Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Aparna.

Present.

Commissioner Gagne.

Present.

Commissioner van Nijmen. Present. Present. And I am Chair Weston. Commissioners Copley, Coleman, and Whittier are excused tonight. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present. Lauren Alpert, Jeff Churchill, Glenn Coyle, Chris Wyatt, Peter Holt, and Francesca Liberty. I look for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thanks. That's approved. And any corrections to the meeting summary from last time? Nope. Okay. In that case, I look for a motion to approve the meeting summary from May 27th, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Great. That is also approved. Next is time for us to hear a public comment and items from the audience. Who do we have tonight?

For items of the audience, we have a general comments, David M. Just a reminder to keep your comments to three minutes and state your name and address.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I spoke to this Commission and to the City Council about seven of the nine gaps between Redmond's current water management programs and the goals of Redmond 2050. Tonight, I'll address the final two, GAP 8. Redmond's Citywide Watershed Management Plan, or WMP, is 13 years old and predates Redmond 2050. The 2013 WMP was prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants for the City's Public Works Natural Resources Division and adopted that November. The document is comprehensive, science-based, and grounded in a 50- to 100-year restoration vision for all 20 of Redmond's watersheds. The plan itself called for updates every five years and annual progress reviews, but no formal update has been produced. The plan's land use baseline, climate assumptions, and capital project priorities all predate Redmond 2050 by more than a decade. Its projections for parcels that are likely to develop or redevelop extend only to 2030, and its climate data are drawn from precipitation records ending in 2008. It does not reflect the land use changes, growth concentrations, or climate vulnerabilities identified in Redmond 2050. The Stormwater and Surface Water Systems Plan, which this Commission is considering for the docket tonight, partially fills this gap for stormwater infrastructure, but it does not replace the broader 100-year watershed restoration vision that WMP was designed to provide. Redmond needs both. Gap 9. Redmond lacks a formal water conservation plan with binding demand reduction targets. Redmond 2050's climate resilience and sustainability element supports ongoing efforts identified in functional plans including the water system plan. Policy CR25 of that element directs the city to develop and implement a comprehensive water resilience and water use reduction strategy. That policy was adopted in November 2024. Eighteen months later, no such plan exists. Redmond has no standalone water conservation plan. No binding demand reduction targets, no tiered rate structure to discourage outdoor overuse, and no public dashboard tracking citywide water consumption. Washington has now experienced four consecutive drought emergencies. If Redmond continues to draw 60% of its drinking water from the Tolt River, which is dependent on snowmelt, then the city needs a plan to use less drinking water. Redmond 2050 made the promise. CR25 identified the path. I urge this commission to ask staff to follow that path. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up. That's our last public comment for general comments. Yeah.

All right. Well, in that case, um, we are going to start our public hearing on the 2026, 2027 annual comprehensive plan docket bringing up Glenn Coyle.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Glenn Coyle, senior planner. I'd also like to note that I'm joined via Teams by Peter Holt, our senior planner in utilities, who's working on the stormwater systems plan, and Francesca Liberty, who's here on the transportation-related amendments. We also have Lauren Alpert, our senior planner, who's coordinating the industrial land study and neighborhood plans update. So just as a reminder, under state law, the city may amend its comprehensive plan no more than once per year. Keeping the comprehensive plan updated assures that it remains a useful and relevant guide for planning Redmond's future. State law requires that items are reviewed concurrently so that the cumulative effects of the amendments can be assessed. We are here tonight to review the proposed amendments to ensure they fulfill docketing threshold requirements as... and Redmond Zone and Code 2176 and seek a Planning Commission recommendation to Council. The proposed docket consists of five city-initiated amendments, the stormwater surface water systems plan, updates to the neighborhood element policies, a review and update to policies and related maps and regulations on the manufacturing park, business park, and industry zones, Fourth, repealing an outdated neighborhood connections map. And lastly, an update to the transportation facilities plan to add projects. With that, I turn it back to the chair.

Great. Well, with that, I'm going to open the public hearing. And who do we have?

Our first speaker is Linda S. And this is a reminder to say your name and address. And you're limited to three minutes.

My name is Linda Seltzer. I live on 80th Street in a senior apartment complex. And I'm very disappointed that this plan has failed to delete the part of the Redmond 2050 code. that incentivizes redevelopment in our zone, in our neighborhood zone, and that would incentivize developers with a property tax exemption to tear down the apartment complex where I live and in the two square blocks where I live and across the street. So if you take from north side of 80th Street to the north side of 82nd Street and between 169th and 170th. You're talking about six apartment complexes that could be eligible just on those two square blocks with people being displaced. Now what I don't understand is when this amendment was rejected, Everyone said, well, this really belongs in the Human Services Commission and not in the Planning Commission. But I don't understand that because I thought that the mission of the Human Services Commission is to allocate budget funds to the various social service providers. And so how would that stop the demolition of an apartment complex? I know in the Redmond 2050 plan there is an incentive that they're supposed to incentivize senior housing. I live in senior housing. The other apartment complexes around the corner and in the back and on 82nd Street. They're not senior apartment complexes. Mine is. So I still don't see the rationale of why it's advantageous or desirable to tear down six apartment complexes just in my two square blocks. That's not even the rest of these zones that have this. I haven't even been able to like add up all the apartment buildings that this affects. So I don't know that the answer that's being provided really addresses the question whether this is like a dead situation, because my understanding is that once something is rejected, it can't get back on the docket to change for another couple of years or something. So, I'm very disappointed of the failure to prioritize housing preservation. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else for the public hearing? Yes, we have one more speaker, David M. Welcome back.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I've reviewed all five proposed items proposed for the 2026 to 2027 Comprehensive Plan docket. along with the staff memo and cumulative effects analysis. I support placing all five items on the docket, and I have specific asks for each. On the stormwater and surface water systems plan, I support adoption into the capital facilities element. This is good, necessary, and long overdue planning. My ask is that implementation include enforceable environmental benchmarks, not just aspirational language, that it reflect an integrated view of Redmond's stormwater and surface water systems, and that it account for the more intense storms already happening because of climate change. On the manufacturing park, business park, and industrial consolidation, I offer conditional support. Southeast Redmond lies within a critical aquifer recharge area, one of the most sensitive environmental zones in Redmond. Before any new industrial designations are finalized, I ask the Commission to require rigorous evaluation of groundwater impacts and robust early engagement with neighboring communities. On updating the neighborhoods element for Redmond 2050, I support this fully. Complete neighborhoods are a worthy goal, but complete for everyone. I ask that updated policies explicitly address housing affordability and anti-displacement, and that green infrastructure be treated as essential, not optional, as Redmond grows. On repealing the duplicate neighborhood connections maps, I support this technical cleanup, provided no viable pedestrian or bike connection is quietly lost in the process. Please verify that the Transportation Master Plan's maps are truly complete before the repeal is finalized. And on the transportation facilities plan update, I enthusiastically support adding the three shared use path projects on Northeast 40th, Northeast 70th, and Northeast 72nd streets. These connections improve safety, reduce car trips, and support a healthier environment. I urge the city to prioritize funding for them. In closing, this is a thoughtful docket that truly moves Redmond in the right direction. My written comment submitted for the record details these points further. I ask only that the Commission hold each amendment to the high standard of accountability that Redmond's residents deserve on the environment, on equity, and on transparency. The decisions made in this room shape the Redmond your children will inherit. Thank you.

All right, so with that, I'm going to close the verbal portion of the public hearing, but keep the written portion open. All right, I think it's time for some discussion, including if there are any items that we would like to put in issues matrix. And just a reminder that the question here is just whether the items meet the docket criteria and we'll have the full discussion later when this comes back to us. Are there any questions or comments? Commissioner Parna.

I actually had a question on the impact analysis which was provided. I'm just curious, how would the impact on neighborhood plans, the MPBP land uses, how do we study the impact on the stormwater plan which happened concurrently? So we have a broad analysis which says, yeah, there's impact, but there's no impact and it's all good. But what if there is something which happens simultaneously with the docket items, which are kind of have a trade off or sort of are going against each other? How will that process go?

I would say overall, that's kind of part of what the next step will be is that, and that's kind of why these amendments are done together. You know, for example, the neighborhood planning and stuff like that, there's actually a lot more work to do with that. I know the stormwater plan is kind of being drafted as we speak, but all those, this is basically what the process is, is to make sure that these considerations are taken into account, but. Really can't provide more than that because, again, specifically for the neighborhood policies update we haven't really dived into that process yet so.

So thank you first and then. docket first and then that question would be answerable.

Yeah, because right now we're just putting the stuff on the list to start working on. So even this cumulative analysis, you can see that a lot of it's kind of more speculative at this point. I think our thinking is that as we complete these items, really it's a tool for council to kind of just see how the process went. So our thinking is we'll probably update this as we get closer to more specific proposals on the neighborhood policies and stuff. And, you know, it's been noted, especially for the zoning consolidation too, there'll be some considerations there, especially related to our CARA and other things like that. But we kind of have to get it at that level of what the actual policy proposals are. And we're not at that point yet.

And did you have something to add?

I think Glenn summed it up well, but yeah, we're just starting that work. So it will be an ongoing process and we'll certainly come back to this, to the commission with those.

Great. Any further comments or questions? All right. Well then this, Oh, sorry. Commissioner Gagne.

This is not for issue matrix, just for sheer curiosity. And I'll preface it with, I know that we don't make any decisions about budget. When I see it mentioned, it's hard for me not to just, as a community member, be curious about it. So I'm asking just some questions about curiosity. So on page one of 12 on the memo, in section D, all the way over where it talks about the SWSW systems plan was budgeted for in previous city budgets. I'm just curious if that money was already spent, if it was budgeted for in previous budgets, is that carry over? And that's how it's able to sort of develop here or land here. I'm just curious about this side.

I will defer to Peter and public works that might have a little bit of information, but I believe it's just part of the public works budget. And it was a consultant, but I'll defer to Peter.

Yes, it's part of the public works budget, and it was carried over, and we extended the contract to complete the work. So it was just carried over from, it was previously budgeted in a previous budget, and then it just carried on so we can get the work done and do the work that we need. So that answers your question. Your inclination was correct.

Okay, thank you. And then one more budget question on page 5 of 12. the one that's talking about neighborhood planning. This was the only place where I saw mention about budget for community engagement, which I assume frankly is just given the nature of the subject, you aren't gonna do community engagement for all of these technical ones, but just was curious about that, why this was the only one that had budget or mentioned budget here for community engagement.

I will defer it to Lauren on that. Unless you want me to try to take a stab at it. I know the neighborhood planning is kind of more of a special project. And so I think we allocated some funding for that community outreach.

Yeah, there's some funding available in our budget to do community engagement work for the neighborhood planning process. So we've got some money allocated to help with that.

But overall, all these projects are in the regular work plan for the city, so.

Okay, no more curiosities, thank you.

All right, any further questions? No? All right, then in that case, we are good for tonight.

So we'd like to know, is the Planning Commission ready to make a recommendation or, least give us direction so that we can prepare the report for the next meeting and then make that recommendation make the formal recommendation and report approval so that's actually a great question um commissioners any opinions i'm seeing nodding nodding yes i mean if we're just docketing it and the four of us here make a quorum and i think we should advance it all right so in that case um i think

If we could make a recommendation, a report for the recommendation to include these items for council, and then we will do the full vote on it. So I think we're not going to vote because we're such a small group. Yeah. But if we have the report ready to vote, then we can accept it in the next meeting.

Okay. We'll have that prepared for the June 24th. Yes.

Great. Thank you. So then with that, we will move right along to our study session on the 2026 annual code cleanup. And this one is with Lauren Alpert.

Good evening, commission. My name is Lauren Alpert, a senior planner, and this is addressing the 2026 annual code cleanup. So as a reminder there are three kinds of code amendments minor. substantive and policy changes, so the code updates that we're reviewing tonight are considered minor, so this is correcting typos incorrect references and incorporating any administrative interpretations into the code. And just an outline of our schedule. We are now here in Q3 doing planning commission review. We'll be heading to city council next and then implementation. This is an outline of those code updates. So starting, we have the SEPA substantive authority. So this updates the list of documents that are the basis for the city's exercise of SEPA. So it updates the plan names, for example, adding wastewater and adding new plans such as the fire department functional plan and the capital facilities plan and the names, the Redmond zoning code as undated. So the references don't have to be updated every time the plan is. There's development agreements. So distinguishing development agreements, an exercise of the city's contract authority from project permits, relying on the state statute for procedural details. And the impact of this is the development agreements will not be treated as a type five process and will not be confused with actions that must comply with 3670B review timeline. So just making the rules around development agreements a little clearer. Permit application approval criteria, eliminating some of the criteria for project permits to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, requiring development regulations to be consistent with the comp plan, and that projects must be consistent with development regulations. It also includes a lot of land use clarifications. So in our big land use table, removing references to boarding house, We hadn't used it previously, it was added in. And then changing some of the references from L to L1 or two, for example, for manufacturing and wholesale trade in the MME zone, the Mary Moore Edge Zone, to be consistent with the Southeast Redmond Neighborhood Plan. Deleting some excess paragraphs. During the application of 70% indoor business activity for manufacturing zones to accept MP and industrial manufacturing park and industrial. And then clarifying some of the food truck hours and neighborhood zone so it's just a lot of cleanup in that table. We also included some clarifications in our open space code, excluding parking, access, circulation, and required frontage from that required open space, including pedestrian pathways located in and integrated into open space towards the open space requirement, correcting old zone names that were still left over in the code and reestablishing the 20% open space requirement for residential development. We also updated some definitions, revising the culvert definition as it was intended in 2025. And it deletes the phrase small lot short plat because that's obsolete. It also involves a lot of minor amendments to some sections of code, so removing references to code sections that don't exist. Replacing old zone names, simplifying table titles, fixing typos in some headers, and replacing old zone names. So a lot of just miscellaneous typo fixes that we've noticed over the last year. It also includes updating some of our landscape area requirements, so updating some of the narrative that's in before the table, to state that the table sets forth the maximum percentage of landscape area that may be hardscape and also remove some obsolete references that were remaining. There's the master plan development amendment procedures just to meet that criteria for administrative modifications, just clarifying that. There are also some minor fixes and adjustments in the green building code in those sections just to make it a little clearer We did make some updates for Appendix 3. That was approved by the Technical Committee. It doesn't require approval from Planning Commission. So that's been updated just as an FYI. And so next steps, we have a public hearing for this on June 24th. We have another study session scheduled for July 8th if necessary, and then heading later this summer and fall to Council review.

And thank you. Great. Would you like to start a matrix at this point or just questions?

Yeah, if there's any, I'm going to take notes and I'll put it into an issues matrix for our next meeting.

Okay, that's great. Does anyone have questions or comments? Either curiosities or issues matrix?

Commissioner Parna. So this is regarding the development agreements. I couldn't quite understand. There was And I quote this, nature of development agreements, development agreements are an exercise of the city's police power and contract authority. They're not project permits as defined in RCW 36.70B020, and are not subject to review timelines adopted in this chapter. Development agreements are voluntary and are approved. Now, can you please explain how it can be voluntary but also allow city contract authority? I couldn't quite understand. I felt like they were contradictory. So I would like a little more information on that.

Jeff has his hands up.

Oh, great. Yes, Jeff Churchill.

yeah happy to provide a response this evening and we can put this in the issues matrix if you'd like um development agreements are contracts uh so and that's how they're characterized in state law so that's why we're saying that in the code they're volunteering the sense that a property owner and the city can choose to enter into a development agreement but neither party is required to enter into a development agreement. Once it's created, then it's binding because it's a contract. But prior to that point, they're volunteering.

Thank you. I think it would be nice to have a little more information in the issue matrix because I think a lot of people want to know this because we hear of development agreements in other contexts as well. A follow-up question, Chair, if I may. Sure. Does this mean that the projects that go through development agreements don't go through a public hearing as per Type 5 because of the fact that they are only voluntary contracts? So are these projects at all subject to public hearing?

They are.

Yes.

And the reason is because the hearing is required in state law.

Okay. So, if they are, so if a project goes through a development agreement, there would be a public hearing associated with it?

Will be. It's required by law that there be a public hearing.

Okay. And if a project chooses not to do a development agreement, and it was of a scale that would it still, of a certain scale, would it still require a public hearing?

It would require a public hearing if the zoning code otherwise requires a public hearing for that type of project. So the answer is just going to be, it depends on what the zoning code otherwise requires.

Great. Yes, please add this to the issue matrix because I think it's a little confusing, at least for me to read. Thank you. Great.

I'll chime in with one. I had a question about the open space changes. I'm not completely sure where they apply.

Okay.

So more clarification on that.

I'm seeing commissioner and related to that, the scope of what's being changed with the, like the pedestrian pathways, like the math on that.

And I actually had a question about, like a follow-up question on that, of just not being totally clear on the parking restrictions also. Like is it somewhere that, like does there have to be some sort of treatment that would prevent parking in order for it to be considered open space? Or is it just the primary usage isn't parking? So I would like a lot more information about what's the goal and what's driving that one. Okay. Does anyone else have questions? All right, I had one further one. I just wanted to ask about the sustainability changes. It looked like those were mostly just typos and verbiage changes, but I wanted to just clarify if there's any impact in terms of meaning on what, even if it's small modifications, like upgrading from a previous version to a current version. So if there's any changes in the meaning of... Like what sustainability regulations are being applied. Like I wasn't entirely clear that it was just a typo change. Okay. Like if there's a versioning component to it, that would be helpful.

making sure the red lines are in there.

Yeah. I just wasn't entirely sure that I knew how to interpret what was there. So I just wanted to make sure it was typos only. Are there any other things to add? Okay. Well, if not, then as always, we can send items to staff by this weekend. Is that possible?

Okay. Yeah. That would be great. Great.

All right, so that was a pretty quick item.

Thank you for that.

Thank you. And with that, we will move on to staff and commissioner updates.

One staff update that we have is that we've been conducting planning interviews for our planning commission youth advisor. And so we'll be able to make a decision shortly on that. And I'd like to thank Chair Weston for sitting in our interviews this last week.

And I'd like to thank the youth that applied because it's been really fun to meet people. They have great things to say and it's been a very enjoyable week. Are there any other commissioner updates? No. All right. In that case, I look for a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

All right. Then we are adjourned.

Good night.