That's a bigger much bigger problem and issue and much more of interest to the community. Um I know there is clutter. I know there is this but by and large the city has not done very poorly in terms of self-regulation. So I'm just I'm just throwing it out there. Do we need to go so far? Um and this is just based on what I'm hearing here, right? Um I know there have been a lot of complaints because the number of um signs during election season have increased a lot and there are complaints of clutter and all of that but um I don't know maybe there's a happy middle between overprescribing here and going to zero but um just a thought I don't know if anybody body else thinks this way. Um, but it's yeah, hearing everything that's what I was

I'm gonna actually just open this one up um because it kind of resonates for me. Does anyone else want to react to that one? Commissioner Coleman. Um, I'll get to her in a second. I saw you first.

Yeah, it does. cuz I was just thinking about like the complexity that you could end up in and maybe this what just a thought that went through my head which is um can you have sign sweep day all month right so you know I mean it's I think it's it's funny but I thought about well maybe two weeks after you just say to people we have one two weeks after elections and they're gone and any other sign is also gone so people know when when signs are being removed so when you want to get a sign put up you know when it is and you can you know certain times of the year like there's always baseball and you know all those things that go up but people know when they go to permit just to be aware if you put this sign up it will be gone by this date and then you don't have any arguments over the fact that hey you took my sign up and and the other one to make it to l to create a bit of simplicity and clarity for people when you're going to do it.

It's a great idea. Um Commissioner Van Dyman I'm sorry. Okay. So, in terms of the end date for when the signs come down, um given that political campaigns are probably about 95% of the signs that you see around the city, um that you could say the language could be 60 days or two weeks after whatever date the the election in the case of political signs. Um, I tend to agree that getting too deep in the weeds on all this and making it too complex is really at this point is not necessary. PE political campaigns don't want their signs up all the time because it diminishes the recognition and they h they you know they generally do a pretty good job of they even tend a lot of them do tend to take their signs down between primaries and general elections. Um, but the the 60-day part would cover the primary. I mean, you if you wanted to, you could put language in there that said um around primaries and general elections. I don't know that you want to get in that deep. Political campaigns generally don't want their signs out there too long. Um, back to the self-regulation part of all of this. So, and then the other part I would say is that you want to make your rules um realistic and practical. And I don't see that telling people not to put signs in the medians and um roundabouts is realistic. I think

they're going to break the rules. You're inviting rule breaking and that's not going to lead to a successful implementation. Great. Commissioner Gier

just I think Commissioner Aperno's point was why I my very first question was asking for feedback from what neighboring cities have experienced if they've implemented things like this. I think that if we have an opportunity to learn what the pressure points were, if there was increased overhead, if there were people who were trying to push the limits, um getting feedback from other cities who've done similar things, um would be very helpful to me in terms of thinking about how to, you know, approve or vote against uh any of these changes.

All right, I'm going to pick back up because we were going around. So, we had a little interlude and now Commissioner Van Dyman, you're good. Um, Commissioner Gier, do you have another comment that's unrelated? Um, yes, one more. I assume the city's got sorry, unrelated to the last one or wait unrelated to the question about should we be doing this at all? Correct. It's unrelated. Great. Do you want me to wait? No, go ahead. This is perfect timing.

Okay. Um so I assume the city is getting great feedback from um an attorney um on this issue, but I do worry about you know political speech is per the constitution per every Supreme Court decision that is addressed this the absolute highest form of free speech and I think any effort at regulating is maybe going to get into some murky waters. So, any more details that you that the next presentation can share about the specific feedback from the city's attorney, especially on, you know, I I I just frankly assume anything that's deemed political, if you're regulating it with a permit, it's going to have to be never denied. But I'm interested to hear more about that if the attorney can share more next time.

Yeah, absolutely. and and you hit on some important things about the permit, right? There's no content review. Um, and it's renewable and it's free. So, very low barriers for for that reason. But, um, but yes, we can get more,

right? And I'm going to just do myself as the conclusion and then if anyone has last thoughts, then we'll pull those together. Um my last request um on this was one thing that I really value about the political science is there's a fair amount of regulation from the state I believe just about saying who paid for them. Um and I think that that's a very helpful piece of information when new signs, especially if there are a lot of them that are clearly from the same person or group show up. It's just nice to understand why they're there. Um, I don't know if it is possible for Redmond to have a similar requirement for free speech signs, just saying who actually put this up, who owns it, if it's on public land. But I would really appreciate that because I think anyone has the right to post something on their own property or on someone else's property if they can convince them to do it. Um that's not really the issue here. It's but if it's on public land, it's nice to know like why and who more to the point. Um so I don't know if the city can do that, but I would be very interested in that piece if they could.

Okay.

All right. So, we're going to do because I'm trying to be so respectful of our time. What I want to do is if anyone has a big topic that hasn't had a chance and then if we have any little things that we could do over email. So, Comm I do want to just connect two things around what you were just saying and the things around hate speech. The thing I really concerns me is if somebody like you have free speech, there should be some lines on what is not allowed, right? Um, and which people think is completely inappropriate to put on a sign. Um, and I think there are people here could bring all sorts up. And if that is the case that those signs can be put up, then they should be very clear who they come from. I think they be absolutely clear who is putting that type of sign up and why. Um because otherwise it's just a sign with something which is targeted at certain people um that somebody wants to state and so we'd know who that should know who that is

and even worse a sign with a permit from the city of Redmond on it 100% but no ownership of the message. So I that almost that just like everyone in this room right now is understands that there's freedom of speech issues understands that like city is trying to regulate what they can in a thoughtful way but just a random passer by like on the sidewalk reading this thing or a child like I think there should be some ownership of the message. It shouldn't just be like Redmond signs off on this. We're good. page. Yes, Commissioner Woodier. Sorry, Vice Chair Woodier.

I I would related to Adam and Susan's comments, I would love to see at minimum, you're requiring that signs have permit numbers of some sort. I think at minimum one should be able to research online who that permit number is associated with. And it can't be like a blank email box. It's got to be an an individual address, phone number. So at least there's transparency in your implementation and permitting process. Does anyone want to react to that? I think that's a great idea. But

I'm seeing nodding. I'm sure. Right. Exactly. But just for our initial feedback, um, Commissioner Gier, do you have a final comment for us? I don't actually like that idea. I think that it I I would I I hope that the the attorney who the city is paying has good guidance on that. I worry that it would create um regulations on free speech. I just do. That's all to be able to look up who filed a permit

to require um individual. Yes. I think that it invites potentially um yeah, I do I think that it invites in some very heated topics um especially if you're going to require something that can be traceable back to an individual um not like a you know campaign for blah blah blah that it invites retaliation and I would worry about liability. This is a juicy one. Commissioner Coleman and then Commissioner Partner.

I just want to make a This is going to sound a uh a strong comment, but somebody put a swast sticker on the road outside our house. I'd want to know who that was and why they put it there. They can have free speech, but you only get free speech if you know who's actually making the speech. I I don't quite understand why we would not want to know that. So sorry just all right so city attorney is going to be busy commissioner a partner.

So coming back to the free speech stuff especially if there's hate speech like the swastika coming up um and we have the city permit. How are we clear that the city is not endorsing that bill? What if somebody takes offense? you got a permit number there. Will the city be sued? I don't know if if the code on that's a question for the lawyer, I think, I mean the attorney. Um, but it is it does open up the city to if you permitted this, therefore you you also condone it or not even condone it, you probably endorse it as it could be made that way. I don't know. Um, these are extreme hypotheticals, but one bad egg and things could be really bad. I don't know if city's seen something like that, but it feels harmless at the surface, but I don't know. So, lots to consider here. Uh, Vice Chair Woodier, do you want to finish? Yeah, I I would I would just say that there should be consistency in how we and in in how we think about um permits. If we require name, address, phone numbers for permanent signs or other type of permitting um processes here in the city of Redmond, that consistency should and standard should extend to temporary signs which then, you know, in a world where we have sol uh contentneutral signage that includes the hate, that includes the love, that includes all of those signs. And so I would um disagree with with um some of the comments that we've heard here here we've heard here tonight. I would just say that we should be consistent because if we're not then you also open yourself

up to to to you know risks and liabilities. All right. Okay. This was a great discussion. We will come back to this. Um can you remind us when two weeks we're back. All right. But not public hearing yet. There is a a public hearing has been advertised for April 22nd. Okay. The commission can also extend that. Okay. As it as it sees fit. All right. Well, we'd love public comment on this. Um would people like a break before we do neighborhood planning? Okay. We will take five minutes and then be back for neighborhood planning.

Great.

All right, great. We killed our echo and we are ready to go. All right, so we are back and ready for our introduction to neighborhood planning with Lauren Alpert.

Thank you. Once again, I'm Lauren Albert, senior planner in long-range planning. Uh so neighborhood and quarter planning. So what is neighborhood planning in a post Redmond 2050 world. So, what we're going to be doing today, doing an introduction, uh, reviewing the goals of neighborhood planning, the framework and scope, kind of a review of what our proposed process and the products will be, and a little bit about next steps. So, introduction, this is a new approach we are seeking and we're seeking feedback from the planning commission. So, what is neighborhood planning? Um, complete neighborhoods was a big goal and a big major theme of the Redmond 2050 plan. So, one of the ways we're viewing neighborhood planning is as a roadmap to those complete neighborhoods. Um, so this is LE26, promote walkable, welcoming, attractive, and safe, complete neighborhoods with a variety of housing types to serve our culture and economically diverse communities. Just a reminder of kind of we did as part of the Redmond 2050 process a complete neighborhoods analysis. Um, and this is just kind of a sample of some of that information that we received. And I think it was downtown was one of here some is one of the only complete neighborhoods that we have in the city. Um so the goal complete neighborhoods. So community members and predominantly residential areas to be close to amenities to make a complete neighborhood. Um so what is neighborhood planning not going to be? Um it's not going to be a bunch of sub area plans anymore. Um, it's not going to include our centers like downtown, Marymore, um, and Over Lake. And it's not going to include our areas like business parks, manufacturing parks or industrials. It is going to include our corridors and our neighborhoods. So, these predominantly residential area. It's going to have clear and consolidated neighborhood policies. Um, so some of the outcomes. So,

building community and leadership um through that process, updated policies for in the neighborhood section of the community development and design chapter. Um potentially identifying an infrastructure and facility improvements um opportunities for improved connectivity and more neighborhood land zoned for mixed use. So just a little bit more about kind of to review, you know, we've got our centers in red, our corridors in purple, so the spaces in between our neighborhoods and centers in between our neighborhoods and our neighborhoods in blue. So it's going to be predominantly this is what we're planning for. So who's going to be involved in neighborhood planning? So, this is going to be a group effort. Um, it's an opportunity for staff to receive input. Um, but also an opportunity for staff to share upcoming plans or projects. Um, maybe items of interest um for a community, you know, maybe specified for a specific neighborhood or for um all of our neighborhoods. Um, it's an opportunity for staff to build relationships in neighborhoods um and with the community and to potentially grow a neighborhood liaison program. So staff have specific neighborhood contacts that they can reach out to. Um it's also an opportunity to introduce potential community leaders to planning. Um you know as part of this process we may be talking to future planning commissioners that want to get more involved. Um you know establish community advisory groups. There's there's people that on planning commission now that started being on community advisory groups. Um so developing those future leaders and um learning how to best support community leaders in the civic process and then also there's sort of our broader community engagement. So that's the people that we meet at events, at public workshops, at public meetings.

So kind of looking at neighborhood planning through these three lenses and community leaders obviously include our current commissioners. Um, so what's the finished product going to be? It's going to be a set of neighborhood policies that apply to all of our neighborhoods. Um, it's potential proposed updates to our infrastructure and facilities, our land use and zoning map, and our functional plans. Um, and the idea is that we're not going to have a lot of these ideas sit in sub area plans. Um, that they would be adopted if these ideas come to fruition in handinhand with staff and that they would be adopted as part of the neighborhood policies. um developing those future leaders, developing community member skills and our ability to communicate um and then building community relationships. We really want to build on um the relationships that we made through Redmond 2050 and that process and continue to um not have these relationships be just transactional for one sub area plan or plans, but really have um strong community relationships between the city and the community. So, next steps, um, kind of looking to kick off some of this neighborhood policy work, um, in 2026, citywide neighborhood policies, and then looking ahead to 2027, um, looking at also integrating, um, the transit oriented development law, TOD, HB1491, um, into some of these neighborhood plans and policies in Wills, Rose Hill, Grass Law, and 148th. And then uh in 2028 continue to kind of take the neighborhood planning process on the road to the other neighborhoods outside of our centers. So that's that's sort of the the introduction um and kind of our our

thought process and our thinking of the direction that we want to take neighborhood planning. And this is just kind of the first step. Um, so I welcome your questions and thoughts and comments at this time. Great. And are we starting a matrix also? Yeah, I'm going to Yeah, it's it's not in issue matrix format yet. It's just in my loose notes. But yeah, perfect. Starting it. Okay, sounds good. While I type furiously while you talk at me. Great. Commissioner, I actually have a lot of questions on this one. So what I will do is I will just pick one or two right now and I will email the rest and so it can appear on the M. Well, why don't you choose your um top question and then we'll do the same where we just go around.

That's what I was thinking. So let's just talk about the functional and zoning plans. Will when you look at each neighborhood, will you take the relevant sections of the functional plans to the neighborhood or is it going to be that you just look at the neighborhood policies in the element the way it is right now? The reason I'm asking this is transportation, water, all of that. um you and safety. They're all referenced in these functional plans for specific facilities or infrastructure developments in a particular neighborhood. If I if if if it has to make sense to somebody who isn't let's say has worked on this for some time, it would make sense to have the relevant sections pulled out from those places and taken to the community. Is that how you are foreseeing it?

Yes. So kind of as we're going to different neighborhoods to do this community engagement that um those specific projects that may be happening um in various departments would be you know brought to the community to be presented. So if there's a a water project or a storm water project or a transportation project that's going on in grass lawn it's an opportunity for those staff or or planners um to come and present on those specific topics. So it would be kind of um yeah like what's happening in transportation and grass lawn, you know, so that they would be able to to to kind of narrow in and focus on that. And that's the idea that we're we're um looking at. Follow up on that. Um I'm not just talking about projects.

Mhm.

Let's say grass lawn. We read uh on the Rose Hill side there's going to be a water shortage. 27 storage issues on 27 28 whenever that is I forget the dates but that isn't necessarily associated with a project in the area but it does impact the neighborhood so my question then would be would everything relevant to my neighborhood in terms of all utilities infrastructure will come to can Can I be informed as a resident of the neighborhood of everything or is it only the projects which are going to be built?

I think um as of now we're going to sort of leave it at the discretion of the subject matter experts and if they're um they have that's why it's kind of that the three-prong approach of staff, community leadership, and the broader community. Um, so if staff have things that they want to address in a specific neighborhood, this is also their opportunity um to kind of us all go together and talk to a the neighborhood about what's happening there, whether it's specific project or policy or something long term. Okay. Thank you. I I do have reservations about that, but I'll put it down in writing and then you can address it. So, thank you,

Mr. Sorry, Kley. I think this is great. Um I think it's really lovely that there is going to be engagement between the city, community leaders, and people who are planning curious. And um I think the first week that I was a commissioner, I knocked on every door on my street and said, "Hi, I'm a commissioner. If you want to talk to me about planning, I'd love to chat with you." Got to know a lot of my neighbors that way. Um, and I think that this is going to engage the community in planning in a way that maybe we haven't been as intentional about in the past. So, I just want to voice my um my support for this and I think it's really great. Commissioner Vanam, you

you copied in the documentation um for tonight was included the existing neighborhood plan. Is that what a a very uh you know the next version of that? Is that what the final product is? That's the current the current version, right? No, I understand. Yeah, like it's going to be there's going to be another one of those

um in some way in some format. I think we're that include the current version includes a lot of sub like policies for specific neighborhoods and I think that we're trying to move away from that of having a long like a long list of specific projects and specific policies for every single neighborhood and have more broader policies um across neighborhoods. Um, and so it's not going to look exactly the same, but we'll have a list of policies for neighborhoods and it'll be centered sort of around that that roadmap to complete neighborhoods. I was just trying to understand what the final product was. Commissioner Coleman,

I just want to echo the same comments. I I I love what you're trying to do here. Both the planning Yeah, I was just talking quietly. um as I do um I was really love what's in here and and and all all the things we talked about around um getting people interested in planning. Um the thing I was thinking about a little bit was the future state that if you were to write us a a statement about how you'd want people to react to the outcome of this in say 2755, right? What would you want people to say? And the reason I say that is, you know, my I come from a town in the UK. It's been around for a while. And there's areas of the town like people know this like this part of the town or I grew up in a place called Monton Park which is its own place, you know, and people talk about like that's a nice part of town to live. It's got a news agent. It's got a, you know, whereas a different side of town is newer and has a different vibe. But these neighborhoods are truly neighborhoods because people know generally know their neighbors and they have a certain kind of brand about them. I could use that term. So I was just curious if there's a way of adding something in in business terms. People write these things called a PR FAQ, which is basically a public relations announcement that you would announce if if you were creating a product and that's what you're going to announce it, right? Here's the end game. How do you get to that? So that's what something that kind of idea. I don't know if that's part of this, but that's the thing that came into my head. What's the what's the end piece that we want people to think about once this is in place?

I had a question. um or maybe more of a comment um just about who the community leaders are. Um and I was specifically um thinking of this from a grassland perspective because I don't find our neighborhood to be terribly cohesive. I find that we adore that park. Um, it gets used constantly by everyone, but there isn't, it's sort of like a lot of individuals all going from their homes to the park and then there's not a lot of community necessarily in it. Um, and then there isn't a natural gathering spot other than that. And so, um, what I worry about in a place like that is I'm not sure you would necessarily know the community leaders or that they're necessarily affiliated with the neighborhood. there might be a fair amount of um building up from very little that would have to happen and it people might see themselves as more members of other government agencies like division. So like people might see themselves as a parent of a kid in school, whatever school, but so there's going to be tension there where the identity is like like Washington school district based, not necessarily Redmond based or um the natural place to meet might actually be in a school in that neighborhood. So I would just say I had a little bit of a I'm not sure how you're going to find the people that you're hoping to find. qual and then in that I really hope that you can um make sure that you're finding renters because that those are a really important part of our community definitely coming and going but have a really important set of needs that need to be addressed there um and generally

are not included in the communications and aren't even necessarily aware that Redmond is trying to communicate with them. Um, but again have a lot to say like are here for a reason. So I would um like that's a voice that I the voice at Grassland I think is very quiet but then it's even quieter in the rental community like renter community. So I just um I'm hoping um okay we're gonna again so commissioner partner and then commissioner van. So um while we are doing this I think part of the neighborhood plan should also be if you are trying to identify community leaders and a comm build a sense of community here then we should also talk about some part of this should involve emergency management and emergency planning which I don't think exists in the way the current plan is but you know is there a place where we're going to have you know a medical station should something hit or something like that right uh that is where we mobilize and that's what we need we can't all come to downtown um so uh and I think it would be a bad idea if we all came to downtown um so having community resilience hubs is key and so it need not be part of it's sort of one part should be formalized in the plan but uh one part should be kickstarting that community conversation to build out resilience. Um I think it's a great opportunity and personally I really like that diagram of the complete neighborhoods because in my mind the

complete neighborhoods that one piece is the only thing which is missing and um it will be great to actually build in that community and I live in the grassland thing and I I don't frankly I'm not a very social person but I don't think there are any self-proclaimed community leaders either. Okay. So, um, it's a good time for people to voice it and people are concerned about different things. So, it might be a good time to get everybody together. So, yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Van.

I would just encourage the use of paper for actually trying to reach out to people in various places. Not don't limit yourself to electronic communications. um particularly when you're talking about renters, they um apartments would often have bulletton boards that you could just pack up announcements on and perhaps elsewhere as well, but certainly in the apartments you can find, you know, announcements and um you know, I don't know how much feedback you need on any of that stuff, but grocery stores have bulletin boards. Um coffee shops have bulletin boards. Yeah, I would I would definitely try and use paper because you might reach a different audience.

Maybe we'll use some temporary non-commercial signs. I work.

Um, another question that I had um and this is very issues matrix is, um, I know that Kirkland has had a lot of neighborhood groups that have hit um just assorted challenges. I know there's been some state regulation of that and then um a lot of them have actually been struggling with getting insurance. So it's like there was a model that was working for one of our neighbors that is changing um and has been over the last few years. I don't know if the goal is to create something like that or hopefully not. hopefully to create something a little bit more of our own, but because I think some of those almost ran as like um more political HOAs or that sort of concept. I'm not sure that that's necessarily what we're going for here, but just being a little bit more descriptive of um what the vision is for like how these groups are coordinating and andor meeting andor forming connections with other people. who are interested in being connected would be really helpful because I I'm only seeing um like in other surrounding cities the models that I've seen I don't sound like what we're describing here commissioner partner

so the the Kirkland one some of them were set up differently and they have different governance structures of compared to the city government as well that I don't think is the purpose purpose of this uh because we've gone through these neighborhood plans a long time ago and it's just I think the idea is to have a more consistent but updated vision but it's not changing the governance structure in any way. So if if we form a community group it would be on let's say us and grass lawn to build it rather than the government. It's not the purpose of the exercise. So, I actually wasn't clear on that. So, I I would like more of a vision of what it actually what we're hoping this would look like. I have one more comment since um if anyone wants to come up with a last comment here also feel free. Okay. I was you were seeming quiet. I'll do one and then you we'll turn to you. Um, so a question that I had about this, I love the idea of streamlining the policies, making it more clear that most policies are going to be Redmond in totality and then the neighborhoods will just have some things that are individual. Um but being a little bit more specific about what um like what the criteria are for neighborhoods to have different um like different policies, different services, different availability would be really helpful. Um an example of this is um just recently there was the pilot program for the new free pickup service to get to the light rail. um or to

downtown or to a center like that goes to some neighborhoods, but it doesn't actually go to any of the ones serviced by um the high school that my teens go to. And so it's there's been a fair amount of chatter and complaint that like, oh, okay, here's yet another way that we're not able to participate in Redmond services. And it's so I think being a little bit more clear about when you have programs like that, why do they go to one neighborhood but not other neighborhoods would actually be a little bit more fair because um the rational that people are coming up with are that it's inherently unfair. And so um I don't know I I think broadly we're generally very well served by the citywide policies. Um especially since like the zoning became all like the neighborhoods all have the similar options etc. Just being a little bit more clear when there's differences why we're doing that.

All right, Commissioner Partner. So, uh, if you're talking about complete neighborhoods, the one request would be that for every neighborhood, you know, those identified parcels with the mixed use ones that they be specially invited cuz they agreed that their parcels can be used for a small commercial. uh it will be really nice to have conversations with them and support them if they want to go ahead uh because that was a purpose of a the reszoning and b complete neighborhood. I'm really looking forward to like I actually went and walked around all the parcels which were identified. I'm like in five years or something, you know. But the the whole point is that having them have come to a meeting, they will also know that they have the support of the rest of us and if who knows where the dialogue goes from there, but I think it's important um and if somebody else says, "Oh, my parcel I wanted part of this." and you know maybe there's a conversation there about is it is it possible given where you're situated or whatever right so it's opening the door for more such dialogues

I would actually even say that more broadly that people with inhome businesses would be another great natural fit for this because um like they're providing community services often so it daycarees s and all of that. Um so, um but it it would be nice, especially the small commercial that we've just opened up the zoning to. I think it's key.

Awesome. Commissioner Coleman, a general question. We're talking about we're talking a lot about recruitment of people that don't normally get involved, right, as well. I was curious like is there any data that you have that shows how many people do get involved with the council around things right is it like 2% of the population 1% of the population 50% of the population um and is it the same people and how so to me it's just like what what it's not what's the problem but like what's the current state of affairs um and how can you kind of expand because there's lots of ways of doing that right but um I was curious what what the current state is

yes Uh I would say we have to keep Dr. Morton out of those statistics uh because because it would skew the numbers. But thank you Dr. Morton. It's important what you do. So Commissioner Copley.

Yeah. Um to my fellow commissioner's point, I think that it would be interesting to know where we're getting engagement from those communities. when you had the map up and you had kind of these borders around all these different communities that we all live in. Um there are seven eight of us, seven of us. Um and we some of us live in the same ones and so um by virtue of that fact we don't have dialogue or any kind of neighborhood engagement with some of the people in those areas. And I think it would be interesting to consider the idea of there being some sort of a communication liaison or something with the commission and and other folks. Um, and that could be super informal like, hey, this is the first day we're doing this neighborhood planning. Anyone interested, show up. And then there's an informal vote. We pick Bob. Okay, Bob's going to be the leazison. But something along those lines to where uh there's some connective tissue to all the different parts of the city. I think that would be valuable.

All right, any last comments? All right, then we're going to leave it there for tonight. Um, and we will be back on this one next time as well. I will get back to you on when we're coming back. All right, because some of the questions and may require additional thought then on the coming back on the in our next meeting. Um, but that also I wanted to potentially put it on the agenda for the annual workshop to further discuss engagement on neighborhood planning with the planning commission. Lovely. That would be great. All right, we're going to move on to staff and commissioner updates.

Would you like to start?

Uh, yeah. So that transitions us to we do have our our annual workshop on the 29th. I'm very happy that I got to be the leazison again for the workshop. Um and because it's um I sent an email today with a a handful of topics um that we are considering. So I wanted some feedback on that. It includes um typically we discuss planning commission norms as one of the topics. Um, I also wanted to include this topic of neighborhood planning specifically around community engagement and um, planning commission's role in sort of maybe um, helping connect some of that tissue um, as Commissioner Copley said um, through the neighborhood planning process. Um and there was a handful of other topics from um from asset management to World Cup getting ready for the World Cup. Um so there's some exciting things going on in the city that don't necessarily pass through um your this desk or the planning commission's preview that could be interesting to hear about at the workshop. So, I'll I'll look for your emails and responding to that and we can kind of further discuss it a little bit next time as we shore up topics and speakers.

One that if anyone has ideas that they'd like to throw out their Yeah. and open up new ideas, too. Um, one idea that I had that I would be interested in potentially is just a quick overview of since Redmond 2050 passed, um, if there are any development agreements or big projects on the horizon or new openings or new affordable housing. Um, that is a perennially interesting topic. Um, and it might not have been enough time yet, but if there's any updates on that, I'd be very interested. Commissioner Barner,

I I think adding to that would be any big projects like those Sears one which stalled like understanding where the big developments are at in in their in their development cycle would be nice if something stalled. I it would be nice to know and maybe a Y, but sometimes the Y is just like no money. Um but most of the time it's no money. Uh but it it would be nice to know where they are in the cycle because some of it was before the 2050 plan but they are deeply impactful because of the fact of where they are located. Right. So um yeah that would be interesting. Yeah I think so. I think so. Um, I had another staff and or another commissioner update. Um, specifically a water update. Um, so I heard from Mayor Bernie and staff member Amanda Bowser that they'll be briefing city council on July 21st about the Cascade Supply Program. So this is the update that we asked for almost two years ago. Now if anyone we're not going to get a briefing in planning commission, but if you want to attend that meeting or watch remotely, that's completely fine. Um and so um we'll update if that changes, but otherwise just put it on your calendar and plan to go um if you're interested. Um does anyone else have additional commission additional commissioner updates? No. Okay. In that case, I

Sorry, I raised my hand. Probably didn't see from Thank you for speaking up, Commissioner K. Um not so much an update. I think it's more of a quick question that maybe I should have asked earlier of Jeff and Lauren because we had such a robust discussion on our first topic. I'm wondering if it's at all possible. Is it Rebecca Mueller? Is she the one who is the city attorney? I'm wondering if she might be able to join interested or if that's, you know, too much on the spot. But I I wonder if having the city attorney there to help answer some of the hypotheticals could potentially be helpful to um guide some of our conversations on our first topic in two weeks. Throwing that out.

We've been working with a different attorney, but I will follow up with Jeff and them and see what's possible. And we probably won't do anything that directly impacts any of our current items because those really should be part of the public record. Um, this would be more Were you saying for the annual workshop? No, for the our next discussion when we're talking about the signs on the 22nd. Okay. Sorry, misunderstood. Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, I look for a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I All right. Then we are