Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, everyone. Welcome to the April 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We will start with a roll call. Commissioner Apartner, present. Commissioner Copley, present. Commissioner Coleman, present. Commissioner Gier, present. Commissioner, sorry, Vice Chair Woodier. She's present. Excellent. And I am Chair Weston. Commissioner Van Diamond is excused tonight. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present. Glenn Coyle, Chiff Churchill, Lauren Alpert, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? I.

I. Great. That is approved. and any corrections to the meeting summary from last time. All right, then I look for a motion to approve the meeting summary from April 8th, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

All right, that is approved and moved into record. Now it is time to for us to hear public comment and items from the audience. Um this is for any topic that's not related to our public hearing later tonight. Um who do we have this evening? for general comments from items from the audience. We have Linda S. up first and David M. Great. So, thank you for joining us. Um, if you can keep your comments to three minutes and start with your name and address.

My name is Linda Seltzer. I live in Redmond on 80th Street um near 170th Avenue in a senior apartment complex that is in the neighborhood or neighborhood multifamily zone. Um, please delete or modify amend the zoning code to not incentivize demolition of existing affordable senior apartments and instead to preserve existing housing in the in this neighborhood multifamily zone. For example, in a senior apartment complex like mine, half the tenants either have or had have had some kind of cancer. Many have bone loss and therefore mobility disabilities. People have needed lung surgery. There are ambulances coming and going every so often to senior apartment complexes and some in some cases there are elders whose parents brought them from a foreign country that is difficult to live in. So um the G and also the general population apartment complex in the parcel next door there are refugees there are working people there are single moms with little children. So clearly demolition represents a very um traumatic and difficult situation for senior citizens. Um, people just plan to stay in their home for a long time. And we even have hospices in the senior apartment complexes. People do not want to go to the horror story that you know of about nursing homes and and have to go through that whole Medicaid hell and nursing home hell. So, people are in this for the long haul and it really shouldn't be disrupted. Moving is is

really um difficult. So, I urge you to delete that incentive for developers to um tear down houses, you know, existing multifamily h homes in the neighborhood and neighborhood family zone, please just delete it. But if it has to be kept, then please honor the costs and provide the cost. The developer must provide the costs of relocating us, which would be about $10,000 instate per tenant and $20,000 out of state per tenant. That's what it really costs. That's the crisis that is caused by demolition. So preservation is by far the cheapest alternative. Just leave things alone. Don't pass these zone don't ju delete an amend these zoning amendments that are just creating chaos for senior citizens for low-income tenants. Leave things the way they are. That's really the best thing. Just don't do anything. Just delete those amendments. Um, and you can read my Substack for all the details on how the government laws work, the county laws work, and the city laws work, and how they all combine together. Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming in. Who do we have next? Uh, David M.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I want to raise concerns about PAS contamination in Redmond's municipal drinking water supply specifically at wells 1 and two. I've submitted the following questions to city staff through Redmond's online request for service. First on source investigation, has the city conducted any formal investigation to identify the source of the PFOS and PFBS detections at wells one and two. The city's own groundwater monitoring program commits to source identification. If no such investigation has occurred, residents deserve to know the basis for proceeding without one. Second, regarding sentinel well testing from August 2013 through 2015, the two years following the August 2013 allwood recycling fire. Were there any sentinel monitoring wells located between the allwood recycling site, currently DTG recycle, and the supply wells? And were they tested for PAS? If not, who made that decision and why? Third, regarding Evans Creek predisturbance testing, has the city obtained any PAS soil or groundwater testing at the Evans Creek relocation project site, which is partially within the DTG site? That site sits in an in an upgradient position relative to Redmond's supply wells. Proceeding without baseline testing requires clear justification. Fourth, on DTG site coordination, has the city contacted the Washington Department of Ecology, King County, or DTG Recycle directly to request PAST

testing of the DTG site or adjacent soils? And if not, does it intend to? Fifth, concerning the PFOS trend, the city's monitoring data shows a slowly rising PFO trend at wells one and two with emerging detections at additional wells. What is the city's operational response to a contamination problem that is worsening rather than stabilizing? And sixth, on the wellhead treatment timeline, what is the projected schedule for design, permitting, and construction of wellhead treatment at wells 1 and two, and what interim measures are currently in place to protect public health? These are straightforward accountability questions. Redmond residents are drinking this water every day, and they are entitled to clear, documented, publicly accessible answers. I respectfully ask this commission to do what it can to ensure that city staff respond formally and that these responses are shared with the public on the public record. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right, with that we are going to move to our public hearing on temporary non-commercial signs in the Redmond zoning code. Uh starting with Lauren Albert and possibly Jeff Churchill. Okay, I can pull up the issues matrix. We also do have public comment. Um,

let's start with our public area. Um, do you have any framing that you want to do ahead of time or should we go straight to any comments? We can go to the public comment first. All right. David M. All right. Welcome back. If you could start with your name and address and keep it to three minutes, please.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'm a resident of unincorporated King County and a neighbor to Redmond. I regularly walk, shop, and travel through your city and I have a genuine interest in how this ordinance takes shape. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I want to start by acknowledging what the city is trying to do here. Establishing a clear regulatory framework for temporary non-commercial signs, one that is contentneutral and consistent with Reed versus Town of Gilbert is the right legal approach. Also, the no cost permit is a sensible way to respect free expression without placing a financial burden on residents. That said, I have several questions I hope the commission and staff will address as this process continues. First, on enforcement, the draft procedure calls for holding improperly placed or expired permit signs for 30 days. I appreciate that, but who bears the cost if city staff must repeatedly retrieve signs from the same permit holder? staff have noted that enforcement procedures are still being drafted and I'd encourage the commission to ensure those procedures include meaningful accountability, not just retrieval. Second, on permit renewal, the framework allows 60-day permits to be renewed indefinitely. Commissioners have questioned whether calling something temporary while allowing unlimited renewals is contradictory. I'd asked staff to explain tonight what, if any, contentneutral mechanism could place a practical limit on perpetual renewal and whether the city attorney's review has produced any answers. The

public deserves a clear answer before a recommendation moves forward. Third, on placement and safety, I strongly support prohibiting signs in medians and roundabouts. These are genuine safety hazards and I commend staff for drawing a clear line there. I'd also encourage the city to ensure the 48 in pedestrian clearance requirements uh requirement is actively enforced particularly on routes used by people with mobility challenges. A concern that came up repeatedly in public feedback this past February and March. Finally, on public education, this ordinance only works if people know about it. I'd I'd urge the city to invest in a robust outreach campaign before invest enforcement begins in multiple languages given Redmond's diverse community. Thank you for your careful work on this. I look forward to following the process through the May study session and council review.

Thank you. All right. So, with that, let's move to the issue. Oh, actually, I'm going to close the verbal portion of the public hearing, but keep the written portion open. Should have started there. Um, and now we will move to the issues matrix. Okay. Sorry, I'm pulling that up on the screen now. We will do our best to speak into the microphones and speak up. Okay. So, can everyone see the issues matrix? Okay. Um, I'm not sure it's possible in this room further than what we have. I know that our tech staff are aware of the issue because the community member wrote in earlier and so they they're doing their best to make the the house audio as as robust as it can be tonight and speaking into the mic will help.

All right, we will do our best to keep speaking into the mics. Yeah, sorry to interrupt, but your audio is almost maxed out so you'll just have to speak into the closer to the mics.

Yep. Thank you. Okay. So, we will go start the Oops. Hold on just a minute. I'm afraid that when the volume got turned up, we're getting feedback. All right. Thank you. That seems to have fixed it. Um, okay. So, we can start um with implementation of the code. um commissioners who discussed who is responsible for picking up signs if they uh if they are permitted. Will there be any penalties if the city has to pick them up? Commissioners emphasize the need for broad education and communication. Um so we talked to our public works and code enforcement staff and they're currently drafting enforcement procedures and they have a framework written. Um and in the current draft of that procedure, they'll hold the signs for 30 days and permit holders will be able to pick them up at city hall by appointment. We can close this. Thank you. Okay.

All those closed, may I add that there are enforcement provisions in the RMC for the removal and disposal of illegal signs. They're in title one is 114085. It does have um monetary enforcement penalties for violators of the sign code who are not picking up their signs. Um so it is it is most people will come and get their signs and are not repeat violators but there are mechanisms to um for monetary penalties for for bad behavior and repeat code violations. Would it be possible to add that answer um into the issues matrix because I think that's helpful.

You bet. Yeah. Okay. Um, next we had a discussion on how the permit number will be placed on signs. Um, and we sort of are are leaving it up to the applicant. Um, so we give that greater greatest amount of flexibility. Um, and Commissioner Venad had had also commented on this and had closed it. So, but I wanted to leave it open if there's any more discussion that we wanted to have on this.

The answer here that said that the exact method is still being considered. Mhm. Um, but I think the our intent is to have it the greatest amount of flexibility on that especially if um I think you had brought up to the the question about whether the permit numbers can be reused every year and they won't be able to be reused. So they like fixing a sticker or changing the number could be the method for updating that permit number every year. I don't feel comfortable closing it yet until I feel like there's more. This doesn't feel like a clear answer to me.

Okay. I guess I would add that the method for a fixing a sticker is is not going to be found in the code. Um so your recommendation won't include that detail. that's going to be in the operating procedures. Um, and we can we can continue to work on it, but it's it won't affect the language of the code itself. Maybe I mean there's more that I will have to sort of ask on this exact issue sort of later. So maybe I'll save some of the comments until we get to that part.

Okay. Sorry, I'm getting a lot of feedback. Um, so there was a discussion too if the if signs are knocked over by wind or weather. Um, so public works and code enforcement will continue to kind of pick up any signs that they find and hold for 30 days, but it's also really up to the applicant if they want to pick their sign back up, if they find it fallen, um, to do so and to monitor their signs that they place out. Oh, I guess there are two. So, who would like to go first? Mr. Wood,

I'm satisfied with this response. Um, what I didn't see reflected in the issues matrix is what happens when there's clutter um different um people. How does code enforcement decide which sign to remove and do so in a fair and equitable manner? So to to to illustrate even further, let let's say you have one sign that's political in nature and you have other signs that are less political in nature. If you if code enforcement removes the political nature, it's the city's has risk has some liability risk in terms of how you're enforcing one versus the other. I think I mean I would like the attorney to address it because I think it's for the re exactly the reasons you stated that can be very fraught if there are there are two signs and sort of together they make clutter but individually they wouldn't um what kind of practice should we adopt so that you know no city staff person is appearing to play favorites with signs but I think the attorney can probably help us on on that. So would we then keep this opening that response or do we close and started is

no anything that I think relies on the city because we have a lot of um questions in this particular matrix that do rely on the city attorney's specifics. So I think we should leave all of those that specific question is not mentioned here. So do we need to be more more descriptive or if you want to add a clarification to your question that would be great. I would because I don't see it explicitly mentioned and I do think it's a very important question to resolve particularly as if we're going to be educating the the city and how we're we're enforcing these these these these new um policies. That's great. Commissioner Coleman. Um same.

Okay. Uh the next question um the issue matrix is with the timeline around signs and signs being up and this um was a city attorney one. However, I almost wondered if it made sense to combine this with Commissioner Coleman's suggestion later down where there was just a set time period. So say you had a sign retrieval by the city published ahead of time. Every two months you could start on January 15th. you'd hit November 15th really nicely there. Um, and just have it be notified ahead of time and then there wouldn't be individual picky choosy stuff. I really liked that suggestion. So, I don't know if it's possible to make this as a sub comment within his issue further down.

I think that's fine. Great. Organizationally, would you just the next time you see the issues matrix, would you just like that all that content moved so they're actually the same issue or do you want to keep it? Yes, please. Okay.

I think what I would say is that I suggested an issue with the timing and then I really liked the solution that was proposed. Sorry, just zoomed in way too much there. Um, renewal of permits. Commissioners expect concern over the continual renewal of permits. Um, so the city staff attorney will be reviewing this and we should have an answer next time. And we kind of started to put together an answer here as well based on precedent.

Great. And what I want to do, um, we will obviously leave this open. I kind of want to table this one until the end because I know there's going to be further discussion on this topic. So, um maybe we can come back to this once we've completed the rest of the matrix. Okay.

I'd like to add I think this one touches on I think an issue that is in a lot of the issues which is you know what are the levers that the that the city actually has at its disposal to regulate these kinds of signs. And I think that's something that the city attorney can really help crystallize for us so that we know it's like okay well if there's something that we're not comfortable with what are the levers that are available to us and it might it may be the case because you know this speech is protected that there isn't a good lever but knowing that and having that um be clear I think will just help move the conversation. Oh, the next question was point of discussion was about the medians and roundabouts uh where signs can be placed um and public works has a a firm opinion on that sign should not be placed in the mediums or roundabouts um and that they will be um kind of uh removing signs when they see them there.

All right, who would like to start? Commissioner Copley. If it's good enough for public works, it's good enough for me. Right. Anyone else? And Commissioner Coleman, what happens when someone puts one up now? You going to take it down? Like I'm just curious like if we ban them, somebody's going to go out in the middle of the night and put a few up or certainly some students probably. I'm joking a bit. I'm being serious for a second. Like what happens if something's put up in a median or in a place where it shouldn't be and it's a political sign as well? Like we we take those down where we go back to the person who put it up and actually warn them. What's what's the actual way of going around doing that and stopping.

I think there will there will have to be an education campaign. Uh because I think as commissioners noted at the last meeting, meetings and roundabouts have been popular places for signs and so that that'll be a change that will take some getting used to. So education is going to be a big part of that. Education before enforcement starts and then also education with enforcement once the regulations are in place. um and consistent enforcement so that again it does not appear that the city's playing favorites um with any particular sign. Um so yes I think it'll be both education and and enforcement will be required tools for that um comment. This is this is not a comedy comment again this is a serious comment. Should we put a sign up to tell people not to put signs in the places where we don't want to put signs so they don't put signs in the place where we don't want them? I don't sorry it's a serious question I know it is I actually think um

people will see the irony in that uh and so I don't I don't know I think we might we might have other education tools that would be better suited in this instance

so I'm going to chime in here unless ge okay so I um continued to think about this and just sort of paid attention as I was driving around the city for the last two weeks I really still think that this works in some neighborhoods and some neighborhoods the only option for putting a political sign is the median. And so if we are going to say political signs just can't go in grass on I that's a stance but I really disagree with it. There are safe ways to access the median. It's a onelane traversal of a road with sidewalks in mo most of the places that people actually use political signs and it just doesn't everywhere else is either private land or there's no distance between the sidewalk and the street based on the way those were constructed in the 70s. So like I just I think it's a really for me as a voter it's always a very important piece of information. If I see someone running for a citywide race and they are not placing signs and grass on that's useful information for me. It might mean they forget that that neighborhood is part of Redmond. And so to say okay we're going to really limit the signs. I think that's depriving voters of information that they need. Um, and there just aren't non-private, non-p park places to put them that aren't blocking the sidewalk. I care much more about m making sure that the sidewalks are safe than I do making sure that the medians are safe. So anyway, I'm still pretty strongly against this. I think there are probably places in the city where it makes sense, but not in my neighborhood. All right. So, that gives us no progression towards closure, I think.

Yeah. Um, well, I mean, I think you've identified and you're wrestling with two interests, right? Mhm. Um the the the information that's conveyed on the signs and and the safety of people placing them and um and reading them or walking by them. And I think that's an evaluation the commission needs to make as a body um to be able to move forward. Doesn't have to happen tonight, but that I think that would be the path is to

Yeah. I mean my one of the things I'm really weighing here is I haven't heard that it's been an issue for the people placing the signs. I very much respect if it's a safety issue for public works employees collecting them during the day. That's that resonates differently than me, but I haven't been hearing of people creating safety problems for themselves placing the signs in all the years that I've lived here. So, that one feels a little bit um I'm much more interested about the public works like employee safety. Commissioner Coleman. I just want to add to that. I'm just curious about is there any sort of legal precedent like is it illegal for somebody in the in the community to walk onto the central uh you call them that

median? Sorry, medians. Um now is it illegal to cross the road in a in another place or walk up and down the median as an individual? Is that illegal? Um, I could understand if there's a particular to your point about safety for for staff and people picking up. I could totally understand that. That to me would be the hey, you shouldn't put them in there because it's dangerous for staff to pick them up. But is it actually illegal for someone to go and either use them walk across a two-lane road or in the case of grasstorm, I think like you can take a uh we call them a zebra crossing like the black and white crossing, sorry, and you get into the middle onto the median. And you can do that safely, right?

Most people and most people don't put signs on 148th because it's not actually a very safe place to put them. So the main one that I'm looking at where you see or the two that I'm looking at is 140th and old Redmond Road and both of those are very popular sign spots. Yes. is is it I mean my question then would be is it is it about safety for staff and I would understand that that would be a case but it hasn't been a case up and even then I have questions because um all of those medians that I'm talking about have landscaping crews during the week all the time like they're well kept up by the city so to say it's safe for landscaping but it's not safe for sign removal I don't really understand the difference there

we can what were the specific 40th. Um, the streets that I'm talking about are 140th, which runs north south, and Old Redmond Road, which runs from 132nd all the way down the hill to the base. But the medians are mostly concentrated between 132nd and uh 148th. And you said they're access they're able to be accessed from the sidewalk or a sidewalk. Many of them have crosswalks. And then the other thing is that road is not the traffic is bursty because it's there's so many stop lightss along it. Okay.

But also most people place signs in the evening. So you do when there's basically no traffic. Um Commissioner Parna, I think it's a little to do with when uh the streets were put up, right? Because the streetcape and the street design has changed. And when you have a verge and then you have the sidewalk and then then you know there's space to put it between the two and you're not blocking the sidewalk. I think it's a to do with the age of the neighborhood as opposed to um um anything else actually really. So maybe geography right. So,

Commissioner, sorry, Commissioner Kanye.

Um, I I I think I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the mechanics of how the enforcement works now and how that would align with the education. So, it sounds like there's a recognition that there needs to be a lot of public education because this will be a huge shift, right? And so if the education doesn't receive right or isn't sort of received by half of the folks right and half the folks are putting signs in places that they're not meant to be which are hightra and effective then is the mechanism for enforcement right is there like a phone number that somebody calls to public works and if the issue is public works needs to be the ones who remove them is that creating the exact safety issue that you're wanting to protect city staff from. So, I'm wondering what those mechanics would look like if there is somebody who has placed the signs in places that they're not meant to be. Um, as long as it's enforced, right, the same across the board. But I'm just I'm just trying to imagine what that would look like. Is there any precedent? Has it happened before where staff are called and said, "Hey, a citizen complains because there's a sign somewhere. How long is that turnaround? What does that look like for city staff? Yes, def definitely already remove illegal signs, not necessarily political signs or temporary non-commercial signs, but there's all all types of commercial signs too that have rules. And um typically enforcement happens uh you know it can be code enforcement officers um who who are in the planning department or it can be um public works employees who are out in the field as well. Um they're usually with a vehicle. Um, if it's code enforcement, they might be driving by from one case to a next case and they see an illegal sign. And so then they'll need to find a safe place to park or pull over to retrieve the sign.

They're going to try to find out who the owner of the sign is and contact that person. Um, and so that person can make arrangements to come pick up the sign and they'll hold it for 30 days. Um, one thing that we have been discussing is how do we get some information onto the permit itself. Um, so you know, you enter the information in the application, it spits back out a permit. Um, the permit comes with instructions. It says, remember, these are all the legal places to put your sign or the places you need to not put your sign. If you uh don't follow the rules, your signs can be removed. If that happens, this is the number to call. um so that that that information will so the education can happen you know uh in newsletters online before any um signs go out. The the education can happen when someone is at the point of getting a permit and the education can happen uh when their sign gets removed and they call and they and then they understand oh that that's what that meant on my permit when it said if it's illegally placed it's going to get removed. Does that answer your question? kind of um so right now there are city employees who are going out and removing there's a precedent for that. Okay. All right. That helps me wrap my brain around the logistics. I think I'll have questions on a similar thing but later when we get to that part. Uh there was a question too about stickers if they are fixed to a lampost. Um, they're prohibited on lamposts, so they'll be removed.

We We can close this. I My question was sort of slightly broader, but I Yeah, we just close it. It's fine. Thank you.

We actually had this issue with Redbin 2050 magnets being placed places. removal of signs. So, should there be this is that other comment, should there be a day, month for signs to be removed following elections? Um, so the city staff is is re reviewing this question. And then they're also um the city may do periodic sweeps um of signs that do not follow the regulations or if the permits are expired. So I was just reading this. So um the the part here where it says this decision deemed a typical method of regulating signs by content type as unconstitutional. Now a sign that's put up for political purposes is designed to be encouraging people to vote a particular way or another on a certain date. you know, either in the summer generally it's in the summer if it's if it's, you know, for the the sort of the early um

sorry, thank you primary um and then in November for the whatever the election is after that that sign is null and void because the the election is over and therefore nobody can actually take action based on the sign that's there because it's already happened. So, I don't see how the sign can be how it can be unconstitutional by content type to leave leave a sign up. That seems that seems illogical to me because the actual thing it's intended to be influencing is already finished. Now, if that's not allowed, um, and the reason that we would say set a date, so going back to the content of like I've been thinking about this since, which is maybe there's just two dates in a year where we say, hey, we, you know, we are going to um choose these two dates to remove signs and they happen to be two weeks after those two particular dates. It doesn't have to be attached to those two particular dates. We just pick two particular dates to do it that those two particular things. doesn't have to state that but can choose those two dates to actually remove any signs because we know that's the time when most signs I mean I would argue that that's the time most signs are up and therefore then should be removed. So if we set it as like when are the most number of signs up in the city they're on these particular time frames then we should actually remove them on these particular dates. Nothing to do with the content just to do with the actual volume of signs. Um so that's kind of where I would take it. I I understand the legal side of all this kind of stuff, but um it seems really odd that the content after the time frame after the the thing it's it's being designed to influence is finished.

Commissioner Gier,

um when I look back at the code that is redlined through, it looks like previously the code had been sort of exactly what Commissioner Coleman was suggesting is seven days after a political right, seven days after election day. It needs to be all wrapped up. And so I know we're going to get there, but I'm still really trying to wrap my brain around what the issue was that all of these changes are trying to fix because it looks like there were many there were former ways that signs were designated. We changed it, right, to sort of encompass some, separate others. And I'm still unclear feel very very unclear on the why. So the and the the lawyer will maybe weigh on this a little bit more, but in the case Reed versus Town of Gilbert, it ruled the Supreme Court ruled that uh regulations about signs cannot be controlled by what the sign says. So if you have to read a sign to regulate it, um that's unconstitutional. Um, so if it's about a certain election time, you'd have to know that sign is an election sign to be able to regulate it around that election. Um, so that's why the concept of political signs um across the board, across not just in Redmond, but across other lo municipalities is being updated um as a result of that ruling um and some subsequential rulings on signs. Um so as it currently stands our regulatory framework on political signs and non-commercial signs um is not enforceable. So that's why we are kind of coming to the planning commission and council to create this regulatory framework around a broader category of temporary non-commercial signs which includes those political signs but also includes you know messaging signs and signs around events. Um, so it's kind of a broader category that doesn't necessarily uh review the content of the sign and

regulate around the content of the sign. Um, all right. We have I'm seeing hands pop up, but we're going to start with Commissioner Coleman. So my question to the lawyers would be is it illegal for us then to just state four dates in the year when we would pick up signs as a council and that's it for no reasons not what's on the signs but like signs will be removed on the following dates. Please make sure you either remove your signs and put them away or we will store them for 30 days. You can come and pick them up if you want. Who will I ask? Mhm. Commissioner Copley,

would it be possible instead of prohibiting people from having certain things on the signs and having those signs removed because of the things on the signs like the political signs for people to opt in to a system where they said, "I would like help removing my sign on XATE so that you're not actually telling people that that sign has to go, but that person might appreciate or benefit from the sign being removed after it's no longer of Uh that that's an interesting concept. I I fear that too many people might might take the city up on that and it would create a a a great amount of work for the code enforcement staff when these signs are the property of and the responsibility of the people who put them up and they really ought to be the people taking them down. So we have like a maybe a volunteer program around this. Yeah, I think a volunteer program makes sense. Also, I think if there was a possibility for someone to find some work with the city that isn't particularly difficult to understand or learn, that might be an opportunity, too. So, thinking of ways to make work is sometimes a good thing.

Maybe budget is totally not our perfume. So, I think that that kind of gets off into a different part of the city than what we're actually looking at tonight. Um, one reaction I just had on the removal of signs piece specifically, and I re I still really like the schedule. I will say a lot of the signs that I see that would fit in this category are not tied to elections. So, it's someone with a point of view about something that's happening in the city, whether that's affordable housing or whether that's um impact of the light rail or whether it's there are some some religious opinions like I just there's all sorts of ideas that get put on signs and get posted in neighborhoods. So, I don't want to get overly um fixed on the election piece of it because I think that's when they're like the biggest and brightest, but I don't think that that's the only problem that like we could potentially look at here. I I really like the idea of a set schedule where it's like kind of everything gets brought back to like the table gets reset. We just start over on however many days a year and then have a chance to kind of live without the signs for a few minutes. um like that to me that would feel like a benefit. Otherwise, I'm not I don't know. Anyway, Commissioner Coleman,

I sort of have an addendum to this comment. I was just thinking about um if I'm putting up I put up signs around the city, by the way, myself for for certain things and etc. Um and I realized like I don't think the people certainly in a couple of occasions we actually had any map of like where we'd put any of them. And I'd drive around like oh I didn't know we put one on there. Oh, why didn't we put one there? So, in this situation, if for example, the lawyers came back and said, hey, you know, there's um you can't do this for whatever reason. I think we should also be asking people to say like, how many signs you putting up? Where are you putting your signs? Do you have a map of where each of your signs been put up? Because it's your responsibility to to to take them down. um if that's the case that in terms of what we need to do or we encourage people like there are sweeps that we're going to do three four whatever that is three four times a year. So you need to kind of keep a good good idea of where your um where where your where your signs are so you can go pick them up if you don't want them to be removed because I I think we see signs where people like I have no idea I put a sign there I've completely forgotten we just sent people out and off they went.

Okay. So, I'm gonna agree broadly. There's so many ideas that are related to this one issue, and I think we're going to be a lot more productive once we hear back from the lawyer about exactly the options. So, let's kind of just hold these ones here. We'll have more information next week that then can play into the meeting the following time. And then, um, because I just want to be mindful so we can get through the rest of the matrix and then have time for more questions. this. It's great to hear the discussion though. So, thank you. All right. Next up, sign code abuse. Nine.

Yeah. What if a person places so many signs it makes it difficult or impossible for others to legally place signs? Um, yeah. I mean, I think the enforcement feature procedures will will hold uh that public works will do. Um there's also the enforcement mechanism that's currently in the code u in public works that uh director Churchill mentioned. Jeff, what was that? H

yeah. Oh yeah, I did promote you just there. Uh manager Churchill. Um so I I we have those mechanisms in place um for sign abuse that's happening. So is can I just clarify is that what was in the draft that we received or is that taking the commercial sign code and also applying it here.

I I think what's in the the enforcement mechanisms are in the code already and they're in RMC title one. Um I I think a part of the question here from Commissioner Copley is like what if somebody places so many legally places so many signs that no one else can place signs?

And certainly at certain times of year it does seem like you get a lot of signs that all look the same. Um, so I think we can ask our code enforcement staff because they drive around the city a lot. Um, if that is an issue, it would be I think it would actually be very difficult to address in the code. Um, but if it but you know science do cost money, so in some ways it is self-limiting. Um, but we can ask them for some additional insight into their own experience and how many signs they see and whether it appears to be to the exclusion of other signs.

Mr. Copley, one idea might just be to add language that says that sign places are not to place signs in such a way as to prohibit others from placing signs near theirs. Or maybe there could be in the code uh a distance between signs that makes sense of the same sign.

Okay. I think we we may have that in the code right now, but I'll double check. We have we have distance in the sign. We have distance between signs for for safety and access, but we don't have like distance from your own sign, just from any sign. Vice Chair Woodier,

I would offer that as we start thinking about the policies, we also think about it in tandem of the enforcement because that holistic view I think is going to resolve a lot of these questions. Okay. Um, so non-endorsement of sign messages. How can the city ensure that permitting signs is not seen as an endorsement of any sign message? Uh so that could be part of the education and communication campaign as that goes into effect. It could also be stated on the city's website. Um when people go to permit to we can close this one

and uh number 11. In the interest of time uh let's wait to hear back from the attorney. Okay. Uh so we can kind of move on to 12. Okay. Uh so the database of sign uh so this the the sign permitting will be done through intergov which is our existing permitting system which is already completely searchable. Um so it would continue to be a searchable database of permits. Um, and I just wanted to make sure that Commissioner Gier was listed as one of the

Oh, yeah. I read points of contact in this because um she had she was the commissioner with the concern about um tying it back to individuals in a publicly searchable way. Yeah, thank you for that. Sorry for the addition. I did after I heard uh Vice Chair Woodyear's comment which was spot on which was the focus should be about consistency. So I don't know what other permits, right? Are there other permits within the city? Do they link back to an individual? Like are they searchbackable with a few key strokes?

Uh the answer is that yes, every permit is online. I would encourage all the commissioners to click that link and just look around in the public facing permit database and see what you can find. So with that, I don't you may not find I I feel less concerned that I did before. I thought that it would might be something that was unique to that. I'm glad that Vice Chair Woodier said what she said. It made me rethink that and as long as it's consistent, I think that's the focus. Right. Commissioner Coleman,

just like probably a closing question, which is I I just I was looking at it and just is there anything on there that says it needs to be a person or connect to a person or um stopping a um a company or an organization? I I I was I could kick around there and have a look, but is there anything in the policy about it has to be an individual's name versus having a an organization? That's what I feel people hide behind when they want to put something out there that's somewhat offensive at times.

Um, I know it can definitely be organizations. You could have an LLC, you could have um charitable, you could have a pack, you could have all sorts of things. So, I don't and those are searchable, but it's not it can be a little bit Byzantine, right? Yeah, that's the thing I've been have a bit of a problem with. Anyway, if that's the is the way that we need to do it, then we can close this for sure. But it's just a question. Vice Chair Woodier. Yeah, I'm of the opinion we can close this. And I think the key point is that if there's consistency, then then we're fair um and we're in and we're living up to the intent of why we're making these changes in the first place.

Great. And I agree with that. So happy to close. Okay. um comparison with other cities. Um so um we're waiting for the attorney to give us any feedback, but I know for enforcement um our our code enforcement has been in touch with other cities on how they are um enforcing their their sign code and our sign codes most the draft of the sign code most resembles what Kirkland has in place right now. Um, yeah. So, I don't know if there's any other questions. Belleview seems to still resemble our our current code.

I peaked around just a tiny bit on the Kirkland code. I didn't It didn't look to me like they had the same permitting requirement. There's some timing, but I wonder if we're an island with the permit. I'll see if I can get more information exactly on the permitting. It's the in my brain it's the permit itself that I worry creates liability for the city. And so I'm deeply curious um you know timing also because that's falls into the constitutional right side of it but the permitting which bleeds into you know earlier concerns about does that the permit on the back of it

leave an impression that this city is endorsing certain viewpoints especially if there's no um content regulation whatsoever and is the permitting creating liability where it didn't exist before. But I think what I if I'm sort of interpreting what you were saying before is the code changes are actually trying to um fix maybe some liability that existed before in the way that the city was dealing with some of the sign removals. I I think our the the there wasn't a liability in the way the city was doing sign removals is is that kind of the law changed and the way that we had set up our code and the and the enforcement um is is no longer something that we can enforce. Um but we will ask uh the attorney about any liability created with the permit. I do think it's going to be um difficult to separate uh you know when when any city employee goes out and removes a an illegally placed sign or an unpermitted sign, you know, people may associate that action with something on the on the with the message of the sign itself. And it's that's going to be that's just going to be very difficult to manage. uh as it says in the issues matrix, you know, we can have disclaimers on the website. We can do a lot of things, but when people see it, they may automatically make an association. That's that's going to be hard.

Can I ask a follow up on that? Absolutely. Right now, are city staff removing any signs whatsoever? Uh there are rules for commercial signs and those were not affected by the Supreme Court decision. So, there is still sign removal that can happen. commercial only, not any other. That's my understanding.

All right. Okay. So, I'll leave this one open for the time being. Yes. Um the rationale for updates. So, we talked about the need to establish that regulatory framework. Um, and the 60-day was just uh established that does not limit it's not tied to the content of the sign. So, it keeps with the president. So, are we comfortable closing this one for the time being?

I wonder if when I was because we had a such a fun, fiery, robust discussion last time. I don't know if I I worded it wrong. My concern I think more so than anything has been the permitting. So, can I make an amendment here because I would like to hear some feedback from

Okay. city attorney about um what was the impetus for proposing updates to the code, especially as it relates, you know, I'm sure I said durational limits and those things last time, but what I'm really worried about is the the permitting. So, what was the impetus for adding permitting as a step to this? May I ask are you are you worried about it in the sense that it creates a burden to free speech or another worry or what's the is there something specific the attorney can address?

Yeah. Um as a plan I'm thinking about my role as a planning commissioner, right? And thinking about protecting the interests of the city and so if by putting making a permit, right, are you is that creating a burden? Is that creating something that somebody can right by liability I mean somebody file a suit against the city because the permit itself or on the other end of it somebody walking past a sign believing that the permit itself is an endorsement creates um harm to citizens who are seeing things that the city is permitting but not and again I I recognize that the city cannot cannot um have any uh do anything other than it be contentneutral. But will a permit be put on something that is hate speech impact a community member and that creates a liability for this whole process of permitting create a liability for the city? That's my concern question. Great. So we'll come back to that one in the future. Um, we're going to do number 15 sign code and then we have about 20 well at that point probably 15 minutes for everyone to kind of pull together um if they have any wrap-up comments they would like to make about their position right now whether like whether or not it's maybe we'll try not to repeat ourselves um but if there's anything additional because I know people have been thinking about this in the interim since we talked about it two weeks ago. If there's anything you would like to add. So, we'll do um the final sign code question now and then um and then we can all weigh in one last round.

So, for number 15, I I know uh Commissioner Van Nyman wants to close it.

Uh but I would like to keep it open. And I want to read out something and I will email this to you as well, but I really believe that sign code should focus on size, safety, and accessibility, and periodic cleanup. The proposed permit system feels like it's adding a lot of administrative overhead. Enforcement is a burden at the best of times. Like if you take look at the tree permits for instance, it's an honor code. I know many people who cut trees for whatever reason and have not planted in itsstead. Um so at the best of times for something as significant as tree cover which the city loves, we we have issues, right? Um so I unless it is required for federal or state law compliance, why would we want something so complex? Why fix it if it is not broken? The honor system seems to be working on signs. Periodic cleanup should take care of that. The permits add it allows for so we're allowing for free speech with not curbing any like what we put on the signs, right? So why would we add a barrier of permit to it? Um so um we can't control the speech. We're not trying to curb it. So why would we want a permit for it? So I I think that's a significant administrative burden. And I I see those resources better spent in more important things. And I I again I would like to reiterate that the focus should be on clearing signs that are not blocking pedestrian or accessible pathways. um focusing on size

and the safety, the median and all of that. That should be the focus. This permit thing feels like too heavy a layer for really nothing. It's free. It's not like earning any money for the city. We are not controlling the content. Um why would we put that in? I I'm I'm genuinely not understanding why we would have a permit system in. So I can send you these comments via email so you can add it. But I would like 15 open because I don't think the implementation can be monitored like you you've created like a big fat thing and then we want to see if it's going to get implemented. But let's say it does get implemented. The resources will be massive. then you got to roll it back. If it doesn't get implemented properly, then what was the point in the first place? So I am questioning the whole that whole section of the code. So that's why I want to leave 15 open. Um I don't know if you want to add to that, but thank you. So I think I'm feel like that is a discussion just enormous piece. What I I think um what I would like is if anyone has a reply to that that they kind of include it in their wrap-up statement as we go around in just a moment. Does that work for people or do they have anything specific? Okay. All right. So, would you mind if we start here? So, we'll start with Commissioner Coleman.

Um, so I'm going to just build off of that comment. The The only reason I could see a permit a permitting process is for the part of here where we talked about um somebody putting a a sign up which says something which you want to actually go and respond to. Free speech is free speech, but the implications of what you say matter, too. Um, and I think someone people should not be able to put up signs without having somebody actually challenging that in an appropriate fashion. So, I think that's only the only reason I think about for permits to your point, they were very well I think well well made. I wanted to go back to the um public comment around enforcement and talking about like who bears the cost and the cost aspects. you're talking about like putting something in place that requires the city to do more things um and requiring meaningful accountability, not just retrieval if we have a permit basis. So there's costs and implications there. And the reason I then lead that onto the the primary thing that I've been sort of talking about in in in this in terms of having time frames when people go around, I just think the simplest the simplest solution is is four times a year when we pick up pick up signs. Let's go do that. Let's communicate that. let's decide if we want a permit for the other reasons I was talking about and then that's it. I think that would be my comments. But I I do believe like unless that unless the lawyer um comes back and says, "Hey, you can't you can't set four dates in the year, which I can't understand why you couldn't because that's a choice by the council, then I feel like that's what we should do and everybody knows where they stand. Thank you. Commissioner Kanye, if you would like to add anything.

No, anything else would be repetitive. And as always, I just want to say Commissioner Parna puts things in such a brilliant concise way. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Copley. Anything to add?

I would be concerned about the barrier. I'd be concerned that someone who might say something otherwise but might not have a lot of time or resources or might be afraid of the process of walking into city hall to get a permit. Um might not then speak because they don't have a permit. And I would be interested in hearing in a very very simple fashion what the process might look like to get a permit just so that that could be on the record and people could hear well it's actually very simple or it's quite complicated. This is how you would do it. Either way I still think it would be valuable for people to understand if that's a one minute process at city hall or if they can do it online or just pick up a sticker when you come down to town. Great. Thank you, Vice Chair. Woody, anything to add?

Yeah, I I would say, you know, I'm going to say this again. I'll add a statement here. I think the regulation, the enforcement, and the accountability need to be balanced. So, all three of them are bal need to be balanced out. And I would also ask, you know, are there are are there instances where you would not require a permit for temporary science? So, I'm thinking back to Adam's statement last week or two weeks ago, the lost cat signs. That's a temporary sign. Um, we are not enforcing that. We're not throwing in any accountability on that, but it is a temporary sign. So, as we think about that balance is are there are there thresholds where we kind of let it slide and we don't prescribe regulations around it? Commissioner Partner, anything to add?

No, I I'll just send this as an email so you have exactly what I've tried to convey and so it's clear. Uh but yeah, I I think the rest of it is really key and important. Um u not to say that the whole thing needs to be struck on just the permit stuff. Um, but that's just very um I see this as something that um if you want to run a lean city, you don't add things that are adding this kind of overhead. Like if I had to do a lean management or a lean process per this would not fit in to that system at all. So um and I just want to again say that we don't while I know it there are seen as nuisance and we have signs and all of that. It is not really the end of the world. It's not the it's not the battle we should be fighting and spending our resources on. Uh you know it's not like we've got these are billboards and we all we're all swamped with them. So I I I'm just being a little bit more pragmatic over here. Um for me the tree and permit enforcement has it hurts to see a lot of my neighbors have cut trees and I don't think they've pondered a single one. They were dying or they were too close to the house. So maybe it was a reasonable uh cause for cutting down that tree. But if you're and I don't even know if they got a permit. Okay. So we let's start there. Um so there's a whole other thing on enforcement you know rather the city spend its money

wisely. So thank you.

So I'll take last thought. Um just looking at this. So I'm deeply agreeing with all the skepticism on the permitting. To me, permits are really about public safety or maybe taxation or something where there's um more of a transaction between like an individual in a business and some form of the government. But I just don't see signs, political signs, free speech as something that needs to be like negotiated with the city of Redmond every 60 days. That doesn't make sense to me. like something like a parade might need a permit, but that has a public safety component. There's traffic management. There's I don't know, just all the work that goes into a lot of people gathering. Um to me, this just this doesn't feel like if I did my top list of problems facing Redmond in 2026, this is not where I want to be spending the city's resources. this is not the database I want them focusing on. Um, like I went through the process last year of getting a small business license. That took five weeks and the last two weeks of that was constant phone calls trying to catch someone who could help. And maybe that was just a moment where the city was very underresourced. Um, and everyone was lovely to work with. They were apologetic, but it was just it was clear there's a lot on the city's plate right now. Um, so I just created spinning up a whole system printing stickers like two vinyl stickers are $2 a pop usually. It just like I can't wrap my head around any of the permitting part of it. Um, I really appreciate the sign size and materials part portion of this. um having some standardization around what's a good sign, what's fine, and also not putting it on sidewalks or somewhere that blocks

pedestrians or bikers or creates a safety issue. I'm fine with that part. Um and I really like the idea of every now and again we get a break from the signs for a little bit and the city goes through on whatever cadence seems appropriate. To me, that seems like that would be a lovely city service to provide. Um, but the rest of it I'm just really not I don't agree with the need for this and I don't agree that it's actually helping promote free speech. So I yeah I just I really appreciate all the thoughtful discussion the last two meetings. We can do one last question in just a minute. Um but it's and we'll see what the lawyer says just so everyone knows the plan. Um we are planning to receive a document update um for the issues matrix with uh the lawyer's answers hopefully next week. We will not do discussion during our annual workshop next Wednesday because we want to be public on this. Um so we'll wait till we come back for the discussion but if anyone wants to get a jump on the reading that will be a choice.

All right, Commissioner Coleman one last thing. I promise very last thing. Do the is a question. Did the council need a permit to put up permits? It's a serious question. when if you put up a permit for like derby days is happening or whatever. I'm assuming you don't but this is just a question. Do you need anything yourselves? I I think I heard the question the example was derby days something like that like anything which the council wants to put up a sign up to communicate things to the public. Yeah. So in the in the setup in the draft that you have um certain government signs are exempt from the permit requirement. So it' be signs for things like derby days. Okay. There would not be need a permit for that. Yeah. That's good to hear because I don't I wouldn't want this to kind of create problems for account. So you should be able to put up signs you want things. Thank you.

Great. So maybe what we'll do is we'll take a 5m minute break. Is that okay? Great. So, we will be back at 8:18 and we can go into the annual docket.

going to start our briefing on the 2026 2027 annual docket with Glen Coyle. Yes. And just a moment to get everything set up. All right, I'm ready. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, just for the public, I'll just remind everyone, my name is Glen Coyle. I'm a senior planner in Redmond's planning and community development department, part of the long-range planning team. Um, tonight we will go over the comprehensive plan amendment process and provide an overview of the commission's review process. We will also share the proposed docket items we will review you will review next month. And lastly, we will review a request from a community member on a proposed comp plan and zoning code amendment and seek direction from the commission on this item. Okay. What is the annual docket? Uh, keeping the comprehensive plan updated assures that it remains a useful and relevant guide for planning Redmond's future. The purpose of establishing the docket is to coordinate proposed changes and to help the community track progress. Per state law, Redmond may update its comprehensive plan once per

year. Comprehensive plan amendments are a type six process and the planning commission's role is to seek public comment on all proposed amendments through public hearings and make a recommendation. Uh then the council the city council is the decision maker for all proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Each year we follow a process that is codified in Redmondzona code 2176 and is consistent with state law. First, the city informs the community and and city staff of the opportunity to submit proposals to amend the comprehensive plan. After proposed changes are identified, the planning commission and then the city council review and confirm the list of amendments known as the docket to be considered over the course of the year. Um and this graphic which comes from our code uh highlights the process there. The planned commission's responsibility is to review whether the applications meet the criteria for being added to the annual docket and make a recommendation to the city council. This is in the zoning code and is shown at right. Um that's referring to the criteria and as noted there are six criteria. Um and these are provided when this will come to you next month. Um and as you can see the first one is whether the comprehensive plan is an amendment is the most appropriate mechanism um for the change that um one is looking for. Um, and is this better as a documented item or something that can be weight during the 10-year periodic review? Um, that is consistent with the growth management act, the Washington Administrative Code, um, our countywide planning policies and our regional policies as well as other laws. Uh, that there's staff resources to review.

Um that the the proposal addresses community interests or change conditions and has not been considered or rejected in the last two years. This table shows the proposed amendments that you'll be reviewing for potential inclusion on the docket. They are all city initiated. Um, and again, we will go over this more in May, but this is just more of a sneak preview. Um, there'll be the sto water surface water plan. Um, there's going to be um zoning land use map consolidation um regarding some uh potential zoning consolidations there. Uh neighborhood planning, which you have heard about already from Lauren. Um and then there's some technical uh updates. uh repealing what are called the neighborhood connection maps. Um they um were adopt they were updated and adopted into our transportation master plan. So um they will no longer be needed in the um comprehensive plan. Um and then our trans transportation facilities plan which is basically our transportation projects list um also needs some updates. Um so okay with that in addition to those items we'd like to discuss another for consideration. This was proposed by a community member and they are requesting that the commission propose a commission propose a comp plan or zoning code amendment regarding affordable housing incentives and protection from residents of housing that is slated for redevelopment. The direction we are seeking at this time is if the commission would like us to analyze this proposal using the docketing criteria as noted in previous slides. We would bring back at the May

study session and present with other proposals for discussion. Uh if we move forward on that, staff had provided a response to the community member in February as well as earlier dates last year and we had noted that the comp plan has existing policies such as HO1 uh related to housing stability and displacement prevention. programs such as section 8 are outside of the city's control and that programs such as MFTt regulations will in the long term increase affordable housing in a city that we all recognize as expensive and at the policy level which is the realm of the comprehensive plan we have the tools in place and then um we speak to implementation which is outside the role of the comprehensive plan that's really a different part of the city's work uh we do have our housing action plan and the programs noted above. Uh so in that regard, I will pause here for discussion on this item.

All right, Commissioner Aparna, I like what you said, Glenn. I would like Can we use microphones, please? Sorry. Um I really like what you had to say. Uh Glenn, I just would like it in writing. Uh it would be It's been provided in an email to you earlier. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I must have missed that. I apologize. It was last month. Okay. All right. Sorry. Um then I will go and look at that again in terms of um the full uh list. So thank you.

Any other commissioners? So I think the question here um is if anyone feels um like maybe I'll start again. So what I'm seeing here based on conversations that we've had in previous meetings leading up to this is that this is a situation that we all are very concerned about the emotional and like life impact of displacement. So that has come up in this commission over the last several years. Um the changes that we made in Redmond 2050 around policy around displacement specifically um are fairly extensive and the goal is to get those implemented into some sort of city policies and programs as part of the housing action plan and the human services strategic plan which the city is working on both of those. Now, um I think the question is whether um any changes that we would consider as a result of this question are something where we see a comp plan change and we want to instruct staff, four of the six of us here tonight want to instruct staff to add it or whether we want to see the remman 2050 and functional plan process play out. Um so if anyone is looking at this and saying actually I think additional policy is needed here um that would be a level that we could talk about in this otherwise the functional plans are probably the right home for this question because it's really important it's citywide. I know that we're hearing about one particular property here and a neighbor, but it's um this is really kind of the emotional heart of a lot of the problems that we're having with

growing as a city is the concern about displacement. So, um anyway, I'm just going to open it. If anyone has something that they really want to bring in, then we can bring it in. And if not then um then we can discuss further any questions about the city policies. Commissioner Aparta I think if the housing action plan and the human services plan is coming in front of us this year. I would like to revisit this like very strongly at that time because we do have policies about anti-displacement. Uh but I want to see it in action in code terms and like in in actual plan terms but it's something that as a collective we should have the memory to bring this back at that time. That would be what I would think is a good way to approach this.

Mr. common. So, as I read this the public comment this evening and um how the co how the code currently is playing out is we haven't really looked at that yet. My understanding from reading the public comment this is this is based on here's what could happen versus what has actually happened that there is this there isn't an occurrence right now where this particular property is having um a developer trying to develop on it. Is that just want to check that's correct, Glenn? Is that correct? I can't speak to those details. I can really only speak to the policy discussion. Okay. Related to the docket. Um,

okay. So, I read it as it's not. It's like here's what could happen. What I want to make sure is that if we delay to look at the implementation that something doesn't happen in the inter in the sense of like we're being asked to look at this based on a particular incident and I don't

Okay. So this is one of these times where we have to be like it's difficult because this is an emotional thing and we have to be a little bit um process minded because that's we're on the planning commission and so we have to look at the process in front of us. So for this we aren't really looking at a individual property what could potentially happen etc. We are looking at a across the city we have this multif family concern that could lead to redevelopment. Um should we change go back and change the wording of the comp plan? So

to rule this out across the city. So it's it's a little bit this is it's so hard because it's this individual case I know speaks to all of us. I know that it's exactly the sort of thing that we worked with in Redmond 2050 as we were developing the policy, but we're not what you're asking isn't actually a problem we can solve here.

Let me let me ask you slightly differently then. I I see this as an example of other people who would probably feel very similarly and obviously we went through the work that we did to try and get to where we are. Um I think maybe I I'd go with Commissioner Palmer's view here which is like let's see how this plays out um as we look at the code. Is that right? So is that what you're talking to? Are you how you thinking about this?

I'm thinking of it as the fun the plans that are coming in front of us. And also there's one other thing that I think we should understand that we cannot talk in terms of money at all. So all we can do is in the proposal we can look at anti-displacement strategies or say that they should be incorporated but we do not have it's not in our purview to like say this is the displacement cost uh we don't touch money so I think that for me is where it goes it gets into the weeds and maybe there's another like it has to be somewhere else Now, from a um conceptual standpoint, I completely think from a principal standpoint, I think it's really key that we talk about it. Um but for a docket item in my head, it has to be that we then would talk about this particular project. Like if there is a parcel that is right now going through a transformation, then we would discuss only that parcel, it would not be a full comp plan amendment, which means that the the proposal would have to change for it to become that. And it has to be concrete enough like like we had that other one which came in, right? it was a particular set of parcels with a specific askque. We don't this is straddling both and that's where the ambiguity is not going to get us very far.

Right? So we're not looking to reszone in this. We can't look at budget. Um but the question I think is we have the policy support thanks to Reman 2050 for the functional plans um which are in progress. Now my question is does anyone see additional policy changes that would need to happen or zoning changes that would need to happen like a reszone or something like that. But it's I really um like I think the fastest and best way to address problems of displacement like this um especially with vulnerable populations is those two functional plans is my read one more time. Yep.

I this is a question uh Glenn maybe you you can answer Lauren. um in a functional plan we would be able to get into the idea of what an anti-displacement action looks like right is like will we be able to talk about this topic when in uh I know you mentioned both plans coming up but is there a place in those plans where we could technically add something that shores up this not the money part but the rest.

So I want to make sure our terminology is correct especially as as we use it as staff. Functional plans are our capital facility plans. Those are our infrastructure plans, storm water, transportation, you know, roads, buildings like city hall. It's related to growth management act requirements related to capital facilities. Uh we also have strategic plans which sometimes gets mixed up. They're all they're pretty much at the same level of type of plans but they don't have that capital facility kind of component. So they're not really used to meet uh GMA requirements. Um and I know that's kind of technical uh but that's kind of where our our purview is is those kind of land use and GMA type requirements. Uh, so in terms of I think you're speaking to like the housing action plan and some of those documents. Um, I actually maybe Jeff is going to speak to that. Um, not sure if those are being updated. Uh, but I also can speak to that that is not something that necessarily would go through planning commission. Um, except for maybe some briefings on kind of the results or like general feedback. Uh, but those aren't like actually in the comprehensive plan. So, it's not really in the purview of like a comprehensive plan amendment or

just to clarify that would go through council. Correct. Council still adopts um plans, but it's not like and this is where again I'm speaking to the GMA requirements. Absolutely. Council does adopt plans um but it's slightly different u meaning when it's adopted. So maybe I'll just can I So just specific to this issue,

I absolutely anticipate anti-displacement will be in the housing action plan. Um it has been updated this year. It will come to the planning commission for briefings. It's not something you need to make a recommendation on to the council, but that is absolutely the time where you could look through it and assess um if you believe that need is adequately addressed in the updated updated plan. And I think that'd be a really um that would be the ideal forum to to address the issue. Commissioner Gier, what's the timing on that that you think we will in the second half of 2026? Okay. Expectation.

Commissioner Copley, are we being asked if we should consider this individual situation for the docket or the general idea of displacement? I mean, Commissioner Fer just said yes. I think that's right.

In that case, I would say that I would consider this individual situation for the docket and I think that we should leave the topic broadly to the strategic plan. Does anyone else We would need to four of us to actually ask staff to add that. So kind of everyone um if there are additional people um well hold on Commissioner Copley let's just we'll chime in. Otherwise, I think what I'm going to say because I'm not seeing glamour um is I'm going to give switch from this to a few minutes to just ask questions or clarifications on the staff proposals. Um if we could ever go back to the previous slide.

Yeah, this is a brief. We don't really I mean we have some other slides. Um Oh, correct. Okay. Yeah, we were just looking to just get some direction on this and then finish up the proposal and then we were going to wrap up. Great. Thank you. So, why don't we do that and then if anyone has questions at the end.

Okay. Um so, the next steps um on the annual docket. Again, this is a briefing. Um but we will be having a study session on May 27th where uh those items that are listed previously. Uh we'll be brought back with the um docket in threshold analysis. Um and then we'll provide some updates on on what those items are for the annual docket. Um on June 10th we will have a public hearing and then on June 24th uh we will do the recommendation and report approval. Um and then at that point it goes to city council because um the docket has to be established no later than August 31st. So right now we are planning to have a committee briefing on July 7th. Our staff report uh if needed on July 20th and right now we have it set for council on August 17th. And then just uh a reminder that is only the first step of the process. Um we're talking about right now is putting items on the docket and then from there we we do the final review which then takes place over the next um you know 8 to 12 months or so. Um and then that gets back that um the planning commission's role there is then to review these items consistent with the um review criteria that's shown in the Redmond zoning code. Um it goes through our technical committee. Planning commission holds a public hearing, makes a recommendation and then it goes to council for final action um which is adoption and again that occurs and that date is incorrect there. it's it should occur no later than August 31st, 2027. So, and then um just as a reminder, here are just some past examples of docket amendments um over the last few years. Uh there's links uh to our um comprehensive plan docket page. And this

is just two examples uh both citywide, both city initiated and private initiated um docket amendments for folks reminder. So, Um, yep. That's all I have. Questions? Anyone? Commissioner Aara?

So, if hypothetically if we say that we want to take up this proposal, um, the proposal is talking about it as a citywide um, citywide exclusion or change or whatever, right? Amendment. Um so while that is going through the process hypothetically let's say we approve it and it goes to docket what happens while this it's moving through the docket process because that's going to end 27. What if there are multif family units being torn down while like can they be permitted simultaneously or is there a pause on that kind of development?

Yeah, those are project specific. This right here is related to the comprehensive plan which is policy specific. Okay. So technically continue the project could continue doing whatever it does till we finish the whole docket process. Well, until council takes action, right? Got it. Okay. Thank you.

I had a question about the city sponsored or actually more of a request on the city sponsored ones. When you bring those back in May, would it be possible to answer three questions? So, the ones that always help me are why, why now, and if there's a who? Um that is super helpful. And so sometimes the who is um you've had multiple people come through the city and get stuck on a part of the per permitting process or the state legislature did something or but in the past when that information's been included it's been really helpful context and I'll just note that that's what the criteria speaks to. So those are answered there.

Great. Thank you Commissioner Copley. Just for clarification, would this be a planning commission sponsored docket item or would this be a staff city sponsored docket item?

Well, at a certain point that's one and the same because we had but yes um at this point the question is is is the planning commission and again planning commission is a recommendation body. Um the most out of this process at least at this step would be planning commission making a recommendation to council to say we think this is something that should be on the docket. Please consider and then it would be up to council to determine if that's the action they want us to take over the next year. And if I can just step in also, what we're actually doing tonight is we're deciding does it make sense to ask staff to apply their docket criteria um to evaluate and then with those answers then we would decide whether or not to docket it but from us not from the city. Okay. Commissioner Kley

and my understanding is we've never the precedent is we've never done that. We've never made as a city, as a planning commission, we've never recommended anything be added to the docket. That's correct. And we actually declined, we had an option to last year. We actually declined and then council added it. So, um, that would still be an option here, obviously, even if it doesn't go through by us. Yeah. All right. Any further? All right. So, we will wrap this topic for tonight and we'd like some direction though on Oh, on what we're going to do on this. Got it. So, an actual formal

Yes, we need a decision. Okay, a decision. We'll do that. Um, does anyone want to include it as a planning commission item? I think we're just going to do a show of hands. So ask staff to put together docket the docket criteria list to include what is written here. All right. Um what is written on Oops, we need to go back.

Yes, it's it's kind of yeah um first we would do the analysis as shown right here which we're doing for all the other amendments. And again we know that this was received as an email. So, um it's kind of vague, but we would try our best based on that information that's right there on the screen, um to do some type of analysis.

All right. So, I would personally prefer that if we do um ask to have the DACA criteria applied that we don't do number two because I just I don't see how we are as a body allowed to require that. I know that it's not the city paying um the fee it would be at the developer but I just I don't see how we are equipped to handle that question. So I think it would only be for item number one.

So do we still have the same So we were Do you want a formal vote or would you prefer just a hand raising? Hands would be fine. Great. Um, so please raise your hand if you would like to add number one of the proposal to evaluate. Okay. And raise your hand if you would prefer not to. And no abstain. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. All right. And I went through the rest of the presentation. So unless there's some any additional questions there. Again, I don't any questions on timing regarding this on May 27th. Okay, great. Thank you for your help.

All right, with that, we will move to our final item, which is our staff and commissioner updates. Okay. Okay. So, thank you for your patience and tonight. Um, so we have an agenda for our workshop next week. Um, let me just and it'll be sent out as usual I think by Friday or on Friday. Um, we're going to hear from our to start off our workshop, we're going to hear from our World Cup planning program manager about how Redmond is preparing for the World Cup, some of the efforts that have been ongoing the last few years and then also sort of what to expect as the World Cup arrives this summer. Um, we are also going to get a quick update on some of the land use permit numbers that we have since Redmond 2050 and a quick highlight of some of the projects um that we've had. Um, and then we're going to have a little bit of a longer discussion about neighborhood planning and community engagement. Um, so it's specifically going to be around community engagement and the role that planning commission can play in that. If you recall from our workshop last year, there was you all expressed some interest in how you can be engaged more in the community. Well, neighborhood planning is a potentially a uh good avenue for that. So, we're going to kind of have a discussion about that. Um and then um we will also kind of conclude with our usual conversation of planning commission norms um for the next year and then some closing thoughts. So, all right. So, and just to clarify, um, we won't be broadcasting

that meeting, I believe, but the public is welcome. Yes, it is an open meeting. Public is welcome. It will not be broadcast. There will be a meeting summary published. Great. Okay. And any commissioner questions about that, Commissioner Coleman? Yes, you. Um, I'm not physically here next week. Okay, we will sort that out in a moment. All right. Um, any further staff and commissioner updates? Yes, I have we have an update. Uh, oh, great.

This, um, this is going to be, um, pretty pretty interesting, significant, uh, kind of topic. Um so last night uh the city council passed um an emergency ordinance a zoning code uh amendment um that's called an interim official control which is allowed under state law which basically um said it's it's done as an emergency. Uh so it bypasses the normal process that goes through technical committee, planning commission, council, etc. like that normal process that you know planning commission does. Um and it's related to um commercial drone operations um or facilities in in Redmond. Um so we've had um interest from some companies that actually want to do drone deliveries, you know, similar to like you would do in a truck or something like that, but uh using um a drone. And when I say a drone, that's an unmanned um aerial vehicle. the little things with the rotors that um you know sometimes people may not know what that means but those kind of devices um and there's companies that actually want to deliver packages um doing that. Um so we were approached um u by some different folks there and so uh we realized uh as we were reviewing the process that um the city does not have any regulations at all in place um which would lead to some code interpretations uh such as like where they could be located under what what uses etc etc. Um so um so in the spirit of supporting a comprehensive plan uh technology forward um you know good business environment things like that um we wanted to have a process where um at least in the interim that um you know we we could have some of these companies move forward on their uh developments while at the same time limited like a proliferation of of kind

of drone uh ports around the city there. So, um had a discussion about that last night at council and so we passed this emergency ordinance and um basically the gist of it is that um drone ports will be allowed in our manufacturing park and industry zones um and they will be prohibited in the rest of the city while we work on the final regulations over the next year. Um so when we say we work on final regulations that would be just basically our regular um plan and process that again uh would have stakeholder engagement then would go through our technical committee planning commission you know um public hearing issues like that discussion and then go back to council for final adoption. Um so yeah is there anything else? Did I miss anything, Jeff?

No, it'll be added to the work plan for the planning commission. Yep. Great. So, um, and just to be clear, that's not part of the docket process. That's a separate process due to the council's resolution last.

Yeah. And it's actually there's there is no comprehensive plan amendment. This is a zoning code amendment. Uh, so um, zoning code amendments are not are not part of the docket process with an asterisk. they are when it's related to a comprehensive plan, policy amendment or map amendment. That's the only time, but this is strictly zoning code. Um, and it's around allowed uses. Um, so really it's it's added a new allowed use in the city. Um, and then um kind of a descriptor of where that allowed us is. Um right now for the temporary regulation um you know said we allow it in two zones and then there will be um we also have like some some rules around like hours of oper basically where the city is allowed to actually regulate. So we have rules around setbacks, hours of operation, things like that. Um one thing we we want to note um because we know this conversation is going to come up a lot um and I'm probably going to be repeating the same thing um a lot. Um the city um doesn't have much power to regulate drones itself once they're in the air. Uh we're we're um preempted um federally. Um and that really means even an inch off the grounds like we can't control any of that. So um you know irregardless of whether we have these regulations in place or not, companies outside the city, whatever, they can still have drone operations. They can deliver packages in the city. We have no control over that. Our only control is if a place wants to have a facility like like Amazon or UPS or something and they said, you know, instead of our trucks, we want to use drones. That's what we can regulate. Um, but we're also seeing that there's third-party operations that want to basically do like like a Uber type Uber Eats type of operation where they would go to say a restaurant, pick

up some food and then, you know, uh, deliver it to a home and stuff. And there is where where I think our some of our bigger concerns are because a lot of our restaurants and stuff are in our mixed juice buildings and we can see potential conflicts there. So that's really why we did this interim control was to kind of limit a proliferation of that kind of operate that type of operation while still allowing this kind of new kind of unique use to move forward.

All right. So thank you so much for the update and we will hear more when that comes back to us. Um do you have a separate issue or let's not we'll just um for the updates we don't usually do discussion. All right. Cloudy with a chance of meatballs.

All right. Um I have one update um just for next week. I just wanted to note that I'll be attending city council to represent our work on the land use um amendment that we recommended to reject um back in January. Um, and so I'll just be answering any questions if needed, but staff is doing the majority of the presentation, so I do appreciate that. Um, and then I'll see you all the following night at the annual workshop. All right. Um, the workshop is in the conference room next door. All right. City council. Yes, in the city council conference room.

Perfect. All right. Well, with that I look for a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. All right, then we are adjourned.